Can ANY Democratic presidential candidate justify continuing to avoid an all out antiwar stance?

Clearly, Bush will never achieve a military victory. Clearly, there is no longer a middle ground between "stay the course" and "save our skins". Why do the frontrunners STILL fudge?

Can they not yet see reality?

is that being against war in all circumstances, or are you talking only about Iraq?

I wasn't calling for an explicitly pacifist platform, as even I know that would make us unelectable.
But it bothers me that I'm still hearing a lot of hedging among our prospective nominees.

They need to understand that some things CAN'T be triangulated.

would be Barack Obama. He's been consistently anti-war, and spoke out against the Iraq war in 2002. As to why the other candidate hedge around the issue, it's probably because they think if they take strong stance either way, then they are afraid they could lose votes.

Dennis Kucinich. He not only voted against the war, unlike Obama, he also voted not to fund the war. And on the Republican side - Ron Paul voted against the war too - and against funding it.

the vast majority of the country is against the way the war is being handled. yet when asked if immediate withdraw is the best solution the numbers dip significantly. ask americans (including myself) if they would rule out an attack against a foreign country in the future and you would see that a lot of people wouldnt. Iraq is a terrible situation, but if iran attacks our troops in an agressive manner then i would be for action against them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/01/wiraq501.xml

New security strategy transforms battleground
Last Updated: 2:17am GMT 01/03/2007



The car window wound down and a man with a knowing leer on his face looked out. "I am the Madhia army," the driver told the Iraqi soldier manning a checkpoint.

What happened next was shocking, not only for the driver but also the American army units operating in the area. The soldier barked an order: "Get out of the car and put your hands behind your head."

The Madhi army has been the dominant security force in eastern Baghdad for two years. From its stronghold in the Baghdad district known as Sadr City, the militia's leader, Moqtada al-Sadr, who has close links to the Shia-led government and Iran, is lord of a teardrop-shaped swathe of territory on the right bank of the Tigris.

advertisementThe American and Iraqi "surge" of forces to establish order in the Iraqi capital had notched up a singular victory. The man arrested at the checkpoint on Zafaraniyah Freeway expected to move with impunity on streets where the militia's black flag billows from nearly every building. The deployment of the new Iraqi army's 1-4-1 infantry battalion, formerly based in the Sunni insurgent hotspot of Fallujah, changed the equation. Capt Andy White of America's 2-17 Field Artillery Regiment said the detention of the man was a significant breakthrough.

"We were planning on actioning this guy on a lengthy list of charges, he was a dangerous man," he said. "That the Iraqis were able to pick him up is great. They've got the dialect advantages, they can detect from within the culture. This is a significant pick-up for the combined forces."

Forward Operating Base Loyalty, an ex-headquarters of Saddam Hussein's Mukhabarat intelligence services on the fringes of Sadr City, is a testing ground for Operation Imposing Law. The security plan, drawn up by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and strongly supported by President George W Bush, will draw an additional 17,500 American combat forces to the capital.

One of its central tenets is the deployment of units such as the Iraqi 1-4-1 to unfamiliar territory. Local troops are often too intimidated to confront powerful militia leaders. Worse, many units are infiltrated by militia sympathisers who collude with the gunmen.

The arrest one of Sadr's senior lieutenants so early in the operation could have blown the surge off course. So far his order for Madhi army fighters to stand down and not confront the coalition has held.

To Lt Col Dean Dunham, Loyalty's deputy commanding officer, the battleground is transformed, less than a month after the launch of the new approach. He said: "Right now it's noticeable just how much has changed. Now part of that is down to Sadr and his change in method; telling his people to lay low. But we got so much more – two new battalions for our sector and the extra Iraqi security forces."

The strategy is to ratchet up pressure on militias, posting soldiers every few streets. In a circular action, Americans and Iraqis will move out to the streets before US troops pull back to act as a rapid reaction force.

Capt William Billeter claims that the level of street activity has soared. "It's exciting for us to see things change. Before when we saw an empty street that was a signal that a bomb was there and people had pulled their kids in. We want to see crowds. It's a good thing."

Phase one of the plan to transform Baghdad's security has brought a startling drop in crime — as much as 80 per cent, according to estimates. But there is still the fear that the men of violence are biding their time.

The Democratic candidates should not let off the pressure on this point. They certainly shouldn't use Republican Orwellian phrases such as "War on Terror". There is NO SUCH THING. It's sort of like having a war on "evil". Randi Rhodes put it best -- terror is a tactic, and it's impossible to have a war against a tactic!! And yet I've heard Hillary use that phrase, that she supports a war on terror.