More idiocy from Faux "news". Keep twisting those words.

HaricotVert, did you watch the debates? Sure Fox is cherry picking quotes here...but it is true that not one of the top three running would commit to having us out of Iraq by the end of their first term.

It's pretty disheartening.

In all liklihood, we'll be voting for two candiates nobody really wants in 2008.

Changed embed from FOX news clip to TPMtv.com's highlight video of the debate. First minute of this video = the 1 minute video that was here before.

*requeue

Re-queueing this video for one more try; last queued Thursday, September 27th, 2007 2:37pm PDT - requeue requested by submitter Grimm.

"In all liklihood, we'll be voting for two candiates nobody really wants in 2008."

Since when, was a candidate elected for president in the US by pop vote.....anyone?

Such a bullshit question anyhow....

"Since when, was a candidate elected for president in the US by pop vote.....anyone?"

Pretty much always. Except for about 4 occasions in U.S. History the popular vote has matched the electoral vote. Even when they didn't match, electoral votes regardless are based on the popular vote of each individual state.

I'm not saying I think it's the best way to do it...it's just not as unfair and unbalanced as many people think it is.

I don't understand why this doesn't seem to be a bigger deal. Here we have the 3 leading candidates who are going around saying it was a mistake to go into Iraq. That 2 of them voted to support military action in Iraq are now saying they were wrong to do that and that Bush mislead them. With all the dems claiming that they are "trying" there best to get us out of Iraq NOW but Bush and the Republicans just won't let them.

But can you believe any of that when the the leading candidates when pressed for a commitment to have us out of Iraq by the end of 2013 all 3 said they couldn't do that. They are telling us that even if they are elected we could still be in Iraq for another 5 years or more!

Duh. This is exactly what the Republicans have been saying the Dems would do.

Did they have you fooled?

No... this was expected of any CFR member running for president (be they Dem or Rep).

*long

This video has been flagged as being at least 10 minutes in length - declared long by lucky760.

Fooled? More surprised that they are admitting it and that no one is really making that big a deal of it. It's obvious that the dems are not going to end the war before the election because they know the war will help secure a win in 08 for them. I'm just surprised they are feeling so confident now that the "promise" to have us out of Iraq by the end of their first term is off the table now this early in the game.

I am constantly amazed at those who have hard-ons for "Faux News". Very clever name, incidently. I wonder why some of that "cleverness" isn't applied to addressing the real problems. Fox News didn't create the words that came out of Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

The fact of the matter is that congressional candidates lied when they said they would end the war immediately. They haven't done a god damned thing since being elected other than labeling the Iranian Guards as terrorist. Hmmm...how does this shorten the war?

All of a sudden congress realizes there are logistics and other issues related to ending a war? This never occured to them prior to the elections? I think not. Perhaps some "clever" people should spend some time and understand who and how indivuals become presidential candidates. Isn't it strange that it's highly possible that the four most recent US Preseidents could be from just two families? What would we say if this happened in another country?

Spend less time being concerned about Fox news and hunt down the real Boogy Men.

When the questions are this stupid is it any wonder the answers are nothing more than "a$$-coverage"?

How can anyone make a commitment for 2013, especially when discussing one of the world's most volatile areas!? Answering this question with an affirmative can only lead to the clip being dragged out 5-6 years from now with the press saying "You lied to us!". I disagreed with the war President Bush began in Iraq from day one, but I think it's foolish to make commitments blindly and I think Barack, Clinton, and friends did the right thing by refusing to make empty promises. Any number of things could change between now and 2013 which may require the just use of force in Iraq, and these hypothetical questions which demand candidates to be fortune tellers are pointless.

Mr. Bush has created quite the pickle and bringing it to a close while simultaneously avoiding the collapse of the area's stability is, unfortunately, not going to be simple. Perhaps Bush/Cheney of 2003 should have listened to Bush/Cheney of 1994 ( Link )

Clinton's rationale was good. We can't perfectly predict what's going to happen in Iraq in the next 5 years. What if we pull out, and then Iraq or Turkey or Iran commence genocide against the Kurds to prevent an independent Kurdistan? Do we go back to save the Kurds? This is one possibility.

Rotty, it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster. About half of the senate is ostensibly trying to end the war, but that's not enough.

To the dem apologists on here...the point is they can't have it both ways! They can not on one hand tell us they are trying their best to end this war by submitting spending bills that have a time line for withdrawal and that big bad Bush keeps vetoing them because he won't commit to a deadline. Then on the other hand say that if they are elected that they would not commit to a deadline either.

Jwray,

This is the standard excuse and it's not good enough. The anti-war faction (both dems and repugs) need to make this happen. If the majority of Americans want the war over then Congress needs to make it so. Perhaps it's going to require more than showing up for votes and bad-mouthing the other side. Perhaps there needs to be some diplomacy, reconciliation or whatever it takes. The finger-pointing and ill words are getting us nowhere. Our "leaders" need to show some skills if we are to make progress and if they want to be re-elected.

No doubt the war will not end tomorrow, but the process must begin ASAP. And that doesn't include giving another $150 BILLION check.

HOW exactly do you propose that 50 senators force bush to withdraw troops from Iraq?

jwray wrote:

HOW exactly do you propose that 50 senators force bush to withdraw troops from Iraq?

*waronterror

Adding video to channels (Waronterror) - requested by MarineGunrock.

*waronterror

The surge is working.