Which candidate is going to end this disgusting war?

I am becoming more and more disturbed by the silence from our two candidates on the Iraq War. They make no promises and present no definitive or consistent policies on how we are going to dis-engage.

They are in the position of being able to *say* they are against the war and McCain is for it, but they are not being forced to take a more active position. They are not being asked by the press or the people what the hell they intend to do and how quickly they intend to do it. Even the bloggers are relatively silent.

We, as the fired up Democratic voters in this country, need their feet to be put to the fire. We have an opportunity to force them to differentiate themselves on this issue. I, for one, would throw my whole-hearted support behind the candidate who would do it.

I don't want to hear about past votes or speeches. When given the opportunity to really do something and not just talk about it, both have consistently supported this war and done nothing to stop it. Nothing.

They both have left nuclear weapons on the table. They both have espoused aggressive military policies in the middle east. Neither has tried to portray themselves as a peace candidate. I guess they figure they already have those of us who put this right at the top of our agendas, so they don't really have to answer to us.

The best link I could find on this is a Robert Scheer piece on Truthdig from February. Excellent read. I stole the title for my OP.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/76208/

I wish we would start talking about this.

end of rant

edited to make title more catchy 'cuz i was sinking fast.

Unfortunately, both candidates are playing "mainstream" politics. Refusing to challenge the electorate with new ideas, or offering any real change.

Unfortunately, I expect either of them will respond to McCain's easily foreseen attacks about "toughness" and "patriotism" with more agreement than rebuttal and try to outdo him with their own flagwaving and saber-rattling.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

there will be absolutely NO incentive for them to address it going into the GE. They will always look less hawkish than McCain. Either one can continue to move to the right because no one has asked them to promise to take a position of ending the war.

This really stinks.

He didn't vote for the war in Iraq.

He didn't give Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran.

He didn't support the Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders.

He didn't waver on torturing.

He opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran.

He also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

He will close Guantanamo.

He will restore habeas corpus.

He will finish the fight against Al Qaeda.

He will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century, nuclear weapons and terrorism."


He sounds more credible when he says "I will end the war in Iraq. I'd call it more trusting or honest than his opponent.

This is still the most important issue for me, followed closely by the economy. It's the main reason I started following politics closely for the last 5-6 years. Hardly any of us are having to sacrifice anything, only the military and their families. Didn't just the other day, someone got killed on their 7th tour over there? It's disgusting what so few are asked to do much for this country. How in the hell is 7 tours supporting our troops. But at least the fuckers who sent them over there are wearing a flag pin saying "support our troops".....fuck them

Because both of them have said the same thing. If Iran attacks Iraq, all options are on the table.

They can all talk all they want and this includes every subject under the sun. The occupation and murder will go on.

All a candidate does is look for the big win no matter what is going on. This is the definitition of a politician.

I could care less if they say they did or did not support the war they are all under the control of the war machine and war is money.

edited because my blind rage is impairing my ability to type.

There's no one left in the running who will end this war, and war as an instrument of international policy.

Democratic voters passed on the opportunity to support a candidate who would end perpetual war.

My bad. I mean, god forbid we should actually ask our candidates what the f they intend to do about this.

We are letting them off the hook and we will be sorely disappointed. We will also be responsible.

This is my last effort to push this (that's probably a lie - i will more likely kick it again in an hour). It appears that I am way off base on this one. I would take responsibility for just being a lousy writer and unable to sway my audience, but NO post like this seems to get anywhere.

We have really lost our way. Shame on us.

but Ron Paul has been one of the most vocal congress critters against this war from day 1. He said the other day that Obama's foreign policy is the closest to his own.

Obama will end it and do it the right way, imho.

I would give him a second look.

But all things taken into account, I could not possibly endorse him.

I wish Obama would take a hard stand. They (Clinton and Obama) are both so soft on this issue. A Ron Paul endorsement doesn't really do it for me. I want to hear the candidate say it.

I'm asking you to consider the obvious, Ron Paul has been against this war from Day 1 - he has been vocally against it and the most important plank in his platform is ending the war.

Ron Paul was asked what he thought of the 3 candidates and he said that Obama's foreign policy is closest to his own.

I don't dismiss it out of hand, but his stance on other issues which are very important to me do diminish his overall credibility.

I want to see Obama say it. I have heard him say nothing that would distinguish himself from Clinton on the Iraq issue. They don't talk about it because their positions are so close - and, unfortunately, so far from my own.

we will be there forever