A Democratic Challenger Who Got Iraq Right

When it comes to the war in Iraq, Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell has been and remains a disappointing Democrat.

The six-term incumbent voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq, defended the occupation through three election cycles and voted to fund it even after principled Republicans had begun to object.

On Tuesday, Boswell faces a tough primary challenge from former Iowa State Representative Ed Fallon, who opposed the war from the start and who has been consistently right on other issues that Boswell has gotten wrong (such as trade policy).

Even now, if you visit the congressman's campaign website (www.boswellforcongress.com), you won't find mention of the war or foreign policy on the list of issues Boswell is focusing on. (Rather, he's highlighting warm endorsements from popular and far more steadily anti-war Democrats such as former Vice President Al Gore.)

In targeted mailings to Democratic voters in Iowa's 3rd District, however, the incumbent is claiming that he's standing up to George Bush to end the war.

Noting the claim, Fallon asks of his opponent: "But where was he most of the past five years?"

There is no question about where Fallon was, and is, on the war.

Back in 2003, as a state legislator, he sponsored a resolution urging the Bush administration not to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq.

In stark contrast, while serving as a State Representative in 2003, Ed Fallon authored HR 17 to encourage the President not to initiate a preemptive, unilateral military strike against Iraq.

Fallon argued in that 2003 resolution that the war President Bush proposed and Congressman Boswell supported would:

1.) Undermine our efforts to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Bin Laden remains at large.

8.) Cause deeper federal budget deficits, further weakening the economy and undermining of the long-term prospects for solvency the Social Security and Medicare systems.

In hindsight, Fallon comes off as a visionary -- although the truth is that he was just one of the millions of Americans who, unlike too many members of Congress, saw through the administration's now-discredited spin.

As in the presidential race, where Barack Obama's deepest distinction from Hillary Clinton has always been that he got Iraq right when it mattered, Ed Fallon is distinguishing himself from Leonard Boswell by noting that he, too, got Iraq right when it mattered.

"Those who voted for this war had it wrong on so many levels," argues Fallon, who has attracted strong support from anti-war activist groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, as well as the influential endorsement of the Des Moines Register newspaper. "They were duped by President Bush's propaganda machine and failed to understand how the war would cripple our economy, leave thousands dead or injured, and polarize our nation. Congress needs leaders who are able to think critically before similar mistakes are made in the future."

Comments (24)

1. "Hey, here's a news flash for you: the war is over."

   --Sure, but if we want to be truly accurate we had better recognize this situation for the occupation that it is.

   "Yes, I know Bush's rational was WMD. That doesn't matter any longer."

   --The honesty and integrity of a president and his administration sure as hell matter to most people, hindsight or not.

   "Al Qeda is taking its final breaths just so you can crow that you were right all along."

   Hey, that's super that you're such an optimist about this, but you've unfortunately swapped that optimism for naivety. You think any of these "terrorists" have kids and other relatives who may be a little pissed off? Yeah, we're going to defeat an antagonistic ideology, one that the US itself helped create with our middle east policy over the last half-century, with guns and ammunition (and don't forget that lucrative "defense industry").

   "The best thing you can do with a loss is learn from it. The worst thing you can do is shroud yourself in a fantasy would where you pretend you didn't lose and keep acting like you could still win."

   There's a Freudian term for this-- it's called "projection".

   Posted by MATTMAN at 05/31/2008 @ 10:09am

2. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/31/2008

   Thanks for your post. Speaking of giving up the fantasy, when do you think you might try following your own advice? Building a liberal democracy, shit, if this were an IQ test you would have failed it.

   Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2008 @ 12:02pm

3. Building a liberal democracy, shit, if this were an IQ test you would have failed it.

   Posted by srjenkins at 05/31/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

   .

   SR, if this were a SANITY test, Darin failed!

   I am forever amazed by the lenghts the wingnuts will go to to avoid the obvious reality that they were stupidly...

   ...wrong.

   Posted by Lillian at 05/31/2008 @ 12:54pm

4. But five years on, we've fixed the problems and we are on track to achieve the goal of promoting liberal democracy in the Middle East.----Posted by marybretbrad at 05/31/2008

   How many times in the past five years, was that CLAIM made?

   Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 1:30pm

5. Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008

   Victory is right around the corner! Two, maybe six weeks, tops!

   "...achieve the goal of promoting liberal democracy in the Middle East."----Posted by marybretbrad at 05/31/2008

   How are we doing this again? Oh yeah, by hiring Blackwater to cruise around in Humvees, shooting anything and everything that moves that they see.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 05/31/2008 @ 3:03pm

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZX1odzHdAo&feature=related

   Posted by MATTMAN at 05/31/2008 @ 3:24pm

7. Posted by Lillian at 05/31/2008

   What I am struck by, Lillian, is the degree to which you and others here consider failure in Iraq to be not only a foregone conclusion, but seemingly something to be desired. It's apparently a tenet of faith with you that leads you to dismiss the fact that Al Quaida in Iraq is, as our CIA recently reported, defeated, and that the country is slowly returning to a civilized state. Why you seem to wish the opposite is what I find so curious.

   Posted by pontificus at 05/31/2008 @ 4:24pm

8. I am sure many of you have heard the song, I have a crush on Obama.

   Well, here are some lyrics for I had a Brush with Obama, sung to the same tune. Enjoy

   I Had a Brush with Obama (And I Lost)(sung to the tune, with slight variation, of "I Got a Crush on Obama)

   I was a Yale and Wellesley Girl Never knew about being poor But then I met Bill and became his whore Rose Law Firm but I wanted more An Attorney General's wife I was secure But I wanted even more The Governor's mansion was Arkansas lore But the paltry salary was a chore.

   So like Barack at Convention 2-Oh-4,. In 1988 Bill was given the Floor Alas my advice Bill did ignore His speech an abysmal bore And when he said "in conclusion" they all cheered Our political future kicked in the rear Foretelling what was in store That I'd have a Brush with Obama That I'd have a Brush with Obama

   And then the "Comeback Kid" Bill was defined Despite Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones dropping a dime, Like Bush, I had a politically royal blood line Too bad Barack wouldn't bide his time So I had a brush with Obama So I had a brush with Obama And I lost, but I don't care I'm still with Bill, where the money is near Screw 2008, eight years later ain't too late, Even though I Iost a Brush with Obama

   I am opportunist at heart, With Billy I got an early start And so I learned to stick by my man Although my move to New York was a sham. And when I scared Rudy away Elected to the Senate, I was talk of the dayBut then, like the other political whores, I glimpsed presidential opportunity and said yes to war.

   I never read the National Intelligence Report War fervor, I thought there'd be no retort But unknown and a thousand miles away A lowly state senator was having his say

   Six years later the war is still on The people now realizing it was a con But the press already had me crowned A new President allegedly found

   But then out of the blue Barack did appear With a pledge to restore our integrity The invective I let fly the folks didn't buy Yes I lost my Brush with Obama. I lost my Brush with Obama.

   So I'll have to wait past 2008 Because Barack Obama was simply the best candidate And tho I tried in vain to retaliate There was no way in hell I could break the spell of Obama Girl's Sell, And I ultimately fell Yes, I had a Brush with Obama (And I lost)

   Posted by bobforer at 05/31/2008 @ 4:31pm

9. Posted by bobforer at 05/31/2008

   Gee, that's great Bob. Now, can you sing us a round of 'God Damn America'?

   Posted by pontificus at 05/31/2008 @ 4:33pm

10. You other choice is to have every last soldier home within a week, but Al Qeda will take over the government within a month and there are no promises after that.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/31/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    This is seriously whay you think, Darin? These are the only two choices you can see?

    For heavan's sake, you CAN'T possibly be so completely devoid of the ability think rationally. If US troops withdraw from Iraq, you believe "Al Qeda will take over the government within a month"?

    This makes sense to you?

    My God man...turn off Rush, enagage your brain, do some research, learn about history, and about what is going on in the present.

    ** Then relfect on my accusation that Liberals and Democrats are more selfish. **

    Reflect on the first rule of holes, Darin.

    You are in one...it's getting incredibly deeper...and yet you continue to dig.

    I've pretty much lost faith in your ability to reason. You are punch-drunk on the kool-aide of the wingnut right.

    And you are beginning to sound pathetic.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/01/2008 @ 01:52am

11. You missed her point entirely. You choose a simple black and white yes or no proposition when the situation is much more nuanced. You assume Al-Qaeda could rule Iraq, a Sunni organization that has huge antipathy for the Shi'ites, who form 60% of the population of Iraq. Couple that with the fact that Iraq has had little tradition of radicalism (well before we showed up) and the odds of your situation coming to fruition are next to nil.

    But let's play this game by your rules. Is Allah therefore going to give us the financial resources to stay in Iraq? Or do we muddle the paycheck for another decade? Do we suffer another decade of infrastructural neglect and spiking tax rates just too flush down the rabbit hole JUST for their sakes? (If you think we can keep borrowing to stay in Iraq you're even more delusional than I thought.) What, exactly, is our net gain out of this? A stable democracy doesn't automatically translate into an ally or even a check to Iran. Iraq could democratically decide to nationalize its oil and choose to sell it all to China, so no help there. Simply wishing for a stable democracy doesn't necessarily benefit us.

    So let's go the other way. Given the premises I gave earlier, the odds of Al-Qaeda being able to dominate a primarily Shi'a country for any length of time without either instilling a huge bloodbath or a compromise of their principles so huge they lose their operational effectiveness are so long that even that becomes toothless. After all, we dealt with the Taliban until they stabbed us in the back.

    So by your premise the situation itself is flawed. It's not even a Sophie's choice, it's two theoretical impossibilities. So either modify your premise or choose another argument.

    Posted by yutsano at 06/01/2008 @ 3:08pm

12. Given a hypothetical choice between A and B which would you pick? It's a simple question.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/1/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Actually Darin, it's a 'simplistic' question. And one that highlights your complete lack of understanding regarding what is actually happening in Iraq. As Yutsano pointed out, you've missed the point entirely.

    You lay out 2 possibilities, neither of which is rational, and ask me to pick one. Tell you what Darin, Pick two possibilites...that are actually POSSIBILITIES. Then maybe we can have a conversation about which one makes more sense. Right now, neither of your possibilites makes any sense whatsoever.

    And BTW, I'm neither impressed nor intimidated by your GRE scores. I mean really, talk about "childish attempts at intimidation"...that one was pathetic.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/01/2008 @ 5:34pm

13. So, now put that 'formidable' intellect to work Darin, and explain how al Qaeda is going to "take over the government within a month" if US ground troops leave Iraq.

    Then, when you are done making that case, explain how if we "leave US troops in Iraq for the next decade"..."Iraq will be on an irreversible path to a western-style liberal democracy".

    Really, I want to here your explaination.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/01/2008 @ 5:39pm

14. If support for Bin Ladden went from 80% to 4%, as you claim, how is Al Queda going to take over the Iraqi government? Either we succeeded in defeating them, or they're going to storm Bagdad after we leave. You can't have it both ways, so YOU pick one.

    Posted by Maxzj05 at 06/01/2008 @ 10:27pm

15. Hey everyone! What's happening?? I love this crap about predicting what's going to happen in Iraq. How could you have any idea? You're sitting online reading an article. All the research in the world won't bring you closer to a clue, much less the answer.

    I wonder what I would do if a foreign government invaded my country against the wishes of the rest of the world (not to mention MY country)? Would I, a) welcome them with open arms ("yay, invade me!") or b) be really pissed off and try to make things very difficult for them? I imagine that, even if I didn't like who my president/leader/dictator/jackoff was, I would still choose B. And I would never quit until I died. I would teach my children to hate that foreign government too. Be a democracy. Better yet, embrace Jesus!!

    Maybe stupid people who don't understand that the entire basis for the war was a lie DO have buyer's remorse and want to get the hell out. Is that really a shock to anyone? You're right. Let's stay in Iraq. Then, let's bring back Jim Crow. Better yet, slavery! If 70% of people thought one way 5 years ago, they must still be right! The world is flat! The sun revolves around the Earth! That woman must be a witch! Mary was a virgin!

    All stupid ideas are changed by the few, not the many. This is why you can't have an every man's man be the president. If I feel like I can sit back and have a beer with someone and talk about sports, THEN I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM. A regular dude can't run a city, much less a country.

    I won't ever return to this thread, so I hope all goes well and this BS reaches someone. No one of consequence will ever read it, nor have they read any of your posts. I hope you keep believing that you are the voice of the nation (good pun??) and yadda yadda.

    Posted by robyrob at 06/02/2008 @ 01:03am

16. Marybredbrad,

    You may be smart, but you are so stupid to believe that our unauthorized military action will bring a liberal democracy to this poor country with inbred and cultural hatreds amongst the various fighting groups. There never will be a liberal democracy in Iraq. OK, Saddam is gone... Whoopee! Maybe our President should be tried too for all the atrocities committed for the sake of a liberal democracy which will never be. Vincent Bugliosi has it right, Bush and his cohorts should be tried for murder of our poor fighting men.

    Posted by russius at 06/02/2008 @ 06:29am

17. Okay, this is pretty funny. The idea that God would value your opinion of His own... that's not the part of the hypothetical that is irrational. No, what is irrational is that God would ask you to choose between two thing you don't think will happen.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/1/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Uh Darin, you now you claim these are two possibilities that God came up with? Seriously...have gone complete nuts?

    No matter how you phrase it, God didn't...and wouldn't...come up with these two possibilites. I notice you can't explain how either of your possibilities is rational. You didn't even try.

    Really, if you are going to ascribe two completely irrational choices as coming from God, why didn't you just claim them as, oh turning Iraq into the Garden of Eden (but yoo have to accept the complete and total rule ofof all branches of the US governemnt by Democrats for the next century) vs turning it into a molten lake of fire and everybobdy in Iraq dies, al Qaeda, our troops, women, children, everyone (but you get to keep the White House in Republican hands for the next century). So, what's your choice?

    Darin, you want an answer to your question? Know this about me, I only answer rational questions. I'll even answer this one...if you can explain how the two choices are rational. So go ahead...explain.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/02/2008 @ 10:04am

18. Sorry, more shitty news out of Iraq. It looks like we're winning:

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/2/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Sure thing Darin. We've really 'turned the corner.'

    Trouble is, just like the last 100 times we 'turned the corner' in Iraq, we discovered the road ahead, just consists of a bunch more corners.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/02/2008 @ 10:06am

19. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup...

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/2/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    Wait, I thought you said it was al Qaeda that was going to take over Iraq. (That IS what you said Darin.) Now it's al-Sadr?

    Do you even understand the difference between "the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr" and "al Qaeda"?

    Or do you think they are just all the same?

    Posted by Lillian at 06/02/2008 @ 10:11am

20. there are no liberal democracies in the mid east, Israel excepted, and they're not particularly liberal these days.

    if that was our goal, we could have spared ourselves the war by starting with an easier one, say Saudi or even Kuwait.

    Mbb is a fool, dumb as a stick. it's a shame that he takes up the time of his intellectually superiors. same goes for bridgefig.

    the ignore button will set you free.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/02/2008 @ 10:35am

21. Then relfect on my accusation that Liberals and Democrats are more selfish.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 05/31/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    You only want to lob gratuitous insults.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/1/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Speaking of gratuitous insults...

    ...you apparently have a major problem with your short-term memory.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/02/2008 @ 1:53pm

22. And Darin, since you chose to completely ingore reality over on the Ron Paul thread, here are some ACTUAL facts statistics (you know, as opposed to your lame fantasies) about Republicans and Democrats.

    And here are my final thoughts on Darin's lame diversion...

    You brought up divorce, welfare, spousal abuse, etc. and tried to link them (statistcally, no less) to being 'Democrat'. Really pretty pathetic.

    Instead try doing some actual research and looking at actual statistics.

    In which states (Republican or Democrat) do we find the highest rates of divorce? (Here, I already did the research for you.) The top 10, in order...

    Nevada, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Wyoming, Indiana, Alabama, Idaho, New Mexico, Florida. (Next in line are Arizona, Kentucky, and Mississippi)

    Now tell us again about how Republicans 'love' more.

    How about teen pregnancy? Which states have the highest rates, Republican or Democrat? (Here, I already did the research for you.) The top 10, in order...

    Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Arkansas, Luisiana, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee. (Next up are Nevada, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Kentucky, and Colorado.)

    Which states receive the most Federal aide (you know - you guys like to call it welfare...a handout...feeding at the government trough, on other people's money). Do think the top 10 will be Republican or Democrat? (Here, I already did the research for you again) The top 10, in order...

    New Mexico, Mississippi, N. Dakota, W. Virginia, Montana, Arkansas, Alabama, Virginia, Hawaii, S. Dakota. (Next up are Oklahoma and Luisiana).

    Now tell us again who's more 'selfish'?

    You see Darin. I could go on like this all day. Poverty rates? Spousal abuse? Sexually transmitted deseases? Unemplolyment? Low vs higher education rates?

    REAL statistics Darin. And they completely REFUTE your 'lame claim'.

    Posted by Lillian at 06/02/2008 @ 1:58pm

23. of course the divorcers love more. they practice serial polygamy.

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/02/2008 @ 2:01pm

24. Finally, my point was about selfishness (wrt welfare), not about divorce, abuse, or durg use, so your stats are irrelevant to the discussion of selfishness. I can understand why you'd want to change the subject, but I'm not taking the bait.

    Posted by marybretbrad at 06/2/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    .

    Your point was to make a gratuitous insult to "liberals" which you ave been unable to back.

    You originally tried to claim that birth rates proved your point...because you claimed 'parental love' was the most 'unselfish' love.

    When that fell apart, as 'proof', you created a false choice, based on a fantasy. (two choices for which you are STILL unable provide a coherent rationale.)

    I tried to pull you back to reality with actual facts, Darin. Divorce is a selfish act...that's pretty obvous. So is drug abuse. So is spousal abuse.

    What about taking government handouts? and teen pregnancy (a moment of pleasure). Selfish? Or not?

    I keep trying to pull you back to a reality-based discussion.

    However, you seem too stuck on your little 'gratuitous insult' to discuss reality. Why?

    Posted by Lillian at 06/02/2008 @ 6:01pm