The Candidates on Iraq and Iran

Barack's a bit better than Hillary on the war; Barack's website says, "Obama has a plan to immediately begin withdrawing our troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of next year." Meanwhile, Clinton's simply says her Cabinet would, "draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

Unlike most people, I don't give Obama any extra points over Hillary for having opposed the war in 2002. Nearly all of the Democrats in the Senate supported the authorization of force against Iraq, and it was less because they believed in it and more because if they didn't, they would be branded as traitors, which was the kiss of death to any national politician that soon after 9/11. Edwards supported it too, and I can't really give Obama the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't have voted the same way had he actually been in the Senate at the time. Heck, I'm not sure I wouldn't have had to vote for it at the time. I am a little uneasy, however, that unlike Edwards, Hillary hasn't really backed off that vote.

All three candidates rattled sabers towards Iran, which is just plain stupid. Iran's a toothless (like me!) third-world nation that bears no threat towards us, and it's time we ignored them.

Slight advantage on the wars to Obama.

Labels: 2008 Election, 2008 Primaries, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Politics

posted by jbrzoska @ 3:41 AM Trackback Link