Iraq debate (and Cuba) heats up Democratic race

September has been described by the Administration as the key month for the Iraq War debate. Gearing up for the congressional debate, the Democratic caucus is trying to find a coherent and unified strategy with which to press forward - should they seek to compromise with Republicans to pass a veto-proof bill, or should they pursue a harsher line and a firm timetable? The Politico previewed the disagreement between the leadership and the rank-and-file members:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are calculating that it is futile to continue their months-long campaign to force an immediate end to the war, particularly after Republicans and a few Democrats returned from the summer recess intent on opposing legislation mandating a strict timetable for pulling out U.S. troops.

In what is a frustrating capitulation to White House wishes before the debate even really starts, the Senate leadership is now pushing the Levin-Reed proposal, which sets goals instead of imposing firm dates. Withdrawal should begin within 120 days, and the majority of troops should be out by early 2008. Not that it is that surprising given the Democrats' pathetic last-minute vote in favor of wiretapping before summer recess. Activists have prepared themselves for the September debate all summer, spending millions in TV ad and lobbying Congress members to make sure they stand up to the Administration in the fall.

Predictably, this debate spilled over to the presidential race. the Senate Democrats who are running for president have to actually cast votes. Chris Dodd fired first, announcing his opposition to the Levin-Reed amendment a few days ago:

I cannot and will not support any measure that does not have a firm and enforceable deadline to complete the redeployment of combat troops from Iraq. Only then will Congress be able to send a clear message to the President that we are changing course in Iraq, and a message to the Iraqis that they need to get their political house in order.

Around the same time, John Edwards put pressure on the frontrunners by dismissing them as "inside-the-Beltway" and urged Congress to not approve a bill that does not set a firm withdrawal date. From his statement:

Without a firm deadline, a small withdrawal of only some of the surge troops won't cut it—that's not a solution, it's an excuse. Congress must not send President Bush any funding bill without a timeline to end this war. No timeline, no funding. No excuses.

DailyKos's Markos put up more pressure on Clinton and Obama by displaying dismay at their silence on the Iraq issue. "Dodd and Edwards leading. Where are Obama and Clinton?" wrote Markos in in one of his entries. He continued later, "For a bunch claiming they deserve to lead our party and our nation, they've done everything possible to avoid any leadership. On the other hand, Chris Dodd and John Edwards haven't behaved so cowardly."

Then, it was Clinton's turn to imply that she was against Levin-Reed type efforts: "I continue to support legislative efforts requiring the Administration to begin to withdraw our troops and to complete the redeployment of combat troops in 2008, and I encourage the Congressional leadership to ensure that we will have an opportunity to vote for such legislation." Obama still having said nothing, Kos kept blasting him: "I have to say I'm shocked at the silence from the Obama campaign. The utter lack of leadership shown thus far on his part is appalling."

And today, it was Bill Richardson's turn to weigh in with a very strong-worded editorial in the Washington Post in which he attacks his three main rivals by name. Richardson has been trying his best to differentiate himself from the other Democratic candidates for a while now, insisting every chance he gets that he is the Democrat who goes the further in his opposition to the Iraq War.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so quickly. In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years — a tragic mistake. Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal — not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process — would be the most responsible and effective course of action.

Having already made news on this Iraq debate by speaking against compromise attempts early and strong, Chris Dodd distinguished himself today in another foreign policy issue. He called for repealing the embargo on Cuba. Not just easing travel restrictions, as other candidates have proposed, but completely doing away with the embargo. It is very rare for candidates to go down that route. From Dodd's press release: "Our Cuba policy has neither served America's interests nor brought democracy to Cuba. It has only served to strengthen the current regime. It has been an abject failure."

It is great to see a candidate take such an amazing position on an issue, but it would be even better if it was not always those least likely to win who impressed us. But that's probably wishing for too much.