I agree. Republicans have a variety of positions on Iran. Democratic groupthink means that all the mainstream condidates are looking for ways and excuses to surrender.

How often do we have to learn that, Everything BushCo says is a lie?

What in the world makes anyone think this gang of losers could conduct a "Just War" (if there is such a thing)?

Where is the candidate who will Just Say No? Why debate with liars?

AMERICAN HAWK: Democratic groupthink means that all the mainstream condidates are looking for ways and excuses to surrender.

How soon can they take over?

There are differences of tone and emphasis that suggest to me that Obama has been better on this subject than either Clinton or Edwards

And these differences in tone matter. When the terrorists hear Bush talk about Iran, they know he's willing to use force against Iranian terrorism because he was willing to use force against Iraqi terrorists in liberating Iraq. But when Obama talks, they see his record as a hippie peacenick who's been against every war America has been involved in for the last 50 years. This unwillingness to use force against Iranian terrorism destabilises and destroys Iraq because our Iraq allies know they can't depend on us.

Obama's type of talk is just like Stephen Douglas's attempt to appease slave owners before the Civil War. If Obama had his way, he would be opposed to Lincoln in the Civil War while supporting Stephen Douglas.

Senators are terrible at getting elected president. Do you think a Senator can win this time?

AL: Obama's type of talk is just like Stephen Douglas's attempt to appease slave owners before the Civil War. If Obama had his way, he would be opposed to Lincoln in the Civil War while supporting Stephen Douglas.

As PouletFalcone correctly states, there are several RePug positions - A is for total nuking - B is for nuking suspected nuclear sites - C is for both nuking and nerve gas - D wants to add the Bazaar to the mix.

No, while there may be no substantive differences "among" the views of the three candidates, there is no talk of surrendering to anyone.

If so, I would prefer Tierra del Fuego.

For what possible reason would you say you're leaning to Obama? Where is there anything he has said foreign policy wise that was not fluff? He was against the war when he was free to do so without having to fear electoral consequences - how on earth does that make him legitimate? It just makes him typically left wing and being typically left wing, when it comes to foreign policy at least, will not win in a general election. Clinton did what she had to do on the vote as a woman hoping to become president - it's entirely disingenuous to fault her for it! Nor should she apologize for the vote, which would show weakness and be unseemly for a person who hopes to lead: it may cost her the primary if anti-war types are allowed to rule the roost, but she has no choice in the general election if she does anything else and it's a phony argument to fault her for this.

I can't stop thinking about this.

Are we seriously considering a war with Iran? Really?

Why is there a debate? How can this be reasonable?

I thought we were already over-extended?

Is it true that none of the announced Democratic candidates are Just Saying No?

Wes Clark is over at dailykos blogging on Iran right now.

I have to disagree with Garance on this one. Sen. Clinton has a long track record of fundamentally supporting Bush's war effort, but disagreeing on some of the details. Obama has never supported the Iraq war. Edwards initially supported the war, but was a stronger critic with respect to its execution than Clinton, and admitted in 2005 that he'd been wrong to support it in the first place.

That's three very different track records.

Now, Obama has introduced a binding resolution to get us completely out of Iraq by the end of March 2008. Edwards wants us to go ahead with a substantial drawdown this year. Clinton wants Bush to get us out of Iraq by the end of his term, but makes clear she's not expecting any action: her line is that if he won't, she will - after she's inaugurated.

That's three very different positions.

I expect they've got different positions on Iran, too, but later for that.

I watched Obama on 60 Minutes and he is impressive. Very personable. My concern is that he will turn into another JFK - high points on rhetoric and idealism but not a very good president. JFK's determination to prove himself led the country into some unwise decisions, notably the escalation in Vietnam. Being so young and inexperienced, he will have to prove himself. Too much is at stake.

We need to have Congress pass something that immediately instates a draft if Bush decides to go after Iran. Just make it clear that they don't want to reopen the draft, but that one is clearly needed if this war is to continue expanding. Then let the decider "Decide" to have a draft or not.

America's national identity has been co-opted by its militancy. That makes it very difficult for any politician to be against war in Iraq, against war with Iran, against war with any perceived antagonist, and to be against having the largest most powerful military in the world. I am not leaning towards any Democratic candidate because they will use war for political gain, even if they know it is morally wrong, just like their Republican counterparts.

The more I think about that, the more I like it. Tie war with Iran to expiring Bush's tax cuts too. Don't tie his hands, just force him to make the necessary sacrifices to support his war.

@saintsimon:

Obama was running for US Senate when he came out agains the Iraq fiasco. If the conventional wisdom is true—that Dems voted for authorizing Bush to invade because they were afraid of being voted out of office—then it at least appears that Obama had a great deal to lose by opposing the war.

sorry, third paul. You can't surrender to Tierra del Fuego. Either Chile or Argentina.

Or am I indulging in cheap pop psychology, pointing out the difference?

Of course, if we find out that the TDFians are longing for freedom and democracy, (and who isn't?) we can liberate them first, and then surrender!

RT: That's three very different track records.

They're carbon-cutout opportunists whose records reflect their self-interests, not their principles.

"Obama Mouths Mush on War"

Someone explain why Bush does not talk to our natural and actual ally against Al Qeda terrorists?

Did the Bush, Al Qeda, Saudi, Sunni, oil alliance re-pair itself?

No, I think Cheney took a bribe and he and the treasonous wing oof the Republican party are providing covert support to the Al Queda homeland in Iraq.

Why is there a debate? How can this be reasonable?

Talking about Iran, as opposed to Iraq, will play to the Republican advantage if the Dems aren’t smart. If you are on the defensive always switch to offense. Talking about the foibles of Hillary Clinton and not the gross malfeasance of the hateful Dick Cheney works to the Republican advantage. Always, always make it about the failure of the opposition.

No Democrat, no matter how much they challenge one’s pious notions of liberal politics, is as bad, as ruinous to the people, to the military, and to the future of the United States, as the criminal conspiracy of authoritarians known as the Republican Party.

Obama's type of talk is just like Stephen Douglas's attempt to appease slave owners before the Civil War. If Obama had his way, he would be opposed to Lincoln in the Civil War while supporting Stephen Douglas.

that's possibly the stupidest thing i've read for weeks.

BELLUMREGIO: No Democrat, no matter how much they challenge one’s pious notions of liberal politics, is as bad, as ruinous to the people, to the military, and to the future of the United States, as the criminal conspiracy of authoritarians known as the Republican Party.

If the US were to surrender to anyone, the most benign antagonist would have to be Iran. Iran freed the spies it found at the US embassy. No other country that just had a revolution would do that. Not even the US. Since the revolution, Iran has not invaded another country or even retaliated against the US when one of our Naval vessels, sitting in Iranian waters, shot down an Iranian jetliner. Some people like to accuse Iran of helping Hezbollah, and I think it is true. Iran helped the poorest, the largest religious group, and the most oppressed people of Lebanon acheive political power in their own country. That scares American busisness persons, it scares Israel, it scares Saudi Arabia and it scares other despotic governments in the region because having people choose their own self-determination is a threat to their dominance. A threat to America's business interests is a good enough reason to attack Iran for most American politicians, Democratic or Republican.

Does ADM have Iranian interests? I hope not, because Obama might become president.

I haven't heard anyone, Democrat or Republican, explain how they will get Iran to do what we want, namely to stop interfering in Iraq and building nukes. I have no reason to think that any of the candidates would succeed in this endeavor, nor do I have confidence that Bush will do so.

ADAM: that's possibly the stupidest thing i've read for weeks.

If Hillary is elected president, we will still be fighting the war in Iraq four years later.

I believe Edwards or Obama will do what's needed to get us out.

It does seem in general artificial for people to parse big differences among the Democratic candidates on foreign policy when in virtually all germane and key respects they are the same.

Every one of them is going to get out of Iraq if they become President. And it's fair to say that UNTIL a Democrat becomes President, it's very unlikely that much of anything in fact will change in Iraq. That is Bush's call, pretty much inescapably, until he leaves office; I highly doubt that any resolution that might actually pass in the Congress could force him to withdraw before he wishes to do so.

Likewise, with regard to Iran, I'd think that the actual differences in implemented foreign policy between the candidates, once elected, would not be of significance. I'd expect that any of them would be driven first and foremost by the actual interests of the US, which in turn will largely derive from establishable facts about Iran's capabilities, actions, and dispositions. There's nothing extraordinary about this; this is how Presidents should act, and how Democratic Presidents have indeed nearly always acted.

The one wild card in this analysis, though, that troubles me is any effect of the AIPAC mob. I do think that Clinton in particular has been far too complacent in the past in the face of their demands. I expect that that has a very great deal to do with why she has been slower than anyone else to back off from her harder stance on Iraq. While her talk of negotiating with Iran in front of AIPAC was a good sign, I am very far from trusting her not to cave to their demands should push come to shove on Iran -- as it would if Israel were independently to attack Iran.

With this caveat, though, it seems just misguided for Democrats to choose their next candidate for President based on foreign policy issues. For all practical purposes, Iraq is, or should be, over as a real issue amongst the Democrats. Iran is not likely to be handled in any important way differently by them. We can pretty much count on a sensible foreign policy from any of them, I'd expect.

The real issues in the 2008 primaries and election should be domestic ones.

That is where I look for any sign of intelligence and courage among the Democratic candidates. That is where leadership is truly going to be found, if anywhere.

EX-LIBERAL: I haven't heard anyone, Democrat or Republican, explain how they will get Iran to do what we want

we will still be fighting the war in Iraq four years later.

My prediction is the US occupation of Iraq will be the number one issue of the 2012 presidential campaign, regardless of which mainstream party's candidate wins the election in 2008. I just pray to no god that an Iranian occupation is not an issue, too.

If there is one place where Republicans are most vulnerable, it is domestic policy. Of those issues, overreaching authority to the government and simultaneous trashing of its capacity to do anything constructive were the worst ( FEMA ). And reinstate habeas corpus : it should have been attended to already.

All the democrats are engaged in the dance of the sugar plum fairies. We all know what their "code words" really mean: cut and run.

Say what you want about the President - he says what he means and means what he says.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have candidates speaking with careful nuance, and then not have people parse carefully what they say.

What are we to conclude about Clinton? Her position has consistently been on hawkish side throughout the war. There's no way to know whether this is calculation or a sincere view.

There's no two ways around this--she was the last candidate to come to Jesus, and she is still doing it reluctantly.

There is no safe position left anymore--and, in the event, the "safe" position in 2002 is haunting her, the way it haunted Kerry. Edwards is off the hook. Clinton's making it harder and harder to get herself off.

Hmmm. There are differences of tone and emphasis that suggest to me that Obama has been better on this subject than either Clinton or Edwards, but Garance has a point when she reminds us that Clinton's comments about negotiating with Iran came at an AIPAC dinner, which certainly counts for something.

Why should that count for something? Are we to assume that Clinton was spinning her position misleadingly to AIPAC, so that those of us troubled with her presentation shouldn't worry, but presumably when she addresses an organization whose interests are more like our own, assume she is then presenting her position more forthrightly?

While certainly I can see why any politician would want their public statements to be looked at in that kind of way (its the most favorable approach possible), I can see no justification for it.

AL: Say what you want about the President - he says what he means and means what he says.

Democratic groupthink means that all the mainstream condidates are looking for ways and excuses to surrender.

Only an insane warmonger characterizes not initiating a (second!) unprovoked war of aggression as “surrender”.

If there is one place where Republicans are most vulnerable, it is domestic policy.

I wouldn't really agree with this.

The way I see it, the Republicans will LOSE in 2008 because of foreign policy: any Republican who makes his way through the primaries will be stuck with a policy on Iraq that will kill him in the general election.

But DEMOCRATS should choose their candidates based on DOMESTIC policy. They can safely do so, precisely because all of the Democrats will beat any Republican based on foreign policy.

I think that Democrats have a truly rare chance to choose the best potential President they can, mostly unimpeded by issues of electability. And the real discriminator will be in how willing they are to take a bold step to challenge the domestic status quo.

Say what you want about the President - he says what he means and means what he says.

Perhaps when he says it, but if so that doesn't seem to last very long. It was a priority to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive", then Bush, by his own statement, really wasn't much concerned about him; Bush was committed to pushing a UN resolution authorizing force to make other countries, if they opposed force, vote against it; then he was against a vote, etc.

Bush either only occasionally means what he says, or Bush rather frequently abandons his honest, firm commitments.

I haven't heard anyone, Democrat or Republican, explain how they will get Iran to do what we want, namely to stop interfering in Iraq and building nukes. I have no reason to think that any of the candidates would succeed in this endeavor, nor do I have confidence that Bush will do so.

You are like a child bemoaning the fact that no one has satisfactorily explained to you why you cannot eat candy all day instead of your normal meals.

Or perhaps you believe there must be a way for you to get me--and every other person in the world--to do what you want us to do.

Or perhaps you can explain why it is OK for the US to intervene half-way round the world (an unnecessary intervention based on lies and killing thousands of innocents) but not OK for Iran to intervene across its own border.

Or perhaps you could just admit your ignorance and STFU.

All three top tier candidates have similar foreign policy strategies. They are not "Shoot First, Talk Later." Edwards on "Meet the Press" gave a more fleshed out idea of what he would do with Iran. He would work with the European banks to help Iran with its economy. He understood that the Iranian people have turned against their crazy leader, but would rally to his side if Bush attacks Iran. He always links everything to the economy not only of America, but the nations we have dicey relations with. He is in favor of giving econonic aid to Muslim countries to get the children out of the madrassas.
The difference between these candidates will become apparent when we see how far each of them are willing "to go down the radical path of traditional liberalism" as John McLaughlin said yesterday on the McLaughlin Group. McLaughlin thinks that traditional liberalism's time has come back. He said the "zeitgeist" has changed. Centrism is dead.

The Chinese will not lend the United States enough money to fight until 2012. The United States cannot maintain a ground invasion of Iran. As always, it will rely on airpower to soften Iranian defenses and break the infrastructure. This will radicalize the entire Middle East and drive terrorism thus pushing for more American involvement. It is good for Israel that it is now a society behind castle walls. As with Saddam in the 1990’s the Cheney administration will try to impose a siege of Iran to further soften it up. At the same time they will try to undermine the regime from the inside.

Foreign war coupled with tax cuts means austerity plans for the American people. They will be called on to sacrifice for a war that benefits them in no way except to reduce the price of oil in the long run. But in the long run it will be too environmentally costly to burn. Oh, well. If the Republicans can hold the line they may just leave the Democrats no choice but to cut the very risk sharing programs the Democrats have advocated for, thus achieving their century-long goal of undermining the well being of the American people.

"Or perhaps you can explain why it is OK for the US to intervene half-way round the world (an unnecessary intervention based on lies and killing thousands of innocents) but not OK for Iran to intervene across its own border."

And where would we draw the line? Do we have to got to war against any country that does something we think is wrong?

No Democratic presidential candidate will be taken seriously by the insider DC media/political circuit if they come out too strongly on Iraq or Iran too soon. As we've seen with Dean and Feingold, the mere fact that you are right doesn't matter. The DC insiders get offended if you are right too soon. And once they label you a dirty fucking hippie, you wear that label for life.

With that in mind, all of the candidates are moving cautiously, incrementally towards stronger positions on both Iraq and Iran. Obama, in particular, seems to be moving fairly quickly to a "bring them home now" message on Iraq. I think he realizes that being the first candidate to say this carries major risks and rewards. The reward being that it will rally the Democratic base in a major way. The risk being that it will alienate the DC insider class, which remains extremely scared of the dirty fucking hippies.

Obama, Clinton, and Edwards

Neither of these Democratic Party candidates supports ending military aid to Isreal or will condemn the recent destruction of Lebanon by Israel with US gifted weapons.

I think I just made up my mind. None of these candidates represent me.

In cherry-picking your favorite presidential candidate at this early stage. keep in mind that Democrats need a Democratic Congress as well as a Democratic president to get done all that you seem to want done.

So, who is the Democratic candidate that not only can win the presidential election but is the best bet to draw enough support to elect the Congress?

I can think of only one.

I vote for Norway! jayarbee at 12:58 PM

In the meantime, I can't envision any Democratic candidate creating a phony causi belli for Israel's war on Iran, nor can I see any wanting to continue Bush's Iraq fiasco.

...being typically left wing... will not win in a general election....saintsimon at 1:05 PM

...explain how they will get Iran to do what we want,... ex-lax at 1:46 PM

...the islamists took heart-they were convinced they had a paper tiger on their hands.... mhr at 2:11 PM

Democratic groupthink...

What's Norway got besides beautiful busty blondes...?

I second the vote for a Norway take-over.

WELCOME TO BAGHDAD, GENERAL PETRAEUS

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Thunderous explosions and dense black smoke swirled through the center of Baghdad on Monday when at least one car bomb blew up in an underground parking garage, setting off dozens of secondary explosions and killing at least 46 people, police said. A second bombing nearby killed at least nine.

jayarbee: I haven't heard anyone, Democrat or Republican, explain from where it comes that we have the right to get other countries to "do what we want."

Two ways to anwer this:

1. Since Iran is committing acts of war against us in Iraq and they are disobeying the UN with regard to nukes, we do indeed have the right to try to make them stop these activities.

2. International law is vague. The question of whether we have a "right" cannot be unambiguously settled anywhere. However, when Iran blows up our soldiers, they're dead. If Iran gets nukes and uses them to blackmail us, our foreign policy may be screwed. Even Americans who think the US is in the wrong will share in the cost if Iran is not stopped. Many other countries will share in the cost as well. So, IMHO it's a sensible foreign policy to try to stop Iran from sending bombs into Iraq and to stop them from building nukes.

P.S. to jayarbee -- note buford's post pointing out the horrendous bombing in Baghdad. Maybe that bomb was built in Iran. Maybe the way to end that sort of atrocity is to do something to prevent Iran from sending more bombs into Iraq.

When Iran took over the US Embassy in Tehran, dove Jimmy Carter turned his cheek and the islamists took heart-they were convinced they had a paper tiger on their hands. And when Jimminy met Brezhnev, the Soviet Czar, he kissed..blah, blah, blah

mhr, I see you've borrowed ex-lib's copy of Historical Fantasies for Right-Wing Dummies. Good reading I'spose for those with inchoate fears and fantasies of power but a comic nonetheless.

EX-LIBERAL: Maybe that bomb was built in Iran. Maybe the way to end that sort of atrocity is to do something to prevent Iran from sending more bombs into Iraq.

Maybe that bomb was built in Iran. Maybe the way to end that sort of atrocity is to do something to prevent Iran from sending more bombs into Iraq.

Yes, maybe. And here is the beauty of fear and paranoia: Cheney calls it the "one-percent doctrine." Maybe Iran is sending armaments into Iraq and if there is a one-percent chance of this being the case we must act as though it were a certainty."

Leaving aside the fact that such a doctrine is an explicit expression of severe mental illness, what actual benefit would the US hope to gain by attacking Iran?

Bush himself answered "I know" when told that an attack on Iran would ensure that religious hardliners would consolidate their hold on power there. And the vast majority of the mayhem committed against our forces in Iraq comes from Sunni fighters, who happen to also be the sworn enemies of Shia-led Iran.

Does it not give you pause, ex-liberal, that the US case for implicating Iran was made anonomously?

Good grief.

Probably has already been brought up, but Obama wins in this battle. Hillary and Edwards seem to hedge towards using a Bush-lite doctrine. Obama gets back to basics when it comes to this subject.

jayarbee: Your guys build their wars on maybes. They drop bombs on tiny babies and other innocents, ripping apart their bodies, based on maybes. They imprison and torture people based on maybes. They harass brown people based on maybes. Maybe you are a serial killer. What should we do about you?

Huh? It's the liberals who are saying f*ck the brown people in Iraq. Bush says we should stay there to protect the Iraqis and prevent a bloodbath. (Even John Burns of the New York Times agrees that if we withdraw now there will be a bloodbath.)

It's the Dems who say they don't care how many Iraqis are slaughtered. It's the Dems who say 3000 American lives count for more than hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The context is entirely different. Clinton has been a steadfast supporter of the hawk position; her comments on Iran from that vantage point are naturally taken more literally; after all that is what she wanted...to be tough. Now we have her supporters telling us she is tough but peaceful. Bull. Now is the time for her to speak out against the trumped-up attempts to justify attacking Iran; or shall we wait four more years so she can whine she wasn't told the truth?

Poor Hillary.

The Clinton's ruin Howard Dean and now it looks like those lefty Liberals haven't forgotten. Its too bad that there is that passionate hate for her on right but when it's those nasty, silly lefties to del with that simply won't buy her DLC bunk, well, I call it poetic justice?

Of course Hillary Clinton is for attacking Iran. Hillary Clinton represents New York: she is funded by The Lobby: what do you expect? Read "A Clean Break: A Strategic Plan for the Realm" It is in the plan for Israel's future. The economic demolition of the US as a result of Iran's destroying the oil and gas installations on the west side of the Gulf when we have bombed Iran is of no consequence to the plan for The Thousand Year Israel.

There is a bloodbath going on in Iraq now. The bloodbath started in March 2003. There will only be a bloodbath in Iraq after the US leaves because the US invaded, beginning a cycle of violence that Bush and his supporters are trying to escalate by blaming Iran for supporting one or another faction with weapons. This cycle of violence cannot be decided successfully by Americans without killing many more masses of people. Blaming peace seekers who want a withdrawal from Iraq now for the Iraqis' sectarian wars is a provocation, but also a communication from the war camp about how they intend to use their power and how far they will go to keep it and the propaganda themes they will use to manipulate followers and hysterics.

maunga: Of course Hillary Clinton is for attacking Iran. Hillary Clinton represents New York: she is funded by The Lobby: what do you expect? Read "A Clean Break: A Strategic Plan for the Realm" It is in the plan for Israel's future. The economic demolition of the US as a result of Iran's destroying the oil and gas installations on the west side of the Gulf when we have bombed Iran is of no consequence to the plan for The Thousand Year Israel.

As a Senator from New York, Hillary will lose the anti-semitic crackpot vote. Do these people comprise a substantial percentage of Democratic primary voters?

Ms. Clinton and Mr. Edwards are both good candidates, but it seems to me that they abdicated their constitutional duties when the gave the President the authority to go to war as a last resort. I'd prefer if we had declared war properly after all of the remedies had been attempted. They had to know Bush was a liar back then; I did. Further, we are a government of laws, i.e. separation of powers, and not of people, i.e. we trust Bush.

Garanche tries to make a distinction based on substance and that is not where the difference is between the candidates when it comes to the Iraq war. What she calls substance is actually the goal. All the candidates agree the goal is to protect our nations interest.

Where they differ is on HOW to achieve the goal. The ROUTE to get there.

That is a major difference.

You can choose between someone who is willing to be agressive and use the military at all times as a threat, i.e. Hillary. You can choose someonw who is willing to use force with diplomacy like Edwards.

Or you can choose Obama who is unequivocal about the need for AGRESSIVE diplomacy.
Obama seeks to use opportunities of common interest, to recognize that the government of the people may not be advocating what the people want and to have a sustained policy of containment with diplomacy at all times being used to achieve the goal of peace.

People seem to forget that Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while Hillary is on the Armed Services Committee....two different approachs as well when it comes to our national interests.

That is the difference we are hearing. While people want to say that Obama has less experience than Edwards or Hillary. The truth is that he has more elected experience than BOTH candidates. He has 8 years of elected experience and he is presently gaining foreign policy experience in the Senate. Hillary does not have that nor does Edwards.

It is glaringly obvious in terms of the approach they are each willing to take when it comes to foreign policy.

So yes, Hillary may have the same goal as Edwards and Obama but the route she is advocating is significantly different.

Hillary is doing this to maximize her position in the General Election...she is not focused on winning the nomination. Her campaign and strategy is built to get the warhawks votes in the general election.

Obama wants America and the Democratic party united based on the principles of democracy and America being a nation among a community of nations. Diverse people with common interests and values, whether it is within our party or across oceans and continents. He works to build consensus. He is not opposed to war but he knows this is a dumb war and a dumb strategy for us as a nation. Hillary is unwilling to concede that. She believes her gender will make such a statement come across as weak on use of force for national interest.

Imagine that. Obama will always negotiate from a position of good faith globally. While Hillary will always feel a need to demonstrate she wears pants and has a set of balls, tougher than any other leader, since hers are brass.

Imagine how many more wars that posture could result in.

Hillary as Catherine de' Medici. I can see that.

online pharmacy - online pharmacy store
discount pharmacy - discount online pharmacy