  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Dems Dropping the Ball on Iraq DebatePosted on Mar 6, 2008
I’m afraid Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are giving the game away to John McCain on the most important matter facing the country, the Iraq war. I hate to sound like one of those middle-aged jock-loving MSNBC pundits, but as I sit here on the sidelines I want to scream, “Quit playing defense.” What’s wrong with them? Why don’t they hit McCain on the head with the war instead of dancing around the subject? It’s because the Democratic candidates are consumed by their desire to establish themselves as tough on that vague concept of “national security.” That’s the reason for their pointless debate over who would be most adept at answering the White House emergency phone at 3 a.m. The phone call issue was immortalized in the Clinton commercial that has been given too much credit for the senator’s victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries. It showed a worried-looking mom peeping in at her sleeping kids. The message was that Mom could rest easy if Clinton was there to pick up the White House phone and issue orders that would protect our security. Or, as Clinton put it in her Ohio victory speech, “Protecting America is the first and most urgent duty of the president. When there’s a crisis and that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training. You have to be ready to make a decision.” As is the case with most commercials, this one wasn’t quite true to life. Worried parents peep into their children’s rooms to check whether they’re breathing or—if the kids are teenagers—whether they’re home. As for the time, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred mid-morning, not at 3 a.m. Those are quibbles. The biggest mistake of the commercial was that it was a defensive move to establish Clinton as tough enough to be commander in chief—or all-night national security desk officer, as she apparently views the job. Obama, by implication, was too weak to make a decision at 3 a.m. or even wake up to answer the phone. Obama’s method of reply was a copycat commercial. Such a debate is perfect for McCain. The very mushiness of the word security helps him. It’s broad, scary and simple. It doesn’t mean anything. Most important, it is not the name of that national sinkhole, Iraq. If the word Iraq becomes a staple of the political debate, as it was in 2006 and 2007, McCain could be in trouble. McCain, of course, talks about Iraq all the time. He believes in the war. And his “No Surrender” advocacy helped bring the Republican base to his side when his campaign seemed to be failing in 2007. In his speech celebrating his Texas primary victory, McCain said, “I will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime as I also criticized the failed tactics that were employed too long.” He pledged “to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country’s interests secure and our honor intact. ... The next president must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict that could quickly descend into genocide destabilizing the entire Middle East and ending our security there.” In other words, be prepared for a stay of many years. As McCain said earlier this year, “Maybe 100 [years]. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.” The Democratic candidates should be attacking McCain on this point every day. Both Clinton and Obama favor withdrawal, although her plan seems more stretched out than his. Yet, despite the endless nature of the war, neither Clinton nor Obama has been saying much about it lately. Clinton gave the war just passing mention in her Ohio victory speech: “We’re ready to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan. And we’re past ready to serve our veterans with the same devotion that they served us.” Perhaps they’re frightened by the polls. A Pew Research Center poll in February showed 12 percent of those surveyed thought the military effort in Iraq was going “very well,” while 36 percent said “fairly well.” But I think the polls are a function of news coverage of Iraq, which is dwindling. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that between Feb. 25 and March 2 just 3 percent of the available time and space for news was devoted to Iraq. Part of this is journalists’ short attention span. Part is a shrinking of the Iraq press corps due to media industry cutbacks, but much of the blame rests with the Democratic agenda, in which Iraq is sinking toward the bottom. The Democratic candidates could make powerful and fresh attacks on the war. A new book by Joseph Stiglitz, who is a Nobel prize-winning economist, and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes puts the cost of the war at $3 trillion. In fact that’s the title of the book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.” Think of what that money could have bought. Better public schools to train young people to work in difficult jobs of the new economy, decent health insurance, public works projects to repair a decaying infrastructure.
Go for it, Clinton and Obama. Quit these piddling little attacks on each other. Play offense. Make McCain justify a perpetual stay in Iraq—and the huge expenditure of lives and money.
Previous item: The Money Behind the Anti-McCain Ad Next item: Hope in the Time of NAFTA Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Mark Anderson, March 12 at 2:52 am # It's not a war!Please stop calling our occupation of Iraq a “war”!
By Joe, March 10 at 1:24 pm # Mike- I’m one who does not think Chenebush planned that attack. It did happen on their watch, though, and in manly fashion they tried to blame the disaster on Bill Clinton. Now Bill and his wife are indeed responsible for countless death and misery in the world (depleted-uranium poisoning of southern Iraq during the 90’s, assist to Turkish bombardment of Kurdish villages, refusal to remove landmines from SE Asia, bombing of the Sudanese meds factory without warning workers to evacuate, Hillary’s approval of the Bush invasion, on and on). That aside, I believe the quick collapse of the towers was a result mainly of two factors: unsturdy construction and the sway-control mass shift system. The latter was installed near the tops of both towers after it was found the buildings were swaying/flexing excessively in moderate winds. The system, as I understand it, involved computer-controlled shifting along a rail of a massive concrete weight, I think the weights were something like 100 tons each. Once the upper structure became softened by fire, these weights would not only have fallen straight down through the structures, but accelerated as they fell. Any factual errors on this are mine. I’m working from memory. Thank you for your observations.
By J, March 8 at 9:12 pm # Liza, Wise words. You’ve described the tenuous Back when there was a simply named Defense
By rick bensco, March 8 at 6:42 pm # Why the speech!Why did Obama give his anti war speech? Do you think his money backers from the Mideast Rezko the Syrian Auchi the Iraqi and Alsamarrae the Iraqi wanted him to give the speech? His ties to the Iraqi’s of Chicago will be the end of his FAIRY TALE when the Republican attack machine attacks.
By rick bensco, March 9 at 11:43 pm # Re: Think before you type.Millions spoke out about the war. But millions were not politically connected. Obama is a calculating politician, not just some guy on the street. Rezko knew him in school not just some 5 hour business relationship he suggest. How did BO get from a neighborhood organizer to where he is today. I’ve heard much about how he gave up a potential lucrative career in law to be such an altruistic soul,why? Who put up the money for this rise to fame? More important why did they put up the money? Ask yourself what favors did they want and who are they? Just some questions! I would be wondering how long before the Republican attack machine connects the dots for the American people. True or false. They made Kerry a war hero to look like a traitor. Do you think they can make this stick? I sure do.
By yours trulyj, March 8 at 5:40 pm # Time We Let Go Of The She Says He Says & The Horse Race “What instead?” “Our electing a president who’ll end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home.” “And then what sort of world?” “It’ll be up to us.”
By Dragon, March 8 at 5:05 pm # The Democratic candidates should both go after Sen. McCain for his stance on Iraq, and its supposed connection to al Qaeda and the War on Terror. Al Qaeda’s headquarters is in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan, not Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are Shiites, who detest Sunnis in general, and al Qaeda in particular. Now, even the Sunnis in Iraq have turned against al Qaeda, because they realize that al Qaeda’s attacks on Shiites have worsened their position in Iraqi politics. Al Qaeda has the same chance of establishing a training/logistics base in Iraq as the Ku Klux Klan has of doing so in Harlem.
By anon, March 8 at 11:00 am # Wimpy DemsObviously, the comment I sent you yesterday about Bill Clintons 1998 Iraq address, about why he bombed, got the better of you. I will simply post it on other comment boards, and make it well known to present day voters. More legitimate news agencies won’t sweep it under the rug quite so quickly, AND there is not a damn thing you can do about it!!
By DennisD, March 7 at 3:16 pm # Lock and loadUntil we all realize that a “war of terrorism” is being waged on Americans by our own government(D’s& R’s alike)there can be NO “hope”, “change” or “solutions” for us. It will take a second revolution in America to have a true democracy/republic that once again acts in the interests of it’s people. A mere election won’t rid us of the parasites that really run this government. They’re dug in too deep.
By John J. Wernsdorfer, March 7 at 2:32 pm # We blew it!!We should be having a discussion over the two best candidates who offered themselves to political slaughter. ie John Edwards and Dennis Kuccinic. Unfortunately we have are the most expensive money could buy (as usual) and not what could have been best for the citizens of our country. The majority of voters get their information from television and this is what the money buys.
By Anon., March 7 at 11:17 am # Libby-libs in DenialI just thought I would remind you demi-dems what Bill Clintonian said a few years back. One wonders why our ‘illustrious media’ has not mentioned, or reminded the public about the following words from the modern day version of the “Liberalistic Golden Boy”. I just can’t imagine ignoring Bill Clintons own words on this issue!! Oh yeah, and I don’t remember any of you libbies calling Billy-Bob a terrorist when he bombed……… http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/tran scripts/clinton.html I would have copied and pasted it here but it is too long, but you can ‘Google it up’ yourself and find other news agencies copies also. HAVE A NICE DAY!
By R. Wonkles, March 7 at 8:55 am # thank you!Thank you for this. From the opening of the race I have been frustrated with the lack of courage from the all the democratic front-runners. As usual, the field is driven by political strategy vs. independent thinking. Where is the outrage?
By John Q, March 6 at 7:45 pm # A mystery to me why the Dems haven’t been pointing out (for the last six years) that if Al Gore had been prez in 2001, 9/11 may well have been averted. Because Gore was aware of the Al Qaida threat, and wasn’t ignoring it the way Bush did. When the 1999 millennium threat came up, Clinton/Gore set up a dedicated WH situation room to send out DAILY to all agencies, asking what they had, and to be alert. And an alert customs agent did in fact catch the guy with the explposives. Don’t you think a similar operation in 2001 would have connected enough dots to have averted 9/11? Why are the Dems too chickenshit to point it out, and claim their rightful place as the party better on natiional security?
By guntotinganglion, March 6 at 7:49 pm # Paolo's CommentAs Bushemada said, wars good for the economy. We’ve gotta stop building homes and build more bombs and the planes to deliver the ordinance on target. Blood and viscera are the lubricants for the American War Machine, and only those raw materials can make the war machine profitable. If an economic collapse is what’s needed to stop this madness, I’m for it. Only problem, either way, a lot of innocent people are hurt or worse. Just wish there were a way to make the people responsible for all this savagery accountable. Law? Hmmm, interesting concept...maybe next century.
By guntotinganglion, March 6 at 5:45 pm # Sorry, we are the problem. We stay, the problem gets worse. We leave, they work it out, and someday figure out how |
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article