Excuse me, but what about the candidates' Iraq War position?

[BelgianMadCow]

If I had to vote in the US presidential election, I would base my vote on that.

I would wonder
1) how the candidates voted on the IWR,
2) what position they have taken since (eg renouncing their IWR vote and when),
3) their current rhetoric.

It would be nice to see those things listed for each candidate, maybe a supporter of each can post a reply?

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. I'm not supporting him, but Kucinich has the best credentials...

re. Iraq: voted against it; spoke against it; voted against funding; advocates withdrawal.

I'm not supporting him 'cause , in my view, he's not electable, and we need 'electable'.

[BelgianMadCow]

2. you are right : vote on IWR, position thereafter, vote on funding, current position

that would be even better to list.

On electable : Kucinich isn't in your current system where big money donations play a large role and the media are overly concentrated without any Fairness Doctrine.

If people would be exposed to his opinions and campaign financing by corporations would be outlawed (as it is here) things would look very different.

But then again, I'm a socialist :-) which is mainstream over here.

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. I like him, glad he's running: promotes dialog that...

... needs to take place; AND his judgement is better re. Iraq, manifestly, than those of his competitors.

But the country and world will not be recognizable after another 4-8 years of what we just went thru.

Gotta pick a winner this time.

[BelgianMadCow]

4. I'd vote for him in the primaries

to give weight to his positions, and vote with the Dem nominee in the GE (I think).
But not having a viable third party is what is really troublesome to me.

Any candidate that would change campaign financing and media concentration and have an acceptable position on the Iraq War would easily get my vote in the GE, just as a basis to be able to stop moving to the right and standing A chance to move in the opposite direction.

It's really quite easy over here and it could be in the US - a majority of the people are working class. Socialists represent them the best and they get air time like the others. If you then have mandatory voting on a weekend day like we do, socialists will always get a significant amount of the vote.
(not to say there hasn't been a shift to the right based on the same scare tactics as in the US, sadly enough).

[rodeodance]

5. it is one factor amongst many factors I will consider.

[BelgianMadCow]

6. Understandable - socioeconomic injustice

with class-based healthcare being a prime example and tax cuts for the rich and underfunding of social programs combined with a wacko defense budget being others.

see also this thread on socioeconomic injustice :
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1829435&mesg_id=1829435

What other factors do you give importance?

[bigtree]

7. Richardson Says Potential Senate Compromise on Iraq War Will "Allow the Bloodshed to Continue"

September 6, 2007

LOS ANGELES, CA -- New Mexico Governor and Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today released the following statement on reports of a Senate compromise on Iraq:

"The time for deal-making is long past. We need real leadership in Washington to end this war and bring all of our troops home. The American people elected this Congress to create change and get us out of Iraq, and yet it still has not happened.

"Small concessions and Beltway brokered deals will only allow the bloodshed to continue. As Senators compromise, soldiers die.

"The longer our troops remain in Iraq, the longer we remain an excuse for the different groups in Iraq to avoid finding a political and diplomatic solution to the war.

"Our brave military has accomplished its mission. There is nothing more for them to do but to serve as targets for insurgents.

"I am the only major candidate who believes we should leave no residual forces in Iraq- zero. My opponents would leave behind an indeterminate number of residual forces.

"Only with a complete U.S. troop withdrawal -- supported by an all-Muslim U.N. peacekeeping force, aggressive regional diplomacy, and an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the different factions together -- can Iraq begin down the road toward security and stability."

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/home



I've been supporting Bill Richardson for President because of his uncompromising stance against the occupation. I do believe that there would be some benefit in a compromise agreement which would bring soldiers home. But, I don't see any value at all (outside of the understandable desire to see soldiers come out of Iraq) in any compromise which doesn't set an early end date for the occupation. Bill Richardson speaks for me on this, entirely. That's the position I intend to advocate.



Op-Ed: Why We Should Exit Iraq Now

09/08/2007
By Bill Richardson

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly.

In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years -- a tragic mistake.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal -- not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process -- would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.

Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage and professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the necessary steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.

The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al-Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.

Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a second route out through Turkey.

As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse -- including even greater refugee flows over their borders and possible war.

The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations -- including oil-rich Muslim countries -- to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.

My plan is realistic because:

* It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?
* It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11.
* By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam -- with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, mostly civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing -- the communists took over as soon as we left.

My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.

Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of the candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/articles?id=0186

[mmonk]

8. I wish Richardson could get more traction.

He has but it's been gradual and without media help.

[mmonk]

9. I was hoping to see more candidates' supporters chime in

on their candidate's position.

[BelgianMadCow]

10. So was I so I'm gonna do a shameless self-kick

oO

[mmonk]

13. I'll shamelessly kick your shameless kick.

:kick:

[Kelly Rupert]

11. Thank God for this thread.

DU has been conspicuously lacking in people who consider the Iraq war to be the only issue worth voting on, and one often has to go through a whole two or three threads before one finds a poster referencing a candidate's position on the war.

[BelgianMadCow]

12. I went through the entire first page of GD and did not find back

the references to candidates positions you mention. I could piece something together from memory but it would be incorrect or incomplete.

You on the other hand imply it is so obvious everybody knows, so why didn't you share your knowledge? Not everyone is as informed as you, or the average DUer you know. There are new people too, and dumb ones like me.