Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, who has stepped up attacks on rival Hillary Clinton for her plans to continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq, said yesterday that he would also carry out “expeditions” against that insurgent group – but from bases outside the country.
Edwards told Boston Globe editors that in case of civil war and to battle Al Qaeda, he would keep a quick reaction force of 4,000 to 5,000 troops in Kuwait and station others around the Middle East, including in Afghanistan and possibly Jordan.
He said, however, that ending the permanent military presence in Iraq – what he calls an occupation – is a significant distinction between him and Clinton. Keeping troops in Iraq is “like putting a target on the foreheads of American combat troops who stay there,” Edwards said.
We’re battling Al Qaeda all over the world right now and we don’t occupy countries to do it,” he said. “We don’t have to occupy Iraq.”
But a Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, said Edwards’s comments contradicted statements he made at debates and on the campaign trail.
“You can’t end combat missions and go after Al Qaeda. That’s a combat mission,” Singer said.
snip: During the interview, he criticized Washington lobbyists, including their role in derailing congressional efforts to close a loophole that allows executives of hedge funds and buyout firms to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries and janitors. “It’s a complete embarrassment,” said Edwards, who until last year was an adviser for a New York hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group.
Edwards, a former trial lawyer who made millions representing poor, injured people, acknowledged that he has raised significant funds from Wall Street and special interest groups, including lawyers.
“I’m not claiming purity or holier-than-thou. . . . I don’t claim to be the perfect messenger,” Edwards said. “I do believe that all of us have gotten so accustomed to this that it feels okay. . . . We need to recognize that it’s not right and actually make a serious effort to do something about it.”
Boston.com
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/08/edwards_advocates_combat_expeditions/
November 8, 2007
Edwards advocates combat ‘expeditions’
November 5, 2007
The High Standard of Single Talk
Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, launched a web ad so aggressive towards Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, upon first viewing I thought it was put together by the Republican National Committee. (WATCH IT HERE).
And today Edwards will continue making his case against the former First Lady in such a fashion, saying in Iowa City, per remarks released by his campaign, that “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire. We have seen this movie before. And it doesn’t end well — in fact, as we all know too well, in Iraq, it hasn’t ended at all.”
I agree that Clinton’s debate performance exposed her to several charges of not presenting a clear opinion — what Edwards calls “double-speaking.”
But has Edwards exposed himself to that charge as well?
ABC Political Punch 11/5/07
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/the-high-standa.html
October 10, 2007
Who Wants Out of Iraq?
Taylor Marsh
snip: don’t fault any of the top tier for not promising to get out of Iraq in months, which I’ve been saying is now our reality, especially once the primary season was upon us. I do fault them for not being willing to commit to getting our troops out by 2013, as long as the caveat Bush made things worse so we can’t is included, which seems fair and obvious to anyone following this long, sad war tale. Biden’s plan for Iraq actually offers hope to make this happen and even got bipartisan support, proving that creativity is an asset even if it may not lead the author to the presidential promise land. So I find the deification propaganda being put forth by supporters of Obama and Edwards overwrought, no matter how heartfelt and righteous; as supporters postulate their candidate is more intent on redeployment from Iraq than the other. With all three unable to commit to getting out by 2013, though Obama did recently flip flop to say he’d get us out in 16 months (which is it?), they simply blur together as one choice. Beyond that it starts centering on the intangibles and emotional attachments people have for or against a candidate.
snip: I understand everyone’s passion for their particular candidate. But the arguments are specious when trumpeting policy on Iraq. Obama and Edwards have chosen to align themselves with policies that blur into being basically the same as Clinton’s. Splitting hairs over brigades and combat forces isn’t something that reaches voters. Shifting positions after the Dartmouth debate, Obama obviously realizes the mistake made. However, someone saying “I commit to having all troops out of Iraq by 2013″ — insert Bush made things worse so we can’t caveat here — is much stronger and likely will resonate with Democratic primary voters. Dodd or Richardson may not get enough votes to win the nomination, but the case they’re each making is likely to hit home in Iowa, especially since 80% of voters could change their candidate preference before the primary. There’s plenty of time left for that to happen.
Taylor Marsh
October 8, 2007
Dodd Campaign Takes Shot at Edwards’ Stance on Iraq
Today on Meet the Press, former Senator John Edwards said that he believes Congress should continue to send bills with a deadline for ending the war to the President to force his hand. He specifically said there was a difference between sending bills with a deadline and cutting off funding for the troops.
This is Sen. Edwards’ latest position on his ever-changing stance on whether or not to support a firm, enforceable deadline tied to funding to end this war.
February 2007: Edwards Said He Would Not Cut Off Funding for the War in Iraq:
Edwards: “I would not cut off funding for the men and women who are part of our troops and serving in Iraq.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 2/4/07]
May 2007: Edwards Said that Congress Should Use Its “Funding Power” to End the Iraq War:
Edwards: “It is time to end this war. The only real power Congress has to end the war is their funding power, which is why I and others have been calling on them to use it for some time. I would actually go further than Reid-Feingold and use the funding authority, not just to set an ultimate deadline, but to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year. But using the funding authority to bring this war to an end is exactly the right thing to do. Every Senator who believes this war is wrong and wants to end it should support Reid-Feingold.” [John Edwards for President press release, 5/15/07]
October 7, 2007: Edwards Claimed That He Does NOT Support Cutting Off Funding for the War:
Tim Russert: “You’re now are in favor of cutting off funding, aren’t you?”
Edwards: “No sir. No. I am saying now what I said in February.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 10/7/07]“For months Sen. Edwards has been lecturing Congress on what it must do to end the war. And while it would have been easier to do with his vote, we agree that the only way to end the war was to force the President’s hand through Congress’ funding power,” said Dodd Spokesperson Colleen Flanagan. “We are so disappointed that Sen. Edwards is now backing away from his position on ending funding for this failed policy. If we are going to end this war, we need to be clear and consistent with this President.”
“If Sen. Edwards is going to offer Congress advice as to what to do from afar, the least he could do is be consistent about it.”
nhpols.com
http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=4802
October 5, 2007
Flip-flop or distortion?
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 3, 2007
Richardson: Edwards’ Iraq plan contradicts common sense
WASHINGTON, DC– New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today released the following statement on John Edwards’ new rhetoric on Iraq:
“When asked directly by Tim Russert if, as President, he would pledge to have all American troops out of Iraq by 2013, John Edwards said no. He could not commit to ending this war even in five and a half years. We need less rhetoric and more resolve on this issue.
“Edwards says that he would get all of the combat troops out of Iraq, but he would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in the middle of a civil war. That is not ending the war. Just look at what he has said– look at the plan on his web site. If you leave thousands of troops behind, you are not ending the war.
“Leaving behind thousands of non-combat troops contradicts Army doctrine and common sense. It is simply irresponsible. Furthermore, Edwards’ plan to keep a brigade in Iraq for five years for humanitarian workers and civilian contractors is equally mistaken. Five thousand troops will not be able to do what he is asking. History teaches us that putting undermanned forces in the middle of sectarian conflict, whether in Somalia, Lebanon, or anywhere else, is a recipe for disaster.
“In his speech today, Edwards tried to widen the rhetorical distance between himself and Senator Clinton. However, the actual difference in this race is between me and Senators Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. They will leave thousands of our brave troops behind. I will get all of them out and leave behind no residual forces. John Edwards would change the mission. I will end the war.”
Campaigns & Elections 10/3/07
http://campaignsandelections.com/sc/releases/index.cfm?ID=4693
September 27, 2007
No Edwards commitment to pull troops by 2013
HANOVER, N.H. (AP) — The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.
“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.
“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Sensing an opening, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson provided the assurances the others would not.
“I’ll get the job done,” said Dodd, while Richardson said he would make sure the troops were home by the end of his first year in office.
Associated Press 9/27/07
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iySWjciIrjB8hbu450lIABfnYcjw
September 13, 2007
Hillary takes anti-war ball from Edwards
WASHINGTON — – Gayle Moore, an Iowa nurse, wants U.S. troops “out, out, out” of Iraq as soon as possible. Darleen McCarthy of South Carolina fears that Iraq is turning into “another Vietnam.”
But when these two Democrats vote in January to help decide their party’s 2008 presidential nominee, neither plans to support the self-styled antiwar candidates. Instead, they are siding with the one top contender who voted to authorize the invasion and has refused to apologize for that — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
snip
Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina began his campaign by declaring his 2002 authorization vote a “mistake.” Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois frequently notes that, though he was a state legislator at the time, he opposed the war from the beginning. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has called for an immediate troop withdrawal.
snip
The poll, which surveyed registered voters who planned to turn out for the primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, found that a plurality of Democratic primary or caucus voters in each state thought Clinton would be “the best at ending the war in Iraq” — 33% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire and 36% in South Carolina. Clinton holds substantial leads even among voters who listed the war as the top priority facing the candidates.
snip
Clinton won support from 36% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters who said they wanted U.S. troops withdrawn “as soon as possible”; by contrast, 14% of those voters backed Obama and 12% favored Edwards. Clinton also led among those in that group who said they supported more-gradual withdrawal plans and who backed remaining in Iraq until the war is won.
The numbers were similar on that front in South Carolina. And in Iowa, where the overall race is tighter, Clinton was essentially tied with Edwards in support from Democratic voters wanting an immediate pullout of troops from Iraq. But among those same voters, 33% said Clinton was the best candidate to end the war, compared with just 6% for Edwards.
snip
Harrison Hickman, Edwards’ campaign pollster, acknowledged that at least for now, voters were not seeing specific differences among the candidates on the war.
“If they don’t see a lot of differences, it’s hard to say those issues are driving the campaign,” he said.
Los Angeles Times 9/13/07
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-clinton13sep13,0,1458032.story?coll=la-home-center
September 11, 2007
No residual forces?
On the left, it does not appear Barack Obama or John Edwards are going to say the magic words (“no residual forces”) necessary to rally the netroots behind them. Without impeccable anti-war credentials, neither has a chance to stop Hillary Clinton. Moving to the general election, some in the netroots worry that a lack of Dem resolve in Congress, Dem frontrunner insistence on leaving residual forces in Iraq, and summer ‘08 headlines about Pres. Bush bringing troops home will combine to neutralize current Dem advantage on the issue. If these trends continue, a troubled economy just might be the big issue in ‘08.
The Hotline 9/11/07
http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/09/911_an_iraqless.html
June 26, 2007
An Exit to Disaster
snip: The Democratic debate on Iraq has become an escalating contest of exit strategies. Sen. Hillary Clinton outlines a “three-step plan to bring the troops home starting now.” Sen. Barack Obama pledges to “have all our troops out by March 31 of next year.”
Former senator John Edwards wants a “timetable for withdrawal” that would generously leave “some presence to guard the embassy, for example, in Baghdad.”No one can confidently predict the outcome of a precipitous withdrawal, but the signs aren’t good. Experts such as Fred Kagan at the American Enterprise Institute believe a full-scale Iraqi civil war would result in massive sectarian cleansing that “might not leave a single Sunni in Baghdad.” Hundreds of thousands or more, he expects, would die.Nearby powers in that nasty neighborhood would be tempted to intervene in favor of various Iraqi factions, raising the prospect that civil war might escalate into a regional conflict.
“Even if it is kept at the proxy level,” says Ken Pollack of the Brookings Institution, “proxy fights can be ruinous to countries around it.”And the descent of Iraq into complete lawlessness would allow terrorists to carve out fiefdoms. According to the national intelligence estimate issued in January, al-Qaeda “would attempt to use parts of the country — particularly Anbar province — to plan increased attacks in and outside Iraq.
“When pressed to address these consequences, most of the Democratic candidates offer a response similar to Edwards’s: “As we withdrew our combat troops out of Iraq, I would not leave the region.” So America would defend its interests from a safe distance in Kuwait. But how effective has it been to fight terrorist networks in Pakistan from a distance? How effective has it been to fight genocide in Sudan from a distance? This is less an argument than an alibi.Some Democratic foreign policy experts think that talk of immediate withdrawal is just politics for Iowa consumption; they give the candidates credit for their insincerity.
A new Democratic president could easily announce that “circumstances are worse than I had feared” and adopt a more gradual and responsible plan.But there is a problem with this approach. Feeding America’s natural isolationism — no country relishes sending its sons and daughters to fight in a far-off desert — can create a momentum of irresponsibility that moves beyond control.
snip: Sometimes peace for America can produce ghosts of its own.
The Washington Post
