In this campaign season of democratic powerhouses heading full steam ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and the rest of the early primary and caucus states, there seems to be a candidate for just about every democratic voter preference regarding what to do about the war in Iraq. From the LA Times:
----------------------------------------------------------
...the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been nearly unified in support of universal healthcare, abortion rights and alternative energy, have begun an increasingly harsh debate over an issue that will probably define the early part of the campaign: when to remove troops from Iraq.
This week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), in a departure from his own past statements, introduced legislation that would begin a phased redeployment of troops by April and require that all combat troops leave Iraq by March 2008.Obama's announcement set him at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who has declined to specify a date for the removal of all troops from Iraq.
Last week, Clinton proposed placing a cap on the number of U.S. troops and threatening Iraq's government with a withdrawal of support. Clinton's approach, in turn, drew a caustic attack this week from Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) — a noteworthy development in a campaign that had been marked by collegiality. Biden said Clinton's proposed strategy for Iraq would "produce nothing but disaster."
Also coming in for Biden's scorn was former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who six months ago offered a plan for withdrawal and became the favorite of many antiwar activists. Edwards called for an immediate reduction of 40,000 troops, with all forces to leave the country — though not the region — within 18 months.
Like Clinton, Dodd and Edwards, Biden voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the war but has long criticized the administration's conduct of the conflict. Democratic presidential hopefuls Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska have long opposed the war. Both advocate an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the simple argument of withdrawing troops from Iraq just won't work anymore. However, with so many democratic Senators and Congressman running for President, how are Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid suppose to set in place a united, democratic plan for the future of Iraq, when there exists so much political jockeying because of 2008? Who's to say the future of Iraq will not necessarily rest in what is best for the United States and the Iraqi people, but rather, in what is best for the political positioning of members of Congress?
Sure I think that each of the candidates do believe their strategies in Iraq would be successful if employed, but there’s always that side of me that wonders if each candidate is only providing a nuance to their Iraq plan simply to make them stand out and appeal to those democratic voters spread across the spectrum.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
…two Democratic governors seeking the presidency, Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Tom Vilsack of Iowa, also oppose the war. Richardson, who supported the war's goals initially, has called for a phased withdrawal. Vilsack says troops should be removed from much of the country, but he advocates leaving some forces along the Iranian border...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, more choices among the pecking order. I personally support Richardson, but again, is Iraq simply being politicized? Maybe it would be best if Pelosi and Reid and maybe even Dean whipped their members into place and declared, with one solid voice: this is how democrats are going to fix Iraq, no matter who is President.
Yeah, some republican’s remain divided as well, but the three front runners in the campaign have all come out in general support of the President’s plan. I only fear that with so many different plans and such disagreement on the issue among the Dems, the repubs in ’08 will simply stand up and say to the American people, “Do you really want one of these chickens pecking at each other’s heads about variances in a plan that simply will not work as your President?” I just hope the cock fights stay to a limited amount in the primaries, and that the Dems don’t make it that easy for a point for the repubs to make.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I am not entirely sure what angle you are coming from here, but I have been thinking about this issue for a while now and have come to a few conclusions:
First, I think it's important for the presidential primary candidates to distinguish themselves on Iraq. This will be one of the major factors in both the 08 primary and general elections, and voters need to have choices.
That said, Democratic lawmakers need to be able to separate the campaign trail from the Capitol building. The speaker and the majority leader need to have a unified democratic caucus behind them on this issue. It's bigger than the fate of any single primary candidate, it's about the lives of hundreds of people. I don't want to ignore the political ramifications either. If democrats don't show some sort of coordinated action on Iraq it is going to put into Jeopardy our hard majorities.
I think too often it can be easy to get caught up in the politics of the game and forget why politics exists—it's about helping people. We as progressives/Leftists/Liberals think our beliefs are going to move the country in the right direction and make it better for people—sometimes we have to put away our petty differences to make that dream a reality.
Post a Comment