Pure Horserace: War, Who Is It Good For?

White House Candidates Keep Iraq At Arm's Length

(CBS)  Whenever there's a big story, there's usually a politician or two trying to get a little attention out of it all. But as the war in Iraq turns four today, there's at least one breed of candidate keeping a distance — the presidential kind. The media is chronicling this anniversary today but not many of the 2008 hopefuls are rushing to jump in front of the cameras — and for good reasons.

Candidates in both parties have balancing acts to pull off. For Republicans like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, the war threatens to overshadow every other issue for voters next year — and unless things dramatically improve in the public's eyes, little else may matter.

Republicans can't afford to directly criticize President Bush's decision to go to war because it remains popular among those crucial activists who will determine the party's nominee. All they can do is what they've done — criticize around the edges. McCain has had harsh words for the post-invasion planning on the part of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example.

Democrats have much more freedom to be critical of both the initial decision to go to war and the execution of it, and they have been. But they run the risk of being pushed too far in that direction. Core voters in their party are increasingly insistent on purity on Iraq. Not only do they want U.S. troops out — now — they want their candidates who supported it in any way to issue public apologies.

Thus far, Hillary Clinton has refused to go as far as the rest of the field and apologize for her vote authorizing the war. She has paid for that refusal with plenty of criticism within her party. Beyond the nomination, however, Democrats don't want to be seen as pure doves. Despite the unpopularity of this war, 9/11 still resonates and voters may reject a pure anti-war party.

No candidate for president can go long without discussing Iraq; that's just a reality of our politics. And for the handful of them serving in Congress, there will be plenty of opportunities to assert themselves on the issue. But for all these candidates, it's safest to let Iraq continue to be the president's problem for as long as they can.


Rage Against The Machine: Her husband is sometimes called "Big Dog" among Democrats, but if Hillary Clinton wants her own giant-sized nickname, she might have to settle for "Big Brother" — if a popular YouTube clip is any indication.

The clip, which artfully inserts Clinton into the role of Big Brother in Apple's landmark "1984" Super Bowl ad and shows a woman in a Barack Obama shirt hurling a hammer at Clinton's visage, has been making the rounds since early March. But it has blown up in recent days thanks to some page one coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle and high placement on The Drudge Report.

Obama's campaign has denied any involvement with the fake commercial. But assuming that’s true, the ad's popularity again raises the question of how campaigns can control their message in the Internet age. In YouTube's case, maybe they'll end up taking a page out of Viacom's playbook — after all, that Obama logo seen in the ad is copyrighted.


Riddles Wrapped In Enigmas: There are two main schools of thought concerning the primary calendar as it appears to be shaping up. Iowa and New Hampshire will almost certainly retain their positions as the lead-off contests, with South Carolina and, Nevada perhaps squeezing in to grab some of the attention.

Then comes what is being called "Super-Duper Tuesday" — Feb. 5, a day that could see 20 or more states voting and possibly end the primary season. With so much at stake that day — delegate-rich states like California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and maybe even New York and Florida — what strategies should campaigns pursue?

Joe Trippi, a veteran Democratic strategist who managed Howard Dean's 2004 campaign, told CBSNews.com last week he believes those early contests will remain supremely important. Wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Trippi argued, will give a candidate enough momentum to carry them through those big states. Even those who have resources will have no time to recover, the thinking goes.

The other school of thought cautions against a campaign focused solely on the early states. Some candidates may raise as much as $100 million by next January and, used wisely, that could buy a lot of organization, media attention and TV ads in some of the bigger Feb. 5 states. With that date probably coming just three weeks after New Hampshire, early efforts could establish a firewall of sorts in these larger states that even momentum can't breach.

In the end, most of this "strategery" is probably most useful as a time-killing device for political junkies. We may see a candidate like Rudy Giuliani effectively skip Iowa or another of the four early states but almost certainly campaign hard in the rest of them. The real calculations will probably be a little more simple — those with the resources will spread them as far and wide as they can, while those without will bank on a breakthrough in the first contests.


Lost In Translation: Republican candidates' efforts to reach out to Hispanic voters have met with mixed results, but for decades they have enjoyed success with one group: Cubans. That's why Republican Mitt Romney, to paraphrase famous Cuban Desi Arnaz, might have some 'splainin' to do.

Campaigning last week in South Florida, Romney denounced the regime of Fidel Castro and his brother Raul — hated figures among a Cuban population that has remained loyal to the GOP and its strong anti-communist stance. But the Miami Herald reports that the crowd didn’t exactly shower Romney with applause when he ended his speech with the rallying cry "Patria o muerte, venceremos! "

The phrase, which means "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome!" in English, has been used by Fidel Castro to end his bombastic speeches for years. Its prospects for showing up in future Romney speeches are not nearly as bright.

[randalds]

Campaigning last week in South Florida, Romney denounced the regime of Fidel Castro and his brother Raul %u2014 hated figures among a Cuban population that has remained loyal to the GOP and its strong anti-communist stance. But the Miami Herald reports that the crowd didn%u2019t exactly shower Romney with applause when he ended his speech with the rallying cry "Patria o muerte, venceremos! "

The phrase, which means "Fatherland or death, we shall overcome!" in English, has been used by Fidel Castro to end his bombastic speeches for years. Its prospects for showing up in future Romney speeches are not nearly as bright.


LOL! LOL! LOL! And people wonder if there any good republican running for office? Guess this answers that! The truth is that any candidate that is still supporting Bush's folly of a war in Iraq by the time the primaries start (for both parties) doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning their nomination. Americans are sick of this disgusting war of choice, are tried of being lied to and many are angry at finally realizing that the Bush regime has been *** them all along.

[scott4261]

I have to ask the question again: HOW has the war in Iraq been worth it? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden couldn't have conspired to attack the U.S. because they hated each other. Saddam was secular and Osama is a religious extremist. This war was not worth one drop of American blood. And the very occupation by the U.S. has created a vacuum for terrorist activity where there was none before.

And for what? To benefit Exxon/Mobil, Halliburton, and KBR? I believe that one need only to follow the war profiteering money trail to find out just how much is wrong with this war and why I detest what is happening now.

And before the Bush apologists start bashing my post, let me say this: I get irritated when I am told that I am somehow undermining troop morale, that I hate America, that I'm a traitor, that I'm unpatriotic,.....whatever...you name it....just because I choose to speak out against the actions of this corrupt administration. I love my country and that is why I am willing to speak up.

This war has been a grave error.

[scott4261]

This upcoming election is just way too important to cast a vote for the Republican nominee, no matter who he is. I plan on casting my vote for the Democratic nominee in 2008 (my gut tells me that the nominee won't be Hillary Clinton. But if she is, I will just have to hold my nose and vote for her - much the same as I did when I voted for John Kerry in 2004.). One thing is for sure: we must take our country back from these right-wing loonies!

[musty2u]

Now that you have your minds made up, dig deep and go to http://www.GOP.com/CynicalDemocrats

[forthepeaple]

We also do not have an "executive privilege" clause in our Constitution. (Again I refer to our Laws and not our traditions). The Supreme court has never wholley justified executive privilege, and more importantly Congress has never establish a law respecting this. Separation of powers cannot allow for any privilege that diminishes the capacity of constitutionally recognized oversight for any of the other three branches of government. What privilege there is with the office of President, can definitely not be called generic "executive privilege". Nothing Constitutional has every recognized this.

The fact that any of the above exists in our current form of government just showcases the lawless and criminal intent of the current administration. The American people deserve to see the laws of our Constitution, like Impeachment, respected.
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. This section of the Constitution reads, in part, as follows: the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . ."

[clemenhagen1]

Of course both sides will look at this issue primarily in terms of political risk/reward; the result will be a continued dearth of realistic and/or honest assessments. The administraton has waged this war from the outset insinuating at every possible turn a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What you will never hear from the president or his people? A straight-forward account of any discernible negotiated settlement between the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions. Of course, the administration and their cheerleaders will continue to throw in the obligatory references to al Qaeda and other evil entities, but true resolution only runs through a Sunni-Shiite settlement. Any long-term settled peace must also involve the regional players: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Is the Bush administration serious about acheiving lasting stability in the region? That would require a role for the Saudis (who currently fund the Sunni insurgency) and the Iranians (who back the Shiite militias). An autonomous Kurdish region will also involve appeasing the Turkish government. When any politician, regardless of party, stands up and speaks intelligently and truthfully to the real conditions on the ground, a will treat their pronouncements with a measure of respect. Until then, just more shallow rhetoric - put it on a bumper-stick as it saves space and proves easier for the herd to digest.

[j02281]

America wake up, dont let DEMONCRATS take the
power. They will sell America to our enemies.
The excuse: The war.

[j02281]

Nobody want the war,agree,but somebody can tell
me what are supposed to do after Sep/11/2001?.
Say, thank you Osama,and please our country is
yours. They will (DEMONCRATS,LIBERALS,TRAITORS)
and all kind of sewer rats.

[j02281]

We have to support our president. Fight for America,fight for our way of life,fight for
our childrens,and granchildrens.
Fight with dignity,courage,not critize,our Coun-
try. Traitors .Liberals . Enemies,want to place
a devil woman,she will sell America to our ene-
mies.

[coffeehead-2009]

"Four sorrows ... are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal 'executive branch' of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens."
Chalmers Johnson

[montraville]

The US has never been an excessively militarist country. We've always been a commerical nation that gears up its military only when necessary. And when we're at peace, everyone works in peacetime jobs, boosting our exports and improving our balance of trade.

It's only since the 50's that we've developed a military-industrial complex. This complex was fine to confront the Soviets, but is useless in the face of asymmetrical warfare (the Vietcong, or Muslim fundamentalists).

If we had spent the peace dividend on peace, we would actually have been more able to flexibly respond to 9-11. We would have had money in the bank to gear up to fight the war that al-Quaeda wants to fight. Instead we have expensive Cold-War airpower that's pretty much useless against peasants with donkeys, and no Arabic linguists.

[scott4261]

coffeehead,

What writing is that pulled from? It%u2019s every bit as eerily prophetic as George Orwell's 1984!

[fredgrad2000]

I agree with scott4261 when he questions whether his war was worth it...and my answer is "no" - given the "do-over", I certainly would not have made the choice to invade knowing what we know now - which to me aside from no WMD, etc...is that the Iraqis aren't strong enough or principled enough to fight for their freedom; they'd rather kill each other and live out generation old "blood feuds" - but the fact remains that unless someone out there has that time machine, we ARE there...the choice WAS made, and at the time OVERWHELMINGLY supported, including by people who had all the same intel (collected by a Clinton appointed CIA director) the President had. So WHAT NOW!? That is was a "grave error", I concede that point, but I don't concede that is was some big conspiracy, I believe that all concerned believed Saddam was a threat to pass WMD knowledge to our enemies and had the goods to pass. So, the war was a mistake, but what happens if we just pack up and leave now!? People here have to be smart enough to know that the current instability in Iraq was a contrived plan by Al-Qaeda and Iran, and that a withdrawal (or redeployment) without the 'next sentence' stating what after that...what next to prevent Al-Qaeda from getting its safe havens and Iran from dominating Iraq and intimidating the entire Persian Gulf? Withdrawal may be best worst answer (none are good now), but it MUST be followed with more than that...withdrawal, then what?...

[gkc99]

Is there any more spineless institution than the United States Supreme Court? (OK, Congress, but other than that). They thought slavery was OK, the Mexican war was OK, the draft was OK, de jure segregation was OK, law against interracial marriage was OK--but "Bong Hits for Jesus"? That undermines the authority of school principles!

We can't look to SCOTUS to jerk up sharply on Bushit's choke collar. The rich people who own America love Bushit--more war profits for them. Congress--see above. What is else there (hint: try looking in the mirror).

[coffeehead-2009]

Scott - trust me, it is NOT an "orwell" piece...
oh geez.


"What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise, to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security ...
To live in the process is absolutely not to notice it -- please try to believe me -- unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, regretted.
Believe me this is true. Each act, each occasion is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow.
Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we did nothing) ... You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair. "

German professor after World War II describing the rise of Nazism to a journalist

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Authors/QuotationsToMakeUSThink.html

[pakaal]

j02281 wrote: "America wake up, dont let DEMONCRATS take the power. They will sell America to our enemies. The excuse: The war."

Another insightful comment from those who think that out of all American media, only Fox Noise, er, Fox "News" has no bias. Must be hard to breathe in that rarified atmosphere, but at least there aren't too many others out there to suck up the little oxygen remaining.

The majority of Iraqis (and the majority of Americans too) believe we should get out of Iraq my friend. And there's really no reason to think that Bush - who hadn't even been out of this country before he became President - has insight superior to people actually living in the country we've invaded and currently occupy.

[pakaal]

j02281, how about this?

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

-President Theodore Roosevelt

[clemenhagen1]

FREDGRAD: "People here have to be smart enough to know that the current instability in Iraq was a contrived plan by Al-Qaeda and Iran, and that a withdrawal (or redeployment) without the 'next sentence' stating what after that...what next to prevent Al-Qaeda from getting its safe havens and Iran from dominating Iraq"

Fredgrad: Your entire premise is off base. The current instability is NOT a contrived plan by al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda plays a relatively minor and insignificant role in the current affair. That assumption, fed to you repeatedly by the administration and its minions simply has no basis in reality. Al-Qaeda WAS NOT in Iraq before the war; the Sunni Baathist consistently hewed a secular line. The Kurds and Shiites both consider the radical Sunni elements as enemies. This notion that al-Qaeda would have a safe haven is ludicrous! Where? The Shiites will eradicate them in their areas; the Kurds will do the same in the north. The Sunnis will not tolerate foreign al-Qaeda elements if U.S. do not exist as a target. You need to embrace the reality of the politics of the region and quit buying George Bush's seventh grade geography fantasy.

[clemenhagen1]

The Bush administraton has waged this war from the outset insinuating at every possible turn a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What you will never hear from the president or his people: a straight-forward account of any discernible negotiated settlement between the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish factions. Of course, the administration and their cheerleaders will continue to throw in the obligatory references to al Qaeda and other evil entities, but true resolution only runs through a Sunni-Shiite settlement. Any long-term settled peace must also involve the regional players: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. Is the Bush administration serious about acheiving lasting stability in the region? That would require a role for the Saudis (who currently fund the Sunni insurgency) and the Iranians (who back the Shiite militias). An autonomous Kurdish region will also involve appeasing the Turkish government. When any politician, regardless of party, stands up and speaks intelligently and truthfully to the real conditions on the ground, I will treat their pronouncements with a measure of respect. Until then, just more shallow rhetoric - put it on a bumper-stick as it saves space and proves easier for the herd to digest.

[scott4261]

Scott - trust me, it is NOT an "orwell" piece...
oh geez.
Posted by coffeehead at 07:33 PM
-----

I do know that. And I wasn't trying to make a comparative analogy, but when I read 1984 with backdrop of the Bush Administration, I feel like Orwell is describing our government with Big Brother.

When I posted that statement after you posted the Chalmers Johnson, I meant that it made my hair stand on end. I don't know who he is. In a different way, but no less profound, that piece from Johnson is describing exactly what is happening now. I just wanted to know where that quote came from. And do you know when he wrote it?

[randalds]

Nobody want the war,agree,but somebody can tell
me what are supposed to do after Sep/11/2001?.
Say, thank you Osama,and please our country is
yours. They will (DEMONCRATS,LIBERALS,TRAITORS)
and all kind of sewer rats.
Posted by j02281 at 05:46 PM : Mar 19, 2007

The idea that nobody wanted this war is ridiculous. Bush and the neoconservatives wanted this war very very much and had plans in place for it even before they moved into the White House. You can be sure that on 9-11 there was dancing and joy in the White House as the towers came down because they then had their excuse to put their plans into action. This war has been a complete and rousing success from their point of view. They have made hundreds of billions of dollars in profits off from it and the longer it drags on the more taxpayer money that gets funneled through defense contractors and big oil companies and into their pockets. They are getting richer and our troops are dying and both are just fine by them. As long as the money flows so will the blood.

[middleman8]

Lets face it.. it doesn't matter who holds power in Washington. They pretty well all voted for
"shock and awe" and if it had gone different they would all be claiming their share of the glory. The pity and terrible thing about this is all the killing and sufferin that is going on and the people in Washington only care about an election, won't allow the people to see the casalties returning,and twist all the facts backwards.

[clemenhagen1]

SCOTT: Read Chalmers Johnson's book "Blowback"...a little dry but absolutely spot on regarding the impact of fifty years of covert meddling in places like the Middle East. Many American struggle to understand the appeal of Chavez and "why they dislike us so in Latin America." Johnson details the results of coups, military funding of unsavory sorts, and other such activities that now have a direct blowback affect on the events of today.

[long_rider]

"Republicans can't afford to directly criticize President Bush's decision to go to war because it remains popular among those crucial activists who will determine the party's nominee."

Again, here lies the problem, they want to take care of themselves, rather than do what is right. It makes no difference - Dem. or republican - take care of out political future, and let our men die.

Americans let's do what is right when you vote for these people, make Nixon a write-in candidate.

[emhawks]

"When money talks, then truth is silent."
- Russian proverb

[seniorengine]

j02281----"What were supposed to do after 9/11??? Go into Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, just like we started to do. If our country would have spent 500 billion dollars in Afghanistan, I'm certain that Bin Laden would have been killed or captured. I find it hard to believe that some people still believe that if didn't go into Iraq, we would be fighting terrorists in our country. Give me a break. Why do you suppose that as soon as George Bush was informed about Sadam's capture, he immediately called his daddy.

[neoconrcrazy]

I find it hard to believe that some people still believe that if didn't go into Iraq, we would be fighting terrorists in our country. Give me a break.

seniorengine


well, it's true. And too many still believe Saddam and Al-Qaeda attacked us on 911.

this is because our pres/vp told the whole country not once, or twice, but dozens of time on national television & radio. We were lied to, pure and simple.

Now to cover up their misdeeds, they tell us - forget about saddam & al-qaeda - we have to fight them ovver there, to avoid them coming here!

Baloney!!!

[nufsedtc5ive]

What is wrong with civil war? Let them fight and the US can negotiate with the winner. I don't believe the 3 fighting factions, whom are fighting over the power of the reserves, will allow Al' Queda to control the oil. Maybe that is what the Iraqi people need, to unite. I think we should let the "terrorists" have Iraq, if they can beat the Iranian Sunnis, Syrias ****** and Turkeys Kurds. That way American will finally have a target on the "war on terror" and we can know where the "terrorists" live.

[nufsedtc5ive]

What is wrong with civil war? Let them fight and the US can negotiate with the winner. I don't believe the 3 fighting factions, whom are fighting over the power of the reserves, will allow Al' Queda to control the oil. Maybe that is what the Iraqi people need, to unite. I think we should let the "terrorists" have Iraq, if they can beat the Iranian Sunnis, Syrias ****** and Turkeys Kurds. That way American will finally have a target on the "war on terror" and we can know where the "terrorists" live.

[huskerarmy]

"We have to fight them ovver there, to avoid them coming here!"
That's right, they'll all get in their canoes and paddle across the Pacific Ocean to attack us in our homes... We must give more money to Haliburton so we can be safe!

[dallison7]

"We have to fight them ovver there, to avoid them coming here!"
That's right, they'll all get in their canoes and paddle across the Pacific Ocean to attack us in our homes... We must give more money to Haliburton so we can be safe!

Posted by huskerarmy

LOL!

One idiot even posted something the other day about how the Islamists are going to be running through our neighborhoods.

LMAO!!

Can't you just see them running down the sidewalk on your block shooting guns in the air and yelling that yell they do...
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

ROFLMAO!!!

[frankly6]

The President finally has his Iraqi exit strategy in place. After the 2008 elections he's going to Disneyland.