Chris Dodd for President

Senator Dodd voted against cloture on an Iraq funding measure this morning. He was the only candidate to do so.

Dodd has pledged to not vote for any more funds for the war in Iraq unless it's tied to ending the war in Iraq. Here's Senator Dodd's statement on his vote:

"My position has been clear for months - the only way to end the war is with a firm deadline that is enforceable through funding. While I commend my colleagues in taking a step in that direction, this President's actions and continued rhetoric give me little confidence that setting a "goal" date for redeployment will force his hand."

"I will continue to fight for a firm and enforceable deadline tied to funding to end the war and restore American security. "

The measure voted on this morning provided money to continue funding the war effort and only included a "goal" for withdrawal. That's not enough to end the war in Iraq, it's just a half measure. The only way to end the war and bring our troops home to the heroes welcome they deserve is to defund it.
Senator Dodd was true to his word and voted against this funding measure. No more half measures - it's time to end the war in Iraq, no more wasting time.

Senator Dodd voted his conscience in an effort to end the war, something that Democrats were voted into the majority to do. Where was everyone else?

Mike Caulfield of Blue Hampshire has a great post up grading the candidates following last week's Dartmouth debate - specifically on Iraq and how the frontrunners punted their answer on 2013 and ending the war in Iraq. Caulfield writes:

I've had some time to think about it, and the three front-runners get an 'F'. Period.

Note to the frontrunners: we already know that you can't know the future. We get it. We weren't looking for a weather forecast, guys.

We were looking for leadership. And I have to say, y'all flunked.

Looking at the fundraising numbers today I'm ready to throw my Sidekick through a window. Hillary, are your sponsors putting up that $27 million to be out of Iraq, "maybe"? Obama, is that $20 million to get us out of Iraq, "depending"?

It's beyond belief.

The outrage Caulfield expresses towards Obama, Clinton, and Edwards failure to lead with clarity and conviction has been widespread since the 2013 answer. Caulfield, like many others, thinks tip-toeing around the most important issue facing our nation today shows the frontrunners out of step with the American public. He articulates this in a comment on his post:

Sometimes leadership requires precision, and sometimes it requires clarity.

This was not a time for precision.

Senator Dodd was clear, but also precise when he answered the 2013 question:

Tim Russert: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge as Commander in Chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?

Chris Dodd: I will get that done.

Tim Russert: You'll get it done?

Chris Dodd: Yes, I will, sir.

The choice is clear: support a candidate who is committed to getting all American troops out of Iraq in his first term in Chris Dodd or support someone who does not have the conviction to do what these times call for and end America's involvement in Iraq's civil war.

A Washington Post / ABC News poll out today shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans want to see large-scale troop reductions by next summer, if not sooner. Additionally, there is bipartisan consensus among the American people in the belief that Congress should cut funding for the Iraq war.

Here's the Washington Post on the results with regards to funding the war in Iraq:

There is broader public agreement on how Congress should approach war funding. About a quarter of adults want Congress to fund fully the administration's $190 billion request; seven in 10 want the proposed allocation reduced, with 46 percent wanting it cut sharply or entirely. About seven in 10 independents want Congress to cut back funds allocated for the war effort, as do nearly nine in 10 Democrats; 46 percent of Republicans agree.

Scarecrow of FireDogLake breaks down the numbers on withdrawal:

What Americans are more likely saying is that 38 percent want at least the 30,000 troops withdrawn on Bush’s schedule while an even greater number, 43 percent, want a larger, quicker withdrawal. That’s an overwhelming 81 percent in favor of withdrawing troops (compared to 60 percent in July), and more than half of those want the exit to be faster than Bush proposes. Americans aren’t supporting Bush; they overwhelmingly support bringing the troops home.

81% of Americans want the US to withdraw troops from Iraq. 69% of Americans want Congress to cut funding from Bush's request for the war in Iraq. These numbers could not be more clear: the American public stands with Chris Dodd on ending America's involvement in Iraq's civil war.

Blogger Cliff Schecter responds to Dodd's firm stance on getting American troops out of Iraq before 2013 and calls for people and the press to "start paying attention" to Dodd's leadership:

I gotta say, I am becoming a bigger and bigger Chris Dodd fan every moment. The media better start paying attention to what he has to say on this issue (as well as habeas corpus and others), because I am feeling a grassroots groundswell of the Dean variety for someone who will just be honest with us and stop calibrating every single sentence.