My favorite magazine, The Nation recently took a stand on its editorial pages and said:
I'm down with that.We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.
We firmly believe that antiwar candidates, with the other requisite credentials, can win the 2006 Congressional elections, the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and the subsequent national election. But this fight, and our stand, must begin now.
In the coming weeks and months The Nation will help identify--and encourage support for--those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war and to begin the hard work of forging a new national security policy that an end to the Iraq War will make possible.
A few weeks ago, Democracy For America issued a similar pledge via a message from Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett:
I pledge to only support candidates who:While Paul Hackett seems to have backed down from that pledge, I stand by it.
- Acknowledge that the U.S. was misled into the war in Iraq
- Advocate for a responsible exit plan with a timeline
- Support our troops both at home and abroad
A candidate right here in Pennsylvania who supports an exit strategy with a timetable: Chuck Pennacchio. You can read his Iraq Exit Strategy [.pdf] one-sheet. His stance on other important issues here.
The Pennacchio Blog asks to tell The Nation of Chuck's mission. Neither Santorum nor Casey Jr. support an exit strategy let alone a timetable. Contact The Nation here.
Subscribe to The Nation here. You won't regret it. I love it.
Comments