John Edwards returned to New Hampshire this week accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to continue the war in Iraq because she refuses to pledge to remove all combat troops if elected. Continuing the line of attack he began at last week’s Dartmouth debate, Edwards says he would leave only non-combat personnel in Iraq to protect the U.S. embassy and a small force just outside the country for counter-terrorism efforts. He first brought this up during an anti-terrorism speech on Sept. 7.
Clinton has said she would leave a small force inside Iraq for “continuing missions” to do essentially the same thing.
Is there a difference? Clinton’s campaign says no, and that Edwards flip-flopped between Sept. 7 and last week’s debate. Edwards campaign says there is indeed a “fundamental difference” between leaving troops in Iraq and stationing them just outside. It says the Clinton camp is distorting this fundamental difference.
The Edwards camp says leaving troops in Iraq will make them symbols of continued U.S. occupation and targets of insurgents that will inevitably be drawn into broader and broader fighting — effectively continuing the war.
Clinton’s camp says there is no difference in their positions and that she is committed to ending the war, despite Edwards’ accusations.
UnionLeader.com
http://unionleader.com/columns.aspx/Opinion?channel=139832ce-97eb-4460-bf99-b71df3b7f0cc
October 5, 2007
Flip-flop or distortion?
Comments Off
