The debate on Iraq that Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson had nothing to say

[jillan]

summarized by the Director of the Center on Politics & Foreign Relations Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.


Robert Guttman
Democratic Presidential Candidates Speak Out on Ending the Iraq War at Johns Hopkins SAIS Center on Politics and Foreign Relations/Financial Times Debate

"All the Democratic presidential candidates agree that the war in Iraq has to end but how it ends is important. We have to end it responsibly," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and 2008 presidential candidate Joe Biden at our Democratic presidential debate on Iraq last night at Johns Hopkins SAIS in Washington, D.C.

"People who voted for the war should not run for or be president of the United States," remarked Ohio Congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich at our two hour event focusing exclusively on Iraq yesterday.

"Senators running for president are too incompetent to be president because of their early votes on the Iraq War", commented former Alaska Senator and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Gravel.....

.......We were sorry that the other Democratic presidential candidates did not show up because of scheduling conflicts or because they had to tend to the fundraising side of the campaign. But, we tried quite hard to have all the candidates be participants in the topic of Iraq, the issue that dominates the 2008 presidential campaign.

Senator Biden is an impressive speaker and debater. I would hate to think that other candidates stayed away from our Iraq debate because of his debating skills


Read the rest of it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/democratic-presidential-c_b_51210.html

or for another perspective:\
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/biden-gets-a-brief-iraq-moment/#comment-100288

Unbelievable that the rest of the candidates did not show up to discuss the most important issue facing us at this time.
Do they really have nothing to say about Iraq???????

[ArkySue]

1. Of course they had nothing to say.

They were too busy posturing and spouting platitudes to discuss, in depth, their ideas and plans concerning Iraq. That's because they have no in-depth plans concerning Iraq.
I can't believe this bunch of candidates is the best we can do.

[Jillian]

2. This is only upsetting to 2 people? Guess getting out of Iraq is not so important after all.

:shrug:

[NCarolinawoman]

3. I doubt that the rest of the bunch has the courage to stray from their talking points.

They all have tons of advisers and coaches which makes me think they have probably not even internalized what they believe.

Since this format was a far cry from the roadshow we have become use to watching, it was just too risky for the others. They are lauded for skipping Fox News because it is Faux, but refuse to attend a REAL debate on the most important issue facing us. A lot of inconsistency here.

[jillan]

4. You know - I just saw Obama on C-Span

He was at a rally. 20,000 people there.
It was a pep rally. No issues. When someone asked him about Darfur - he gave a one minute answer "No-fly zones, UN peacekeepers".

I'm getting worried.

Even Mike Gravel got a great review from this debate.
No matter where you stand on this war, all the people at SAIS wanted to hear was the candidates views on what to do in Iraq.

[cascadiance]

9. My dad worked with SAIS back in the early 60's when I was a little kid...

I still remember when that young student from SAIS recently got Bush hung up on that question she asked him about whether or not the "mercenary" contractors are accountable to any rule of law over there. That was choice to see that a new generation there was just as thoughtful and critical in their thinking as it was when my Dad was there many years ago. Didn't see this debate, but I hope that this audience was as demanding of good material from these candidates as well and will think hard if they were getting what they should have about someone else that should be pushed... Gore!

[CarolNYC]

5. It is pathetic

It is pathetic, pirhana, that the others couldn't be bothered to participate in this. Gotta make you wonder how any of them would be able to handle the mess that the next President will inherit in Iraq. Sad, really. This is such an important issue. It would be nice to hear them discuss it in more than soundbite snippets.

[jillan]

6. Was it you that told me that Wes was going to be there?

I was sorry he wasn't :(

[CarolNYC]

7. Wes

Well, when he spoke at SAIS last month and the debate was mentioned, he said "maybe I'll be able to do that" or something like that. Bob Guttman said he was more than invited. It was all in the middle of speculation on whether Wes would run this time and I don't know if it was meant he'd participate if he was a candidate at that time or what. Nothing was concrete and, of course, Wes is not a candidate...yet. I don't know if that factored into it at all. For what it's worth, I would have loved to see him there as well. I think Wes would love to get the opportunity to debate Iraq at length with those running for President.

[jillan]

8. Well if he's not going to run for President

Maybe one of the front-runners could hire him as a consultant.

I'd sleep better at nite.....

[frogcycle]

12. wes would obliterate them

damn, I want him and gore as co-presidents

[Cameron27]

11. pirhana, I was the one who said he might.

I thought there was a chance he would attend, but since he's not a candidate he might have opted out, or for other reasons. I really was hoping that all the candidates would show up though. It's only the #1 urgent problem we're facing at the moment.

What a shame :-(

[Telly Savalas]

14. It's not like you need a 200 page white paper to say "leave now".

What's there to discuss?

[slipslidingaway]

10. Videos of all three candidates who accepted the invitation

posted here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1062977

[bvar22]

13. Because Hillary and Obama have already promised to continue the WAR.

Neither one of them can appear where they will be held to specific plans about the WAR/OCCUPATION of Iraq. Hillary and Obama have already assured their BIG MONEY contributors (Wall St/MIC/AIPAC/OIL) that their Money Machine in Iraq will continue.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If elected president, Sen. Hillary Clinton said, she would likely keep some U.S. forces in Iraq in a supporting role after 2009 because America has "a remaining military as well as a political mission" that requires a presence there.
However, in an interview with The New York Times published Thursday, Clinton said the American troops would not play a role in trying to curb sectarian violence.
Rather, they would be positioned north of Baghdad to combat terrorists, support the Kurds, counter any Iranian moves into Iraq and provide logistical, air and training support to the Iraqi government "if the Iraqis ever get their act together."


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/15/clinton.troops/index.html


Obama outlined a plan for maintaining a U.S. presence in Iraq similar to Clinton's.
"Withdrawal would be gradual, and we'd keep some U.S. troops in the region to prevent a wide war, to go after al Qaeda and other terrorists," he said.

[struggle4progress]

15. Hey, isn't this where Wolfowitz was dean? Isn't this where Wolfowitz appointed ...

... his buddy Wedgwood as a professor of law and diplomacy, even though (1) she had no advanced academic credentials, (2) she had no diplomatic experience, and (3) the school had no law program?

Maybe the no-shows decided they'd be explaining Democratic proposals for Iraq policy to a gaggle of Wolfowitz appointees at SAIS?