When John McCain talks about Iraq, people are often left scratching their head in amazement and confusion. From his comfort with a hundred year occupation, to his claim that al-Qaeda wants to knee-cap his candidacy, to his "gaffes" about an al-Qeada/Iran connection, to his assurances that "the surge is working" (which came just before the latest return to chaos), he is looking more and more like a man utterly detached from reality.
Yet recent polls have shown McCain topping both Clinton and Obama as the candidate voters see as most capable of dealing with the war in Iraq. And it's not even close. Gallup had him favored on Iraq over either Democrat by 14 points. The LA Times had him besting Clinton on the war by 16 points, and Obama by 13 points.
So what the hell is going on here? What accounts for such a major -- and potentially disastrous -- disconnect?
In short, Democratic candidates up and down the ticket are facing a message gap when it comes to Iraq. McCain's rah-rah pitch is very simple and upbeat: "Vote for me and I will win the war." Democrats have a tougher time trying to answer the question: "What are you going to do about Iraq?"
Part of the problem is the unrealized promises of 2006. Dashed hopes often metastasize into cynicism and mistrust. So this time around, voters want to hear more than "I am going to end the war." They want to know how. Specifically. Concretely. In detail.
Enter Darcy Burner, a Democratic challenger who is running for Congress in Washington state. Working with national security experts and retired military generals such as Major Gen. Paul Eaton, the officer in charge of training the Iraqi military immediately after the invasion in 2003 and 2004, she developed "A Responsible Plan to End the War," a comprehensive approach to Iraq based on legislation already introduced in Congress.
The 20-page plan (which you can read in its entirety here), doesn't just lay out how to end the war -- it also addresses the institutional failures that led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This includes rebuilding the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, banning the use of armed military contractors like Blackwater, banning torture, promoting government transparency, and restoring accountability through the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution.
As of today, 45 Democratic challengers have signed on to the plan -- including 41 running for the House and 4 running for the Senate. Among the candidates who helped Burner launch the project are Chellie Pingree, running in Maine's First Congressional District; Donna Edwards, running in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District; Tom Perriello, running in Virginia's Fifth Congressional District; and Eric Massa, running in New York's Twenty-ninth Congressional District.
It's worth noting that this is no collection of "make love, not war" pacifists. Massa is a 24-year Navy veteran. Edwards' father was in the Air Force. Burner's brother served in Iraq. And they are all clear that there are real threats facing America, and that our military needs to stop being distracted -- and depleted -- in Iraq, so it can better address the mounting dangers in Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan where al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself. So, for national security reasons, they are united in their commitment to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and begin to repair the damage the war has done to America's standing in the world.
The idea is to band together a group of challengers running on a shared platform who, if elected, will be able to head into Congress armed with a mandate, supported by allies, and wielding a specific legislative agenda designed to end the war. Call it A Contract to Restore America.
It is also an effective way to let voters know that this is a group of Democrats who won't cave in every time the GOP accuses them of cutting-and-running or not supporting the troops, or when the media once again float the "precipitous withdrawal" meme.
It also moves the debate beyond "stay the course vs end the war". As Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and a backer of the Responsible Plan, puts it: "Bringing our troops home is the first, but not the only step that must be taken to ensure a debacle like Iraq never happens again. This plan addresses the root causes that allowed the Bush administration to lead this country into this mess, and sets us in the right direction."
When President Bush can portray the resurgent violence in Iraq as "a very positive moment" -- one that "shows the progress" made during the surge -- and not be booed off the national stage by the public and the media, it's clear Democrats still have their work cut out for them in closing the message gap on Iraq. The Responsible Plan provides a powerful tool for doing just that.
Check out this video put together by some of the candidates backing the plan:
Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff
A lot of Americans aren't very bright. That's what's going on. Two thirds, in poll after poll, say they want out of Iraq, either now or in the next twelve months. Yet they are for McCain who will do his best to keep us there forever. You"re scratching your head and wondering huh? what? Fifty plus years of television (which the average American watches six to eight hours a day) has rotted out people's minds. And what is left of those minds cannot do any kind of critical thinking because they are mostly the products of a public school system that couldn't teach a dog to bark. MCMLXXXIV.
Fear is the answer.
".......lain why after winning the 2006 election the Dems have done exactly nothing?"
Strict voting along the party lines.. You also can call it lockstep, a little more military view. Don't think, just follow.
I would not say so, absolutely not.
But I would rather say that gullibility is a serious problem. And yes, the media, in particular the aired media are largely at fault.
The media reporting quality itself, even the print media has largely degraded. Just the obvious, no background. The exceptions are the ones that won't be read anyway.
It's a serious problem.
The ruling powers feel under increased pressure to do something about the sinking economy, or at least divert attention away from it. Basra has exposed the falsity of the claim that the surge is working.
There may believe there is only one card left to play to avoid a populist backlash.
Petreaus and Crocker will be meeting with Congress and beating the drums for war with Iran next week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml
The imminence of the war's end is all too exaggerated.
Why is McCain on top?
People do not like dissembling by either Obama or Hillary.
They fail to recognize the INVASION OF IRAQ as a disastrous, unnecessary terrorist-like "shock-and-awe" attack on a foreign country.
If you recognize that reality, then you come to a completely different strategy.
You APOLOGIZE for our illegal and immoral blunder and for killing thousands of their women and children.
You NEGOTIATE with the insurgents, recognizing their righteous resistance to our illegal invasion.
And, you PROMISE big time that we will repair and reconstruct the damage that we have done - on our dime.
Until the pukey Democrats decide that the invasion was OUR mistake, we will talk reducing our soldiers during a continued, protracted military conflict.
Let's get one thing straight here, folks.
The insurgents are NOT Al Qaeda.
And AlQaeda is not the insurgents.
The insurgents are nationalist Iraqis who love their country and hate America FOR ITS INVASION.
There is deep irony in our supporting al Maliki, who is tied to several political factions that have Iran's backing, in attacking al Sadr, who is a true Iraqi nationalist wanting limited political connections with Iran.
If we were smart, we would HELP the insurgent militias defeat Al Qaeda.
If you want to see the Democrats outsmart McCain, let them talk about elections, and negotiations with Shia and Sunni insurgents, who really only want us out of there.
Let me remind you; "Give me your tired, your poor ...Your huddled masses... The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.... Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me"
Whoa there again!!! These "huddled masses, wretched refuse of your teeming shore"....aren't these the people whose children and grandchildren you are calling "Goobers"? Try again. You lost me.
Just guessing, but you sound like an Obama supporter.
That's exactly what our troops HAVE been doing, especially in Anbar.
Since I'm not a scholar, I could have this wrong, but wasn't the Marshall Plan in effect for 5 -6 years and then it took 20-30 years for a European recovery? So it's possible that in withdrawing military troops, and making reparations to a country which we broke; we could be joined at the hip to Iraq for at least a generation--perhaps two or three generations.
Given the history of the Middle East, it isn't a stretch to say that they specialize in generational conflict. A century is the blink of an eye. Perhaps total disengagement could take something in the vicinity of that 100-year estimate for which John McCain is being mocked.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_boosting_al_maliki;_ylt=ArLNEAlnW8cr.FlwCqmxbkybOrgF
Ask me the same question in 2 months.
Ask me the same question in 6 months.
Ask me the same quesiton in 12 months.
If you think the surge is working, I will pay your way to Baghdad and you walk around without a flack jacket. You may need some Blackwater guys, too.
We have truly destroyed Iraq to save it. The longer we stay, the worse it gets.
Yes, political progress is being "reported," but not validated. Let's hope Petreaus's report next week is not a load of crap. If it is, that will hurt both McCain and Hillary.
Do we have a moral obligation to fix what we broke in Iraq? I would have to answer yes. Can we fix it? I'm not so sure. Should we just quit and go home in Iraq? Unlike the earlier post about America being a "Goober Nation", I have to say that America is an Optimistic Nation. We are a People of Eternal Hope. Whether that stems from Christianity, Capitalism, or baseball, we always hope for a better day, season or year.
I think the disconnect is based on while the nation seems to be weary of the war in Iraq, and generally disagrees with why we got involved in the first place, the fact remains we are there now and somehow we have to find a solution. McCain is the only candidate still talking up victory. Just picking up our marbles and going home is NOT a solution for the people of Iraq. We owe it to them to keep trying to help rebuild their nation.
But, now...I understand that it was not the political solution that you didn’t like...perhaps, it was just that, ignoring or misrepresenting, and otherwise dismissing, everything that Senator Biden had to say was a great way to keep the masses (dangerously) ill-informed, not to mention deprived of being able to honestly assess viability of the Biden candidacy and the potential of a Biden administration. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that you were far from alone in this endeavor.
I was wondering what might distinguish the Biden strategy from this new ‘responsible plan for Iraq’, now being advocated by these candidates and foreign policy thinkers. For example, have the authors and supporters of this plan made extensive and frequent visits to Iraq, and to the region, to consult with Iraq’s sectarian leaders and neighbors? After all, the Iraqis need to be on board with any solution that would purport to determine their political future.
Secondly, do they recognize that the political reality in Iraq dictates that a strong central government in Baghdad has no prospect of materializing, now or during the near to medium term? The ISG certainly failed to understand what most Iraqis know to be true - that the only way to keep their nation united and stable is through a political accommodation based on federalism. A careful read of this new ‘responsible plan for Iraq’ finds no such recognition.
While impressive on the surface, there are some very conspicuous omissions that leave the viability of this new plan wide open for debate. Particularly distressing is the lack of discussion about what is fueling the sectarian violence of Iraq’s vicious civil war and driving the struggle for power and resources between, and within, Iraq’s many and varied sectarian groups.
From where I sit, the Biden strategy remains the only hope we have to radically change the course of US policy in Iraq to promote and facilitate a political solution that all Iraqis can live with...literally.
So, stop calling it a war against terrorism, stop letting these thugs define the terms of this argument.
of more attention. Iraq needs real help with re-building the
neccessary basic services, but less in government. No one
seems to think continued cuts to programs such as Medicare,
Social Security and our infrastructure, to pay for a "war" in Iraq
is bad for America. That and the welfare of the troops, should
be formost.
While I would still prefer a liberal progressive in the White House than a conservative, I would have to rule out most Democrats at this point because they have shown me nothing. On the other hand this present situation that we are in economically and militarily were brought upon us primarily by Republicans and rather than let them get out from under this mess by removing them from power I would suggest that we saddle them with this debacle. I think they deserve to be the ones crucified by history as bringing America to it's knees. Why not elect McCain and watch him crumble as he sees how ineffectual he will be in resolving these major problems. The Republicans deserve to have to see what they have wrought to it's conclusion and if Americans are to learn anything at all from the last eight years perhaps this will teach the lesson they need. Never again to elect a Republican to anything except perhaps collecting garbage.
Then saying to the people of Iraq: “You are standing at a crossroads of the future of your nation. You have seen first hand the tyranny of one of the most brutal dictators in history, the ten-year war with Iran, the first Iraq War, the chaos of the past 5 years with the bombings and ethnic cleansing. You have seen the worst of what bad government can do to its people. You have in your power to bring about a better Iraq -- a place where you can feel safe in your home; safe on the streets of your neighborhoods; and safe in your markets and masques. Do not let this opportunity slip through your fingers. Go to your elected representatives and demand action and if they won’t take that action elect new ones who will. That is how democracy works.” As for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, I say: “Get your house in order.” and if real progress has not been made by the time you take office then a new tact must be taken. You will begin aggressively pursuing a more loose Federation policy, such as Senator Joe Biden’s plan, in the Kosovo mold.
TAX BREAKS AND NOW BILLIONS TO BAIL OUT THE HOUSING GREED--AND MC BUSH WILL
BE A GEORGE ALSO---WAR AND BILLIONS TO OUR OWNERS. GOD SPARE US ALL--I MAY MOVE
TO SWEDEN AND LIVE ON FISH OIL AND ONE OF THE BEST SOCIALIST MEDICINE PROGRAMS
FOR THE ELDERLY ON THIS PLANET. AND THEY LOVE AMERICANS. JAMES GORMAN
an exemplar of the former. By a resonsible plan label, the congress bypasses all the inflammatory rhetoric from Pat Buchanan to Condy and of course Dicky Dick Cheney: from the start, the old
"MY GOD what would happen" syndrome disappears--and we can talk about bringing troops home
(which saves us from the fate of the Roman Empire's fate)--and Iraq becomes what Korea and
230 other bases have become: bases for military attacks if necessary. Of course those poor sub-humans are not supposed to know we are there for that purpose, but all Arabs know that the number
three does not count for a Blessed Trinity--it stands for OIL. james mc