For the Democrats, pictured in an MSNBC debate setting, and for Republicans, the newest administration stance on the war in Iraq will provide a fine line of demarcation for a campaign trail debate ahead. MSNBC photo/AP.
by John McCormick and Christi Parsons
CLINTON, Iowa --On the eastern side of Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) waved the anti-war flag before a crowd of Democratic supporters on Wednesday, drawing loud applause with his call for American troops to begin leaving Iraq "not in six months or one year. Now."
On the same day, at the opposite side of the state, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) offered the precise opposite approach, strongly backing the current military plan in Iraq during part of his "No Surrender" bus tour.
"America has still got its greatest days ahead of us," McCain said at a VFW hall, "but we have got to show the courage and steadfastness to see this thing through."
The much-anticipated report on the Iraq war by Gen. David Petraeus this week gave a stark clarity to the race for the White House in 2008, with Democratic hopes pinned to voter sentiment against the war and Republicans hoping that, in time, the strategy crafted by Petraeus and endorsed by President Bush, will prevail.
See the rest of the story in today's Tribune:
The report served to solidify rather than change the positions of the major candidates. Indeed, the real debate among Democrats will be whose plan for troop withdrawal is embraced, while Republicans—with the exception of libertarian Rep. Ron Paul of Texas—continue to support the president.
It armed Democrats with fresh particulars to cite as they criticized the Republican president's war policy. They also seized the opportunity to try and refine the distinctions among themselves. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) charged that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Obama, their party's two leading candidates, aren't as senators doing all they can to stop the war.
Emboldened by Petraeus's reports of the modest, but uneven success of the six-month-old troop surge, Republicans competed with each other mainly to see who could be most complimentary of Petraeus and most critical of the Democratic response.
"Flee-in-the-face-of-success strategy," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said of Obama's exit plan. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani criticized Democratic front-runner Clinton for the way she questioned Petraeus earlier in the week.
For Democrats, that report offers a clearer idea of how the Bush administration plans to proceed and, thereby, a target to criticize. Republican candidates can point to the testimony of a military leader that the recent 30,000 surge in the number of troops is having an effect and that a precipitous withdrawal is unwarranted.
In his address here on Wednesday, Obama suggested the nation has lost its way because of the war and called for the complete pullout of troops by the end of next year.
Troops should begin immediately to depart at a rate of one or two brigades each month, he said.
"There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," Obama said. "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year. Now."
Obama's speech drew criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.
"If we take the kind of left turn represented by Barack Obama and his flee-in-the-face-of-success strategy, we'd be in a very different position as a nation," Romney told the Associated Press in an interview.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, another Democratic presidential contender, said Obama's gradual withdrawal plan doesn't "end" the war. Richardson called for the withdrawal of all American troops with no residual forces left behind.
Dodd criticized both Obama and Clinton.
"I was disappointed that Sen. Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Sen. Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline," Dodd said. "Sen. Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric. But, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity. Without tying a date certain to funding, how does he plan to enforce his call for an immediate redeployment?"
Later Wednesday in Davenport, Obama was asked by a voter whether he would encourage Congressional leadership to support a position requiring any future votes on Iraq funding to be tied to a fixed troop withdrawal date, and he said he would.
"I've already told them that, but, you know ...," he said, "without some shift in the Republican Congress, we're going to have a difficult time. That's just a fact."
But even at the Obama event in Clinton, it was clear that it's a question he'll face again.
After the speech, Obama supporter Rachel Griffiths sat on a bench outside the event site with a sign that read, "More $$ For War = Dead Soldiers."
Although she said she is an Obama supporter, Griffiths also said she was disappointed that he did not more directly address funding for the war.
"I was really disappointed," she said. "I thought he would clearly state he is going to call on every member of Congress to vote no against any additional funding for the war that does not include a concrete, enforceable timetable for withdrawal."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Since the above article was headlined how both party's candidates split over Iraq, I read it believing that maybe this once the "Swamp" would give the Republicans equal time with the Democrats. Shoulda known better.
The above article cites 2 Republicans a total of 65 words. The above article cites 4 Democrats (including a non-candidate) a total of 206 words--3 times as much. And the one photo is of the Democrats.
How can the Democrats lose the war debate, when their friends in the media give them 3 times as much space to make their case?
Posted by: Bruce | September 13, 2007 8:51 AM
Notice the Boy Blunder's gaffe in the above article: "without some shift in the Republican Congress, we're going to have a difficult time."
Sen. Obama, it's not a Republican Congress. It's a Democrat Congress.
Posted by: Bruce | September 13, 2007 8:55 AM
Ron Paul is the only consistent Presidential Candidate
Congressman Ron Paul stood alone in Congress as the only Republican and one of the only voices of reason during the pre-war discussions. He warned of dire consequences if we go to war in the middleeast. He supported the move to go after Osama bin Laden, but argued that the President does not have Constitutional authority to send our troops in to a country in undeclared wars. He argued that the constitution prohibits such powers being controlled by the President. For 20 years, he has been a voice of reason in a very illogical government. His statements and voting record have been the most citizen friendly of any member of Congress. This article focused on the media darlings, not on the facts. Obama supported the war, then changed his mind. Clinton did the same thing, as did everyone else with the possible exception of Kucinich. Join millions of real people who are supporting Congressman Paul in our campaign to bring sanity back into government. Our children's future depends on our vote!
Posted by: Stephen Wood | September 13, 2007 8:58 AM
There is no way, imo, the loss of life and limb can be stopped in the near future. American troops are caught in a civil war simular to Bosnia in the early 90s, the difference being, we are the cause of a lot of it due to our greed. A multi-nation force will almost have to be involved, along with the will of the Iraqi people. Make no mistake, this is going to take a long time, and we should be working with the other countries in the region, as well as the world. Somehow, someway, we must get most of our troops out as quickly as possible.
Posted by: lylepink | September 13, 2007 9:45 AM
Bruce,it was so brilliant on your part to pick up on the Obama gaffe.Do you guys ever think before you post something like that after supporting the dumbest Prez in history.Makes you all look pretty foolish.Here's some gaffe's made by you know who.I could go on forever,but to make a point...............
50. "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." -at the President's Economic Forum in Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
49. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." -Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001
48. "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test." -Townsend, Tenn., Feb. 21, 2001
47. "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport." --Washington, D.C., Oct. 3, 2001
46. "Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity.
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 13, 2007 9:46 AM
Pull all the troops out now? Who is advising Obama? Is anyone doing so or is foot-in-mouth disease confined to him alone? I would really like to support this guy, but he has a reverse telescopic view of world affairs.
Posted by: Cecil B. | September 13, 2007 9:56 AM
Notice the Boy Blunder's gaffe in the above article: "without some shift in the Republican Congress, we're going to have a difficult time."
Posted by: Bruce | September 13, 2007 8:55 AM
Bruce,
How many US soldiers were killed or maimed as a result of the Senator's "gaffe"??? How many soldiers were killed or maimed as a result of this President sending soldiers to war without adequate armor. Soldiers' families had to have bake sales to raise enough money to mail their loved ones reissued Kevlar vests so they could put them on the floor boards of the Humvees they use to patrol the streets of Iraq. Which "gaffe" upsets you more?? The one you wrote 34 words about above or the "gaffe" you've been silent about?
Posted by: janet | September 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Notice the Boy Blunder's gaffe in the above article: "without some shift in the Republican Congress, we're going to have a difficult time."
Sen. Obama, it's not a Republican Congress. It's a Democrat Congress.
Posted by: Bruce | September 13, 2007 8:55 AM
Bruce,
At what point do you begin stalking Obama, or has that already begun? You claim the Tribune is obsessed with him, but it seems you are. And maybe he was referring to Republican members of Congress, btw. That would make sense in context.
So, who do you support? And why? We already know who you hate.
Posted by: kb | September 13, 2007 10:44 AM
Bruce...How many of those words were vowels? How many were adjectives? Are vowels more liberal leaning than adverbs? What are the inequalities of the punctuation? Is there aome sort of liberal coded message in the article?
Posted by: GK | September 13, 2007 10:55 AM
[quote]
"America has still got its greatest days ahead of us," McCain said at a VFW hall
[/quote]
Yep - and we'll see them just as soon as Dubya leaves the White House in January 2009.
Posted by: BC | September 13, 2007 10:57 AM
"it's not a Republican Congress. It's a Democrat Congress.
Posted by: Bruce | September 13, 2007 8:55 AM"
The Democrats have an advantage in the House (233 to 202), but the Senate is 48 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 2 independents.
We'll have to wait until November 2008 for it to be truly a "Democratic Congress".
Posted by: BC | September 13, 2007 11:04 AM
WOW, BC, I see your ability to add is just as good as your ability to think rationally. In other words, nonexistent.
If you take 48 plus 48 plus 2, you get 98 senators. The correct numbers are 49 Dems; 49 Republicans; 1 Socialist in Bernie Sanders, who always votes with the Dems; and 1 Independent in Lieberman, who caucuses with the Dems. So you take Sanders and Lieberman put them with the 49 Dems and you have a 51-49 block favoring the Dems in the Senate. That is why Harry Reid is the MAJORITY leader and Little Dickie Durbin is the ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER. You see the word, MAJORITY there???
BC meet Dumb Dumb Janet. Dumb Dumb Janet meet BC. Please, though, when you get together, don't have kids. Our educational system is struggling with too many ill-prepared kids as it is.
Posted by: John D | September 13, 2007 11:40 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to try and defend the Swamp giving 3 times more space to the Democrats. Nobody has. Guess nobody can.
Every time the "Swamp" purports to contrast the two party's views on the war, it gives more space to the Dems. The imbalance goes far beyond coincidence.
And it's pretty clear why. The case for US defeat is so weak that the media believes the pro-defeat left can only win the debate if the media helps them out.
Posted by: Bruce | September 13, 2007 2:19 PM
In another post, John D asks that janet and Raving Loon don't procreate and waste his tax dollars. First of all, hope Raving Loon is in fact male, or else that incredibly thoughful "zinger" loses its zest. But its not surprising John D would seemingly advocate "self-love", he must be an expert at it, because based on the above hate filled rant, how could such a jerk find some "lovin'" any other way.
Posted by: kb | September 13, 2007 2:22 PM
Bruce that imbalance has been going on for years. I remember way back in 1992, as with all presidential elections one set of LIBune reporters covered Bush-Quayle one set covered Clinton-Gore. The articles covering Bush-Quayle went like this: First paragraph or two was on Bush-Quayle, then about the next 80 percent of the article was of Clinton-Gore oepratives disspelling anything Bush-Quayle said, and then last paragraph or two was on Bush-Quayle again. In other words, most of the articles on the Bush-Quayle campaign actually consisted of Clinton-Gore team comments and coverage.
Course, articles of the Clinton-Gore team were 95 percent Clinton-Gore with perhaps, and I mean perhaps, a paragraph on the Bush-Quayle response. It's been that way ever since.
Posted by: John D | September 13, 2007 2:27 PM
Bruce and John Wouldn't you two be more comfortable reading nutty Old Man Treasonous Novak in the other paper?
Posted by: Raving Loon | September 13, 2007 3:24 PM
Cute there, kb, very cute. But, no, I don't have to rely on "self-love" like you and John E. I get plenty of love. That is not a problem.
Posted by: John D | September 13, 2007 4:00 PM
[quote]
Our educational system is struggling with too many ill-prepared kids as it is.
Posted by: John D | September 13, 2007 11:40 AM
[/quote]
You're Exhibit A in that department, John D.
You won't have to be concerned with Janet and me getting together to produce kids, because my wife of 20+ years would never allow it.
But I'm so glad to see that you went so anal over a typo on my part. The numbers "48" should be replaced with "49". And just because two Independents side with the Dems on some issues still doesn't give support to Bruce's claim of a "Democratic Congress".
How's your research on the cost of John Edwards' suits coming? Or are you ready to admit that your post was YOUR OPINION and NOT FACT as you alleged? A real man would do it...
Posted by: BC | September 13, 2007 4:24 PM
BC, those two independents -- a Sociaist and former Democrat -- caucus with the Dems, handing over control of the Senate to the Dems. You see, if one of those independents caucused with the Republicans, then it would be 50/50 with Cheney casting a tie-breaking vote and the Senate would be run by the Republicans. Democrats control the House and they control the Senate; hence, it's a Democratic Congress. Very simple, actually, except for you simpleton like yourself.
Wife of 20 years, eh? She has my sympathies.
Posted by: John D | September 13, 2007 6:28 PM