How can the "American Conservative" call for exiting Iraq faster than our "top 3" candidates?

[Faryn Balyncd]

How embarrassing...

While each of our "top tier" says we will still be occupying Iraq in 2013, the American Conservative publishes no less that FIVE articles advocating an expeditious exit from Iraq:

Sycophant Savior
by Andrew J. Bacevich
General Petraeus protects official Washington from its greatest fear: admitting it was wrong....

Easy Out
By Gregory Cochran
Leave the office furniture behind. It isn’t worth one soldier’s life....

A Separate Peace
By Leon Hadar
Iraq will move forward when America leaves it behind....

Open Fire
By Paul W. Schroeder
Americans still don’t understand that the Iraq War didn’t go wrong. The war was wrong....

Once More into the Breach
By Justin Logan
The neocon propaganda machine rolls toward Iran....

After Tocqueville
By Chilton Williamson Jr.
Can democracy expand across the globe when it’s dying at its source?

Kucinich gets it...

Richardson gets it...

Dodd gets it...

Gravel gets it...

The American people get it...

And even the "American Conservative" gets it...



But none of our "top tier" candidates?!

Who runs this party anyway??

[ShortnFiery]

1. "Who runs this party anyway??"

Answer: The Clintonian DLC runs the democratic party.

BTW not much different intellectual intimidation than say, "Auntie runs Barter Town." :scared:

[Trisket-Bisket]

2. Vote in the primaries.

That is where it will be decided. Surely one of those "get it" candidates will win.

I am going for the Goldwater-Miller ticket myself,I like the "Dynasty" angle.
This is not say that a Gravel-Rubble ticket isn't possible. Barney is waiting for the call.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. The American Conservative is Buchanan's mag and has been against the war from day 1. It's not

"conservative" the way that word is used in America in 2007 (i.e. mindless Bushbot), so none of this is really a surprise.

[Faryn Balyncd]

5. You are correct...

about Buchanan (and many paleo-cons and traditional conservatives), and the war.

The "American Conservative" went so far as to endorse Democratic victory in 2006:
The GOP Must Go (published in the final week before the election)

....As did a few other conservatives:
The Washinton Monthly - "Time for Us to Go: Conservatives on Why the GOP Should Lose in 2006"

....And millions of independents who had previously trended Republican. These swing voters voted the GOP out to END THE WAR, not to drag out the occupation past 2013.

The overwhelming majority of Americans favor expeditiously ending the occupation. Advocating perpetual occupation is not a path to victory in 2008.

[jmp]

7. "....And millions of independents who had previously trended Republican."

Yep. And all those votes will be lost in '08 due to inaction. I predict that the Dems will lose the House in '08 ... and be dumbstruck as to why it happened.

[ShadowLiberal]

4. It's because of the polls, and fears of looking weak on terrorism in the general election

If you look at polls a majority of Americans don't favor some kind of an 'instant' pull out like a lot of people at DU by doing something like cutting off the funding. Also the top tier is worried about the general election, and charges from republicans that they're weak on terrorism if they say they'll pull out all the troops. They want to avoid the weak on terrorism label because of fears that it cost us in 02 and 04 elections.

[eridani]

6. Just goes to show--

--that paleocons are not the same as neocons.