A Time To Lead
It is time for decision on the Iraq debacle. The White House is demanding more money to keep the troops in Iraq. The Bush folks have shown their public relations mastery by rolling out a disingenuous campaign to claim "progress" on the ground in Iraq. General David Petraeus, the political general with a notorious record of trumpeting mythical success in Iraq, will seek to retain as many troops in action as he thinks the Army can sustain without disintegrating.
For the moment, Republicans appear to have made the political calculation that they have no choice but to stand with the purblind president and his general. Their leading presidential candidates have toed the line. Their vulnerable senators are keeping their heads down. Their zealots have been effusive about the supposed progress wrought by the "surge" in Iraq.
Democrats in the Congress are signaling preemptive retreat. There's talk about a bipartisan resolution that requires the president to start taking some troops out early next year, but imposes no exit date. This is a recipe for continued occupation, which will squander more lives and resources while bolstering al Qaeda's recruitment across the world.
Antiwar activists are mobilizing both against Republicans who should be leading the way out of Iraq and against Democrats who are backsliding. There's talk about supporting primary opponents against those who disappoint.
What's missing from this picture? The Democratic candidates for president have not yet been heard from. In the run-up to the last showdown with the president, former Senator John Edwards called on the Congress to end the war and mobilized his supporters to push the Congress to stand up. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said little, and did not even reveal how they would vote until the last moment. That won't work this time.
It is time to lead. The person who hopes to capture the Democratic presidential nomination should demonstrate clarity in opposing the war, commitment to bringing the troops home and capacity to lead. It is time not simply to stand and be counted; it is time to lead colleagues that are faltering and to put Republicans on notice that this time, the Democratic nominee means what he or she says.
Leadership by the presidential candidates can rally congressional Democrats while putting conflicted Republican senators on notice that there will be a big price to pay in continuing to support the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.
Leadership in this debate is a central criterion for the nomination, far more important than how a candidate looks in the debates or how much money the campaign raises. Any Democratic nominee will face a pro-war Republican who will charge the Democrats with weakness and with cutting and running. The Democratic flag-bearer will have to make a compelling case to the American people about why this misbegotten occupation must be brought to an end. If a candidate for the nomination doesn't stand up now, then he or she can't be expected to stand up then. If the candidate can't rally his or her colleagues now, then little can be expected in the campaign. If a Democratic contender can't enlist the support of worried Republicans stranded with a most unpopular president in support of a most unpopular war, then any claim that he or she knows how to get things done or can usher in a new era of change is called into question.
Democrats universally want to nominate a candidate who can win. But no Democrat can win unless they can carry the argument against the fiasco in Iraq to the American people. Over the next weeks, we will find out just who is up to that mission and who is not. It is time to lead.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Support of the Dems among their base is badly eroding. I'm intrigued by the idea expressed in these blogs to withhold contributions to the Democratic party until they stop all the crass political calculating, the sham hearings etc and finally take a stand to end the war.
Thank you for saying what many are thinking - the frontrunners MUST take a leadership role now, not later. If they can't lead, then for heaven's sake, get out of the way!
Understandable that people would be frustrated with Edwards after the '03 vote, but pay attention to the full text of his speech today on restrategizing the "war on terror" and a perimeter redeployment of American soldiers in Iraq. Might not love that part of the proposal, but he, along with Sen. Biden, are the only candidates thus far to put down on paper what they plan to do about Iraq beyond "withdrawal", which is a bit vague and simplistic (a worldview we've been subject to without success for coming up on 7 years now). Obama was a fire breathing war critic before being elected to senate, and Hillary would rather not be specific at this time.
Edwards is clearly the candidate that the GOP and the Corporacracy fear the most; one, because he is by far and away the most electable of all the candidates, Democrat or GOP. The GOP candidates are a pretty sorry lot [Ron Paul is at least refreshing, candid and sincere]. The Corporacracy knows this, and since the next President will in all likelihood be a Democrat, I believe that this is their strategy: support reliable HRC through the DLC and the DNC, at the same time giving a lot of media attention to the Hillary-Obama feud.
They know that if HRC gets the nomination, she and Bill will be totally villified, trashed, and hanged on the petard of their own corruption. If Obama is the nominee, they are of course planning to stage a huge stealth campaign in the South and elsewhere, which [while being disowned by the GOP nominee] will play the race card big time, and perhaps tilt the electoral college toward the GOP.
If Edwards, on the other hand, is the nominee, most of the states in the South will be in play, forcing a diversion of GOP resources to states which were solidly Republican the last two elections. The DLC is behaving like a front for Rove, Inc.
"Peripheral redeployment" is a cute phrase that means WE WILL STILL HAVE TROOPS IN IRAQ! What is it about "withdrawal" that most of these cowards--yes, including Edwards are afraid to say?
The thinking of national Democratic leaders seems to be that if they go along with funding the war, they will pick up a few more seats and expand their slim majority in Congress. Huh?
Upon what are they basing this perception? Politicians of all stripes conduct endless streams of focus groups and polls. I'd like a journalist from HuffPo or anywhere to interview Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or any Democratic leader and ask them to point to the polls that show public opinion supporting their sell-out approach.
What do the numbers say? Do their polls show the public favoring us keeping our soldiers in Iraq? If not, why are they behaving so cowardly?
Leadership? You're kidding right? We're talking about US Politicians here, not leaders.
A Democrat showing leadership, at least in the Senate, would be organizing 40 fellow senators to filibuster ALL military appropriations that do not include a timetable for withdrawal. It takes 41 senators to end this war. NOBODY in the Senate is showing this kind of leadership.
You are so right. Where is our LEADER? Edwards has moments when seems like he might get tough on Iraq. I heard Obama give a fire breathing speech where he ripped the Bush Administration to shreds listing every single major blunder they've made. It was very exciting and I wish he would do that more often. I'm sick of polite phrases. We need a LEADER who will stand up and say THIS COUNTRY IS GOING THE WRONG WAY AND I'M GOING TO FIX IT. Stop pussyfooting around and do it! Or "None of the above" is going to win the Presidential election.
I agree.
Obama is a Senator. He should do something in that role.
Why are Democrats so afraid to go after the criminals that started this War for Oil ?
Amen emjay1954!!!
It's about time someone actually spit out the words for change. Edwards has been my choice because he did and there was no beating around the bush, so to speak! I want change from the Bush, neocon, right wing leadership, if that's what anyone can call it.
Edwards 2008
Amen! It's time for some old-time charisma & Obama may have it in him. I'm still waiting to see it, though.
When are you guys going to et that neither Clinton or Obama will end our involvement in Iraq? They'd both leave forces there and for a very long time and drag out this tragedy.
I'm not old enough to be having flashbacks to the '60s or early 70's, but as I was reading those portions without proper names, I found myself wondering if we're having the same discussions over again.
Deja vu, anyone?
I am registering from a dem to an independent and I will only vote for the dem who speaks out against the war and leads the way to no more funding the war.
Let's imagine for a moment we could identify the children of the financial top 5% that just graduated high school in June, you know the ones going to harvard and Yale, et al., and draft all of them to fight in Iraq. How long do you think the occupation of Iraq would continue after announcing that special draft?
Sorta clarifies things don't it?
The only one who can credibly lead on this issue is Al Gore. He is not tainted by votes to support the war and has always been against it. He can make a compelling case, I believe, to the american people. If he pulls in Edwards or Obama as his second in command, we can say goodbye to republiscum rule. Please VP Gore - run!!!
Governor Bill Richardson, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, has been extremely vocal at all of the Democratic debates and forums about his plan to lead America out of Iraq, and has repeatedly sent petitions and letters signed by his supporters to Congress and the current President, asking for complete withdrawal from Iraq, and an aggressive diplomatic effort to bring all the countries in the region into the stabilization process.
He is currently running ads in Iowa about his position on Iraq, and his position is clearly featured on his campaign website. He is not afraid to speak out against the war, and having just heard him speak about it, as well as other pertinent policy plans (like independence from foreign oil) this past week, I am convinced he, better than anyone, can get the US out of this mess.
It is indeed time to lead, and Bill Richardson is ready.
mjkblog - absolutely correct. My vote will go to Richardson.
It is time that those of us who believe a withdrawal of ground troops from the area is the c o r r e c t solution to our present predicament give our full and vocal support to
Gov. Richardson, an able and experienced politician.
"But no Democrat can win unless they can carry the argument against the fiasco in Iraq to the American people"?! The American People are fully aware of this "fiasco" and for a while now!
I hear a lot of protesting against Repugnants towing the line and Democrats being weak. I don't hear solutions!
How can a party barely hanging on to the Senate and with not enough votes in the House take on the Commander-in-Chief vis-a-vis an ensuing war?!
OK, so back to the oft toted cliche': "power of the purse". Cut off funding?! It is a guy like Karl Rove's dream come true: "cut 'n' run", "weak on defense", that fella and his evil ilk will have a field day till Novemeber '08!
Don't you get it?! Iraq WILL fall apart once American troops leave, it just will! Why would the Democrats like to carry that blame when it has been Bush's war all along?!
Yes, troops are dying every day but the very C-in-C who committed them to this baseless war is playing politics with their lives and their deaths! He also realizes how fractured his opponents are on this issue: damned if they do, damned if they don't. His political days are over and his legacy has already been written
The Dems have to win the White House AND get more seats in the House and the Senate in 2008. Instead of the left going after the left, get the right wing nuts to buckle and stop being a rubber stamp
We need to stop barking up the wrong tree!!!
The date may be uncertain, but the pullout of Iraq will happen. There is an absence of serious debate over the ramifications of this inevitable pull-out.
The left seems to think that pulling out is the same as not going in the first place. It's not. The right seems to think that repeating a mistake enough times will miraculously produce a different outcome. It won't.
If history tells us anything, a casual look back to the end of the British Mandate shows that the day the occupying forces left, there was all-out war. We were fortunately aligned with the victors in that one, but such a fortuitous outcome doesn't appear likely this time around.
In the shadow of a possible civil war, it is difficult to fully commit to building the Iraqi army, because whoever wins such a civil war will collect all the toys. As far as I know, Iran still has American weapons left over from our country's military support of the Shah.
And if we pull out of Iraq and there is a war and the victorious side finds itself aligned with Iran and maybe China and Israel finds itself feeling more threatened and vulnerable than ever, what then?
Oh, it's too easy to spin doomsday scenarios regarding this region, and yes, there needs to be some leader to move us forward and not just dwell on the past and the worst-case-scenarios. Still, I think I would sleep better if one of these potential leaders and some of these pundits started discussing the potential consequences of pulling out of Iraq and have in place a strategy and contingencies to address the ramifications of our actions.
So far, the left is not much better than the right. It's just hard selling what its constituency wants to hear.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
