The war drums for Iran are beating loud and clear. Bush's placing their state army unit on the terrorist list, an uprecedented and unbelievable move, and his high gear "nuclear holocaust" rhetoric are just a couple more ridiculous episodes in his pre-emptive, corporate-war-economy policy known as "the war on terror". Confounding the latest intelligence concerning Iran's perceived threat with a dangerous sense of wish fulfillment, Iran has some how become more immediatedly threatening. Amazingly, Bush and company have answered the overwhelming public call for ending the war in Iraq and withdrawing from the region with a scheme to actually expand the war further and attack another country.
We know where Bush stands on Iran. If his increased fear mongering in the media, escalation of military presence in the gulf, and request for increasing the new "Iraq" supplemental by $50 Billion aren't enough, keep in mind his vow that he "will not leave office without resolving Iran". As diplolacy is a slow process, likely to last more than his time left in office (though, very reasonably, able to be accomplished within the 5-10 years we have before a nuclear Iran), we should know what to expect.
However, where exactly do the Democratic candidates stand? With all of the above mentioned events recently regarding Iran, the "frontrunners" are noticeably silent. A quick check to their websites will show that neither Clinton, Edwards, nor Obama released statements addressing the Iran issue. This is curious as they issued statements on everything from the Iraq progess report to Chinese imports. Doesn't this grave threat of further war warrant some clear statment, a responsible address?
Though it is certainly politically expedient to remain as silent and equivocal on the issue as possible, we who will soon be casting our votes cannot. I think it is entirely reasonable to expect statements on their positions now, before any action is taken (And let me painfully remind everyone that action may even be taken before Bush consults with Congress: courtesy of the Democratic majority who so curiously removed the provision in an earlier supplemental that would require the administration to do so). I think it is reasonable to demand accountability.
We must have them on record, either for or against further military action in Iran, with a detailed defense of their position. We can't let them dance around and hope to blame someone else when it goes wrong, as it almost certainly will. However, calling for accountability is not enough. We have to demand leadership on their positions.
If there is such a thing as an "audition for the presidency" this may well be it. I can't think of a more important issue right now than the direction we take in the region. For if, we extend the war into Iran, I think it goes without saying that the occupation of Iraq will continue and, moreover, that we will be seriously endangering the brave troops stationed there. It could completely destabalize the region, as well as the world econoomy through skyrocketing oil prices. Further, our national security will certainly be affected too. To call this situation critical would be quite an understatement. And yet these candidates are effectively silent?
If they support an attack on Iran, regardless of how insane I would consider it, they can only show the leadership of our highest office by addressing the American people, convincing us of their position, and lobbying for support in Washington. If they take opposition to military action we should know what solution they propose and, most importantly, should witness their leadership in gaining oppositional support and enactment of possible preventive measures; civil action, legislation, or even impeachment.
This can't be stressed enough. If these candidates are against this war they need to use their public platform to speak out and try to prevent this war. As frontrunners who garner more than enough political clout and media exposure they could very well prove instrumental in preventing an attack. If they support military action, then we need to know. In either case, we will hold them accountable.
As the media will undoubtedly jump on board,beating the drums like they did for Iraq, many may not be aware that some candidates have been speaking out. Dennis Kucinich in particular has once again taken up the leadership to do the heavy lifting for the party. A visit to his site shows a candidate willing to outline his position, take a stand and lead, just as he did in 2002. Forget about the money race, media market shares or public image. This is what marks a "serious candidate".
No comments:
Post a Comment