Three Democrats "Debate" Iraq
Last month at a Democratic debate in South Carolina, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) challenged rival presidential candidates to a 90-minute debate on Iraq. Wednesday night at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in D.C., just two of Biden's Democratic opponents, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) answered the call.
The end result was more stump speech than debate as each candidate took to the stage individually to offer ideas about the war. SAIS director Robert Guttman and Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Ed Luce served as moderators, interjecting questions as the candidates spoke.
Before the event Guttman wondered, "Can any candidate actually talk about Iraq for more than 90 seconds?"
The participants demonstrated that they could. Although all three were scheduled to appear at 8:00 p.m., Biden and Kucinich arrived fashionably late, leaving the stage to Gravel, a situation to which he is not accustomed.
"This is an experience for me," said Gravel. "I've got more than five minutes and I'm not sitting somewhere where you can't find me."
Calling himself the "crazy uncle who's come out down from the attic after 26 years," the dark horse candidate drew parallels between Iraq and Vietnam and outlined a plan to bring the troops home by Christmas. He slammed Congress for not voting to defund the war and said congressional leaders should endeavor to break any attempt to filibuster a defunding/withdrawal bill by keeping Congress in session and brining up a cloture vote every day -- until the opposition simply wears out. Gravel said leaders should deal with an inevitable presidential veto in the same way. He estimated the plan would be successful in a matter of weeks.
Asked how realistic he thought the plan was, Gravel said, "I guarantee you it will work."
When told his remarks had exceeded a half hour Gravel asked, "Then does anyone else want to speak?" As if on cue, in walked the Kuciniches.
Kucinich began with a shot at the opposition: "Anyone who's running for president and [approved] the war, has already disqualified himself in the race. And we're not talking about American Idol."
As president, he said he would "reject war as an instrument of policy and... reclaim the morality of our country." The United States, he said, should exist not only "as a unity of the states but a unity of countries around the world." He said one of his first acts as president would be to cancel NAFTA and create a Department of Peace to compete with the Pentagon.
As for Iraq, he said he'd boost reconstruction efforts and offer Iraqis "full control of their oil."
After strolling in at 9:20, Biden chided candidates who chose to skip the forum and expounded on his plan to break Iraq into semi-autonomous regions, asserting that defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq will not solve the problem:
"If every member of Al Qaeda was taken off the face of the earth and that was assured to you by the Lord... you'd still have a Civil war on your hands."
Watch each candidate's remarks made available by the SAIS Web site:
* Sen. Joe Biden
* Former Sen. Mike Gravel
* Rep. Dennis Kucinich
-- Sarah Lovenheim
By washingtonpost.com Editors |
June 7, 2007; 6:24 PM ET
| Category:
Debates
Previous: Huckabee Frustrated With Format |
Next: A Conversation With Mr. and Mrs. Kucinich
Posted by: Nick Stuart | June 8, 2007 02:06 AM
I completely support Gravel but i give the other 2 - 2 thumbs up for showing up to this invitation. most of the candidates could probably care less who invites them if it isnt being televised on national TV. Kucinich seems to speak forcefully until the questioning began and it threw him off balance.
Posted by: Jake? | June 9, 2007 04:02 AM
I was surprised to see the claim that Kucinich said the Department of Peace would "compete with the Pentagon," especially since the legislation (HR 808) directly ties funding for the Dept of Peace to the DoD--that means no DoD, no DoP. Doesn't seem like something he'd say, and if he did, I missed it in his remarks. Truth is, the Dept of Peace would complement the military, providing expanded perspectives and problem-solving options--most of which the military is already scrambling to try to learn and implement on their own. I've been interested to hear more and more candidates talking about the principles and approaches espoused in HR 808 in their policies, even if they don't directly call for a Dept of Peace. With Iraq, Iran, Darfur and the FBI's recent report about violent crime in the US, there's no doubt the time is now for a new approach to dealing with conflict. And it will be up to the citizens to give government the political will and courage to make a real difference.
Posted by: Wendy G | June 11, 2007 11:51 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Lil' Dennis is right on the mark, despite his somewhat abstruse rhetoric and visionary paradigms, and despite the smarmy dismissive attitudes towards the congressman on the part of the mainstream media--as well as Letterman, etc.