The New Republic found a candidate to support its position on Iraq!

[ProSense]

WARNER AND IRAQ:

At Tapped, Matthew Yglesias notes that Mark Warner is firming up his position on the Iraq War. Warner says that, knowing what we know today, he wouldn't have voted for the war. I think that's almost a no-brainer. Absent a strong threat of developing nuclear weapons, you can't justify having gone to war to convert a brutal Sunni dictatorship into a somewhat less brutal Shiite dictatorship. (No, that's not the best case scenario, but it's not the worst-case scenario, either, and it's one many U.S. policymakers would probably take right now.)

But that's the easy question. The tough questions are: 1) Given the information before us at the time, was war a good idea? I think the answer is still probably yes, but it's not so clear-cut. And 2) What should we do now? Warner thinks we should stay, and I agree, but this, too, is debatable.

Warner's huge advantage here is that he doesn't have to answer question number one. Answering that question is what tied John Kerry in knots, and I suspect it will do the same thing to Hillary Clinton. Warner ducks the question, which is smart. (The answer is complicated, and complicated answers inevitably get portrayed in the media as waffling.) People often note that governors fare better as presidential nominees than do senators. This is one of the reasons.


--Jonathan Chait

http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=19125

:wtf:




Tell your Senators: support Senate Joint Resolution 36 to bring our combat troops home in 2006
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2658795&mesg_id=2658795

[blm]

1. So Warner DOESN'T support the Iraq withdrawal plan Sen. Res 36?

Did Chait ask him?

[ProSense]

2. It appears the TNR piece is based on a NYT article:

Mark Warner, a former Virginia governor and another likely Democratic presidential contender, said he did not support setting a deadline for troop withdrawal.

"We have been put in this extraordinarily difficult situation," Mr. Warner said. "My sense is going out without a plan is just as bad as going in without a plan. So I have not been one of those people who say that come heck or high water, we are going to leave by a fixed date."

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washington/02senators.htm

[blm]

4. The war supporters always mischaracterize withdrawl - they leave out the

CRUCIAL aspect of a focused, concentrated diplomacy involving a Dayton Accord type meeting with ALL the regional leaders and the leaders of the insurgencies.

[July]

5. God forbid we end the needless deaths of our own and of Iraqis.

We must have a plan.

(sarcasm)

[Boo Boo]

3. Given the information before us at the time, was war a good idea? I think

the answer is still probably yes, but it's not so clear-cut.

:eyes:

It may be the greatest strategic blunder in our nation's history. The invasion has screwed the country in so many ways it boggles the mind. "...not so clear-cut." That would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Oh yeah, I'm votin' for Warner. Yup.

:rofl:

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Lemme try to gain a grip on at least one point here .......

On the second of June in 2006, a candidate for the presidency of these United States is finally getting together 'his position' on a war that officially started in late March of 2003 and was discussed and opposed for months in advance of that?

He's getting his position together?

Say that to yourself.

Roll it around on the tongue. Taste it.

He's getting his position together.

Yanno .... fuck it. I don't even wanna think what I'm thinking.

Mark .... ya shoulda done what ya coulda done ...... run against Allen and kicked his ass.

I'll vote for this guy after Mickey fucking Mouse drops out.