If Hillary Clinton gives what is being billed as a “major
foreign policy speech,” and only MSNBC covers it, but by the time I un-mute the tv it was over. It doesn’t say much for the respect Democrats garner on the issue. It may also say something about the coverage Clinton gets, which may be your issue, but mine is a larger point about our national security prowess.
Because when a Democratic anti-war group announces it’s going into action, The
Hill and others decide this anti-war coalition is news.
Former presidential candidate John Edwards (D-N.C.), whose endorsement is
sought by Democratic presidential rivals Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)
and Barack Obama (Ill.), will join several groups that have endorsed Obama
in a new effort to end the Iraq war.Edwards will appear on a Monday morning conference call with officials from
the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and MoveOn.org, which have
both endorsed Obama. Edwards has yet to make an endorsement since he left
the presidential race in January after placing third in several early primaries.Edwards, his wife, Elizabeth, and other members of the effort will announce
a “multimillion dollar” effort called the Iraq/Recession
Campaign that aims to highlight the ongoing cost of the Iraq war,
according to a press release. The group is attempting to tie the Iraq war
to fears that the U.S. is entering a recession. … ..
The
Nation has more:
The multi-million-dollar Iraq/Recession Campaign, which launches Monday,
seeks to remind voters, in the words of organizers, that, “As economic
concerns weigh heavily on the minds of Americans, opposition to President
Bush’s reckless war in Iraq continues to grow. The massive cost of the war
in Iraq – hurtling toward one trillion dollars – has increased
demand for a strategy to bring U.S. troops home. The Iraq/Recession Campaign
will highlight the majority of Americans who want to see leadership on investing
in critical priorities at home and establishing real security throughout the
world.”
This statement is meandering and misses the point of troop withdrawal by a
mile. The premise of the group is based on an AP
poll, according to an email I received, where Forty-eight percent said
a pullout would help fix the country’s economic problems “a great deal”…
..
Foreign policy coalition building through polling, terrific. What’s next? Never
mind, I don’t want to know.
Besides, everyone knows Americans want to leave Iraq. What’s with the excuses?
We don’t need to tie it to a looming recession.
It is long past time to redeploy from Iraq. Our national security depends on
it. Period. But if you want to elaborate, our military force structure is under
stress and about to crack. Leaving Iraq is a national security imperative for
this country, due to real threats we face elsewhere, as well as economic security at home. That’s
where the message should be focused and that’s where it should stay. There’s
nothing else to say and redeployment certainly doesn’t need to be tied to a
recession.
It’s about leading on matters of national security, because of facts on the ground, the politics in Iraq, as well as the reality we’re facing economically, but considering the dangers of withdrawal, money is the least of our worries.
The people and groups allied with the Iraq/Recession Campaign are respected Democrats, all of whom have their hearts in the
right place; with many of the members, no doubt, not responsible for the name of the coalition or the mission statement, while committed to the ultimate goal. But try Iraq/National Security Campaign.
The focus of the current campaign and message couldn’t
be more defensive, which is a real problem for Democrats crafting messages on matters of national security, especially in a general election year.
Comments are closed.