According to the Associated Press ("Iraq Poses Dilemma for '08 Candidates"), candidates who hope to run for the presidency in 2008 are having a difficult time figuring out what position to take on Iraq.
Senator John Kerry (who failed to win the presidency in 2004), "initially voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution calling on President George W. Bush to explain his strategy for success in Iraq." But "minutes later," the Democrat changed his vote." Apparently, it's a new flip-flop land speed record!
For those considering a presidential run in 2008, the AP continues, "the stakes are particularly high. Any position they take is a gamble given the uncertain terrain in Iraq and the United States in three years."
"If you stake out too specific of a position this early, you may have to take that back, and you can only zig and zag so many times in American politics," said Darrell West, a political scientist at Brown University in Rhode Island.
Along with John Kerry, his 2004 running mate John Edwards also has flip-flopped already: "I was wrong," former Sen. John Edwards, a North Carolina Democrat, said Nov. 13 in a column in The Washington Post. "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002." He advocated a "gradual process" of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq starting early next year.
The latest to chime in, according to the same AP report, was Sen. Joseph Biden (famous for having been accused of plagiarism more than once), who said Monday that "measurable progress" must be made on the political, reconstruction and security fronts in the next six months. "What we need is for the president to change course and do it now," Biden said.
Craig Smith, a Democrat, said that, "Anybody who proceeds to stake out a definite position now does so at their own peril."
It's enough nuance to make your head spin.
Enough already. Would it be too much to ask that a politician seeking the trust of the nation actually take a definite, sensible position on Iraq now and stand by it?
Or do we have to wait until 2007 to find out their "nuanced" position on Iraq (which will of course depend on how it happens to be turning out)?
Does America really need the kind of "leader" who can't figure out what they think about Iraq until after the fact?
It's not as if, "Your position on Iraq, please?" is a pop quiz. It has been over two and a half years since the current Iraq war began. It has been 15 years since the start of the first major U.S. military operation involving Iraq, Operation Desert Shield.
Can we make up our minds already, or do we need to have the benefit of hindsight to know what we think? A real president doesn't have the benefit of waiting until after the fact to take a position.
Being afraid to stake out a position is not leading. It's spinning. It's waffling. It's flip-flopping. It's embarrassing. And it's dangerous to the security of our nation. We have to know where we are going as a nation. The terrorists need to know too.
These are perilous times. Those aspiring to the highest office in the land must demonstrate leadership.
Your position on Iraq now, please. Or don't bother in 2008.
More commentary at California Conservative here and here; The Lunch Counter; and The Hackett Review.
Related posts:
The Democrats like the 'good' politicians are hedging their bets on Iraq waiting for the outcome. If by 2008, Iraq is a peaceful democracy, they will say that they were for the war and if Iraq is in turmoil, they will say they were against the war.
Posted by: docdave | November 29, 2005 at 07:45 PM