It was a great discussion that could have used a few more minutes. Unfortunately Stephanopolous interrupted to ask a dopey question about a serious subject. God. I wish they had just told him it was inappropriate and moved on.
Please share widely!
Reality-based commentary on politics.
between “non-combat role” and “diplomatic role”. I’m of the mind that there are limited options for getting out of Iraq, and whomever the next president they will likely follow a similar plan.
<
p>
I would like to know how Richardson gets all the troops out in such a short time frame. And, I also wonder why he is not concerned about the tensions between Turkey and Kurdistan, and what no American presence would mean there.
<
p>
What the F..K do Clinton and Biden believe that we should be in Iraq (in some kind of non-combat role) for a significant period of time mean? If they are not willing to tell us what the dollars are to our doughnuts (yes, I know how to spell it) then they should go back to their hovels and let some other people lead.
Perhaps the candidates should all get together and pray for peace in Iraq. That’s how outrageous and bizarre I found the question about the value of prayer. I would have appreciated an answer to the prayer question from each candidate that would have made crystal clear that a candidate’s thoughts about the value of prayer are constitutionally private and that no such question should be asked of or answered by any candidate. But, alas, there wasn’t a prayer that I would hear such an answer. Instead, I heard Bill Clinton answering the question about his briefs.
I think you have mischaracterized Sen. Clinton’s and Sen. Biden’s position. Sen. Clinton’s position was much more complex… and neither she nor Sen. Biden said anything about a “non-combat” role. Sen. Clinton said her plan had three parts: (1) begin moving troops out carefully and responsibly and with planning; (2) greatly increase pressure on the Iraqi government to make the necessary political decisions, including making U. S. aid conditional on progress; (3) have an intensive regional and international effort. She also said the effort will be very dangerous and very difficult because we have to consider how we get the troops and their equipment out, how to get the people in the green zone out, how we get the Iraqi’s who helped us out, and what to do with the over 100,000 U.S. contractors presently in Iraq.
<
p>
Anyone interested in what was really said should go to the ABC News website and watch it for yourself. (Make sure you watch the video ABC has labeled “Candidates Debate Iraq.” An edited version entitled “Debating How to Exit Iraq” is misleading. What a surprise.)
Primary campaigns tend to amplify differences. Otherwise, how would we choose between Clinton’s and Biden’s plans?
<
p>
The problem is that building unity across the Democratic caucuses in the House and Senate is a necessary prerequisite for stopping the failed policy in Iraq sooner than February 2009. Rather than wondering whether the bases should be in Kuwait or at sea or just in Turkey or in some safe, defensible part of Iraq or no where, the Democratic Party would make much more progress against the occupation if it could figure out how to emphasize the broad agreement it does have and the necessity for forcing the Bush Administration’s hand.
<
p>
Contrast the fight against the slow destruction of Social Security (dubbed “privatization”). Democrats won that one.
<
p>
They did it by getting the entire caucus lined up.
<
p>
That did not just magically happen. Pressure was exerted both by Congressional leadership and by external organizations to bring the entire caucus in line. Similarly pressure needs to be put on Democratic stragglers like the blue dogs and Senators like Salazar, Pryor, and Landrieu.
<
p>
Applying such pressure is harder in an environment where we are weighing differences more heavily than unity. What position exactly do we want Senator Max Baucus to advocate? How do we know he’s on board?