Edwards parsing double talk on Iraq

[creeksneakers2]

From the October 30th debate:

She says she will end the war, but she continues to say she'll keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.To me, that's not ending the war, that's a continuation of the war.

From October 7th Meet the Press episode:

What I would do instead is outside of Iraq, probably in Kuwait, maintain a quick reaction force. And that quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of al-Qaeda operations, not terrorism at large.

Edwards explains the difference without nuance : :sarcasm:

But I want to be really clear about something, Tim. I’m saying something very different than what Senator Clinton’s saying. Senator Clinton has said she will maintain troops inside Iraq, and that they will engage in combat operation, combat missions, I think is her term, inside Iraq. I will not do that. To me, that is a continuation of the war, and this war needs to be brought to an end. I do think that America, like we would anywhere else in the world, is focused on al-Qaeda, focused on public enemy number one, and we have to be ready to respond if they’re planning attacks inside Iraq, attacks against us or our embassy inside Iraq, or attacks outside of Iraq. We have to be prepared to respond to that, and that’s why I’d keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait. But I would not, as Senator Clinton would, keep combat troops inside Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.

I'm understanding less and less about how anybody can support Edwards, beyond just hating Hillary.

[Blackhatjack]

1. It is clear that Edwards IS the Progressive Voice of the Dem Party, NOT Hillary...

You don't have to hate Hillary to support Edwards.

THere are clear differences Edwards is pointing out, and you can bet they are not lost on Repubs who will use them against her in a General Election.

"Triangulating' is not going to get it when she has to answer the difficult questions.

And if you think taking all that corporate money won't influence her actions if elected, you are mistaken.

[Cameron27]

2. What are the clear differences then,

on Iraq and Iran, on undocumented workers' drivers license issue, on SS, or health care. I don't see any big difference on the issues between anyone running except for Kucinich.

[BootinUp]

7. Its just the rhetoric

Edwards has adopted the netroots theme of Dems don't have backbone. Some people think that will be a successful political strategy in a General election. But no, in reality its just red meat for the primary and the netroots are such suckers to jump on the fake bandwagon. Problem for Johnny is that there are not even enough primary voters who will base their decision on that alone.

[BootinUp]

8. Additionally

Obama's rhetoric is far different than Edwards, its the bring America together rhetoric. Isn't it interesting that more Democrats prefer that over Edwards theme.

[denem]

25. (deleeted)

[denem]

26. (delected)

[mark414]

3. um, it seems pretty simple to me

he continues to say she'll keep combat troops in Iraq

What I would do instead is outside of Iraq, probably in Kuwait

for the record, i am not an edwards supporter

[Cameron27]

4. It's not that simple

Clinton...on Iraq: "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home."

Clinton...on Iraq: "We're going to have troops remaining there, guarding our embassy, we may have a continuing training mission, and we may have a mission against Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Edwards on "Meet the Press":"Unless we're going to close the embassy in Baghdad, and have the only American embassy in the world that we provide no protection for, there have to some troops in Baghdad for protecting the embassy. ... We do need to maintain quick reaction forces just outside Iraq. ... .. That quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of Al Qaeda operations."

Edwards at Dartmouth debate:"I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected." - John Edwards

http://www.taylormarsh.com/

[mark414]

5. yeah, pretty much everyone but kucinich leaves something to be desired

i was just pointing out the seemingly obvious differences in the OP, that is all

what you posted, however, is correct

[Cameron27]

6. That's how I feel. Kucinich has the only clearly different

voice in this race.

[Spoonerian]

9. I think Kucinich would gain momentum if

he would say the same things I heard him say on an Ed Shultz interview directly to Clinton and the others in the debates. On Shultz's show, Kucinich said that Clinton and the others were complicit in Bush's war by giving him every penny he asks for, when they have a constitutional DUTY to give him zero. Regarding this, on the show Kucinich also said that their complaints about "lack of a veto-proof majority" is total b.s. and propaganda. They don't need a veto-proof majority to do that. If the do that Bush will be forced to pack up. Kucinich should call these bastards out on this at every debate and in every speech.

And more importantly, Kucinich should ask Edwards about the 14 mega-bases INSIDE Iraq. What's Edwards going to do about them? Send Halliburton home (or "re-deploy" them as our leftish-superhawks like to say) to the surrounding colonies and then hand the 14 mega-bases over to the Iraqis to be dismantled and turned into youth centers and playgrounds? No, an Edwards administration will be feeding money to Bechtel and Lockheed for years to come building up the new imperial center of U.S. military operations in the nation of Iraq--or more probably in the new "emerging democracies" of Kurdistan, Sunni-stan, and Shia-stan.

And what about the Vatican-sized military fortress that Edwards calls an embassy? Why can't that be de-militarized and the U.S. government rent out a little office space as a civilized foreign government should? Do any of the foreign government embassies in Washington resemble the fortress/military mega-base that the U.S. calls an embassy in Baghdad?

[goodgd_yall]

11. Why are you having such a hard time seeing the difference?

You must be an HRC supporter. Or do you just have a visceral dislike for Edwards?

Combat troops in IRaq (HRC and Obama) vs. troops to guard the Embassy (Edwards).

[Lucinda]

15. That is a big part of why I finally bailed on Edwards.

Plus his new video, which misrepresents what he knows to be the truth.

[creeksneakers2]

12. No. Edwards said before that he'd bring troops back

in over the border to fight Al Qaeda. Now he's changed to "no combat troops." Double talk.

When Edwards said he'd keep troops over the border but would send them back instead of keeping them in Iraq that's nuance. The same thing he's going after Hillary for.

[goodgd_yall]

16. It's not nuance; it's a critical difference

Keeping combat troops in Iraq is tantamount to continuing the occupation.

And Edwards stand on this is one of the big reasons I do support him and not Hillary or Obama.

[goodgd_yall]

10. What's confusing you?

There is a difference---combat troops in Iraq vs combat troops on standby. He's assuming Kuwait would agree to U.S. troops being there, and being allies, I'm sure they would. We invaded Iraq in the first place. HRC and Obama's plan to leave U.S. combat troops in Iraq is an extension of the original invasion and occupation.

[creeksneakers2]

13. Troops in Kuwait that would fight Al Qaeda in Iraq

They are still going to be combat troops. Edwards just moves their base. Edwards would still have combat troops making missions over the border. Now Edwards says it differently but that's double talk.

[Cameron27]

14. And who's going to protect the humanitarian workers?

How many are there? He said he's leaving troops to guard the embassy, is that in addition to the marines currently stationed there? There's enough of fuddle-factor left in his statements to raise questions.

[goodgd_yall]

17. He would remove combat troops

If the marines stationed there are combat troops, then, yes, they will be withdrawn.

[Cameron27]

18. Where is that stated?

It still doesn't answer how many humanitarian people will have to be protected, where they're located, and how many troops will be left to do that.

[goodgd_yall]

20. Here is a portion of the transcript from Meet the Press---an unedited portion

"I am not for maintaining troops—combat troops—inside Iraq, for a lot of reasons. I think number one, they’ll have a target on their forehead while they’re there. Number two, it continues the perception that America is occupying Iraq. What I would do instead is outside of Iraq, probably in Kuwait, maintain a quick reaction force. And that quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of al-Qaeda operations, not terrorism at large. The problem with what I hear with Senator Clinton saying, and I’ve heard others say is when you talk about maintaining troops, combat troops inside Iraq, based there, and they’re focused on anti-terrorism activity within Iraq, that’s very similar to what President Bush says. It’s very hard to understand what—where that ends, where the limits are.

"I do think we need to end this war in Iraq. I’m for getting our combat troops out of Iraq. I’m going to be responsible and protect the embassy like we do everywhere else in the world, but we will maintain a quick reaction force just outside of Iraq in Kuwait, so that if there are al-Qaeda—let me be very specific, not general terrorist activity. I mean, terrorist activity can include any sort of action against civilians and against the state. I’m talking specifically about public enemy number one, al-Qaeda, that’s responsible for a small percentage of the insurgent activity in Iraq."

MR. RUSSERT: But as I hear you, you would have significant combat troops outside of Iraq but on the border prepared to go into Iraq for combat duty?

SEN. EDWARDS: But I want to be really clear about something, Tim. I’m saying something very different than what Senator Clinton’s saying. Senator Clinton has said she will maintain troops inside Iraq, and that they will engage in combat operation, combat missions, I think is her term, inside Iraq. I will not do that. To me, that is a continuation of the war, and this war needs to be brought to an end. I do think that America, like we would anywhere else in the world, is focused on al-Qaeda, focused on public enemy number one, and we have to be ready to respond if they’re planning attacks inside Iraq, attacks against us or our embassy inside Iraq, or attacks outside of Iraq. We have to be prepared to respond to that, and that’s why I’d keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait. But I would not, as Senator Clinton would, keep combat troops inside Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.

[goodgd_yall]

21. Edwards' response in the September 26 debate in Hanover, NH

John Edwards: I cannot make that commitment. But I -- well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I'm sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

Edwards: I think the problem is -- and it's what you just heard discussed -- is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.

Russert: Governor Richardson...

Clinton: Well, Tim, could I just clarify that, you know, I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.

Edwards: But, can I just say that my only point is -- I don't have any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsible course. There is a difference, however, in how we would go about this. And I think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know that difference.

And the difference is really very simple. I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq.

Combat missions mean that the war is continuing.

[Mnpaul]

19. Hillary's positions

TIM RUSSERT: Then you would disagree with any call for immediate withdrawal of some troops or a specific timetable?

CLINTON: Well, Tim, I understand the feelings behind that call. . . . But at this point in time, I think that would be a mistake. I don’t believe we should tie our hands or the hands of the new Iraqi government. Now obviously, as this government is stood up and takes responsibility, there may come a time when it decides for its own internal reasons that we should set such a deadline and withdrawal agenda. But right now I think it would be a mistake. We don’t want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain. I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time. We want to send a message of solidarity.

-- NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Feb. 20, 2005


“I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit.”

-- Kentucky Democratic Party fundraiser, Dec. 2, 2005


“I’ve taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, ‘Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let’s get out by a date certain.’ I don’t think that’s responsible.”

-- ABC’s “Nightline,” Sept. 7, 2006


Voted “No” on Kerry amendment (SA 4442) “to require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq” and would have required such redeployment to “ in 2006” with the deadline of having “United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.”

-- Senate Roll Call Vote #181, June 22, 2006

CLINTON: When we originally proposed it, we said that 2006 should be a year of transition. We’re running out of time in 2006. I think this needs to be done immediately.

-- 2006 New York Senate campaign debate, Oct. 20, 2006

YOUTUBE QUESTION: The 2006 election gave the Democrats in office a mandate to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. . . . I would like to know if the perception is true that the Democrats are putting politics before conscience. . . . Is the reason that we are still in Iraq ... due to the Democrats’ fear that blame for the loss of the war will be placed on them by the Republican spin machine?

CLINTON: Since the election of 2006, the Democrats have tried repeatedly to win Republican support for the simple proposition that we need to set a timeline to begin bringing our troops home now.

-- Democratic YouTube/CNN debate, July 23, 2007

Voted “Yes” on S.J. Res. 9 to “direct the President to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment of this joint resolution with the goal of redeploying by March 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces from Iraq, except for a limited number essential for protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counter-terrorism operations.”

-- Senate Roll Call Vote #75, March 15, 2007


Take your pick you are bound to like one of them. I don't know which one she will follow though.

[Think82]

22. THE ONLY ONE who has anything substantial to say on Iraqis BIDEN

I'm sorry, but it's true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OhPG7mk8yQ
www.planforiraq.com

[Think82]

23. everyone else is splitting hairs

[Adelante]

24. I have no problem with Clinton (or anyone) being criticized

I intensely dislike a guy who has parsed and double-talked his way through life calling out another Democrat on parsing and double-talk. I just can't wait to see the cut and paste ads against Edwards flipping one way and then another to see if everyone is so happy about them.

[Cameron27]

27. I agree

[BootinUp]

30. I've heard enough character assassinations from John. nt

[denem]

28. NewSpeak HISTORY LESSON - We never had a war in Kosovo

Because there were no combat troops on the ground. I'm sure General Clark will be most surprised. Yes Indeed, if you are running combat missions from Kuwait and the carriers, the war is over. Brilliant!

[Cameron27]

29. That's true,

I'm not sure why he thinks there's a significant distinction in running combat missions from Kuwait rather than keeping them in Iraq for the same purpose, but I'm sure someone will tell me lol.

[goodgd_yall]

31. Keeping combat troops in Iraq is continuing the occupation

That is the significant distinction.