Presidentials Need To Show Leadership On Iraq

All of our Presidential candidates in the Senate had a chance to question General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker yesterday, and all of them did a decent enough job, though Obama and Clinton used it more as an opportunity to speechify than ask tough questions. Now all of them are on the campaign trail, and they more than anyone else have the opposition megaphone for the Democratic Party. They are running to be the leaders of the free world, so they must lead now, and tell the nation not just what they'll do about Iraq in 18 months should they become President, but what they'll do right now to end the tragic occupation of Iraq.

Chris Dodd has stepped up the most among elected candidates.



He's challenging all other candidates to publicly reject any bill that doesn't enforceable deadlines for withdrawing our combat troops. John Edwards has already announced that there should be no funding without a timeline, which is actually a stronger statement because it speaks to the type of bill that should be put forward, not what the individuals should vote on.

Hillary Clinton today sent a letter to the President (Congress is the only home to inveterate letter-writers these days) asking the President to tell the truth in his speech to the nation tomorrow. She rightly highlights the fact that the surge was planned to end next summer anyway, and so any drop to pre-surge levels is not a troop cut in any way, and she urges a more rapid redeployment. Whether she will do more than send a letter remains to be seen.

Barack Obama is a more interesting case. He's been planning a substantial speech on Iraq all week. He's giving it today in CLINTON, Iowa. And it's apparently very strong.

“Conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war. The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite – or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.”

“There is something unreal about the debate that’s taking place in Washington… The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand. The American people have had enough of the shifting spin. We’ve had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We’ve had enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world. We’ve had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged.”

"I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now.”

This is nice rhetoric that I really appreciate in regard to his future judgment. What it says about the current battle in the Senate over Iraq is unclear.

Chris Dodd has the right idea, but the candidates should unite on this issue. The Democratic Party needs to stand up against the just another six months mentality that perpetuates this failed war. I do think that Democratic leaders consider this so-called "troop cut" an insult to their intelligence. I heard Russ Feingold on NPR yesterday say that the mood appeared to be turning among Democrats on Capitol Hill. They have an obligation to pressure the President as much as possible, to get as many concessions as possible in exchange for that funding, and to deny it if there is no meaningful drawdown plan. The Presidentials are the key to that.