Tim Russert succeeded at the last debate to pin down Democratic candidates on the specific question of the projected American military presence in Iraq for January 20, 2013. There are lots of ways to go at the answer, but it is hard to say that it is in any way an unfair question. Just thinking about it turns the page to a new phase in the political conversation.
Richardson's answer--as contrasted with the three leading candidates'-- may be the most important development in any debate so far and could still propel him upwards toward first-tierness (in spite of the disregard he gets from the national press).
I think he has a very good point, which is: when does the occupation end? Can we claim to have ended it if we go straight into a permanent or enduring basing situation there?
I don't share in the criticism of Edwards' answer, though he did miss the trenchant point. Obama's answer disturbed me: the first time he included "defending bases" in the future mission he'd define; when he came back to it shortly afterwards he dropped the bases. So, which is it?
Meanwhile, we fume about Iran and ignore the question of Pakistan.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Obama has now clarified that he doesn't intend for there to be any enduring military bases in Iraq, only a special operations-type one somewhere in the area. 16 months to get combat troops out. Seems very cautious.
Post a Comment