Senators Hillary R. Clinton and Barack Obama are the top two contenders for the Democratic Party Presidential Nomination. On the other side of the political fence, at the elephant's lair, Senators John McCain and Governor Mitt Romney figure prominently this early. While it would be imprudently premature to count out the likes of Governors Tom Vilsack and Mike Huckabee, or Senators Joe Biden, John Edwards or even Mayor Rudy Guiliani, an early comparison on how they stand vis-a-vis the important issues may be interesting. In a series of posts, I hope to maybe discuss the candidates' position on the issues and thereby paint a clearer picture of the political dynamics that would characterize what should prove to be one of the more interesting campaigns in the history of the United States.
IRAQ: Its no secret that both Clinton and Obama strongly disagree with the present course of action taken by President George W. Bush on Iraq. The differences between the two of them on the alternative courses to be taken, should he/she be elected President, are minimal. Clinton outlines a phased "redeployment" of troops out of Iraq that would, according to her, enable the President to end the War and still save face. Obama's position, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that the Iraq War was "wrong in its inception" and hence, a "rash" war or even a "dumb" war. In limited contrast to what Clinton is suggesting, Obama is looking to get out as soon as possible and thus, his March 2008 deadline for the removal of all combat brigades. Clinton gives no such definite time-table, but like Obama, recognizes the necessity of international participation as well as a more pro-active and positive role played by the Iraqi government in dealing with grave local concerns, more particularly the ensuing sectarian violence subequent to the American invasion. Obviously, both candidates have marched to the drumbeat of the bipartisan opposition to troop escalation in Iraq, as recently called for by President Bush.
Relative to this issue, I believe that the report submitted by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has emboldened both candidates to further amplify where they stand on this issue and thus, its underlying significance to the campaign. This is evidenced no less than the fact that both legislators have apparently lifted the salient points of the said report fitting them nicely in their respective platforms. Note that Senator Obama's choice of March 2008 as the target date for total troop withdrawal is consistent with the group's recommendations while Senator Clinton has gone on record to herald her call to the President for "a dramatic change of course in Iraq", on the basis of the said report.
This works especially well for Senator Clinton who for awhile had to tip-toe past this issue, lest she fall and sink into the same quicksand that debilitated Sentaor John Kerry's run for the presidency in 2004. Previously, through the confluence of events and circumstances, such as the then recent memory of the Septemer 11, 2001 attacks, the spin pre-dominantly articulated by Republican hawks and more importantly, the corresponding graveyard-like silence and reticence from the Democratic party, any criticism of the war Iraq was generally viewed as un-patriotic and deemed an insult to the memory of American soldiers who gave their lives fighting the War on Terror. With the growing unpopularity of the War in Iraq, the Democrats have extricated themselves from that constricting cage of absolutes, thereby allowing them to be more vocal on the issue. More importantly, and with the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrats present a more united force, confidently speaking out against the Bush Administration on how it has perceivably failed in Iraq.
Hence, the report by the Iraq Study Group, being as it is, diametrically opposed to the present road map followed by the Bush Administration, conveniently serves the Democrats' political agenda, especially coming out of a rosy mid-term election that centered on the heavily perceived missteps of Republican leadership. Hence, it would not be surprising to see other presidential aspirants from the Democratic Party adopting the same recommendations as an alternative to the seeminly ill-fated post-invasion plan of President Bush. The results of the recent mid-term elections only serve to validate this new found precept and with the issue now arguably in their favor, the prospects of a Democratic presidency come 2008 seems more and more likely.
It can be reasonably ascretained that Democrats would now want to fully optimize their recent political gains by, among others, finally ushering in their refined policy on National Security, which includes the War in Iraq. Perhaps, while drawing inspiration from the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, they envison a policy that re-froms, re-establishes and re-strenghthens international alliances that may yet prove to be the key in bringing about that elusive regional stability, particularly in the Middle East.
Notwithstanding the results of the mid-term elections and their political implications, Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain aren't about to abandon their unequivocally hawkish stand on the Iraq War. Apparently ready to "bite the bullet" on this issue, both candidates are openly advocating President Bush's message of "staying the course". Both candidates strongly support increasing American troop presence in Iraq while acknowleding the problems brough about by the insurgents and sectarian violence. Stated simply, they believe that that such concerns should be addressed, in no small part, by military action. Senator McCain goes as far as saying that the additional troops sought by President Bush "is crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development" of Iraq.
Logically, both candidates are in no real hurry to get out of Iraq. This early in the campaign, they probably see the necessity of securing support from the Republican base by appealing to those influential hard-line conservatives who strongly advocate and support the War on Terror.
Senator McCain's position is anchored on his strong belief that America cannot fail in Iraq. Taking the cue from the incumbent Republican chief executive, he stresses that such failure would "endanger America for generations to come". Governor Romney, who is explicit in his drive of "Defeating the Jihadists", is not far behind. While recognizing that the United States was not "ready for the post major conflict period", he remains steadfast in his support for additional troops to Iraq and boldly predicts an almost immediate success for this plan ("...within months").
Incidental to the issue on the War in Iraq, specifically on the role of regional doplomacy and/or participation, both candidates find common ground on the Issue of how to deal with the likes of Iran and Syria. In stark contrast to the Democratic candidates (who openly advocate engaging both states in diplomatic dialogue along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), McCain and Romney opt to turn up the pressure on Iran and Syria. Senator McCain argues that both states have contributed to the violence in Iraq thereby hampering the United States' efforts in bringing peace and stability to the region. Governor Romney, meanwhile, fits the call for pressure on Iran and Syria, right smack in the middle of his battle cry against the Jihadist radicals, thereby underscoring the said states' connections to terrorists organizations and activities.
Apparently, both candidates, along with probably a great number of Republicans, are pinning their hopes on the possible last minute crunchtime success in Iraq. Its a big gamble considering where they stand at the moment in the perception game. But this gamble can reap an abundance of political gains should President Bush end up succeeding in his efforts just in time for the next presidential elections. Perhaps too, for both McCain and Romney, the United States is at war and good news are often times scarce. They probably hope that, as it was in World War II, the existing restlessness and frustration will slowly evaporate, and after all the heated passions and emotions subside, history would ultimately judge their positions as the right course of action taken.
IRAQ: Its no secret that both Clinton and Obama strongly disagree with the present course of action taken by President George W. Bush on Iraq. The differences between the two of them on the alternative courses to be taken, should he/she be elected President, are minimal. Clinton outlines a phased "redeployment" of troops out of Iraq that would, according to her, enable the President to end the War and still save face. Obama's position, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that the Iraq War was "wrong in its inception" and hence, a "rash" war or even a "dumb" war. In limited contrast to what Clinton is suggesting, Obama is looking to get out as soon as possible and thus, his March 2008 deadline for the removal of all combat brigades. Clinton gives no such definite time-table, but like Obama, recognizes the necessity of international participation as well as a more pro-active and positive role played by the Iraqi government in dealing with grave local concerns, more particularly the ensuing sectarian violence subequent to the American invasion. Obviously, both candidates have marched to the drumbeat of the bipartisan opposition to troop escalation in Iraq, as recently called for by President Bush.
Relative to this issue, I believe that the report submitted by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group has emboldened both candidates to further amplify where they stand on this issue and thus, its underlying significance to the campaign. This is evidenced no less than the fact that both legislators have apparently lifted the salient points of the said report fitting them nicely in their respective platforms. Note that Senator Obama's choice of March 2008 as the target date for total troop withdrawal is consistent with the group's recommendations while Senator Clinton has gone on record to herald her call to the President for "a dramatic change of course in Iraq", on the basis of the said report.
This works especially well for Senator Clinton who for awhile had to tip-toe past this issue, lest she fall and sink into the same quicksand that debilitated Sentaor John Kerry's run for the presidency in 2004. Previously, through the confluence of events and circumstances, such as the then recent memory of the Septemer 11, 2001 attacks, the spin pre-dominantly articulated by Republican hawks and more importantly, the corresponding graveyard-like silence and reticence from the Democratic party, any criticism of the war Iraq was generally viewed as un-patriotic and deemed an insult to the memory of American soldiers who gave their lives fighting the War on Terror. With the growing unpopularity of the War in Iraq, the Democrats have extricated themselves from that constricting cage of absolutes, thereby allowing them to be more vocal on the issue. More importantly, and with the exception of Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrats present a more united force, confidently speaking out against the Bush Administration on how it has perceivably failed in Iraq.
Hence, the report by the Iraq Study Group, being as it is, diametrically opposed to the present road map followed by the Bush Administration, conveniently serves the Democrats' political agenda, especially coming out of a rosy mid-term election that centered on the heavily perceived missteps of Republican leadership. Hence, it would not be surprising to see other presidential aspirants from the Democratic Party adopting the same recommendations as an alternative to the seeminly ill-fated post-invasion plan of President Bush. The results of the recent mid-term elections only serve to validate this new found precept and with the issue now arguably in their favor, the prospects of a Democratic presidency come 2008 seems more and more likely.
It can be reasonably ascretained that Democrats would now want to fully optimize their recent political gains by, among others, finally ushering in their refined policy on National Security, which includes the War in Iraq. Perhaps, while drawing inspiration from the likes of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, they envison a policy that re-froms, re-establishes and re-strenghthens international alliances that may yet prove to be the key in bringing about that elusive regional stability, particularly in the Middle East.
Notwithstanding the results of the mid-term elections and their political implications, Republican candidates Mitt Romney and John McCain aren't about to abandon their unequivocally hawkish stand on the Iraq War. Apparently ready to "bite the bullet" on this issue, both candidates are openly advocating President Bush's message of "staying the course". Both candidates strongly support increasing American troop presence in Iraq while acknowleding the problems brough about by the insurgents and sectarian violence. Stated simply, they believe that that such concerns should be addressed, in no small part, by military action. Senator McCain goes as far as saying that the additional troops sought by President Bush "is crucial prerequisite for needed economic and political development" of Iraq.
Logically, both candidates are in no real hurry to get out of Iraq. This early in the campaign, they probably see the necessity of securing support from the Republican base by appealing to those influential hard-line conservatives who strongly advocate and support the War on Terror.
Senator McCain's position is anchored on his strong belief that America cannot fail in Iraq. Taking the cue from the incumbent Republican chief executive, he stresses that such failure would "endanger America for generations to come". Governor Romney, who is explicit in his drive of "Defeating the Jihadists", is not far behind. While recognizing that the United States was not "ready for the post major conflict period", he remains steadfast in his support for additional troops to Iraq and boldly predicts an almost immediate success for this plan ("...within months").
Incidental to the issue on the War in Iraq, specifically on the role of regional doplomacy and/or participation, both candidates find common ground on the Issue of how to deal with the likes of Iran and Syria. In stark contrast to the Democratic candidates (who openly advocate engaging both states in diplomatic dialogue along with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc.), McCain and Romney opt to turn up the pressure on Iran and Syria. Senator McCain argues that both states have contributed to the violence in Iraq thereby hampering the United States' efforts in bringing peace and stability to the region. Governor Romney, meanwhile, fits the call for pressure on Iran and Syria, right smack in the middle of his battle cry against the Jihadist radicals, thereby underscoring the said states' connections to terrorists organizations and activities.
Apparently, both candidates, along with probably a great number of Republicans, are pinning their hopes on the possible last minute crunchtime success in Iraq. Its a big gamble considering where they stand at the moment in the perception game. But this gamble can reap an abundance of political gains should President Bush end up succeeding in his efforts just in time for the next presidential elections. Perhaps too, for both McCain and Romney, the United States is at war and good news are often times scarce. They probably hope that, as it was in World War II, the existing restlessness and frustration will slowly evaporate, and after all the heated passions and emotions subside, history would ultimately judge their positions as the right course of action taken.
1 comment:
hi mr. kite!
babyblues pointed me to your blog.
been enjoying it.
check me out at momcaster.blogspot.com
when you're not so busy.
look forward to hearing you strum on your blue guitar...
Post a Comment