among the candidates, who has the strongest anti-war position?

[cleveramerican]

lots of vague non-declarations going on. Who is the bluntest, most un-equivocal, persuasive one?


this isn't about "electability" this is about message.

[karynnj]

1. The bluntest most un-equivocal will not

necessarily be the most persuasive. What will be needed is someone who can give confidence that they could get us out while dealing with the political nightmare that the area already is. What may be as important to me is for them to articulate under what circumstances she/he will (or won't) take the country to war.

What we need from all the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clear statements of their view of Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine and their own view of what circumstances must be met before they would take the country to war. This is more pertinent than which of the very constrained choices were taken in 2002.

In 2004, Senator Kerry was asked this question in the first debate and his answer was essentially based on what constitutes a "just" war from Christian theology, though he generalized it as a "global test". Although the Republicans tried to make an issue of the word "global" ignoring that it meant universal, it was as good an answer as could be given quickly. The likelihood is that this fundamental question will be asked in 2008. I hope the Democratic candidate will say that the Bush doctrine is unethical and against international law and will articulate his/her philosophy.

At this point, I do not have a candidate and those I think most obviously capable of doing both these things - Kerry, Gore and maybe Clark - are either not running or not yet declared. (I wish I knew more about Dodd.)

[Cobalt Violet]

2. Dennis Kucinich.

:patriot:

[endarkenment]

3. Dennis Kuncinich and Mike Gavel nt.