Anti-War Coalition Tries To Combat McCain

The Nation: Called The "Iraq Campaign," This Effort Supports A Leader With Plans To Leave Iraq

(The Nation)  This column was written by Tom Hayden

---

A new election-year coalition with plans to spend millions to combat John McCain's candidacy and to highlight the costs of the Iraq War was announced this week in Washington. Called the Iraq Campaign, the effort marks a resurgence of MoveOn and staff-based campaigning backed by SEIU and well-heeled liberal donors.

MoveOn also plans an independent campaign. In a January 17 memo, MoveOn's executive director Eli Pariser sketched the group's 2008 goals as: taking the fight to prowar senators and threatening them with "political extinction"; "keeping the pressure on Democrats in Congress to block blank checks"; "making sure that our next president has a clear mandate on Iraq."

The new coalition's plans are based on polling by Democratic consultant Anna Greenberg, with special attention to independent voters and "battleground states" lost by John Kerry in 2004.

At the same time, a loose group of "first-tier" Democratic Congressional aspirants is considering a common platform based on "a responsible plan for ending the war in Iraq," which calls for the withdrawal of all American troops and advisers, not simply combat troops.

It's assumed that the burgeoning costs of Iraq will be decisive in influencing the choices of independent or vacillating voters, especially against Republican candidates who speak of the Iraq occupation lasting many more years.

The stepped-up activity, six months after the disbanding of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, comes as new polls show McCain leading both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Though a majority of voters now believe the war was not worth fighting, about half say that McCain is better qualified to handle Iraq than either Democratic candidate, according to new numbers recently released by the Los Angeles Times.

McCain himself calls Iraq the issue that will determine his fate. He will receive another big boost when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress in April that the American military effort is succeeding and should be continued. The percentage of Americans who believe the US surge is "making the situation better" has doubled since last July, from 22 percent to 43 percent, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. Based on falling American casualty rates, McCain will contend that both Obama and Clinton were wrong in opposing the surge in January 2007, and that he should get credit for standing up for the military escalation when it was an unpopular stance for a presidential candidate.

What he won't mention is that the declining American casualty rate in Iraq is based on factors other than the increased US troop presence, especially the cease-fire called by Moktada al-Sadr's forces and the decision by many Sunni insurgents to go after Al Qaeda with American funding and collaboration. Those factors could change, but they are consistent with Petraeus's counterinsurgency warfare doctrines. In addition, Petraeus has proven himself to be highly sensitive to the American electoral calendar in the past, and his 2007/2008 counterinsurgency campaign is a contribution to gaining time for the US occupation during an electoral season, or as Petraeus often says, "setting back the American clock." Put simply, the hawks' overall strategy for 2008 always has been to sharply reduce American casualties in the election year, no matter what bloodshed lies ahead. The same strategy was pursued by Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972.

Both Democratic candidates seem locked into a commitment to withdraw American combat troops in something like sixteen to eighteen months of taking office. They are ambiguous so far on how many advisers and trainers they would leave behind, but the numbers could be a staggering 50,000 to 100,000 if all back-up forces are counted, suggesting a shift from a direct combat mission to one of counterinsurgency.

Furthermore, Obama, like Kerry in 2004, is arguing that US combat troops should be withdrawn from Iraq so they can be deployed in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the prospects of a military "victory" are difficult to see. McCain will be able to counter that "giving up" in Iraq is hardly the way to carry the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban elsewhere. Meanwhile, Bush, the CIA and the Pentagon have not given up hope of targeting and killing Osama bin Laden before the November election.

[zoopster1]

Yeah, because as we all know, headlong retreat and surrender while under fire will definitely make the aggressors less aggressive, both toward us and toward one another. It worked for the French, didn''t it?

[walt1944-2009]

The Great Emperor Bush II is amused at attempts by the Progressives and Democrats to "Swift Boat" John "the Great Pretender" McCain, by pushing for an end to the Iraq War(or is it Occupation, or is it "Insurrrrrrgency"?).

Whatever it is, the Great Emperor remembers how his stupidly-loyal neocon Fascist Nazi supporters "Swift Boated" John Kerry in 2004, helping him get "elected" to another 4 years, and now the evil, cowardly Whimpo-crats and Progressives intend to return the favor.

The Great Emperor personally does not think their plans will succeed since only the neocon Fascist Nazi Republicans are true experts in this field. However, the Great Emperor is no great fan of John McCain either and believes that whatever dirt the Whimpo-crats, Progressives, and dissident neocon talk show hosts can throw at McCain, so much the better!!!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, McCain????

[denn034]

That coalition wants to abandon the Iraqi government, condemn Iraqis to increased chaos and misery, and run from al Qaida that''s sure to follow our departure. In the end though, Nader being in the race ensures a President McCain so, no need to worry about anything.

[Syndicate]

IU What the F%^$ does the SEIU have to do with Iraq? Thats Service Employees International Union fo rthose who don''t know. So again why is a Union getting involved in foriegn policy?

[libsrweak]

"out of sight..out of mind" for most anti-war advocates..

a few stateside attacks would not be such a bad idea..they should keep up the hard work to give these terrorist the opportunity to get close and personal..

[zoopster1]

GuyfromPA, I guess sarcasm doesn''t translate too well over the Internet does it. ;)

And I wouldn''t discount the French too soon if I were you; their special forces are some of the best trained and equipped in the world. It''s just too bad their representatives at the UN don''t grow a spine...

[taddles-2009]

"al Qaida that''''s sure to follow our departure.

Posted by denn034 at 02:40 PM : Mar 03, 2008"

I guess that would be a serious consideration if even a small minority of the insurgents in Iraq were with Al Quida. But they''re not, they are Iraqi Sunni''s and Shiite''s who are mostly interested in killing each other and peripherally interested in killing Americans. Al Quida is based in Pakistan and Afghanistan, if you don''t get them there you won''t get them anywhere.

Since we really haven''t done much against Al Quida where they live and they haven''t "followed us home" it doesn''t seem very likely that they are suddenly going to figure out where the US is when we leave Iraq.

[taddles-2009]

"condemn Iraqis to increased chaos and misery...

Posted by denn034 at 02:40 PM : Mar 03, 2008"


Your concern for the Iraqi''s is touching...you are such a humanitarian, it must be wonderful being you.

[taddles-2009]

"they should keep up the hard work to give these terrorist the opportunity to get close and personal..

Posted by libsrweak at 04:17 PM : Mar 03, 2008"

We could all follow Condi''s example and ignore imminent warnings of attacks, that should help and then when we get attacked we could all jump on a plane and fly around in a panic trying not to $hit ourselves like our "fearless leader" did.

[susan10001-2009]

SEE. A week ago, Obama was beating McCain handily. Clinton has put herself above the Party with her Karl Rove magic bag. She wins, McCain wins in November. This has to stop, stand up, Texas and Ohio.

[bm6005]

a few stateside attacks would not be such a bad idea..they should keep up the hard work to give these terrorist the opportunity to get close and personal..
Posted by libsrweak

Yea they''ll attack with the Al Queda navy! Hopefully they pick on LA La land. I''ll be waiting for them here in the rockies to prove conservsrweak.

[irliberal]

Obama vs. McCain - McCain wins - EASILY... and that must be prevented at all costs.

GO HILLARY 2008!! You go girl!

[zoopster1]

Hey I live in La-La-Land, so I actually hope they DON''T come here thank you. In fact the only place I hope they go is the hot place. On a shingle. With our help, if that''s what it takes.

[knyghtwolf]

beLIEve is what Obama is saying, can you read between letters? Common political rehetoric.

[incog-nito]

"Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress in April that the American military effort is succeeding and should be continued."

So the supposedly temporary "surge" is working so well that it should be extended indefinitely. Maybe things will work out even better if we add thousands more troops and have them stay there permanently, right?

[i1marine69]

Anti-War Candidates
The anti-war coalition really has their head up a place of darkness.
If they had any brains, at all or even the common sense of a 12 year old, they would be backing the candidacy of McCain.
Why? Because he is the only candidate qualified to answer the war issue CORRECTLY.
Why? Because it is guaranteed that he will do something about it, CORRECTLY.
Why, because %u201CTO%u201D Clinton and Obama %u201Cit is a political issue%u201D. To McCain it is not! It%u2019s personal.
John McCain, was prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
What experience does Clinton or Obama have that is more powerful than the horror that is in McCain%u2019s memory that will drive him to bring this War to an end with Honor to the Services unlike the cowardly retreat that Clinton and Obama have hinted at.
The anti-war coalition groups are thinking in the past and are looking backwards where we all have been instead of looking to the future.
The anti-war coalition is still fighting with Bush.
Hey anti-war coalitions that fight is over! YOU LOST!
Do you really want to stop this war?
Then WORK with the future and stop digging holes in the past!
John McCain, has been there and done that, the anti-war coalition groups really should be backing him.
Then again, we are all should be realists and we know that it is only a political agenda to them and their far left wing agenda.
They don%u2019t really care about the war or the solider or prisoners.

[i1marine69]

Anti-War Candidates
The anti-war coalition really has their head up a place of darkness.
If they had any brains, at all or even the common sense of a 12 year old, they would be backing the candidacy of McCain.
Why? Because he is the only candidate qualified to answer the war issue CORRECTLY.
Why? Because it is guaranteed that he will do something about it, CORRECTLY.
Why, because %u201CTO%u201D Clinton and Obama %u201Cit is a political issue%u201D. To McCain it is not! It%u2019s personal.
John McCain, was prisoner of war in North Vietnam.
What experience does Clinton or Obama have that is more powerful than the horror that is in McCain%u2019s memory that will drive him to bring this War to an end with Honor to the Services unlike the cowardly retreat that Clinton and Obama have hinted at.
The anti-war coalition groups are thinking in the past and are looking backwards where we all have been instead of looking to the future.
The anti-war coalition is still fighting with Bush.
Hey anti-war coalitions that fight is over! YOU LOST!
Do you really want to stop this war?
Then WORK with the future and stop digging holes in the past!
John McCain, has been there and done that, the anti-war coalition groups really should be backing him.
Then again, we are all should be realists and we know that it is only a political agenda to them and their far left wing agenda.
They don%u2019t really care about the war or the solider or prisoners.

[incog-nito]

i1marine69: You make me laugh. You people keep defending Bush for years, until it becomes clear that he''s a total incompetent, and even now some of you continue to defend him. Now McCain has NO plan for Iraq except continue Bush''s path and escalating the war even further, possibly extending it to other countries.

By all means vote for McCain if you want to continue the failed policies of GWB, both domestically and internationally.

[i1marine69]

To Mr incog-nito:
Your political bias and prejudice is showing out your derrihre.
Relisez et comprenez avant que vous soyez d''avis.
Re-read and understand before you opine.
My comment, genius was about their agenda to attack a candidate.
As for GWB, he is history and you had best find a different dead horse to kick, because if you blink twice to often, you may get blind sighted.
This election is entirely different than any that this nation has ever had in it%u2019s history.
Drop the stupidity of party politics.
1stWomen President? She%u2019s a hawk!
1stBlack President? He%u2019s a hawk with dove feathers.
1st Left leaning Republican President? He could overthrow the philosophy of our political parties, once again. He who forgets his history is cursed to repeat it.
By the why Mr. incog-nito derrihre, I%u2019m politically an independent and like most independent, I%u2019m a realist not a nonconformist. Regaurdless if you like him or not the American Public made him President for EIGHT years. So I do believe he won. Except it, it%u2019s historical FACT.

[bluestardad]

AMERICA NEEDS TO GET OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

FIND AND KILL THE BUSH FAMILY FRIEND BIN LADEN.

MAKE THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR STARTING THE IRAQ WAR STAND TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES.

AND THROW THE DUEL PASSPORT HOLDING ISRAELI NEOCONS OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MIDDLE EAST AMERICA NEEDS!

AMERICA STAND UP OR SHUT UP!

[grumpas]

Oh! How easy it is to fool American''s! All the General has to do is go before Congress and repeat the same preassigned lies and the ignorant eat it up! It says that 43% now believe that nonsense the General spouts. No one bothers to mention the reason is because we are paying Sunni''s not to fight! Anyone with a brain knows that''s a recipe for disaster. So how many more servicemen are going to get killed? How many more billions are going to be wasted that we need here at home for the mounting problems before American''s wake up to the con job known as the Iraq Surge???????

[lilvinnyb]

No matter what, I prefer a president who WONT KISS THE A$$ OF OUR ENEMIES. Can anyone say "Neville Chaimberlain".

Even notice that move-on never tell anyone that they joined forces with a group that advocates NOT striking against terrorists in Afghanistan.... EVEN AFTER SEPT 11.

Bottom line is. Mccain was right on the surge...its working, no matter.

[kesac4650]

The responsible plan for leaving Iraq is US victory.
Kowtowing to radical Islam is no solution unless we mean to continue doing that for generations.

[DaveGress]

kesac4650 - pray tell, what does victory look like? Give this forum a glimpse of that.

[Syndicate]

Victory in Iraq looks like a bunch of Iraqis living together in Peace and prosperity. Victory in Iraq is the Iraqi people realizing their full potental. I can''t figure out why liberals can''t understand this.

[mbcsmith]

By all means vote for McCain if you want to continue the failed policies of GWB, both domestically and internationally.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by incog-nito at 12:57 AM : Mar 04, 2008


President McCain. Get used to it.

[DaveGress]

cbscrash07 - nice to know there are some dreamers left. Keep on dreamin''.

[sebastian27-2009]

I am getting the feeling that a majority in this country are resigned to and are ok with sending an unending stream of our best to the mid-East to be killed and/or mutilated so long as the rest of us can stay at home, drive our gashogs, and enjoy their sacrifice.
When are we going to accept the fact that the mid-East was a mess before we got there, has been for thousands of years, and will be for the foreseeable future. The British and French stayed there for a hundred years and finally got smart and went home.

[DaveGress]

mbcsmith - looks like the prick is back! It''s you. Start getting used to a DEM president. McLaime can''t handle the heat.

[element51]

If we look at our options concerning Iraq the picture is not so rosey no matter what we do. If we stay, we will have to commit to more troops, more death and more money. If we leave, the area will return to what it has always been and we will probably lose access to all that oil. If we reduce our troop level it will be difficult to facilitate any major changes. This is really a Catch 22 situation and party affiliation has nothing to do with it. The entire Middle East is so volitile that sooner or later someone is going to strike a match and the whole area is going to explode. This has nothing to do with cowardace or bravery..it''s a matter of doing the best we can to keep a lid on the powder keg. I just hope that whoever is elected can keep a cool head and make the right decisions.

[bm6005]

Victory in Iraq looks like a bunch of Iraqis living together in Peace and prosperity.....
Posted by cbscrash07

They''ve hated each other for centuries (Sunni''s & ******) and you think we can make the lion lie down with the lamb? Looking for the Easter bunny now that it''s March? LOL,LOL

[tibu987]

I will never forget McCain''s asinine comment about the war in Iraq:

"I don''t think Americans care if we are in Iraq for 10 years, 100 years, or 10,000 years."

I don''t want a President who thinks like that.

I''ll stick with Obama and his more peaceful thoughts about U.S. foreign policy.

[mbcsmith]

mbcsmith - looks like the prick is back! It''''s you. Start getting used to a DEM president. McLaime can''''t handle the heat.
Posted by degress12 at 02:18 PM : Mar 04, 2008


latest Pew research poll indicates that 14% of Americans are in favor of a rapid withdrawl from Iraq. 53% believe the U.S. can achieve a successful conclusion.
It''''s moron.org LIB nutjobs like you who will win the presidency for McCain. Call our ranking general in Iraq a traitor again LIB. Show America what total worthless pieces of shiite LIBS really are.

[tibu987]

That the evil Bush cabal instigated this senseless war in Iraq will go down in history as one of the greats faux pas of the Bush administration.
The civil/cultural/religious war in Iraq was only exacerbated by the presence of the U.S.
Bush, et al., has created a monster that has taken the lives of many young Americans and many more innocent Iraqi men, women, and children.
Bush and cronies should be ashamed, very, very, ashamed. History will show what their bungling has wrought.

[ajmarine1]

I''''ll stick with Obama and his more peaceful thoughts about U.S. foreign policy.

Posted by tibu987 at 03:25 PM : Mar 04, 2008


As a Senate candidate in 2004, Mr. Obama said he would support military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to rein in the mullahs'''''''' nuclear program.

"In light of the fact that we''''''''re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he told the Chicago Tribune. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... I hope it doesn''''''''t get to that point."

Mr. Obama also told the Tribune he would back American military action to secure Pakistan''''''''s nuclear arsenal if President Musharraf is overthrown by radicals.



Who knows how one will react when the moment of decision happens.

[incog-nito]

i1marine69: What''s this with French tidbit? To show how knowledgeable or worldly you are? Je comprends tres bien, merci. By the way, it''s derriere, not derrihre. Shows how much of a pretender you are. LOL

[lab84]

I would like to see the brave troops come home safely who serve this country in Iraq and other parts of this world. It is because of them we have freedom. They are brave enough to do what most americans will only loose control of their bowls over and do it for us. Before the politician there was the militiaman, before the Constitution there was a revolution, and before the hippy there was a patriot. Iraq is about a greater good, not just our own. Something people who sleep in their warm beds every night and then wake up to some bacon and eggs with a cup of coffee just before hitting the street with anti-american *** on signs will never understand. Let me ask anyone who reads this a question. Do you know what happened in Vietnam after we pulled out? Large scale Massacre! Millions dead. Women, men, children. Rape, murder, and chaos. Who can expect anything much less in Iraq where a strong government doesn''t exist and is a hot spot for terrorists who want nothing more than to see your and my head on a stick. Your crazy to think you can "talk it out" with someone who believes you either convert and become a slave or die, and these guys will die for what they believe in. As for me, I''m behind my country, my president (whoever it may be), my government, and especially the troops who do the dirty work so we can all live here with relative peace.

[lab84]

What kind of people listens to reporters and media and then believes he/she is a genius and knows it all. Hey, I got a great idea. Let''s all let the media decide how to win a war and whats best for this nation. That is sarcasm by the way. I wouldn''t want anyone to think that is true because it is on the internet.

[zoopster1]

I would rather that we were not in a war. It would be nice to see our soldiers home, safe and sound. It would also be great if the World Trade Center were still standing. It would really be cool if our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya weren''t smoking holes in the ground. It would have been peachy if warlords hadn''t taken advantage of our goodwill in Somalia. And I would be thrilled if our Marine barracks in Beirut were still intact, and that no hostages had been taken all through the 80s.

Wishful thinking gets us nowhere though. So in order to have peace (at least from these wackos), we have to finish the job that we were either too scared, or lacked the political will to do for all those decades: go wherever these savages hide, and kill every last one of them.

This isn''t about revenge, it''s about housecleaning. If these nutjobs could be negotiated with I would be all for it. But they aren''t interested in dealmaking. They also aren''t afraid of death. That removes pretty much any leverage we might have had. Putting a bunch of them in prison for a little while, or killing so many of them that they decide the fight isn''t worth it anymore... these are just not viable options. So if you can''t convince your enemy to give up the fight there is only one course left: annihilation. Let''s stop whinging and just get it over with already.

[knyghtwolf]

Bush, who defeated McCain in a bitter 2000 primary campaign before winning the presidency, said the Arizona senator''s "incredible courage and strength of character and perseverance" carried him to the nomination this time.
Those characteristics, Bush said, are what the nation needs in a president: "somebody that can handle the tough decisions, somebody who won''t flinch in the face of danger." TRANSLATION: Do not follow the WILL of the PEOPLE, do what you want to be rich and screw the little folks until they bleed to death. LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, do whatever it takes to continue MY stupidity. ALWAYS go to war with LIES to back you up, worked for me will work for you. Don''t let AMERICA make you its B*I*T*C*H, make AMERICA YOUR B*I*T*C*H. There are lots of votes in large stupid crowds, especially in texass. Folks, if you want more terror attacks on AMERICAN SOIL, more death, more out of control pricing, HIGHER unemployment, an insurgance of ILLEGALS, VOTE REPUBLICAN, VOTE McCAIN, bushII, the nightmare continues......

[lab84]

#1. A republican would not want terrorist attacks on American soil anymore than a Democrat.

#2. McCain is not Bush.

#3. McCain is a vet and unfortunately a POW (He would understand war better than Hillary or Obama)

#4. Again, look at what has happened throughout history when one combatant pulls from the combat zone without total defeat of the enemy.