Should we stay or should we go?

Is the Democratic presidential hopeful club on board with "the three noes"?


Published July 25, 2007 11:16PM (EDT)

Today the House of Representatives passed a bill, by a lopsided vote of 399-24, to prevent permanent military bases in Iraq and bar U.S. control over Iraqi oil resources. Huzzah. But as Matt Yglesias points out in another context, the Democratic presidential candidates may not be on the same page:

"I think people should pay attention to Progressive Policy Institute chief Will Marshall when he notes that the major candidates at least sometimes seem to more-or-less agree with his case for indefinitely extending the US military occupation of Iraq. Marshall is also to be congratulated for, unlike the candidates themselves, speaking reasonably plainly about what it is he's proposing and trying to defend the idea on the merits."

Marshall's argument is here, succinctly wrapped up like this: "Specifically, we should redefine our military mission in Iraq as enforcing three 'noes' that are essential to protecting Americab

Interesting, no? Yglesias says that this is in keeping with the "[Center for a New American Security] plan favored by the more hawkish elements of the Democratic establishment" but I honestly don't know where the Democratic candidates really line up on this. Perhaps in the next YouTube debate, we could have the Snowman ask them about it. Update: There's no need to get the Snowman involved, after all. As I was writing this post, Walter Shapiro was writing a piece for Salon called How The Democrats Differ On Iraq which substantially answers the question I asked.


Related Topics ------------------------------------------

War Room