The war in Iraq has been an issue of high controversy ever since it started. There has been a lot of criticism towards the Bush administration for the course of action they’ve taken, especially from the Democratic party. Now that the 2008 Presidential elections are getting closer, the question on everyone’s mind, as Eugene Robinson puts it, “Who has a plan for Iraq?” Really, who does?
Mr. Robinson, contributor to The Washington Post, makes an excellent argument bringing up this subject after the Presidential debate on September 26, where none of the leading Democratic candidates could pledge to have U.S troops back home by the end of his or her first term. I mean, weren’t Democrats ranting about how much of a failure this war has become, giving the American public hope of the war coming to an end if they were elected? There’s evidence in Mr. Robinson’s argument to conclude and point out the inconsistency of the candidates’ past stands on this issue and their present stands as the election gets closer.
One the points brought out by Mr. Robinson was on Hilary Clinton’s change of heart about the war. In the beginning, she voted to authorize the war. Later on, she decided she was against this issue and defended herself from critics saying that President Bush pulled the wool over her eyes. Yet, recently she voted for a Senate resolution encouraging Bush to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. Why would Hilary Clinton vote for something that might give the great warrior Bush the justification for another war? That seems a tad bit shady if you ask me.
When Senator Obama was asked what would be the outcome of Iraq during his first term, his response was, “It’s hard to project four years from now.” I mean, as a candidate for the Presidency, it is his responsibility to project four years from now if not who will? Mr. Robinson clearly points this out to emphasize the true motives of Mr. Obama if he is elected. Does he see a long term presence of U.S troops in Iraq or doesn’t he?
As for John Edwards, once passionate on his opposition about the Iraq War, couldn’t foresee the troops back home by 2013. Where did all the passion go Mr. Edwards?
It seems that the reality is setting in on the candidates: One of them is about to inherit a huge mess. By the way Democratic candidates are speaking now, the end of the war is just as vague as it has been during the Bush administration. Where has the great passionate vision of the Democrats gone? Or was their passion a crock of political trickery?
Who has a plan for Iraq? Clearly, no one does.
Link to original article:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/30/0930robinson_edit.html
Mr. Robinson, contributor to The Washington Post, makes an excellent argument bringing up this subject after the Presidential debate on September 26, where none of the leading Democratic candidates could pledge to have U.S troops back home by the end of his or her first term. I mean, weren’t Democrats ranting about how much of a failure this war has become, giving the American public hope of the war coming to an end if they were elected? There’s evidence in Mr. Robinson’s argument to conclude and point out the inconsistency of the candidates’ past stands on this issue and their present stands as the election gets closer.
One the points brought out by Mr. Robinson was on Hilary Clinton’s change of heart about the war. In the beginning, she voted to authorize the war. Later on, she decided she was against this issue and defended herself from critics saying that President Bush pulled the wool over her eyes. Yet, recently she voted for a Senate resolution encouraging Bush to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group. Why would Hilary Clinton vote for something that might give the great warrior Bush the justification for another war? That seems a tad bit shady if you ask me.
When Senator Obama was asked what would be the outcome of Iraq during his first term, his response was, “It’s hard to project four years from now.” I mean, as a candidate for the Presidency, it is his responsibility to project four years from now if not who will? Mr. Robinson clearly points this out to emphasize the true motives of Mr. Obama if he is elected. Does he see a long term presence of U.S troops in Iraq or doesn’t he?
As for John Edwards, once passionate on his opposition about the Iraq War, couldn’t foresee the troops back home by 2013. Where did all the passion go Mr. Edwards?
It seems that the reality is setting in on the candidates: One of them is about to inherit a huge mess. By the way Democratic candidates are speaking now, the end of the war is just as vague as it has been during the Bush administration. Where has the great passionate vision of the Democrats gone? Or was their passion a crock of political trickery?
Who has a plan for Iraq? Clearly, no one does.
Link to original article:
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/09/30/0930robinson_edit.html
