« Nationwide Wireless - An Idea Whose Time Has Come? | Main | Teaching Early Adopters to Communicate to the Early Majority »

May 07, 2006

Why Cantwell's Position On the War is a Non-Position

Atrios put his finger squarely on the reason I find Maria Cantwell's "year of transition" non-position position on the Iraq War to be completely and utterly unsatisfying:

The real issue isn't what Democrats are saying about Iraq now. The real issue is knowing what they're going to say in October, and laying the foundation now to do that. In the plan:


Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

Early November is pretty near the end of 2006 and at that time, I imagine, Iraq will still be shit. If 2006 fails to be "a year of significant transition" what will Democrats be saying then? Forget the unified message now, what will be the unified message then?

Cantwell voted for the war.  She, along with a lot of other Democrats (but not Patty Murray) was wrong.   There were no WMDs.  We didn't need to go to war.

Unlike many other Democrats, Cantwell doesn't seem able to admit that the war -- and her vote for it -- were both mistakes, and that leaves her unable to put forth any ideas about how to move forward out of this quagmire.  Instead, we're stuck with her mouthing half-baked non-messages from Party HQ.

C'mon!  Where's the kind of leadership you've shown on energy and the environment?  You can do better.

And, yes, I'm still voting for you.

Posted by Jon Stahl on May 7, 2006 at 03:53 PM in National and International Politics | Permalink


Post a comment