(MG) Writing in the June 5, 2007 edition of the online e-zine Counterpunch, David Vest commends Dennis Kucinich's indictment of Democrats' failure to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Nothing much was happening in the New Hampshire Democratic presidential debate Sunday night, until Rep. Dennis Kucinich fired the rhetorical equivalent of a cruise missile across the bow of his party. The leading contenders may have pretended not to hear the shot, but don't be fooled. They heard it, all right. They just hope you didn't.
...
The only candidate to draw real blood in the debate was Kucinich, who horrified liberals everywhere by saying that Iraq is now "the Democrats' war."
... Digby's Hullabaloo quickly accused Kucinich of "undermining the single most important rationale for a Democratic president, which is that the Republicans are responsible for the mess in Iraq," adding that "it takes almost nothing to gain currency in the MSM and that particular notion is a very dangerous one."
...
The very real danger is that the top Democrats will be caught in a withering crossfire, with Republicans accusing them of wanting to "cut and run" from Iraq, and the rest of America saying, "if only they would!"
Mike Gravel underscored the risk by pointing out that most of the people onstage with him were "part of the leadership right now in the Congress, and could end the war if they want to."
If Kucinich and Gravel aren't included in future debates, look no further for the reason.
The notion that Republicans -- and not Democrats -- are responsible for Iraq is the straw house in which all Democratic prospects for 2008 abide.
...
Dennis Kucinich isn't the big bad wolf. Neither is Mike Gravel. What the two of them said can hardly be called unthinkable, if most of the country is already thinking it.
It's only a matter of time before people also start asking, where were the Democrats on Katrina? Did they do anything to save the people of New Orleans, or were they content to sit back and enjoy the effects of the debacle on Bush and the GOP? Have you heard any of the leading candidates talking about the Right of Return for displaced residents of the Crescent City?
Instead of trying to convince people to unthink what's already been thunk -- instead of endlessly jockeying to avoid "ownership" of the war -- it's high time for the Democrats to step up and claim it -- and end it.
They need to stop seeing the war as something they can use to regain the White House, and begin to see it as something they must stop at all costs.
Otherwise, if the single most important rationale for putting a Democrat in the White House is Iraq, then there is no rationale. People who live in straw houses shouldn't run for president, when the truth is blowing in the wind.
(MG) If U.S. troops haven't had an orderly withdrawal from Iraq before the 2008 elections, do not count on seeing them withdraw in an orderly fashion for 20 or more years. Which of the top three democratic contenders will have the courage to cut their financial umbilical cord to the defense industry, the military-industrial-infotainment complex. In addition, "the big three" all have apparently bought into Iran being the biggest threat to U.S. national security, and the rational for "staying the course" in Iraq will be that a base of operations is needed to "neutralize" the Iranian "threat."
(MG) Such rationales and arguments are specious. Iran is NOT a threat to U.S. security UNLESS the U.S. attacks Iran.
(MG) In 1971, John Kerry told the U.S. senate how to end the war - just stop funding it. I guess he just forgot about how to do that, in the interim. No - wait, he RAN on a platform of prosecuting the war more effectively than the Bush administration. Politics.
(MG) End the occupation. Get out of Iraq immediately. Bring the troops home. Repair America's reputation around the world - and it will take one hell of a lot of good will and righteous deeds, and also acts of sincere contrition. Rebuild America. Stop playing policeman to the world.
