Chicagoist: Foster, Oberweis Argue Iraq

Kevin Robinson

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:52:10 -0600

Sorry to be a nit-picky commenter... Touche!

ogradybt

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:50:20 -0600

Sorry to be a nit-picky commenter, but the AP article you cite doesn't really line up with Pascoe's statement that "Foster [is] out of touch with the residents of the 14th District, who strongly support our troops, and believe they should be withdrawn gradually." That statement suggests Bill Foster doesn't support the troops. The AP article just suggests that bread-and-butter issues are more important to voters than the war.

matilda

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:32:19 -0600

Interesting questions, TourismBoard.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:38:55 -0600

I agree with matilda, but I wonder how much difference on Iraq there really is between Bill Foster and Jim Oberweis outside of semantics. According to the linked-to article Oberweis thinks that bringing the troops home has already begun (has it really?) and that he seems to like that policy. What they're websites reveal is that Jim Foster thinks that Iraq is the issue that will get him elected (so 2006 of him) and that Iraq is nowhere on Oberweis' radar and that he's still obsessed with Mexicans and parrots the usual Republican mantra of tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy. The 14th district seems to have dug this mantra and I wonder if Bill Foster's overemphasis on Iraq over his wise-if-vague fiscal policies will cost him.

matilda

Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:44:21 -0600

I am not sure whether Foster is out of touch or not, but I am curious about how quickly opponents of the Iraq War think our troops can be withdrawn, and how easily they thinnk this will happen. I see the withdraw as much more complex and dangerous than the initial invasion and occupation because of various logistical and political reasons--in essence, we will be attemping a fighting retreat, unless a miracle happens and Iraq's government establishes stability. I think more than a few anti-war people (and I do think this war is an even bigger mistake than Vietnam was) think, for instance, that if Obama gets in, he will snap his fingers and the troops will return home within months. I find that highly doubtful. I imagine we will have at least 50,000+ troops in Iraq through most of the next president's first time, and at least 30,000+ there for some 10-20 years, if not 50. The Iraq War: the gift that keeps on giving, I guess.