I heartily salute both organizations in their efforts. I have been saying since the beginning of this year that the anti-war forces need to keep the pressure on the politicians in Washington with a show of numbers in order to convince weak-willed congressmen from both sides of the aisle that the anti-war stance is actually wildly popular among their constituents. Even in red states.
Archive of Articles for August, 2007
We continue today looking at the Democratic candidates for President, and what they would do about Iraq. Part 1 of this article ran yesterday, and covered Richardson, Obama, Kucinich, and Gravel. Continuing in reverse alphabetical order, today we examine Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden.
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 this upcoming debate, 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.
Iraq is someday going to truly be both sovereign and independent of the United States military. When that happens, they not only have to deal with security within their country (which they haven't even been able to handle yet, obviously), but they will also have to deal with their country's regional security. Iraq is next door to some neighboring countries which already have some sophisticated military equipment, so they're going to have to have some level of parity -- or else they're likely going to get wiped out when we leave. Instead of Iraq taking over Kuwait, maybe Kuwait will take over Iraq (for instance).
Some may call me crass (or even worse names) for addressing just the "framing" or "spin" of these issues. I strongly disagree. Republicans have been winning these framing victories for years now, and the only way Democrats can counter this tactic is to co-opt the framing game. Democrats need to agree on one phrase to use in order to ridicule the other side's position -- and then repeat that phrase ad nauseum. "Ten words or less" should be the golden rule.
The results were overwhelming. In one day there were almost 150 posts. Narrowing these down to a list of winners was extremely hard, due to the fact that almost all the entries were excellent.
The only thing about the contest which disappointed me was there was absolutely no blatant attempts to bribe the judge. Oh, well... maybe next time.
3. "GOP in '08! No, seriously!" -- DerekJ.
2. "9/11/2001. 9/11. 911. NineEleven. Boo! GOP in '08." -- monsteroflove.
3. "We Shouldn't Even Need A Slogan." -- ScottyRVA.
2. "Osama Still Has a Job. Do You?" -- myiq2xu.