10 more years in Iraq? Ho, hum

(@ 10 PM debate shebmate – this is THE issue (ed. note: added pic) – promoted by On The Bus)

(Iraq Moratorium)

This morning’s NY Times brought this news:

The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.

If you were a Democrat running for president to end the war in Iraq, you’d be reacting quickly to that sort of news.

But if there is any sort of blowback — or even concern expressed — by the Democratic candidates, I’ve missed it.  

You’d think, with only 3 per cent of Americans saying in a poll last week that they support leaving US troops there longer than five years, that the candidates would be cranking out statements and rushing to provide some sound bites assuring the voters they will get us out of Iraq long before 2018.

If your candidate has done that, please comment below and provide a link.

Every time I ask in a post what people are going to do to end the war, someone will say something like “elect a Democratic president.

I’m a Yellow Dog Democrat, but I don’t have that kind of blind faith that electing a Democrat will end the war.

If that’s what we want, we need to keep the pressure on and make sure the issue is on the front burner throughout this campaign.

We can’t take anything for granted.

One way to keep the issue front and center:  Do something this Friday to mark Iraq Moratorium #5.

The idea is to do whatever you’re comfortable with to show your opposition to the war — wear a button, write a letter, put up a sign, call your Congress member, whatever.

This week, how about letting your presidential candidate know that this issue is a priority?

Yes, we care about the economy and health care and a lot of other issues.

But the real defining issue between the Democrats and Republicans is the war in Iraq.  Or it should be. Don’t let them cloud it over, so people think there’s no real choice.

Let’s keep reminding them:  It’s the war, stupid.



Skip to comment form

  1. No excuses for the candidates, please.  But if your candidate has commented on this, please share that info and give us a link.

  2. tears that Kucinich was NOT there — there was at least some talk of the war in Iraq.  Each of Hillary, Obama and Edwards said they wanted the war to end, but apart from Edwards, none gave a time as to when they thought it should end.

    Kucinich would end it — end of story!

    P.S.  The group from Northern Indiana (Veteran’s for Peace, etc.) are moving full steam ahead, if you get my drift.  (I am the one who got N.E. involved way back in June or July — FYI!)  They are the ones in the mall!

  3. maybe I missed something but I think it was over an hour into the debate (without my guy – Kuchinich!) before they addressed Iraq and then spent a quick 30-sec each on  veterans issues. sigh…

    from mcjoan at Daily Kos:

    Q: Clinton asking Obama to convince Bush to end the war in Iraq. (No more funding>) Well, that’s a start. Nothing Bush is doing is gonna work. We need to rein Bush in to keep him from committing us to Iraq forever.

    Obama: Unity in the party on this. Bush can’t tie the next president’s hands on this. Has consistently opposed the war (I think we knew that). We can’t be there until 2018, situation worsening. My first job is to create a new mission in Iraq and phase out our involvement there.

    Williams ask if they’re all on board getting troops out by end of first term.

    Obama: could not guarantee all troops out by end of term. War as we know it in Iraq will be ended, but troop presence could still be there. But not engaged in war and not permanent bases.

    Clinton: We all meant the same thing Barack said. We have to make sure strategic interests. But it’s not just Bush–it’s all the GOP candidates.

    Edwards: Dishonest to suggest no troops can still be there. But the difference between us on this issue is that he’d get all combat troops out in first year.

    Edwards again defining combat vs. non-combat troops. A quick reaction force in Kuwait, but not the same as keeping combat troops in Iraq. Keeping combat troops in Iraq continues the perception that the occupation continues.

    That’s the most substantive Iraq discussion we’ve seen in a long time, and I for one appreciate it. It’s great to just have the three on stage.

    (emphasis mine)

    • Edger on January 16, 2008 at 10:49

    would not be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018??

    Who is planning on attacking them?

Comments have been disabled.