You have the proved the power of nostalgia for Bill and TV advertising. One telephone poll has you in first place in Iowa, finally overtaking John Edwards who has spent months in Iowa on the ground. Some wags say the former South Carolina Senator has not left since the last presidential campaign. Nostalgia alone is not a winning campaign strategy nor are more 3o second TV spots a substitute for effective national policy. Only one policy reason why I am not supporting you is your apparent capitulation to the Bush game plan for the Middle East. When an Iowan had the temerity to suggest you are helping to support an Iran first strike by voting to put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the foreign terrorist organization list, you got a little testy didn't you, Senator? You even suggested the question was a provocation.
It does seem you have joined the Regime chorus for blaming Iran for it's own Iraq debacle. The Charlatan addressed the American Legion in August where he told his conservative crowd he had, "authorized our military commanders to confront Teheran's murderous activities." Dick from the Dark Side pushed the Pentagon into redrawing it's on the shelf Iran attack plan this summer into one targeting the Revolutionary Guard. In the latest round of sabre rattling against Tehran, General Petraeus alleged on Saturday that the Iranian ambassador to Iraq is a member of the elite Quds Force, a group accused by the US of supplying shaped charges and other advanced weapons to Shia militias--some of whom are part of Al Maliki's shaky Baghdad government. Just how these kinds of speeches, symbolic gestures, and unproven allegations are supposed to help find a way to enlist Iran's help in preventing a presumptive sectarian bloodbath in Iraq is rather murky. They do, however, make it easier to justify another disastrous "preemptive" attack. You voted for the first one. Former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said the revised plan to attack Iran in retaliation for alleged military support of Shia factions will mire us "in a regional war for twenty years." The once burned British are sceptical of the Regime's claims of covert Iranian involvement in the Iraq conflict. Prime Minister Gordon Brown's security advisor says US claims should be "taken with a pinch of salt."
Right now, Governor Richardson is making the most sense on Iraq. He keeps asking how leaving a smaller force behind in Iraq can accomplish anything that 130,00 US soldiers have not been able to do in five years. You do not have a good answer to that question. He says it is the American occupation that is preventing any kind of accommodation between Iraqi factions. Therefore, all American troops should leave in an expeditious maneuver, but that conclusion does not mean they should leave the region. After a reposition of forces, the U.S. would still be able to quickly respond to adverse developments from bases in UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait. Richardson has the diplomatic experience in the Middle East to justify his opinion. Because his campaign is not funded by Wall Street, he is not getting as much media attention as you. So he is stuck in forth place. Your campaign of 'Billstalgia', disco music, and Madison Avenue sound bites demonstrates one thing well: the crippling superficiality of American national politics.