ARe HIllary and Obama telling the truth about Iraq withdrawal?

Pandering to the left . That's what they do.

No.

An Obama presidency (or a Clinton presidency, should her campaign ultimately prevail), would thus represent a fine-tuning or adjustment in American foreign policy, but no let-up in American imperialism’s drive to war and conquest, which arises not out of the brains of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney, but out of the historical crisis of American and world capitalism.

Obama is merely the product of an effective marketing campaign which has utilized media outlets ranging from Rupert Murdoch to The Nation to sell this new version of a very old product—the Democratic Party “friend of the people,” previously incarnated in the “insurgent” candidacy of Jimmy Carter in 1976, then in the “man from Hope,” Bill Clinton himself, in 1992. An Obama presidency would no more represent a fundamental change in American politics than the election of Carter and Clinton did, and if Murdoch & Co. feared it would, he would never have been allowed anywhere near the White House.

The typical Obama speech is a mass of nebulous phrases about uniting America, without the slightest acknowledgement that social and economic interests of working people, the vast majority of Americans, are diametrically opposed to those of the corporate and financial elite. In perhaps his most noteworthy comment, after the South Carolina primary, he explicitly rejected the notion that the wealthy don’t care about the condition of ordinary people.

Obama’s mantra of bringing everyone together may appeal to the naïve illusions of youth who are making their first political experiences, but Obama and the Wall Street bankers and media moguls who are promoting him know exactly what they are doing. Theirs is a conscious policy of blurring social and political differences and denying class divisions in a society more deeply divided along economic lines than ever before in its history.

No. ON 60 minutes, Obama said something similar in a mar artful way. He said he will try to get them out, but reserve the right to conitnue the war once he is President. That as President, he would be better informed of the situation. He is using the war as a way to gain votes.

As for Hillary , she supported the war and said she wants to continue it for a year and a half. Her statemetn may change, because frankly she is known to change her statements to what ever will get her elected. She plays the war even better than Obama. SHe attack Bush for lieing and being decieved about the war but then still support it.

the truth which hillary AND obama know:

"You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008 about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. "

they are setting themselves up to be HUGE underachieve and McCain can lower his "100 years" down to 10 and be a super overachiever.

It certainly would be interesting to know exactly

what their plan would be should the U.S. be

once again attacked by terrorists. All they talk

about is waving the white flag of surrender in

Iraq and bringing home the troops. Why don't

they bring our troops home from Germany who

are stationed over there? There's no war going

on over there and they are no longer needed

there and other places.

Obama is he didn't vote for the war in the first place. Hillary owes defense contractors favors and needs to repay by staying in Iraq or attacking Iran.

Not to mention the Jewish lobby wants to attack Iran.

It's their intention to transition the military defense of Iraq to Iraquis. And, to bring the US troops home. Most Americans want exactly that. So, yeah, I believe that's the plan.

Of course not! Anyone who believes this is completly naive and disillusioned! Of course they will blame Bush for not keeping their 'campaign' promises.!

If you think they'll withdraw them quickly,I have a bridge on swamp land to sell you.

Either way, it's better than McCain's "let's stay there indefinitely" strategy.