LoungeMachine
10-31-2007, 01:26 PM
A Time For True Leadership: Chris Dodd for President
by Bob Geiger Page 1 of 3 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
What should have been a watershed moment in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination occurred last month in a debate sponsored by MSNBC in which moderator Tim Russert asked the candidates if they would "...pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq."
What came next from the media-anointed "leaders" in the Democratic field was a festival of ass-covering and hedging in which Hillary Clinton said that "it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting" in backing away from the pledge, Barack Obama opined that "it's hard to project four years from now" in refusing to commit and John Edwards flat-out said "I cannot make that commitment."
Bear in mind that Russert was not asking if the presidential contenders would advocate withdrawing troops that week, the following month or even sometime in 2008. He was simply asking if they would commit to ending a war that has nothing to do with America's national security -- except in making us demonstrably less safe -- is killing our troops, bankrupting our nation and destroying our global reputation and if they would do that within the next half a decade.
Cue crickets chirping and silence from the three primary-poll leaders.
Russert then turned to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and said flatly "I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge, as Commander-in-Chief, that you'll have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?"
"I will get that done," said Dodd firmly.
"You'll get it done?" clarified Russert.
"Yes, I will, sir," said Dodd.
Period. End of story.
Dodd pointed out after that debate that the most "remarkable" thing about the response to Russert's direct question was that, "The so-called leading candidates were unwilling to say whether they would have our troops out of that country by 2013."
"The idea that we could be embroiled in combat for at least another five years should set off alarm bells for anyone with a modicum of foreign policy experience," said Dodd. "Sacrificing American lives to engage in a civil war is a deeply corrupt strategy and one I have been working to combat in Congress. I call on my fellow candidates to help me bring an end to this war long before 2013 - we need to end this war now before it passes Vietnam as the longest war in American history."
Perhaps it's a dismal sign of how unaccustomed we've become to presidential-like leadership that we don't recognize it when it slaps us in the face, but his firm stance on Iraq and many other reasons make it obvious to me that Chris Dodd should be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.
In addition to saying unequivocally that he will get our troops out of Iraq when he assumes the role of Commander-in-Chief, Dodd has voted for troop withdrawals at every opportunity since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has been a leader in all efforts to end the Iraq quagmire.
But Dodd has been at his best most recently in showing immense leadership and the truest understanding of our nation's meaning in standing strong against attempts by the Bush administration to let telecommunications companies off the hook for aiding and abetting the White House in their illegal domestic spying on American citizens. Despite little support from his Senate colleagues and eerie initial silence from his fellow presidential candidates, Dodd came out and said last week that he would place a Senatorial "hold" on any bill granting immunity to companies that have assisted George W. Bush in spying on Americans without required warrants and announced that he would filibuster any such legislation to keep it from passing.
Here's Dodd on the Senate floor on Friday:
"While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement on existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.
"That is why I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed.
Continued At:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bob_geig_071030_a_time_for_true_lead.htm
by Bob Geiger Page 1 of 3 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
What should have been a watershed moment in the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination occurred last month in a debate sponsored by MSNBC in which moderator Tim Russert asked the candidates if they would "...pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq."
What came next from the media-anointed "leaders" in the Democratic field was a festival of ass-covering and hedging in which Hillary Clinton said that "it is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting" in backing away from the pledge, Barack Obama opined that "it's hard to project four years from now" in refusing to commit and John Edwards flat-out said "I cannot make that commitment."
Bear in mind that Russert was not asking if the presidential contenders would advocate withdrawing troops that week, the following month or even sometime in 2008. He was simply asking if they would commit to ending a war that has nothing to do with America's national security -- except in making us demonstrably less safe -- is killing our troops, bankrupting our nation and destroying our global reputation and if they would do that within the next half a decade.
Cue crickets chirping and silence from the three primary-poll leaders.
Russert then turned to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut and said flatly "I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge, as Commander-in-Chief, that you'll have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?"
"I will get that done," said Dodd firmly.
"You'll get it done?" clarified Russert.
"Yes, I will, sir," said Dodd.
Period. End of story.
Dodd pointed out after that debate that the most "remarkable" thing about the response to Russert's direct question was that, "The so-called leading candidates were unwilling to say whether they would have our troops out of that country by 2013."
"The idea that we could be embroiled in combat for at least another five years should set off alarm bells for anyone with a modicum of foreign policy experience," said Dodd. "Sacrificing American lives to engage in a civil war is a deeply corrupt strategy and one I have been working to combat in Congress. I call on my fellow candidates to help me bring an end to this war long before 2013 - we need to end this war now before it passes Vietnam as the longest war in American history."
Perhaps it's a dismal sign of how unaccustomed we've become to presidential-like leadership that we don't recognize it when it slaps us in the face, but his firm stance on Iraq and many other reasons make it obvious to me that Chris Dodd should be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.
In addition to saying unequivocally that he will get our troops out of Iraq when he assumes the role of Commander-in-Chief, Dodd has voted for troop withdrawals at every opportunity since Democrats took control of Congress in January and has been a leader in all efforts to end the Iraq quagmire.
But Dodd has been at his best most recently in showing immense leadership and the truest understanding of our nation's meaning in standing strong against attempts by the Bush administration to let telecommunications companies off the hook for aiding and abetting the White House in their illegal domestic spying on American citizens. Despite little support from his Senate colleagues and eerie initial silence from his fellow presidential candidates, Dodd came out and said last week that he would place a Senatorial "hold" on any bill granting immunity to companies that have assisted George W. Bush in spying on Americans without required warrants and announced that he would filibuster any such legislation to keep it from passing.
Here's Dodd on the Senate floor on Friday:
"While it may be true that the proposed legislation is an improvement on existing law, it remains fundamentally flawed because it fails to protect the privacy rights of Americans or hold the Executive or the private sector accountable if they choose to ignore the law.
"That is why I will not stand on the floor of the United States Senate and be silent about the direction we are headed.
Continued At:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bob_geig_071030_a_time_for_true_lead.htm