Debate Prep: Put Poverty on the Agenda Tonight | "As you work to find a solution to the global financial crisis, please do not waiver in your support for the world's poorest people."
John Nichols
Posted at 5:18 PM EST
Bush's Failing Financial "Surge" | How the Bush administration applied Iraq-style methods to its financial Katrina.
Tom Engelhardt
Expert Failure | How the elites failed us.
Christopher Hayes
Who's Watching the Fox at Treasury? | As the Bush administration outsources management of the bailout bonanza, how many more Goldman Sachs alums will fill these critical posts?
Katrina vanden Heuvel
S. Dakota Goes After Choice (Again) | Meet the Rev. Steve Hickey. He believes that S. Dakota has been chosen by God to upend Roe v. Wade.
Peter Rothberg
Brits Say: We Can't Win in Afghan | More troops will make it worse, not better. They add: It's time to negotiate with the Taliban.
Robert Dreyfuss
Palin: “Just Trying to Give Tina Fey More Material" | Veep candidate declares Afghanistan "our neighboring country."
John Nichols
Are You the Very Model of a Modern Vice-President? | Sarah's not the only one with a special skill.
Katha Pollitt
RSS
How many times did FRANKGRITS vote?!?!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/14/2007
Mike Gravel is the only candidate who can get us out of iraq
Posted by razia at 09/14/2007
Granted, these Nation online polls are completely unscientific yet they can be informative if the questions have some meaningful angles and the comments section draws some insightful replies.
That said, this particular question is largely worthless. All talk of withdrawal plans by presidential candidates is just that, talk. So the Hillary "choice" becomes a default slamdunk.
I, for one, would like to see The Nation address some of the large overarching issues that are impeding progress on say....serious actions to combat global warming and dramatically reduce our dependence on oil for example. The overarching condition that has America parallyzed is the ongoing collapse of the two party system --The System as Newsweek's latest Hillary cover story calls it.
The System has reached a critical level of dysfunction. How long must we wait to begin an overhaul?
"Too long" is the increasingly likely answer to the detriment of all of us.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/14/2007
So many supporters of Clinton and her indefinite occupation. Should she be inaugurated in 2009, we'll hardly notice.
Posted by trippin at 09/15/2007
Nice to see Kucinich take a lead in this poll, for whatever it's worth.
Here is a worthwhile take on the American political morass, and terminal bout of cranial rectumitis that afflicts the Democratic leadership:
Will the Democrats Betray Us? By FRANK RICH
SIR, I don't know, actually": The fact that America's surrogate commander in chief, David Petraeus, could not say whether the war in Iraq is making America safer was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington. Everything else was a verbal quagmire, as administration spin and senatorial preening fought to a numbing standoff.
Not that many Americans were watching. The country knew going in that the White House would win its latest campaign to stay its course of indefinitely shoveling our troops and treasure into the bottomless pit of Iraq. The only troops coming home alive or with their limbs intact in President Bush's troop "reduction" are those who were scheduled to be withdrawn by April anyway. Otherwise the president would have had to extend combat tours yet again, mobilize more reserves or bring back the draft.
On the sixth anniversary of the day that did not change everything, General Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not. Last Sunday, Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.'s Osama bin Laden unit, explained why. He wrote in The Daily News that Al Qaeda, under the de facto protection of Pervez Musharraf, is "on balance" more threatening today that it was on 9/11. And as goes Pakistan, so goes Afghanistan. On Tuesday, just as the Senate hearings began, Lisa Myers of NBC News reported on a Taliban camp near Kabul in an area nominally controlled by the Afghan government we installed. It is training bomb makers to attack America.
Little of this registered in or beyond the Beltway. New bin Laden tapes and the latest 9/11 memorial rites notwithstanding, we're back in a 9/10 mind-set. Bin Laden, said Frances Townsend, the top White House homeland security official, "is virtually impotent." Karen Hughes, the Bush crony in charge of America's P.R. in the jihadists' world, recently held a press conference anointing Cal Ripken Jr. our international "special sports envoy." We are once more sleepwalking through history, fiddling while the Qaeda not in Iraq prepares to burn.
This is why the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, including those more accurate than Mr. Bush's recent false analogies, can take us only so far. Our situation is graver than it was during Vietnam.
Certainly there were some eerie symmetries between General Petraeus's sales pitch last week and its often-noted historical antecedent: Gen. William Westmoreland's similar mission for L.B.J. before Congress on April 28, 1967. Westmoreland, too, refused to acknowledge that our troops were caught in a civil war. He spoke as well of the "repeated successes" of the American-trained South Vietnamese military and ticked off its growing number of combat-ready battalions. "The strategy we're following at this time is the proper one," the general assured America, and "is producing results."
Those fabulous results delayed our final departure from Vietnam for another eight years — just short of the nine to 10 years General Petraeus has said may be needed for a counterinsurgency in Iraq. But there's a crucial difference between the Westmoreland show of 1967 and the 2007 revival by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Westmoreland played to a full and largely enthusiastic house. Most Americans still supported the war in Vietnam and trusted him; so did all but a few members of Congress, regardless of party. All three networks pre-empted their midday programming for Westmoreland's Congressional appearance.
Our Iraq commander, by contrast, appeared before a divided and stalemated Congress just as an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that most Americans believed he would overhype progress in Iraq. No network interrupted a soap opera for his testimony. On cable the hearings fought for coverage with Britney Spears's latest self-immolation and the fate of Madeleine McCann, our latest JonBenet Ramsey stand-in.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could grab an hour of prime television time only by slinking into the safe foxhole of Fox News, where Brit Hume chaperoned them on a gloomy, bunkerlike set before an audience of merely 1.5 million true believers. Their "Briefing for America," as Fox titled it, was all too fittingly interrupted early on for a commercial promising pharmaceutical relief from erectile dysfunction.
Even if military "victory" were achievable in Iraq, America could not win a war abandoned by its own citizens. The evaporation of that support was ratified by voters last November. For that, they were rewarded with the "surge." Now their mood has turned darker. Americans have not merely abandoned the war; they don't want to hear anything that might remind them of it, or of war in general. Katie Couric's much-promoted weeklong visit to the front produced ratings matching the CBS newscast's all-time low. Angelina Jolie's movie about Daniel Pearl sank without a trace. Even Clint Eastwood's wildly acclaimed movies about World War II went begging. Over its latest season, "24" lost a third of its viewers, just as Mr. Bush did between January's prime-time address and last week's.
You can't blame the public for changing the channel. People realize that the president's real "plan for victory" is to let his successor clean up the mess. They don't want to see American troops dying for that cause, but what can be done? Americans voted the G.O.P. out of power in Congress; a clear majority consistently tell pollsters they want out of Iraq. And still every day is Groundhog Day. Our America, unlike Vietnam-era America, is more often resigned than angry. Though the latest New York Times-CBS News poll finds that only 5 percent trust the president to wrap up the war, the figure for the (barely) Democratic-controlled Congress, 21 percent, is an almost-as-resounding vote of no confidence.
Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood — are we safer? — was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate.
Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created.
It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important — dare one say it? — than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate need all the unity and focus they can muster to move this story forward, and that starts with the two marquee draws, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's essential to turn up the heat full time in Washington for any and every legislative roadblock to administration policy that they and their peers can induce principled or frightened Republicans to endorse.
They should summon the new chief of central command (and General Petraeus's boss), Adm. William Fallon, for tough questioning; he is reportedly concerned about our lapsed military readiness should trouble strike beyond Iraq. And why not grill the Joint Chiefs and those half-dozen or so generals who turned down the White House post of "war czar" last fall? The war should be front and center in Congress every day.
Mr. Bush, confident that he got away with repackaging the same bankrupt policies with a nonsensical new slogan ("Return on Success") Thursday night, is counting on the public's continued apathy as he kicks the can down the road and bides his time until Jan. 20, 2009; he, after all, has nothing more to lose. The job for real leaders is to wake up America to the urgent reality. We can't afford to punt until Inauguration Day in a war that each day drains America of resources and will. Our national security can't be held hostage indefinitely to a president's narcissistic need to compound his errors rather than admit them.
The enemy votes, too. Cataclysmic events on the ground in Iraq, including Thursday's murder of the Sunni tribal leader Mr. Bush embraced two weeks ago as a symbol of hope, have never arrived according to this administration's optimistic timetable. Nor have major Qaeda attacks in the West. It's national suicide to entertain the daydream that they will start doing so now.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2007
Biased poll! The Clinton so-called plan is described with a subjective comment that the plan is "realistic", but no such commentary appears for any of the other candidates.
Posted by Metteyya at 09/16/2007
I totally agree -- this is a biased poll! What do you mean by "realistic"? Why don't you just flat out state that you are a Hillary's supporter?
This is how you create a hype about Hillary and then come up with poll results that further reinforce that hype thereby ensuring her lead at the top.
Almost everybody I talk to doesnt think Hillary is that popular, but the polls always paint a different picture. Now I understand why.
Again, this is a biased poll -- something you shouldnt be proud of as a progressive.
Posted by murnatam at 09/16/2007
Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who is a TRUE social democrat with heart, soul, and conscience. The others are pathetic frauds. So naturally DK's plan to get us out of Iraq is the most lucidly realistic one.
But of course, most Democrats will end up voting for Hilbama or some sad variation thereof, because most Democrats are pitifully lazy and uninformed, marching lock-step with the vapid mainstream that gets its news from "liberal media" outlets like CNN.
Give me a break.
Heck, even the Nation is too neutered to consider giving props to Kucinich. The Nation nurtures writers like Eric Alterman, after all, who blames Ralph Nader for al the problems in America today.
Eric Alterman, you are a funny, funny guy.
Posted by Alison Ross at 09/17/2007
FUCK HILLARY CLINTON.
Posted by toxoid at 09/17/2007
How many times did FRANKGRITS vote?!?!?
heheh
Posted by MASK 09/14/2007 @ 12:33pm
HEY, HE'S NOT THE ONLY KUCINICH FAN...
Cut off money for everything except airfare for the troops! Defund the U.S. occupation of Iraq! (Then defund Cheney.)
Posted by w_m_bear at 09/17/2007
So WHY does Hillary have to wait until she's elected to do something about Iraq??? Isn't she a U.S. Senator?? WHAT is her job??? She wants to continue to brainwash the already brainwashed sheeple into believing that they MUST get her elected IF we want her to get our troops out of Iraq!!!
The ONLY candidate who has the courage, intelligence and foresight to not only REALLY get us out of Iraq NOW, but who has a plan to do this by organizing with the WORLD community in order to do it safely is Dennis KUCINICH!!! Kucinich is the ONLY candidate who will ever get my vote ... even if I have to vote for him as a "write in" ... KUCINICH is THE ONE!!!
Posted by Art4Peace at 09/17/2007
In my view, Dennis' plan is the only one that can be believed. The other candidates voted to go into Iraq and, until only recently, have continually voted to fund the war. I don't think for one minute that Obama and Clinton have had some "Amazing Grace" about Iraq. They have only changed their voting habits to not fund the war because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Mr. Obama thinks we should pre-emptively invade Pakistan and Clinton (nor Edwards) objected to this.
I will not be voting for anyone else but Dennis. If I have to write his name in with a felt tip market in big block letters then that is what I will do. Hopefully it will not come to that and he will be the nominee for the Democratic Party.
VoteKUCINICH2008!
Posted by VoteKucinich at 09/18/2007
Senator JOE BIDEN has the best plan for Iraq. I can't believe he's not on the list. He's the only candidate with a real plan, not only to get the troops home, but to create stability in Iraq. We can't just leave, and obviously, we can't stay the course either. Learn more at PlanForIraq.com [planforiraq.com]
Posted by gregrichey at 09/18/2007
Dennis is the one, the only one, and I will write him in if I must.
Posted by agape at 09/18/2007
GregRichey: Dennis Kucinich not only has a REAL plan, but his plan is in the form of legislation presented to Congress (H.R.1234). Kucinich does not just "talk" about what he plans to do, he already has legislation to put those plans into action! Biden will keep U.S. forces in Iraq for many years. His plan is pretty close to what Hillary "talks" about doing "when she is elected". They can all continue to "talk" about what they "might" try to do "when they are elected", but KUCINICH presents legislation to back up his plans to take action on these plans NOW!! Check out http://www2.kucinich.us/issues to find out about all the Kucinich plans.
Posted by Art4Peace at 09/18/2007
Rather than choosing the "best of a bad lot" among the "top tier" candidats, I believe progressives have a duty to support the candidate whose views most closely mirror our own: Dennis Kucinich.
A couple of other comments. Gravel couldn't get out of bed. A clever campaign helped him defeat Ernest Gruening, one of the two Senators willing to oppose Johnson's ill-founded Gulf of Tonkin resolution that unleashed carnage on Viet Nam. In the next election he lost the primary and so damaged his opponent that it gave us decades of uninterrupted Republican larceny.
Barak Obama voted against the Iraq war resolution.
Posted by Eugene_Debs at 09/18/2007
It seems to me this is a biased poll no matter if they label it "Not statistically valid" or not.
If they had put "He's realistic" infront of Dennis's plan (which he is) I would still say it was biased.
That's not cool. I love The Nation, but that's not cool.
This is me being realistic.
GO KUCINICH!
Posted by theplunkett at 09/18/2007
Oh! bama and Hil-o-ree are merely posturing that they have a plan for extracting us from Iraq, sounds good and makes good copy and that is what they want. Kucinich and Edwards on the other hand don't pussy foot around. Like Kucinich, Edwards has pushed for congress to tighten the purse strings to cut funding, plus his call to withdraw 40K to 50K troops and to be OUT by summer of '08 to me makes the most sense.
Posted by Bumpa at 09/18/2007
EUGENE_DEBS: Barack Obama DID NOT vote for or against the Iraq war resolution (authorization to invade) he was not in Congress at the time. Since he has been in Congress, he has voted to support the war by continuing to fund the war ... so has Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd!! Barack has only been in Congress a few years. Kucinich, on the other hand, is serving his 6th term in Congress and has been on politics over 40 years beginning at the age of 23!
KUCINICH is the BEST!!
Posted by Art4Peace at 09/19/2007
Vote Hillary and Obama in as President and VP. Hire Kucinich to get out of Iraq. * years Hillary, 8 Year Obama, * years of a well selected VP for Obama
They need to replace the current draconian Neocon Plan with a Truman Plan(if you remember is was renamed the Marshall Plan). Create a sense of real hope. Stop backstabbing other countries in the back. Embrace inter Americas Trade. Pay Off the National Debt. Allow the Consumer Power Generation Product development to BLOOM becoming the new IT Industry. That will force the power supply and generation industry to compete for goods and services. Instead of dominating the way the do. Force Insurance Companies, and Medical Industry to compete for our dollars instead of stealing and selecting.
Create a ESPECIAL MILITARY DRAFT for all those ardent Bushies and Neos that support the war. Send ALL of them "over there" before it is all over AND so they can Win it. That way they can come home as HEROS one way or the other.
Viva las Vegas!!
Posted by Isador at 09/19/2007
This poll misrepresents Barack Obama's plan. He introduced legislation in January that would have begun withdrawl in May and ENDED in March of 08.
Edwards can talk all he wants..he voted for this war to begin with and he's not voting on anything, so well... talk is cheap John. I like the man a lot, but this is making promises you don't have to stand behind right now. He did the politically expedient thing at the beginning, and he's doing the same thing now.
Hillary... realistic? Lying, conniving are better words. She voted for the war, against the Levin amendment, and was saying we should 'stay the course' --in those words--long into it. She never changed her stance until the war was overwhelmingly unpopular. She changes her positions depending on who she's talking to and always has. What she would actually do as president, no one can ever bet on.
Dennis, bless his heart, has always been staunchly against this war and deserves a lot of credit for it. Unfortunately he too often talks about getting troops out NOW, which is a physical impossibility logistically. Also, the American people polled in the high 60's wanting a withdrawl within a year, with benchmarks. They were also overwhelmingly against cutting off funds, believing it would leave the troops unsafe while they were trying to get out.
Obama was against the war at a time when it was politically dangerous to be so, during a heated campaign when the war was very popular, and he called the results to a tee. His plan followed what a large majority of Americans wanted. If it had passed, we'd be months into it by now.
Posted by bklynsam at 09/19/2007
I find myself in a dilemma. I would dearly like to see the end to the psychological barrier against electing a Black, Hispanic, Young Person, or Woman to the White House. But I also want the best person for the job. And that’s more important. I’m in favour of positive discrimination, but not when it comes to putting the World into the hands of someone who continues Bush’ arrogant strutting about, threatening Pakistan with nuking them (even if he later backed down on the nuclear facet of the threat...) or openly or silently agreeing with those threats. We have a range of Democrat candidates falling over themselves to prove to egg-on-their-faced Republicans that they’re just as butch as Bush. Hillary? We have a description for people like her in Britain: “All mouth and trousers.” Figure it out for yourselves... (And don’t discount me as a foreigner: I’m an expat US citizen and WILL be voting.) She offered us a comprehensive health care plan during Bill’s first campaign, then allowed it all to fall apart without putting up a real fight. (And now she’s accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from vested-interest insurance companies and the tobacco industry. How’s THEM apples for caring about poor people’s health?) But I’m sidetracking from the issue (frustrated that I’m too late to comment on your “Hillary/feminism” vote). Clinton and Edwards voted to start the war. Edwards was a member of the Select Senate Commitee on Intelligence and DIDN’T READ vital documents refuting Bush’ lies. Obama didn’t vote to start the war, because he wasn’t in office at the time. But he’s voted for continued spending since elected. So, much as I’d love to see a Young Native American Single-Parent Lesbian as President, I’ll be voting for a 62-year-old (still young, mind you) white heterosexual male, Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate who’s voted against the war steadfastly from the beginning, who does his homework on vital issues and doesn’t depend on ill-informed aids to spoon-feed him THEIR conclusions. (Or Megabuck lobbyists to fund his campaign and cash in their favours later.) And I add my voice to those others who call on you so-called progressive journalists to stop dancing to the tune of Big-Business-controlled Mass Media, and to give Dennis the serious coverage that he deserves. A word to the Clinton/Obama/Edwards fans: it’s SO easy to treat Dennis as a kook, a loser, a no-hoper, a joke, isn’t it? Especially if you forget that he’s been consistently right on issues over which your darlings have fallen flat on their faces... AND I ECHO THE CRITICISM OF BIAS IN THIS POLL. Much as I’m pleased to see Kucinich, the Kook, included: Why do you have to use such leading words as “He’s clear”, “She’s realistic”, “He’s got a plan”, and leave out HALF the Dem candidates? You see? I may be a Kucinich fan, but I do believe in fair play (actually, that seems to be an attribute of many of Dennis’ fans.) ps I invite all you readers to take a “blind taste test” at http://www.dehp.net/candidate/ and see which candidate REALLY agrees with you.
Posted by caltemps at 09/19/2007
"When you choose the lesser of two evils, you still end up with evil" as Kucinich said on the Ed Schulz show. Kucinich has had the only practical exit strategy for Iraq all along and it has been on his website since August 2003. A couple of the other candidates are copying parts of his plan but Dennis had the original. The big mirage on health care is that the other candidates are offering mandatory health plans that leave insurance companies in control. So long as insurance companies run the show, premiums will continue to go up, copays up, deductibles up. The Kucinich plan removes insurance companies from control and, instead of nearly a third of the money Americans pay for health care being diverted into high executive salaries, lobbying, marketing, advertising etc., about 98% goes directly into treating people. It is important to note that we are already paying for universal health care but not receiving it. Under his plan, there will be no more premiums, copays or deductibles. Kucinich has the most comprehensive, practical and innovative platform. He never has and never will sell his soul to big corporate interests. Don't settle for the lesser of two evils anymore--support Kucinich!
Posted by gkaba at 09/19/2007
Kucinich has the only "realistic" plan. A simple majority in the house or 41 senators could defund the war. The democrats could do it if they wanted to. Why not ask who has the best plan to stay out of Iran or broker a peace in Palestine-Israel? Kucinich has been the only consistent opposition to the Iraq war; the only one of the bunch who opposed the bombing of Serbia's infrastructure (something Hillary, Biden, and Richardson all want to take credit for); and the only one who even attempts to see both sides of the Israeli-Arab struggle. And Gravel, he supported the war in Vietnam for six years; he waged an ugly campaign against Ernest Gruening, a true opponent of the war; he sure didn't support McGovern when he had the chance; and he supports a tax plan which lowers what the wealthy would pay. lnh--all truley great ideas are simple ones--l.tolstoy
Posted by lnh at 09/19/2007
Hell yeah for Dennis Kucinich! I don't have to say anything about how much integrity Dennis has, how much vision he has, or how intelligent and charismatic he is. You can watch for yourself. heck out these links:
Official DK webpage.. be sure to sign up for the Action Center and donate to his campaign! [kucinich.us] Official DK YouTube channel [youtube.com] DK on MySpace [myspace.com] DK on Facebook [facebook.com] Students for Kucinich [studentsforkucinich.com]
Posted by askantik at 09/20/2007
Bush’s stay the course plan is insanity. The military does not have the manpower to accomplish “The Mission,” whatever that might be today. Petraeus’s plan essentially parrots the same concept. A phased withdrawal also makes no sense since it would try to accomplish the mission while steadily reducing the only military force capable of holding a status quo.
We cannot rely on the Iraqi government or military to be more successful than we have been. A quick complete withdrawal would at least end the sacrifice of our troops and treasure, but it certainly would not accomplish the mission and would allow Iran free reign to dominate Iraq and perhaps more of the region including Saudi Arabia.
The obvious goal is to keep Iran in check. We should withdraw from the populated areas of Iraq and establish bases in unpopulated areas or Kuwait equipped with the air power, weapons and forces needed to counter the Iranian threat. This could be done with a much smaller U.S. force such as we have in put in place in other strategic locations, like South Korea. So, Obama’s plan, barring details, seems closest. By the way, they are all closely associated with the Council on Foreign Relations, except for Kucinich; so whatever they are preaching now, take it with a large helping of salt.
Posted by rgoodman1 at 09/20/2007
I am going with Kucinich because he will get all our troops out of Iraq. Also,he will get us out of the WTO and NAFTA. I want also to see tariffs in place to keep the junk products out and redevelop this country with new industries along with the jobs that will go with them. I am really tired of these wimpy Democrats in Congress trying to regulate a fail trade policy.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 09/20/2007
It really doesn't matter, does it? Because no matter what plan a candidate has when running for their party's nomination will be totally different then their plan once nominated. Which of course will be totally different from what they would actually do, or be able to do, if elected. The reality of political life in the U.S. must be deeply disturbing to the majority of The Nation's readers. You can see this frustration in almost every post, on almost every poll question.
Posted by bean22 at 09/24/2007
Where'S Joe Biden?
Posted by MaMc at 10/7/2007
There is only one major party candidate who has opposed the war since the beginning and who consistently opposes military intervention as a matter of principle: Ron Paul
Register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in '08!
Posted by Avi Marranazo at 10/8/2007
The answer is none of the above. When pressed for answers on this subject, not one of them has ever, to my knowledge, publicly advocated complete withdrawl of all American military personnel from Iraq. Face it, folks, these so-called candidates are just mouthpieces for whichever corporate heads own them. It's the same with all of the Republican cadidates, with the exception of Dr. Ron Paul. And honestly, he IS the only decent choice.
Posted by Billy Reuben at 10/8/2007
I only see 4 choices, none of which are the answer.
Biden's plan along the Bosnia model does offer some reasoned chance at minimizing the sectarian bloodbath.
Richardson's vow to completely withdraw the US armed forces in his first year while pouring all US effort into diplomacy is the most solid proposal for ending US involvment in the war.
Posted by TomWatson at 10/10/2007
Dennis Kucinich!. * He's clear: Immediate withdrawal within 3 months * He's got a plan: Dennis Kucinich is the only democrat running for President who voted against authorizing the war in Iraq and against funding its continuation. Not only does he say he's got a plan, he co-sponsored a bill back in January 2007, H. R. 1234, ending the occupation of Iraq immediately. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1234
Posted by Annie Stueber at 10/13/2007