3 Democratic Positions on Iraq

With the Iraq war becoming more unpopular by the day, and the “Lieberman-Democrats” (those Democratic hawks who differ with Bush only on tactics but not strategy) soundly rejected by the party rank-and-file, I can identify at least three different positions that are likely to be personified by individual potential presidential candidates in 2008.

1) I do not support invading Iraq by Russ Feingold

2002:

From his Senate floor speech in 2002: “Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.”
…
“An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security. In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we've been given.”

Now:

In June, Feingold stuck his neck out to suggest a firm Iraq troop withdrawal date. While only one Democratic Senator was willing to co-sponsor Feingold's proposal a few months ago, 40 Senators voted for the idea this week.

Can he win?

Feingold is probably the only Democrat whose position on this issue has been not only 100% consistent from the outset, but tremendous easy to explain in a simple soundbyte (unlike Kerry’s consistent yet convoluted rationale). Feingold also wins accolades among liberals for being the ONE SINGLE Senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act (now you know the answer if someone asks who voted against the 99-1 bill). He also sponsored the famous McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Despite these seemingly ultra-liberal credentials, Feingold won re-election in 2004 by 12%, his largest election victory ever, even carrying many countries that also voted for Bush’s reelection. My prediction however is that as a divorced Jewish liberal, Feingold will be seen as unelectable by Democratic primary voters and loose should he choose to run. If he did win the Democratic nomination, I see very few Republican candidates that could not wipe the floor with him in the general.

2) I did support invading Iraq but changed my mind due to new information by John Edwards (John Kerry?)

2002:

Both Kerry and Edwards voted for the authorization to go to war, both offering up the same overall rationale: Saddam Hussein’s WMD program. Although I am unable to locate Edwards Senate floor statement (if he even made one) Kerry’s position was actually rationale, arguing that “In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.”

Although it may appear that he simply added that addendum so that he could later fall back on it if the war goes poorly, technically he has been relatively consistent on this.

Now:

“I was wrong,” John Edwards said referring to his 2002 vote to give the President the authorization for waging war.” He continued, “Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003… It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake.”

Kerry’s position on Iraq remains as consistently vague now as it was during his campaign. Since the election however, he has made no statement about whether he still would have voted for the resolution if he knew then what he knows now. During the entire campaign, he insisted he still would have voted for it even while dismissing it as the wrong war at the wrong time.

From the WP in August 2004: “Knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war.”

Can he (either one) win?

A resounding NO. Kerry was never the favorite choice among rank-and-file Democrats, merely the person perceived as the most electable. Polls showing either man as a favorite should not be taken seriously as they tend to highlight name recognition more than anything else (remember that Gore and Lieberman were the top names right after 2000 to run in 2004). People may run for president however many times they like, but history shows that voters tend to grant a nomination only once and Kerry/Edwards blew it. They are old news and have virtually nothing to offer that other, newer, more charismatic candidates have (except perhaps, a shit load of money that will not be enough to buy the nomination).

3) I support invading Iraq but not the way Bush has conducted operations by Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

2002:

Both Biden and Clinton supported the resolution and Clinton even included some of the same concerns that Kerry had mentioned. From her floor statement:

“President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.”

Biden also supported the resolution. From the New Yorker: “In the months leading up to the war, he often questioned the Bush Administration’s timing, its planning, and the grandiose scope of its mission. But as the invasion neared—around the time when former Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that he had proof that Saddam Hussein was concealing an active weapons-of-mass-destruction program—Biden said, “The choice between war and peace is Saddam’s. The choice between relevance and irrelevance is the U.N. Security Council’s.”

Now:

Biden, like nearly all Democrats, argues that the Administration’s prosecution of the war has been inept. “The decision to go to war was the right one,” Biden said recently, “but every decision they’ve made since Saddam fell was a mistake.” Nevertheless, he not only stands by his 2002 vote, but chastised those who do not.

According to Ron Gunzburger’s Politics1.com, Biden criticized potential rival John Edwards in some interviews for apologizing for his previous Senate vote in support of the Iraq War. Said Biden in the interviews, “I think [Edwards] did made a mistake. He voted for the war and against funding it, I think that was a mistake. The only regret I had voting for the war is that I never anticipated how incompetent the Administration would be in using the authority we gave them to avoid war.”

For her part, Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

Can they (either one) win?

I believe that they can, although whether they should remains to be seen. Both have been positioning themselves as moderates and people whose position on Iraq is consistent and based upon conviction (whether this is actually the case is irrelevant). Biden, in many ways, has some advantage in that he can claim everything good about Clinton but without having the name “Hillary Clinton.” However, in terms of money, he really doesn’t stand a chance if they go head to head. Furthermore, his continuous disloyalty to other Democrats (most notably Howard Dean and just the other day, John Edwards) has disappointed rank-and-file Democrats who want unity and not everyman for himself. Clinton is unquestionably the front-runner but for how long remains to be seen. Although it obviously depends on who her opponent is, liberals and conservative alike make a mistake by writing her off as un-winnable.