This was so predictable, so it’s interesting that no one was prepared to hear
it. I’ve been warning about it for months amidst hissing and howls and flame
emails.
Clinton, Edwards and Obama are correct when they do not commit to withdrawing
all troops. Interesting how Clinton has been taking crap from Obama and Edwards
for months, not to mention everyone else, when they can’t really offer anything
different in Iraq either. Biden is correct when he offered his plan yesterday,
because it signifies the reality, whether Shia, Sunni and the Kurds break into
their separate corners officially or not. But not commiting to removing our
forces in the first term of a Democratic presidency is quite simply the dumbest
move any Democratic candidate can make. It was also a gift to Republicans, because
the notion that Democrats cannot commit to fully redeploying forces before 2013
defies the posturing from our candidates. If it wasn’t for Tim Russert none
of them would have given up the truth.
A.B. Stoddard, who has never been one of my favorite talking heads, actually
gets to the crux of it today.
Thank you, Tim Russert, for dragging the truth from all the Democratic candidates
about what “ending the war” actually means. We hear these words
a lot, especially from Hillary Clinton, yet Russert’s questioning at
MSNBC’s New Hampshire debate last night revealed that none of the top
three Democratic contenders for president would commit to doing so by the
end of their first term.(snip)
I am not saying I disagree with anything Obama, Clinton and Edwards are saying.
It’s just been a bit tiring to hear them beat that “end the war”
drum all across the country when even they don’t know what that means.A Lack of Clarity
(A.B. Stoddard)
So there’s a reason Senate Democrats will not go all out to end the war and
redeploy our troops. Their hearts just aren’t into it. In the end, after giving
Bush the authority to wage war, we’re stuck in a country that we can’t leave
and even though staying makes it worse without a political plan in place in
Iraq we have no choice. Biden was the only one on stage last night who has offered
any political solution whatsoever. That he cannot possibly win the nomination
is an understatement, with the other candidates offering no political ideas
on Iraq at all, none. They’re still dickering about troops, combat troops, embassies,
blah-blah-blah.
Edwards can talk all he wants about Clinton’s combat forces, and that he would
not continue the combat aspect of the war, but he won’t commit to redeployment
before 2013 any more than she can so what good is he? Obama is in the same position.
This helps Democrats how? Because if withdrawing from Iraq is not a given Democratic commitment before
2013, with the country wanting out, any way you look at it reads that Democrats
betrayed voters in 2006, and that they’re all slogan, no substance. That’s not going to bring people out to vote Democratic
in ’08. It also makes Clinton’s experience quotient more and more attractive.
It really was a masterful job by Russert last night. It took a lot of the time, because
the last thing the Democratic candidates wanted to reveal was that they’re not
going to get out of Iraq, then court catastrophe in the aftermath. With Bush
pushing Iraq into 2009, none of our candidates are willing to inherit this disaster
and be blamed for making it worse, except Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. Bush calculated this all along and he kept
the Republicans in line.
Democrats promised and campaigned on ending the Iraq war. Last night we found out that we’d be bogged down until 2013 and maybe beyond.
Advantage Republicans.
Iraq has now officially become Vietnam. The Democrats made it so last night. And if Edwards and Obama aren’t going to offer something substantially different than Clinton (they aren’t), the odds of either of these men catching her get slimmer and slimmer as the days pass on.
Comments are closed.