The Iraq Disconnect In Iowa

I am not the first to notice something very odd in the polling happening for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Race (most notably, my friend Chris Bowers pointed out something very similar to this a few weeks ago.)

But as the Caucus date in Iowa grows ever closer, it becomes more and more interesting to me, if not more and more disturbing to me, to see the Iowa/Iraq relationship to be growing more and more odd.

Here are some highlights from a poll out today:

6. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Democrats Only)

Yes 85%
No 6%
Undecided 9%

85% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans in Iowa favor withdrawal within the next six months, which, of course, is still on the Boy King's watch so that won't happen, but surely, then, the Democrats in Iowa (and presumably the majority of Republicans) would favor the candidate who would be aggressively pursuing the end of the war in Iraq and the withdrawal of troops.

On the Democratic side, the top four are Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson.

Senator Hillary Clinton from the Debate at Dartmouth

TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country believed in 2006, when the Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate, that that was a signal to end the war, and the war would end.


You have said that will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack. It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting. You know, we do not know, walking into the White House in January 2009, what we're going to find. What is the state of planning for withdrawal?

The Barack she is referring to is Senator Obama; who said:

TIM RUSSERT: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?"
SENATOR OBAMA: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

And Senator Edwards?

TIM RUSSERT: "Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?"
SENATOR EDWARDS: "I cannot make that commitment."

So answer this:

if Iraq is the issue and I certainly believe it is, why are Democrats not either pushing their candidates to adopt a clear out now message or supporting a candidate who has that position?

And let's not make the same mistake twice, the great lesson of 2006 is that if we give Democrats the benefit of the doubt on Iraq, they'll take it.

Comments

[researcher]

what the demos and the repubs are imperialists.

this is an imperialist country and our politicans reflect that in thier views.

hillary understands the very best the imperialist mentality of this country.

england was an imperialists country and that worked out well for them.

only country behind them now in standard of living is greece.

what we sow we reap and it is getting close to harvest time.

if there is a dumber more war mongering group of voters on this earth than americans I have not met them.

and this is a christian nation? christianty died on the cross.

600 billion dollar military budget says it all.

and we are in iraq to protect our freedom that statement is dumber than dumb.


"A nation that spends more year after year on military offense (and I mean offense) than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death". (Gunnels)

[LizM]

Actually, I beg to differ...if I may.

The frontrunner pretenders - let's say Hillary, Obama, Edwards...and let's even include the Gov - DO NOT HAVE A STRATEGY TO END THE WAR IN IRAQ...FULL STOP.

I am curious as to why you would choose to ignore the only candidate, of either party, who has developed, over the last three years, a comprehensive and viable Iraq exit strategy that would promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement and that would allow for the responsible withdrawal of US forces without leaving a failed state in their wake or the need for another generation of American troops to return at a later date.

I might add that Senator Biden's Iraq exit strategy has the support of not only an unprecedented majority of Republicans and Democrats in the US Senate, but also of world leaders...and of the majority of Iraq's political leaders, including the public support of many of them.

If you want to end the war in Iraq AND get the troops home, then the candidate that deserves your support is none other than Senator Joe Biden.

[Rescisco]

It may be a mistake to assume that Hillary, Barack, or Edwards have either a clue or a plan. I have seen nothing of substance to suggest that they do. Richardson, Dodd, and Biden are more substantive and offer some hope for sanity, but that seems not to register with voters. One wonders how the "front runners" in both parties have managed to get so far with such limited and superficial campaigns. Then one remembers who does the choosing. Lord stop us before we vote again!

[Doofus]

There are a lot of independent/'unenrolled'
voters out there, many of whom will vote in
primaries. Some of them would like US to win
first, then get out.

[Charles TW]

With The President's recent "private treaty" with Malaki, Iraq is offically what it has always been, a greased pig in thick fog. When a nation engages in any war with only frothy mouthed jingoism and no concept of what victory means and no exit strategy, what else can be expected.

What promises can the Democrats possibly make about exiting Iraq that Bush cannot shove back into their faces with an executive order or a signing statement? In light of this recent event, can any Democrat even begin to hope to unravel the Bush's gordian knot of blatant American imperalism.

This is no longer just about bringing the troops home or whether they have the equipment they need to wage war, or even the war on terrorism. This now about America as a nation being hurled into a seemingly endless winter of possible global contempt. Does anyone believe that the Middle East and the rest of the world, especially China, Russia, and India are going to sit idly by while America plow through that region as if it is our own private rummage sale?

The Democrats have little choice now but to wait until Bush drops all of the shoes and then come up with a bold, comprehensive plan that will extricate America from what surely appears to be a fools folly.

www.charlestwilliams.com

[mbafromharvard]

We're staying Boyce and always intended to. We're going to extend our reach, so this is just beginning. I enjoy watching libs frustration at the game they believe they have some stake in, so go ahead - blog away. You though electing Dems would change things? 2006 was a liberal mandate? Ha! LOL! You really are lost Boyce.

We're in Iraq permanently, and Iran is next. Nothing you can do to stop us Boyce.

High fives all around!

[leftLibertarian]

Why is the US in Iraq?

Because Bush and Cheney lied about WMD.

Why won't the Democratic Party impeach these criminals?

Because they are without spine and principles.

Is leftlibertarian a Democrat?
No.

[oldpotsmuggler]

You have the war! You have the economy! You have the whole situation with the cost of energy! You have god only knows what kind of people currently occupying The Whithouse! You have general malaise and discontent on a near historic scale.

We're not having a Presidential Primary in 2008. We're having an early general election, and the Republicans are so far gone that they're not even really participating.

[blueraven]

You mention four politicians and only quote three. What did Gov. Richardson say?

[spinstahbabe]

As an Iowan who will probably start out caucasing for Richardson but will likely wind up with Edwards unless Richardson or Dodd or Biden can meet the 15% threshold in my precinct, I will tell you that while I support an immediate withdrawal, I trust ANY Democrat is going to do SO much better in Iraq than George Bush, that it's really not a defining issue for me.

[hopeless277]

Democrats, like Republicans, are totally controlled by their corporate masters. These corporate masters are making BUTTLOADS of money killing people in the middle east and even more rehabiliating the maimed ones here at home. Never ones to stand up for what is right, the Democrats are ready to continue the gravy train kill-fest in Iraq forever just like their Republican siblings. I can't say this loud enough, IF YOU BELIEVE IN FREEDOM AND LIBERTY, GET OUT OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE PURGE BEGINS. If you do not, then you will be in the same postition as those 17 Iraqis that were gunned down by Blackwater. You see, with the Nat'l Guard deployed, who you think is gonna 'keep the peace' when Bush declares martial law in advance of cancelling the elections? Fun times ahead. Cheers!

[research]

Big Money get the candidates it wants, not the ones with American values.

Kucinch and Richardson should be #1 and #2 based on polling data on what American believe in.

Go Kucinich!