The Democratic Candidates On Iraq [Part 1]

With the most important debate of the whole year (and possibly the whole war) teed up and ready to begin in Congress in the next few weeks, I thought it would be a good time to do a summary and analysis of what all the Democratic candidates have to say on the subject of Iraq. Many of these candidates, it should be noted, are still sitting Senators and Representatives, and therefore have both the duty and the responsibility to participate in the debate in Congress.

They should be relishing the opportunity, since it will be a rare chance to show actual, tangible leadership. Which is definitely a requirement for the job of President of the United States.

But to be fair to all the candidates in the race (even the ones not currently in Congress), I hereby present a comparison of each candidate's position on Iraq. These were all taken directly from their web pages, where they each have an "Issues" page on the subject.

The last time I reviewed the candidates I put them in alphabetical order by last name. This time (to be fair), I present them in reverse alphabetical order. Today we look at Richardson, Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel. Tomorrow the comparison continues with Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.

The links above the excerpted text for each candidate take you directly to their Iraq "Issues page."

 

Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson is one of the most consistent voices in the Democratic campaign on Iraq. He not only wants to begin withdrawing troops, he wants them all out in six months. All of them. This is significant because many of the other candidates refuse to give an honest answer to the question: How many troops would you leave behind, and for how long? Richardson does so admirably.

He lays out his 7 point plan on his website, in an attempt to answer every question about how exactly we should get out of Iraq. This is also significant, because many of the candidates' websites are severely lacking in details, instead merely hitting broad generalities. Richardson tells you exactly what he wants to do on Iraq, in enough detail to answer your questions but not with so much minutiæ that your eyes glaze over. He seems to have struck a perfect balance on how to address the issue.

On the down side, his website has a page on it which compares (favorably, of course) Richardson's ideas on Iraq with other Democratic candidates. But he doesn't compare himself to Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel -- which seems rather petty of him, since Richardson is not exactly a frontrunner either. But perhaps he didn't want a true comparison to all the competition, since Kucinich and Gravel could in some ways be seen as more anti-war than Richardson.

One other minor criticism is that his information is slightly out of date. We are now spending $10 billion per month in Iraq.

From Richardson's website:

The Iraq War is costing Americans $8 billion each month. By implementing my plan to de-authorize the war and withdraw ALL troops in six months, we can start redirecting these funds toward what matters most for Americans: improving education, expanding access to quality health care, and addressing the REAL security threats like the Taliban, nuclear proliferation, and global warming. My seven-point 'New Realism' plan for Iraq describes in detail what is required.

The 7 Point Plan for Iraq

[Editor's Note: these are only excerpts from each of Richardson's "points."]

De-Authorize the War Now

Congress should immediately assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under Article I of the US Constitution and the War Powers Act.

Troops Out in Six Months

I believe we can withdraw all the troops within six months of de-authorization, but if it takes a few months longer the key is to get them all out as soon as humanly possible.

No Residual Forces Left Behind

We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq.

Promote Iraqi Reconciliation

We should promote an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the factions together to seek compromises and to begin confidence-building measures, including the end of militia violence.

Work With All Neighbors and Allies

We should convene a regional conference to secure the cooperation of all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran -- in promoting peace and stability.

Global Cooperation in Reconstruction

We should convene a donor conference to fund Iraq's reconstruction.

Redeploy to Address Real Threats

We must redeploy some of our troops to Afghanistan to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11.

 

Barack Obama

Obama's website has improved somewhat since the first time I reviewed it. The text on Iraq has been fleshed out a bit more, and he has a transcript of a speech on the subject for you to download, if you'd like more information. What he has to say (below) sounds good, but when you get to the final paragraph he seems to be hedging his bets a little. This seems to be a political calculation to give himself some breathing room on the subject, in case conditions on the ground in Iraq change next year during the election.

This is kind of a shame, coming from Obama. It has the whiff of "handlers" in the background, testing timid phraseology on focus groups. This really should be Obama's signature issue by far, since among the three frontrunners he is the only one who can truthfully state: "I was against the Iraq war from the beginning."

I keep waiting for him to make this a central theme of his campaign, to differentiate himself from Edwards and Clinton, but he seems to still be only gingerly testing the waters. When he really should be out in front of the pack, and leading the other candidates on this issue.

Another example of timidity is the fact that his main Iraq plan is from 2005, and he seems not to have had any bold ideas on Iraq since January of this year. This is pretty backward-looking, since (remember) Obama is still a sitting Senator. This says something about his ability to get out in front of an issue that is coming up for debate in the Senate in the next few weeks. His text also appears to be inaccurate (or perhaps just outdated) -- as he talks about "13 benchmarks," but there are actually 18 benchmarks the White House is about to report on.

From Obama's website (this is the full text of his main statement on Iraq):

Before the war in Iraq ever started, Senator Obama said that it was wrong in its conception. In 2002, then Illinois State Senator Obama said Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the United States and that invasion would lead to an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. Since then, Senator Obama has laid out a plan on the way forward in Iraq that has largely been affirmed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton.

At the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in November 2005, Senator Obama called for: (1) a reduction in the number of U.S. troops; (2) a time frame for a phased withdrawal; (3) the Iraqi government to make progress on forming a political solution; (4) improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq; and (5) engaging the international community, particularly key neighboring states and Arab nations, to become more involved in Iraq. In January 2006 he traveled to Iraq and met with senior U.S. military commanders, Iraqi officials and U.S. troops in Baghdad and Fallujah.

Senator Obama introduced legislation in January 2007 to offer a responsible alternative to President Bush's failed escalation policy. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's expectations. The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the 13 benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met.

 

Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich should really be the strongest and loudest voice on what to do about Iraq, but he seems to be having trouble getting his message out. And I am not referring to his lack of presence in the mainstream media, but instead to his own website.

The last time I went to view his site (a few weeks ago), either the whole site was just down, or they had failed to redirect older links to current pages to the new site (Kucinich's site, like many of the candidates' sites, undergoes periodic updates and redesigns).

But what is really inexcusable is the fact that you can't apparently get to his "plan for Iraq" from his site, at least as of this writing. He explains his Iraq stance on "page 1" of his Iraq Issues page, and then "page 2" is supposed to be the plan itself. But, as of this writing, that link to page 2 is broken -- it just takes you to the "sign up" introduction page to his main site. This does not fill me with confidence about the man's ability to run a campaign. Or a country, for that matter.

But, to be fair to Kucinich, while I don't have much to say about his plan (since I can't view it), I will include an extended excerpt from the speech he gave to introduce the plan back in January. Once again, I wonder why his website doesn't have more current information about his Iraq stance, when the biggest debate of the Iraq war is about to take place in Congress. Democratic candidates seem to be missing a great opportunity to show some real leadership here.

From Kucinich's website (from a 1/8/07 speech):

There are 140,000 troops remaining in Iraq right now. What about them? When will they come home? Why would we leave those troops in Iraq when we have the money to bring them home? Soon the President will ask for more money for the war. Why would Congress appropriate more money to keep the troops in Iraq through the end of President Bush's term, at a total cost of upwards of two trillion dollars and thousands of more troop casualties, when military experts say there is no military solution? Our soldiers stand for us in the field, we must to stand for them in our legislature by bringing them home.

It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.

If you have money which can be used to bring the troops home or to prosecute the war, do not say you want to bring the troops home while you appropriate money in a supplemental to keep them in Iraq fighting a war that cannot be won militarily. This is why the Administration should be notified now that Congress will not approve of the appropriations request of up to $160 billion in the spring for the purposes of continuing the occupation and the war. Continuing to fund the war is not a plan. It would represent the continuation of disaster.

. . .

The US thinks in terms of solving our own military, strategic, logistical, and political problems. The US can determine how to solve our problems, but the Iraqi people will have problems far into the future. This requires an intensive focus on the processes needed to stabilize Iraq. If you solve the Iraqi problem you solve the US problem. Any comprehensive plan for Iraq must take into account as a primary matter the conditions and the needs of the Iraqi people, while providing our nation with a means of righting grievous wrongs and taking steps to regain US credibility and felicity within the world community.

I am offering such a plan today. This plan responds to the concerns of a majority of Americans. On Tuesday, when Congress resumes its work, I will present this plan to leadership and members as the only viable alternative to the Bush Administration's policy of continued occupation and escalation. Congress must know that it cannot and must not stand by and watch our troops and innocent Iraqi civilians die.

 

Mike Gravel

While Gravel's position is slightly less detailed than Richardson's, they are pretty similar. Gravel ups the ante, however, calling for troops to be completely withdrawn in about 4 months (120 days). Gravel takes a strong stand on ending America's involvement with the Iraq fiasco as soon as possible; and he even specifically says he'll also get American corporations out of the reconstruction business in Iraq and turn such efforts over to Iraqi companies -- which is a refreshing and tantalizing idea.

His statement is fairly up-to-date as well, since he explicitly mentions "over 3,300" American military deaths (the actual number is over 400 higher, but that's only a matter of a few months' worth of carnage).

His language is also very straightforward and direct -- we need to get out as soon as possible. He doesn't mince words, which is always nice to hear from a politician.

From Gravel's website (this is the entire text on his website for the issue of Iraq):

Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 120 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq.

One of the leading opponents of the Vietnam War, Senator Gravel was one of the first current or former elected officials to publicly oppose the planned invasion of Iraq in 2002. He appeared on MSNBC prior to the invasion insisting that intelligence showed that there were indeed no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no threat to the United States and that invading Iraq was against America's national interests and would result in a disaster of epic proportions for both the United States and the Iraqi people.

Today, more than four years into the invasion, the death toll of U.S. troops has climbed over 3,300 with over 50,000 more permanently maimed, some having lost limbs, others their sight. Tens of thousands more are afflicted with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and urgently need psychological care. The Iraqi civilian death toll nears three-quarters of a million, and still there remains no end in sight to the bloodshed.

As President, Senator Gravel will call for a U.S. corporate withdrawal from Iraq and hand over reconstruction contracts to Iraqi businesses which will empower Iraqi nationals to reconstruct their own country.

 

[Program Note: Part 2 of this article will run tomorrow on ChrisWeigant.com and will examine John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden.]

 

[Slogan Contest Note: This Friday, here at Huffington Post, I'll be running another slogan contest. I think you'll like this one even better than last week's. Contest will run from Friday afternoon to Saturday evening. You have been warned!]

 

Comments

[AnitaStewart]

Your site cut off the above URL.
You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/296cwh

[Chris Weigant responds:]

I think I fixed it now -- there was an extra comma in there for some reason. Anyway, it should work now.

-CW

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

Whoops.

Well, I checked it out, and the comma actually needs to be there. Unfortunately, the automated comment processor can't handle a comma in a URL, so it gets cut off.

Anyone who wants to see the page should follow that second link:

http://tinyurl.com/296cwh

... which will redirect you to the proper page.

Sorry for the technical problem.

-CW

[AnitaStewart]

http://www.dennis4president.com/go/resources/kucinich-unveils-comprehensive-exit-plan-to-bring-troops-home-stabilize-iraq/
That is the link where the 12 Point Plan for getting out of Iraq can be viewed on Dennis Kucinich's website. Can you be more specific on your comments about volunteers and supporters discussing "heavily how bad the site is?" It is a new site and we are taking feedback on how it is working.

All of the Issues can also be seen here:
http://www2.kucinich.us/issues

[patrioticintellect]

http://www2.kucinich.us/iraqplan

The link above is really where, I believe, Dennis Kucinich expects people to go.

But as a campaign supporter, I've seen many trivial aspects rear their ugly head and become much larger problems than I would have expected. That has much to do with how the people supporting his campaign handle his lack of media attention and his low amount of registered support. Anyways...

His "strength through peace" section of his site is where you find information on Iraq but the information is not specific enough. And I will have to let people know that you, Chris, found this problem.

And also, I must say...when considering that the 12-point Plan is what Kucinich Volunteers are handing out when they go "flyering", it is disappointing to see it not have a more prominent spot on his website.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

patrioticintellect -

After I ran this article, I emailed the Kucinich campaign at the address listed on the website. I wanted to let them know that silly mistakes like this cost them good press, so I pointed out the broken link and gave them a link to this article.

I have not heard back from them, and the link is still broken.

This also says something about their campaign.

I will check the page you linked to out, though. But it's too late to make it into this article series....

Thanks for writing, and for the link.

-CW

[patrioticintellect]

Well, Kucinich Volunteers and supporters are discussing heavily how bad the site is. I understand your frustration. I can make no statements about when all will be fixed and better unfortunately. Thanks for replying to my comment.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

To everyone (and especially Joe Biden fans) --

Part 2 to this article, which examines Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden, is now up on my site.

Check it out at:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/08/30/the-democratic-candidates-on-iraq-part-2/

-CW

[Think82]

THANK YOU for saying Biden has the best plan, HANDS DOWN (Chris's words, not mine). I was worried there for a second. It's so obvious and yet he's not a front-runner. Them Democratic party better wisen up, visit the link above, give Joe his due!

[Mutex]

Chris,

At first I thought the fact that the Kucinich web site had a broken link was trivial but the more I think about it the more serious it seems. This isn't just any broken link. This is by far the most important issue of the campaign! Apparently Dennis Kucinich doesn't even take his own campaign seriously.

I still like what the guy has to say and I am still angered by people who want to dismiss candidates not supported by the mainstream media but this raises a big question mark for me.

I'm starting to believe that the only people who have the 'luxury' of speaking the truth and promoting moral arguments under our political system are those who have no chance (and maybe even no intention) to fulfill them.

Each new revelation about this country causes me to vacillate between anger and demoralization. This news is just sad.

On the plus side, an hour from now I will probably read something and be angry again!

Is this a great country or what?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

mutex, and joebhed --

It doesn't matter than DK's plan is available to the public elsewhere or not. The plain fact is that this is HIS website, he's trying to convince me (and everyone else) to vote for him, so it is up to him to provide the information, not up to me to search for it.

I am trying to be as even-handed and fair as I can possibly be, given that the mainstream media is ignoring 5/8ths of the candidates. I decided to compare the candidates for president ON THEIR MERITS (ask yourself how often that happens in the MSM), limiting myself to their websites to hear what they have to say to the online community. I consider that a valid and worthwhile thing to do.

Since this is "Iraq week" for me, and since this is a BIG issue (if not THE biggest issue) in the campaign, and especially since 5/8ths of the candidates are still sitting members of Congress, I felt it was important to address now. I mean, if you're running for the job of running the country, you should at least be influencing the debate in Congress.

What saddened me is the fact that many of them simply have not updated their position recently. I mean, they sort of decided "well, here's my Iraq position" back in January, and have been skating ever since. But conditions in Iraq and Washington DC are changing constantly, so I wanted to see some true leadership on the issue -- "here's what we Dems are going to do about this in Congress next week." Sadly, I did not find any of this. At least not so far. I will review the other four candidates tomorrow at my site, so we'll see....

Anyway, since DK's site had a broken link, I had to ding him, but in compensation I gave him a bigger excerpt than anyone else. I thought that was pretty fair.

Thanks for commenting.

-CW

[oldpotsmuggler]

"With the most important debate of the whole year (and possibly the whole war) teed up and ready to begin in Congress in the next few weeks..."

That's all well and good, but Bush already had the debate and he won. We're going to stay his course just as long as he still has a course to stay. I guess that's what happens when you convice yourself that you are a self important member of the U.S. Congress with this very strong need and entitlement to go on vacation during the month of August, every year, no matter what. When the other guy doesn't happen to see things eye to eye with you, you can find yourself in a world of policy hurt in short order, and that's what has already happened here.

So, two things.

(1) I guess it really does matter what the new Democrat in the Whitehouse will do on Iraq because the issue will still be completely relevant in January of 2009; and

(2) Screw the "Petraeus Debate", lets go one better and have a grand impeachment debate. At least there is something that can still be done on that one.

[jay1975]

I fear that no matter who is elected next (I do not like any of the choices on either side) we will still be struggling with this is some way for years to come. After spending two year long tours in Iraq I know that no President will just abandon the Iraqi's. Their government was elected in too soon and are incapable of doing anything for their country without their own security forces. Because of that we will be stck until the Iraqi's take a serious approach at securing themselves. Unfortunately the corruption found in their system is a part of their culture. I wish all of my brother and sisters in arms could be brought home today and that we can forget about it but then we will be left with the choice of letting them fight for control of their country at the cost of countless civilian lives or having to go back to stabilize the country once again. I wish it was as simple as pulling everyone out and then it will be ok there, but that is just not going to happen. We need support from other Arab nations but they do not want to touch this, no matter how nicely we ask them, at least not until it can benefit them financially.

[joebhed]

First of all, since DKs quotes say that he was going to enter his plan into the congressional record on Tuesday, can't we assume that it is available?
Second, all of these candidates lack the essential element of an appropriate exit: one that includes a strategy of dealing with AQI.
Today we see that by working with the Sunni insurgents, we can help them weaken AQI. This has been true all along, but our invasion and our ignorance prevented this long overdue action.
The same is true with the Shia. By that I mean the Shia and Sunni do not want AQI to be defining the security situation in Iraq.
Our exit from Iraq must be tied to a plan that we are taking away the major taget of Sunni and Shia insurgents - that would be us.
In return we agree to assist the government in getting all of the Iraqis, including militias and insurgents, to roust AQI.
There will never be security with the presence of AQI. They can easily spark sectarian violence.
There will always be AQI as long as we are in Iraq.
It would most likely happen anyway if we left, but if it becomes part of a strategy that deals with the future security of the country, then it makes sense as an end-the-war plan.

[OrangeSam]

The proper strategy for dealing with "AQI" is to let the Iraqis find their own strategy.
No one (except "AQI") wants to see them become the defining factor of the Iraqi security situation. (The current defining factor being the US, of course.)
Once the Shia and Sunni insurgents lose their primary targets (American troops) they will turn their eye to other destabilizing forces (like "AQI"). Once stability comes, I think (but can't guarantee) that the Shia and Sunni will examine each other cautiously and realize that coexistence is the best possible outcome.

[timm0]

Is Bob Shrum still out there "helping" candidates? Got a whiff of his signature odor there at the end of Obama's comments. I can understand "hedging" on trivial issues, but not this one. Suck it up Obama.

I hope all the candidates ditch(ed) this benchmark concept. There will be no progress while our troops are running combat missions in Iraq simply because our occupation's existence in everyday matters is a constant problem that complicates recruitment, training, and deployment of police. Only when we are off the "front lines" over there, self-rule by Iraqis becomes possible again - which is the only way they will have a genuine chance of making true progress on those 13 benchmarks that Obama is hiding behind in that one horrible sentence.

[jlworrall]

Great article...but nontheless another great example of why Clinton and Obama are not the right candidates for us. The people of America really need to look hard at Gravel. He's our way out of War and the light at the end of the tunnel for equlity and fairness among all minorities.

[JoAnnCr]

Thanks, Chris, for going to the trouble of compiling this information. I appreciate your thoughts and wish you'd write your ideal scenario for getting out of Iraq at the end of your analysis of the candidates plans.

I have been working for the John Edwards campaign, but being from Iowa, I have met with many of the candidates. The most comprehensive plan I've heard on Iraq came from Senator Biden. Joe Biden, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has thought deeply about our ending the war in Iraq. His plans take into consideration nuances brought to his attention by his extensive work over the last several decades in foreign relations so he is a great resource for any thought on Iraq.

With regard to John Edwards, from what you write about Dennis Kucinich, he favors similar immediate action calling upon Congress to act boldly now to stop the war before the next president takes over. Every day the war continues is more valuable lives lost and an incredible drain on our fragile resources.

One thing you don't discuss is how the candidates are going to take care of the returning soldiers, a topic John Edwards is passionate about.

My husband is a Viet Nam Veteran and has been denied help from the VA and is concerned the difficulty Viet Nam Veterans have suffered will be multiplied manifold in the Iraq Veterans. He had a chance to discuss his situation with John and Elizabeth Edwards who already had detailed personal knowledge of the difficulties with the VA because of Elizabeth's attempt to get VA help for her Career Navy father.

The crisis in the care of our Veteran's needs to be part of your inquiry. Getting them out and ending the war is only the first of a long road for our country with regard to the returning warriors.

Thanks again for your great piece.