Edwards Finally Gets On Board Strategic Reset Plan; Will Others Follow?
Edwards Finally Gets On Board Strategic Reset Plan; Will Others Follow?
The New York Times reports today that former Senator and current Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is calling for a 10-month troop withdrawal from Iraq, including those troops currently training Iraqi security forces. This raises two questions:
1. What took Edwards so long? His main argument for getting the troops out more quickly is similar to the ones we made when the Center for American Progress released its Strategic Reset report more than six months ago.
It makes little sense to spend billions trying to build a national army for a government that lacks the full support of Iraq’s leaders, and there are significant risks that the U.S. strategy is currently arming up different sides in Iraq’s internal conflicts, which may be in a temporary lull.
Moreover, an open-ended commitment fosters a culture of dependency among Iraq’s forces. The United States is expending its most precious national security assets — our young men and women in uniform — in “training” efforts that may essentially make Iraq’s forces less self-sufficient and less likely to take on the tasks only they can get done because they are more dependent on U.S. assistance. The political stalemate among Iraq’s leaders stands where it essentially was two years ago in the immediate aftermath of its last national elections in December 2005 — there has been no progress on national reconciliation. And as an Iraqi working with McClatchy Newspapers in Baghdad tells us today, the Iraqi parliament finally came back from its 16th vacation since it was formed in April 2006 — but is not likely to achieve much.
It is good that Edwards realized this fundamental principle — that mindlessly training Iraq’s security forces in the absence of any political reconciliation and progress is dangerous. But why did it take so long? We could have told you that six months ago. In fact, we did. Which leads to another question —
2. When will the other candidates move to this position? To their credit, the two other Democratic frontrunners, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both acknowledged the risks of training without political progress and reconciliation. Senator Obama gave a speech earlier this year that said he would continue training Iraqis IF political progress was made and the Iraqi forces did not act in a sectarian manner. Senator Clinton also has issued similar qualifications, though less clear, saying this past summer she would support training “only to the extent we believe such training is working.”
As Ilan Goldenberg at National Security Network noted, this shift to question training missions has occurred gradually over the past few months among the Democratic presidential frontrunners. Questioning the training is quite different from saying one would affirmatively bring it to an end because it was in the national security interests of the United States, which is what Edwards did today.
We all know that nearly all conservative candidates, except for Ron Paul, are out to lunch on Iraq, and that other progressive candidates are pushing for a sensible redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. A strong majority of Americans — 57 percent — want U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2009. Will the rest of the candidates listen to the American public?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
hello? … is this ThinkProgress?
huh… ok… well, good on ya!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:05 pm…i think?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pmIs reason finally starting to take hold?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:06 pmRather than question why it took Edwards so long, be glad that he did. Whats more important and a larger question is when will the candidates for the Repignofascist Party nomination get on board with this instead of spending all their time trying to scare everyone back to 9/12/2001?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pmAt least Edwards isn’t too hard headed to rethink his options. Apparently Mrs. Clinton is.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pmSeriously? Why is TP going out of their way to do a post burying the only major candidate representing a progressive agenda???
The fact is that he’s making the right decision NOW, and is the only candidate on either side without a nutty libertarian google squad to do so. TP should be lauding this move, not making snarky comments.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pmWhen it is my turn to vote in February I will vote for John Edwards. Amen!!!! GO EDWARDS GO!!!!!!!!!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pmI commend Edwards for this sudden change of heart. Unfortunately for him, it may be too late to gain any momentum in Iowa which he needs to win the presidency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pmBrilliant move. Hillary and Obama don’t have time to respond and they are left leaving the troops there indefinitely.
The Brits are leaving and so should the US. Those who say we should stay, ignore that it was the US invasion that created the hell hole.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pmDoing what a majority of Americans want? Why, that almost sounds like ‘Democracy’. Wouldn’t that be a nice change?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pmMaybe he’s actually listening to the people he’s been meeting, unlike other candidates who think they know so much more than the average, working class citizen. I think he could be a powerful force in turning this country around. He HATES companies like Blackwater. I imagine that’s why he gets so little coverage compared to Hillary and Obama…..and what the heck is with Kucinich? Obama is an agent of change? The guy who wants to sit down with insurance companies to develop a health care plan is an agent of change? The guy who voted for a corporate-backed bill that makes it harder to to file class action suits against companies whose toys contain lead is an agent of change? He voted for the job giveaway Peru Free Trade Agreement, for heaven’s sake. Whatever Kucinich is smoking, I don’t want any.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pmSeriously? Why is TP going out of their way to do a post burying the only major candidate representing a progressive agenda???
The fact is that he’s making the right decision NOW, and is the only candidate on either side without a nutty libertarian google squad to do so. TP should be lauding this move, not making snarky comments.
Comment by ohplease — January 2, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
——
You’re forgetting Kucinich. That’s okay, unfortunately everyone else has.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pmAt least Edwards isn’t too hard headed to rethink his options.
Apparently Mrs. Clinton is.
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
i heard something on ed earlier… rang a big bell in my head…
the woman who called stated how important she thought it was
to elect a woman president, some day… not hillary…
not a woman who’s rise was because of her husband…
it should be a woman who made it on her own…
ding! ding! ding!
(excuse the OT – just wanted to get that out here… thanks)
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pmSeriously? Why is TP going out of their way to do a post burying the only major candidate representing a progressive agenda???
The fact is that he’s making the right decision NOW, and is the only candidate on either side without a nutty libertarian google squad to do so. TP should be lauding this move, not making snarky comments.
Comment by ohplease — January 2, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm———————————
No shiit!!! TP’s bias toward Hillary is shining through. Kudos to Edward!
What happened to we cant leave till 2013 ???
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pmDo these people think we ‘ve forgotten that quote from all top 3 contenders ???
Is this just more of the tell them what they want to hear . How does this collate with his ( their) previous statements. ???
Mr. Edwards are we leaving now or will you somehow parse your comments into now is 2013????
Obama and Clinton have almost identical plans. I very pleased to see Edwards change his position. I am a Richardson supporter mostly because he will begin withdrawal of US troops immediately and I don’t think Richardson will get the nomination. Now that Edwards stated that he will withdraw the troops within 10 months, I will support him. If either Obama or Clinton get the nomination, I will hold my nose when I vote for the Democratic nominee. If Edwards gets the nomination, then I can breath freely when voting for him. The only differences between Obama and Clinton are gender and race.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:29 pmAnd what’s with Kucinich endorsing Obama? Their policies are completely opposite.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pmuntil the situation in the country is reasonably stable.
Looks great according to our trolls, let’s gfo!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pmEdwards is a good candidate who has my serious consideration.
He’s also acutely aware of ‘Corporate Terrorism’ in America. In fact, Corporate Terrorism is by far the biggest threat America faces. In it’s rush to achieve ‘Corporate Globalism’, we have seen many of America’s biggest interests move headquarters offshore to avoid taxes, convince Chinese manufacturers to ignore safety standards to keep prices down, lobby at great lengths to defeat consumer protections and decrease accountability.
Do we really need insurance companies ‘brokering’ our own medical coverage? No.
Do we really need media conglomerates owning every news outlet in a given city? No.
Do we really need oil designated a commodity & subject to speculative price forecasting? No.
America has a choice to make. We can continue to allow corporate terrorism or decide to try & bring our Country back to what made it the pride of the free World.
The choice is up to you. And you. And you…
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 pmAnd what’s with Kucinich endorsing Obama? Their policies are completely opposite.
Comment by Cats r Flyfishn — January 2, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
—–
I lost a LOT of respect for Dennis when I heard that. Obama and Hilary are more of the same in a New Coke packaging.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pmComment by katy — January 2, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
And my opinion is that if it wasn’t for her husband she’d be a Republican.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pmAnd what’s with Kucinich endorsing Obama? Their policies are completely opposite.
Comment by Cats r Flyfishn — January 2, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
Sounds like he thinks he’ll get the VP nod from Obama.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pmThe most responsible thing we can do is remain in Iraq until the situation in the country is reasonably stable.
Comment by good_golly
Just a quick question: What if it takes the bankrupting of our treasury and the killing of thousands more of our brave American soldiers to achieve “reasonable stability”? Does that balance out for you? Exactly, what benefits do WE get by draining our resources?
The single greatest reason there is no reconciliation with the various factions within the Iraqi government is because we won’t set a date for re-deployment. If the Iraqi leadership knows we will stay indefinately, they will fart around indefinately. Why take on difficult choices if you don’t have to.
Think about it: If you have a specific due date for a project – you get on it to honor the due date. If the due date is indefinate, you will procastinate. Its very simple human nature.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pmI don’t care how long it took him, I’m just glad that he is on board. Kucinich has held this position all along, but he gets no press. Kucinich is my candidate and I am going to vote for him in the primary. But if I had to pick someone to run out of the “top 3″ (anointed by the MSM), my pick is Edwards. I like Obama but he is a little to corporate for my tastes. And I fear Hillary as our candidate. She could keep a Republisum in the White House since she is so divisive, not only among Repuliscums but among Democrats too.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmHope this will take Edwards up over the top in Iowa, can’t hurt him in NH, and it’s about freakin time one of the 3 front runners finally listened to the damn will of the people.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmI’m hoping he’ll come from behind and get the nomination, but not expecting that to happen, what with corpmediaorate influence and all…
The Iraqi army has now taken over responsibility for security in 9 of Iraq’s 18 provinces.
http://www.heritage.org/ / Press/ Commentary/ ed010108c.cfm
Comment by good_golly
According to the heritage foundation, huh? Hmmm, you might want to offer us here at TP another source. They are not a rational source of anything except cheerleading for conservative politics – and an imperial presidency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmhttp://www.heritage.org/ / Press/ Commentary/ ed010108c.cfm
Comment by good_golly
Posting links to the right-wing Heritage Foundation IS NOT going to help your case any. How about supporting your contentions with evidence from a source that is a little less biased.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm#19 & 24
It looks like Kucinich is attempting to replicate what he did id 2004, when he endorsed Kerry for president, even though, like Obama in 2007, Kerry’s position was anathema to Kucinich’s position vis a vis the Iraq war. True progressives may want to seriously think about supporting the Green Party candidate in 2008, since it now appears that Kucinich has bizarrely betrayed the trust of the progressive movement in this country.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pmI don’t think I’d blast Edward too much for taking so long — he still beat most of the Dem field to the finish line.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pmGood_golly is such a nutjob that he sources the Heritage Foundation and thinks we’re going to listen to him. The trolls have been dropping like flies around here, you wannabe next GG?
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pmWhat happened to we cant leave till 2013 ???
Do these people think we ‘ve forgotten that quote from all top 3 contenders ???
Is this just more of the tell them what they want to hear . How does this collate with his ( their) previous statements. ???
Mr. Edwards are we leaving now or will you somehow parse your comments into now is 2013????
Comment by jgrant@goldfeinlaw.com
Well, since none of them said we can’t leave until 2013, there really is no answer to your rant.
They did say that they couldn’t rule out having some soldiers in Iraq in 2013 left behind to protect “American interests”. That’s what got me. What “interests” do we have in Iraq? It’s their country for gods sake and we have no interest to anything in their country. It’s their oil, it’s their land, it’s their people. We need to get the hell out and let them control their own country. I don’t care if we think they can’t do it, that is not our decision to make. We need to stop meddling in other people’s affairs NOW!
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pmAnd my opinion is that if it wasn’t for her husband she’d be a Republican.
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
to modify that slightly:
if it wasn’t for her husband she’d STILL be a republican… openly…
i sure wish she’s listened to US back then…
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 pmTrue progressives may want to seriously think about supporting the Green Party candidate in 2008, since it now appears that Kucinich has bizarrely betrayed the trust of the progressive movement in this country.
Comment by Erroll
Like they did in 2000, handing the presidency to Bush. If the Green Party candidates had voted for Gore, there would have been no need for the Supreme Court to step in and anoint Bush King.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pmGood_golly is such a nutjob that he sources the Heritage Foundation and thinks we’re going to listen to him.
Comment by Shayne
Agreed…That was a lousy way for GG to help their argument. Maybe the right side thinks Fox news is fair and balanced, also? Seems so.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pmWell Ralph Nader threw his support to Edwards so doesn’t that get Edwards Green Party support too? Things are looking up.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pmHope this will take Edwards up over the top in Iowa, can’t hurt him in NH, and it’s about freakin time one of the 3 front runners finally listened to the damn will of the people.
I’m hoping he’ll come from behind and get the nomination, but not expecting that to happen, what with corpmediaorate influence and all…
Comment by RUCerious
Several polls including this NBC poll show that Edwards is currently leading in Iowa:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/18/524511.aspx
This change certainly won’t hurt him. I hope he gets his message out there loud and clear. I just wish he had done it sooner.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:53 pmAlso MSM and the powers must be getting nervous about Edwards becaue today they’re talking about him being too “strident” in his talk about corporatism and that voters might think he’ll be unable to work with corporate America. What a joke.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:55 pmEdwards said:
“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,†he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
It’s nice to see a presidential candidate call Iraq what it is. It is an illegal occupation of a country against the will of it’s people. There is no way to “win” an occupation, so the only sensible thing to do now is to leave.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pmCertainly Edwards is the most likely to beat any Republican candidate. Clinton and Obama are still going to scare off al Cracker indpendents in Red States and send them over to the Republican side. The MSM and coporate America know that and thats why they want Hillary or Obama as the candidate.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pmFunny all three of the Democratic front runners are extremely intelligent and all the Republican candidates are, well, challenged.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pmCertainly Edwards is the most likely to beat any Republican candidate. Clinton and Obama are still going to scare off all Cracker indpendents in Red States and send them over to the Republican side. The MSM and coporate America know that and thats why they want Hillary or Obama as the candidate.
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm—————————–
Very well said. I couldn’t agree more, but couldn’t have worded it as eloquently!
Also MSM and the powers must be getting nervous about Edwards becaue today they’re talking about him being too “strident†in his talk about corporatism and that voters might think he’ll be unable to work with corporate America. What a joke.
Comment by Shayne
How exactly do you “work” with corporate America? They are pretty much like Bush. It’s my way or the highway. I would love to see a President who can bring corporate America to heel. I would love to see a President who took corporate income taxes back to the level they were when Eisenhower was president. I read recently that if the corporate loopholes were closed (can’t move your corporation to the Caymen Islands to not pay corporate income taxes), and the rate was taken back to what it was when Ike was President, we could pay off this HUGE debt that Bush has gotten us into in little more than a year. That makes sense to me since it is corporate America through the military industrial complex who has gotten us into this financial mess in the first place.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pmI lost respect for the Green Party when they took money from the Republicans so that they could split the Democratic vote in Pennsylvania and allow Ricky “the rooster” Santorum win another term in the Senate. Praise be to jebus, Santorum lost and the Green candidate couldn’t get on the ballot because of invalid signatures on their candidates petition.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pmWhy does TP and Politico and HuffPost always write their John Edwards headlines with a negative slant? Take this story for instance. He’s doing the right thing. He’s doing what Obama and Hillary aren’t doing. And still the story gets reported in a negative light.
The headline should be –
JOHN EDWARDS IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE THREE DEMOCRATIC CONTENDERS TAKING A STAND FOR A REAL CHANGE OF DIRECTION.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pmI can’t believe that ThinkProgress was not aware of Edwards’s plan before now. He has always said he would have all combat troops out in 10 months. I heard Edwards say this from the first debate. I just don’t understand!!
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pmFunny all three of the Democratic front runners are extremely intelligent and all the Republican candidates are, well, challenged. -Shayne
Challenged is putting it nicely, Shane. Nutjobs, Corporatists, Flip Floppers and bible thumping blowhards comes to mind, as well.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pmThanks Vet.
And bilbo how would a president not working for corporations be bad for voters? Obviously these last years of presidents, including Clinton, doing the bidding of corporations hasn’t been working so well for the American working people. It is time for a change.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pmCris Dodd and John Edwards are the best of the democratic presidential contenders and very electable !
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pmHilary is repackaged corporatism and Obama seems like global Inc’s plan B to a Clinton defeat in the primaries .
I applaude your ability to reasses your stands on rapidly changing issues , John Edwards and am overjoyed to hear you speaking out about the loss of our democracy to the powerful international corporations which prersently own our government .
Shine on .
Oh no Zimzone now some troll will be here calling me a politically correct libtard because I used the word “challenged”. That would be if the trolls weren’t getting kicked out of here today, snort.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm“…we cannot set artificial time-tables as that will do little but embolden the enemy.”
Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
I hear this reasoning a great deal from conservatives who oppose scaling down our occupation of Iraq in any way.
Refresh my memory again — who, exactly, is our enemy? Al Qaeda? And who will they be fighting once we leave?
Or maybe our enemy is the Iraqi sectarians who are fighting a civil war? They’re going to fight it whether we’re there or not. Or maybe it’s Osama bin Laden, who isn’t in Iraq at all (that we know of)?
Please explain who our enemy is and what they will do once they are “emboldened”. And try not to claim that they will be marching down Main Street USA, since nothing is really stopping them from doing that now.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pmAnd already the MSM is “informing” us that if Edwards doesn’t win Iowa his chances are over. Really? One state defines the entire election? Why bother to have primaries in other states then. Why don’t we just save money and do the entire election in Iowa. Why are Americans so willing to let talking heads tell them what will be?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pmmissmolly, stop making sense!
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pmYou’re might one day blow the minds of some hapless trolls and frankly I don’t want to clean that mess up.
Just bring the troops home NOW!
If the Iraqis need training they could ask gungho Blackwater mercenaries to stick around and show them how to murder their rivals. They know the business.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm#36-bilbobaggins
Apparently there are still people who continue to believe the canard that Nader somehow stole the election from Gore, ignoring the fact that:
1) Gore ran a very poor campaign. He failed to even carry his home state of Tennessee.
2) Nader did not “steal” the election from Gore. If anyone did, it was the Supreme Court, when they did not allow all the votes to be counted in Florida.
3) Perhaps you can point out to us where it states in the U.S. Constitution that third party candidates are forbidden to run for office in the United States. Since the Constitution makes no reference to political parties, one suspects that your task will be a tad difficult.
4) America is one of the few countries in the world that frowns upon the idea of a third party or more running for national election.
5) To refresh your memory, it was the Democrats who did not allow Nader to participate in the debates during the summer of 2000, which goes a long way in demonstrating that the Democrats can be just as intolerant of having new ideas heard as the Republicans.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pmmissmolly, please don’t ask GG to explain anything. He just recites talking points ad nauseum. We don’t want his head to assplode, or do we?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pmmissmolly, stop making sense!
You’re might one day blow the minds of some hapless trolls and frankly I don’t want to clean that mess up.
Comment by Wilco — January 2, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Ooh, ooh, I’ll clean it up! Have at it missmolly!
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pmGood golly miss molly , thats twisted .
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pmBut Shayne, just think of all the blood and brains everywhere!
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pmOk, not so much brains…probably just a lot of poo
Clean up on aisle #5, please.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pmPretty nice to hear all of these ideas on how we might move forward together….Some dissenting views but no trolls destroying the discussion.
I personally think any Democrat will do more for the American people by accident than any republican will do for them intentionally.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pmComment by Erroll — January 2, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Sorry Erroll but the jury is still out on who put money behing Nader to disrupt the election. Just like when Jesse Jackson used to run. A legitimate third party would be a great thing but there needs to be campaign finance reform before that can happen.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pmOk, not so much brains…probably just a lot of poo
Comment by Wilco — January 2, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
Definitely not brains, maybe a lot of piss.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm1–What took him so long? Answer–He’s losing in Iowa.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm2–When will the other candidates follow? Answer–When they see that this works.
Hey GG when we want your opinion about withdrawal from Iraq we’ll let you know, m’kay. Buhbye, buhbye.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmGG is talking about artifical timelines for withdrawal and we’re talking about artificial intelligence that led to invasion. Get a clue GG we’re not playing on the same field.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pmWhen the Iraqi forces have taken over responsibility for 18 of 18 provinces, then it will be time for most of the forces to go (or perhaps all of them if that is what a sovereign Iraqi government wants). That may take place within 10 months, or it may take 18 months. Setting an artificial time line to gain votes is not leadership, but rather, is pure politics.
Comment by good_golly
You didn’t answer my thoughtful question – yet still you post this.
How about one more time:
Just a quick question: What if it takes the bankrupting of our treasury and the killing of thousands more of our brave American soldiers to achieve “reasonable stability� Does that balance out for you? Exactly, what benefits do WE get by draining our resources?
The single greatest reason there is no reconciliation with the various factions within the Iraqi government is because we won’t set a date for re-deployment. If the Iraqi leadership knows we will stay indefinately, they will fart around indefinately. Why take on difficult choices if you don’t have to.
Think about it: If you have a specific due date for a project – you get on it to honor the due date. If the due date is indefinate, you will procastinate. Its very simple human nature.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pmWhen the Iraqi forces have taken over responsibility for 18 of 18 provinces, then it will be time for most of the forces to go (or perhaps all of them if that is what a sovereign Iraqi government wants). That may take place within 10 months, or it may take 18 months. Setting an artificial time line to gain votes is not leadership, but rather, is pure politics.
Comment by good_golly
So you don’t really believe we should leave if a sovereign Iraqi government wants us to.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm1–What took him so long? Answer–He’s losing in Iowa.
2–When will the other candidates follow? Answer–When they see that this works.
Comment by tomazulob
Actually he’s been saying he’d get them out as quickly as possible for a long time. He just can’t get the media to cover it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pmI’m with Shayne on this one:
Fact is if Nader had not been in it, Gore would have won hands down. We must have election reform first. We must have power first.
As far as GG saying republicans want to get out of Iraq at a certain point….well, blackwater and the defense industry will decide that for you. Republicans have been wrong on every thing.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pmSo you don’t really believe we should leave if a sovereign Iraqi government wants us to.
Comment by Wilco — January 2, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Or if, say, the vast majority of the people, in that fledgling new DEMOCRACY want us to?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pmRepublicans have been wrong on every thing.
Comment by Fred — January 2, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
They listen way too much to Podoherz and Kristol…
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmAnd bilbo how would a president not working for corporations be bad for voters? Obviously these last years of presidents, including Clinton, doing the bidding of corporations hasn’t been working so well for the American working people. It is time for a change.
Comment by Shayne
I wasn’t saying it would be a bad thing. I was saying it would be a good thing. That’s why I stated my wishes about fairly taxing corporations. The day corporations were awarded “personhood” was the day Democracy was threatened.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmComment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
That’s all fascinating information, but you didn’t answer my question — who, exactly, is our enemy? You know, the enemy that’s going to be “emboldened” by any timeline we might produce?
I have thought of you as more intelligent than some of our conservative posters, in that you are capable of coming up with original thought instead of spouting neocon soundbites exclusively. Therefore, if you DO use a soundbite like “emboldening the enemy”, I expect you to be able to explain it.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pmRUC, I disagree. It should be the SOVEREIGN Iraqi government. We shouldn’t use Iraqi polls to determine war/foreign policy.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 pmMy point is that it shouldn’t matter what benchmarks they meet, if the government wants us out, we should get out. If they’re sovereign and should be respected as such, then they should be respected as such whether they have control over all 18 provinces or not.
Good golly miss molly , thats twisted .
Comment by freeman — January 2, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
I had my moniker before good_golly got his. And no, we’re not related.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pmIn case you’re not paying attention….it has bankrupted our morality much more than even Viet Nam did and has divided our nation. And it was for what purpose exactly?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pmtomazulob – He’s not losing in Iowa.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pmComment by Wilco — January 2, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
My point being sarcastic, in that the Soveriegn Iraqi government doesn’t seem to have any interest in implementing the will of the people…
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm#65-Shayne
Is the jury still out on why the Democrats, the alleged Big Tent party, made sure that Nader’s views were not heard during the debates of 2000? This demonstrates that the Democrats, despite the image that they may wish to convey, are not exactly the party of tolerance.
Also, regarding Edwards, what few of his supporters will acknowledge is that his 10 month withdrawal plan of U.S. troops will mean that by the time this takes effect, 750 or so Americans could wind up very dead and thousands more maimed and crippled, disfigured and dismembered.
Edwards, like Obama and Clinton, has said that he will keep the nuclear option available against Iran, meaning that thousands of innocent Iranians could be needlessly killed and seriously wounded.
Edwards, like his top two rivals, is against Kucinich’s proposal to impeach Cheney and Bush.
Edwards’ health care plan would keep the insurance companies in the equation, which would mean keeping profit over the rights and needs of the people, which is in stark contrast to Kucinich’s universal health care plan.
When one looks closely at Edwards, one does not see compelling reasons to cast one’s vote for him for president.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pmRUC, one of the things I lament about the Internet and writing in general is that sarcasm is often lost. And frankly, “sarcasm off/” just annoys me.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 pmSo uh, is anyone from TP going to explain the reason for this hit piece on Edwards?
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pmHow can anyone compare dems with repubs as far as tolerance is concerned. It is no contest. The repubs are all about intolerance. What you are talking about is just politics which is not the same. Can we say nukular option wher fillibuster is concerned. Can we say anti-abortion intolerance, etc.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:45 pmI wasn’t saying it would be a bad thing. I was saying it would be a good thing. That’s why I stated my wishes about fairly taxing corporations. The day corporations were awarded “personhood†was the day Democracy was threatened.
Comment by bilbobaggins — January 2, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
I knew we were agreeing I was just being too sarcastic for my own good. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmkucinich went mad today, I am sorry to see that in someone that we believed to be rational on so many things. in the past.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmIf WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam didn’t “bankrupt our treasury,†I seriously doubt that this much smaller conflict will do so.
Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
You forget all the extra money wasted in giving out big contracts due to Bushco’s privatization of the military including food and laundry for regular soldiers and all the money to the mercenaries. This war has probably cost more than WWII in comparative dollars already. It’s lasted longer.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:54 pm#88-Fred
You did a very good job of evading my main point. Do you believe the Democrats did the right thing in shutting out Nader in the debates? You claim it is politics. I submit that the Democrats were terrified of what Nader would say, not only about the Republicans, but also about the Democrats, and the Democrats were certainly not going to allow that to happen, now were they? This country should be about the free exchange of ideas and that should mean alerting people in this country that there can be choices which should not be strictly limited to the tyranny of either the Democrats and/or the Republicans.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pmWhen one looks closely at Edwards, one does not see compelling reasons to cast one’s vote for him for president.
Comment by Erroll — January 2, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Well I can see one compelling reason. He can beat any Republican. And that is the MOST important thing to me. Because another Republican President and I’m leaving the country. And I’ve never even lived outside of Illinois.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pmAlso, regarding Edwards, what few of his supporters will acknowledge is that his 10 month withdrawal plan of U.S. troops will mean that by the time this takes effect, 750 or so Americans could wind up very dead and thousands more maimed and crippled, disfigured and dismembered.
It is a physical impossibility to bring all our troops home tomorrow. It will probably take more than the 10 months Edwards would like. If Edwards was President and moving troops out of Iraq, he would most likely keep them out of harms way until he could bring them home.
Edwards, like Obama and Clinton, has said that he will keep the nuclear option available against Iran, meaning that thousands of innocent Iranians could be needlessly killed and seriously wounded.
You are saying that since he has left that on the table as an option, which I am not at all sure he has done (proof would be nice here), that it would inevitably happen? You sure do make some big leaps in logic.
Edwards, like his top two rivals, is against Kucinich’s proposal to impeach Cheney and Bush.
Again, proof would be nice. I don’t remember reading that he was against Kucinich’s proposal. Besides, there really is nothing he can do since he is no longer in government.
Edwards’ health care plan would keep the insurance companies in the equation, which would mean keeping profit over the rights and needs of the people, which is in stark contrast to Kucinich’s universal health care plan.
I agree with this one. But I have a suspicion that once he was President he just might take a different track. Saying that you would throw out the Health Insurance Industry totally would not be very popular with a lot of people. If he is elected, I think he will see single-payer government run health insurance to be the solution to this problem.
When one looks closely at Edwards, one does not see compelling reasons to cast one’s vote for him for president.
Maybe not for you, but for a lot of people he’s heads above Hillary and Obama.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmSo uh, is anyone from TP going to explain the reason for this hit piece on Edwards?
Comment by ohplease — January 2, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
—–
QFT
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmQuote from Shayne – Well I can see one compelling reason. He can beat any Republican. And that is the MOST important thing to me. Because another Republican President and I’m leaving the country. And I’ve never even lived outside of Illinois.
Ha Ha. I’m right with you on that. My wife and I are already talking about what country we’d move to. :)
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmIf WWI, WWII, Korea and Viet Nam didn’t “bankrupt our treasury,†I seriously doubt that this much smaller conflict will do so.
Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Just humor me and take a look at Figure 1 at this site:
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
What the United States spent fighting WWII amounts to about 4.9 trillion dollars in today’s money. This is considerably higher than the 800 billion or 1.5 trillion dollars (depending upon whom you listen to) that the Iraq invasion and occupation has cost us so far.
So why is it that the debt chart shows everything pretty much under control during WWII (and even Vietnam) while debt is skyrocketing now?
I think a lot of it has to do with the “pay as you go” attitude we had during WWII versus the “borrow and spend” methodology we are using now.
To fight WWII, all resources this country had to offer were pressed into action. Young men (and even those pushing middle age) were drafted. Yes, back then we drafted people to fight our wars instead of paying obscene amounts of money to mercenaries. Production of automobiles, tires, and other equipment and materials were either sharply curtailed or shut down completely so that military equipment could be produced. Citizens made do with less, and many items were rationed — various foods, textiles, gasoline, etc. Even children got into the act with paper and scrap metal drives. Families planted victory gardens.
Americans have not been asked to make ANY of these sacrifices for the occupation of Iraq.
Citizens were also asked to purchase war bonds back then. We didn’t borrow money from China back then, we borrowed from our citizens. And paid it back. Anybody seen any war bond drives lately?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 pmComment by missmolly
You do your namesake well
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pmEdward’s position on impeachment is irrelevant because he is not in a position to vote on impeachment and if he is elected president, it will be the end of Bush Regime.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmmissmolly you are exactly right. Does anyone think we would have invaded Iraq if Bush actually had to ask for those kind of sacrifices from the American people? I think not.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmYou make my point. That is what repubs especially starting with raygun do……pay as you go is a Democratic ideal.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pmAt the outset of WWII it was evident to the American people that Japan and Germany had to be stopped, at all costs. They were prepared to make the necessary sacrifices (my dad sailed in the Aleutians and was at the Battle of Coral Sea).
No such consensus exists in the invasion/occupation of Iraq.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pmThe war on terror is like the war on drugs, you can’t ‘beat’ a tactic, just hunt down those who perpetrate it…
I am far from being the world’s leading expert on the subject, but my understanding of whom our enemy is in Iraq is (not necessarily in order):
a. Al Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups;
b. Radical foreign-led fighters;
c. Iraqi insurgents (note: The Iraqi insurgency believed to be composed of at least a dozen major organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups.); and
d. anyone who shoots at us or lays I.E.D.’s to blow up our troops.
Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Ah, finally! OK — let’s consider how each of these groups might react if “emboldened” by our leaving.
“A. Al Qaeda and other radical jihadist groups.”
– I believe their target is us. And they’re already pretty emboldened — the more we shoot at them and turn them into martyrs, the more it encourages them. Our occupation of Iraq has been the best recruiting tool they have, as AQI was non-existent before we got there. I doubt putting forth a timetable would make any difference to them.
“B. Radical foreign-led fighters.”
– These are in Iraq for a variety of reasons. Some are there to rid Iraq of us (and their mission is accomplished if we leave), and some are there to assist one side or another in their civil war (and it won’t make any difference to them if we’re there or not, or if we announce we’re leaving or not).
And it’s been pointed out from a variety of sources that only about 2% to 5% (depending upon whom you listen to) of the violence is due to foreign fighters — even though we have a tendency to refer to every Arab we kill as “Al Qaeda” whether they are associated with that group or not.
“C. Iraqi insurgents (note: The Iraqi insurgency believed to be composed of at least a dozen major organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups.)”
– The insurgency does consist of a variety of groups with a variety of agendas. Some would probably be more “emboldened” than others if they knew we were about to leave. And some just want us gone. Again, there’s no real evidence that our putting out a timetable for withdrawal would cause them to shoot more bullets at us than they already are, or follow us back home.
“D. anyone who shoots at us or lays I.E.D.’s to blow up our troops”
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm– vague category, since most of those who are shooting at us are already covered in one of the other categories.
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/
John Edwards position on Iraq for a long time-not a recent change. Shisssh.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm#95-bilbobaggins
i never said that all the troops should be brought back to this country the next day. But there is a big difference between tomorrow and ten months from now which, as I tried to point out, would many more needless American casualties. Certainly removing them in a two to three month time frame is quite feasible. You think that Edwards would somehow “keep them out of harm’s way…” Would that be, to use Murtha’s expression, “over the horizon”, in places like Kuwait or Qatar? if that were to happen, that would do little to ease the concerns of the Iraqis since they would realize, justifiably, that the less than benevolent presence of the U.S. military could be sent back into Iraq at a moment’s notice, causing more unnecessary grief and havoc for the Iraqi people.
I still stand by my statements regarding Edwards’ statements on the nuclear option and impeachment. Both of these statements were said during one of the early [and seemingly endless] debates, where each of the top three candidates said that they would keep the nuclear option open against Iran. You do not seem to believe that to be a big deal. To use a phrase from the Vietnam War, that is not exactly the best way to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, by threatening to drop nuclear as well as other bombs on a country which, like Iraq, has never threatened anyone in these United States.
During one of the debates, the moderator [perhaps Wolf Blitzer] asked the candidates if any of them supported Kucinich’s proposal to impeach Cheney and Bush. Not one of them raised their hand. No, I do not have a link but I remember that distinctly when it happened and am surprised that you do not recall when it had happened since it created somewhat of a a controversy that none of the other candidates came out in support of Kucinich and that only Kucinich alone had the good sense to propose impeachment.
You claim that Edwards is “heads above Hillary and Obama.” According to the reasons that I listed, I see little difference among the top three candidates. But of course to point out that the Democrats can be just as imperialistic and, at times, just as foolish as the Republicans does not make for a very popular sentiment.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmYou do your namesake well
Comment by Wilco — January 2, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Thank you — I consider that high praise!
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pmI can’t speak for everyone here but for myself……I’m tired or you republicans and your ideas and justifications. We should not be there to begin with…..that is the point. Your opinions no longer have to be listened to. You have been wrong about everything and I don’t have to listen to your opinion anymore.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm# 35
Maybe I heard them wrong .
I want all troops out of Iraq now. Now combats troops actually fight the fight, so who would be your SOME TROOPS???
Not some troops for any mission.
Now maybe Edwards changed his mind from what was said then.
But he was pretty adamant we couldnt leave till 2013. they all did .
For the record I’m for Edwards or Obama , anyone but Hillary!!!
Quoted from actual debate
Among all of the leading Democratic candidates for president, none was willing to commit to a promise in a campaign debate that all of the U.S. combat forces deployed in Iraq will be gone by 2013, the end of the next president’s term in office.
“It’s hard to project four years from now,†said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, at the start of a debate of the Democratic candidates in Hanover, N.H.
“â€It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,†said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has vowed that if President Bush has not ended the war in Iraq by the time the next president takes office, “I will.’’
“â€I cannot make that commitment,†said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, answering the question posed in a televised debate in the state that will hold the first of the presidential primary elections in January.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm110. Not necessarily. This is a discussion about leaving Iraq, not justification for staying.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pmAh, finally! OK — let’s consider how each of these groups might react if “emboldened†by our leaving.
Comment by missmolly
I can’t speak for everyone here but for myself……I’m tired or you republicans and your ideas and justifications. We should not be there to begin with…..that is the point. Your opinions no longer have to be listened to. You have been wrong about everything and I don’t have to listen to your opinion anymore.
Comment by Fred — January 2, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
——————————————-
I’m sorry you don’t like my opinions — especially since I agree with you that we should never have invaded Iraq to begin with. We do tend to be a diverse bunch here at TP, and I don’t like some of the opinions here either.
I won’t be offended if you prefer to skip over my posts — feel free to do so. Other people claim they like my posts, so I’ll continue posting until I feel there is a consensus that I should STFU.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmAnd that debate was four months ago. Edwards is now advocating getting the troops out on a much shorter schedule.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmHe’s listening. And acting.
Fred. You are attacking the wrong person. Missmolly is not a Republican. If you want to hate someone, I’m the hatee of the moment.
Comment by good_golly — January 2, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
LOL — hey, at least you’re a decent sport.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pmFred, you must have missed the trolley this morning. Molly was countering, point by point the assertion that leaving Iraq was irresponsible. She wasn’t justifying anything.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmAn apology would be in order.
Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
There is too much emphasis on the mostly white, rural Iowa, I agree. But I am further distressed to see that the candidates are really being selected by the media. It is when they edit film clips, when they blare biased headlines, when they slant their reporting, when they pit one partisan against the other and call it news.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmI suspect that the media have always played a role in selecting candidates and the presidency (they certainly helped select Bush – TWICE! ) but the extent to which they manipulate the news today is particularly harmful. We have an ill-informed, disinterested public fed information by the corporate dominated media, owned by a select few.
Why should this discussion be about who we are fighting in Iraq and why?
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmgawd_golly_garsh ~ not the hatee, just the scornee this morning…
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pmi never said that all the troops should be brought back to this country the next day. But there is a big difference between tomorrow and ten months from now which, as I tried to point out, would many more needless American casualties. Certainly removing them in a two to three month time frame is quite feasible.
Comment by Erroll — January 2, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
No, it’s really not. Unless someone invents the teleporter, it’s not physically possible to remove 150,000 troops, 200,000 contractors, and thousands of tons of essential equipment and vehicles out of Iraq in three months. Ten months is extremely ambitious. It’s not a matter of politics, it’s a matter of logistics.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pmFred, I’d say that’s completely pertinent to the discussion of getting out, how soon can we, and what repercussions will we expect…
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pmKucinich did NOT endorse Obama. All he did was to ask his supporters to vote for Obama on a second ballot, in the event that he (Kucinich) was knocked out of the running of that particular caucus.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pmFamilyman and Shayne – we have had similar discussions in our house. It’s only idle conversation now, but another Repugnican administration and we will seriously consider moving out of the country.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pmI have re read the posts and I must humbly apologize to ….I’m not even sure. Molly for sure. I think I got the names mixed up as suggested in an earlier post.
Strong feelings on these topics so I will go and cool off for a while now.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pmI always looked forward to reading Molly Ivins on CNN.com each week. She was one of the most reasonable Dems I’ve come across. She and Greenwald are probably my favorite political writers.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pmComment by Erroll — January 2, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
We get it, you’re afraid of Edwards.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pmFavorites on the web, at least
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pmYour opinions no longer have to be listened to. You have been wrong about everything and I don’t have to listen to your opinion anymore.
Comment by Fred — January 2, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
I’d highly recommend you reconsider this course of action. Missmolly is consistently one of the most insightful, knowledgeable, and level-headed posters on this site. Her opinions are well worth listening to.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:51 pmWhy should this discussion be about who we are fighting in Iraq and why?
Comment by Fred — January 2, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
You have a point in that discussion was starting to veer off-topic, for which I claim partial responsibility.
I responded to a post of good_golly’s, calling him on using a tired neocon cliche, and asked him to elaborate. He and I tend to tweak each other a fair amount, anyway, since our political viewpoints are often diametric opposites (although we’ve been known to agree on a few things).
When he talked about how issuing a withdrawal timetable would embolden the enemy, I asked him to detail who our “enemy” is. And he did. Whereas I then responded to that post, piece by piece. And that’s where you came in.
Good_golly is actually a decent opponent. While some of his statements are outrageous, he has never resorted to ad hominem attacks (at least, not with me) and he’s never reduced himself to calling me names.
That said — I apologize for the space I have taken up in this thread talking about who we’re fighting, although I don’t think it’s COMPLETELY off-topic. I think who we’re fighting and why are valid factors in any discussion of troop withdrawal.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pmOnce again missmolly, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm#120-toasterhead
Edwards initially said that even at the end of his term, if he were elected, that there would still be some American troops in Iraq. Now he says that, as good golly @ 109 has pointed out, it would be a 10 month withdrawal from Jan. 2009. Is this the real John Edwards or is this the John Edwards who is talking troop withdrawal for the sake of political expediency?
You believe that ten months is a reasonable time frame to get those troops back to this country. But you are including equipment. Getting those troops out of that hellhole should be the first priority and it would certainly not take almost a year to fly them, along with contractors, back to the U.S. What is more important, machinery or men [and women]? I also do not believe it is a feasible argument when liberals as well as neoconservatives claim that it would be extremely chaotic to withdraw those troops from that slaughterhouse. As independent journalist Nir Rosen observed, if the U.S. military were to finally leave Iraq, the resistance would have nothing to resist against.
As good golly has noted, for Edwards to advocate that the troops be withdrawn in Jan. 2009 would be a wait of 22 months. 22 months is an extremely long time for a soldier to wait before he or she is finally removed from that hellhole. The time to begin getting them out is NOW, not almost two years from now. As a former Vietnam veteran, I must say that with friends like the Democrats, the troops are certainly not in need of looking for enemies.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:13 pmComment by bilbobaggins — January 2, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
They did say that they couldn’t rule out having some soldiers in Iraq in 2013 left behind to protect “American interestsâ€. That’s what got me. What “interests†do we have in Iraq? It’s their country for gods sake and we have no interest to anything in their country. It’s their oil, it’s their land, it’s their people. We need to get the hell out and let them control their own country. I don’t care if we think they can’t do it, that is not our decision to make. We need to stop meddling in other people’s affairs NOW!
Spot on Bilbo!
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm#42 Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Certainly Edwards is the most likely to beat any Republican candidate. Clinton and Obama are still going to scare off al Cracker indpendents in Red States and send them over to the Republican side. The MSM and coporate America know that and thats why they want Hillary or Obama as the candidate.
Well said Shayne! I agree.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pmComment by Erroll — January 2, 2008 @ 5:13 pm
How exactly would a Democratic president start withdrawing troops before he was inaugurated? Do you think if Edwards wins the Iowa caucus he can start withdrawing troops tomorrow. If you want things to move faster then you need to contact the president and the Republicans in congress and go to a right wing site and tell them you want action now.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:51 pmI always looked forward to reading Molly Ivins on CNN.com each week. She was one of the most reasonable Dems I’ve come across. She and Greenwald are probably my favorite political writers.
Comment by Wilco — January 2, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Yep — and I still miss her. I would love to know what she’d have to say about the current crop of POTUS candidates — both Dem and GOP.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pmThe statement “get the troops out now!” in my view, is not a literal one. It is meant to show belief and intent about the invasion and occupation, and what that person would do if they had the power to act “right now.”
Anything other than an unequivocal statement of intent to leave “now” indicates the desire to stay, in my book.
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pmAnything other than an unequivocal statement of intent to leave “now†indicates the desire to stay, in my book.
Comment by Merlin — January 2, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
Have you been talking to Bartlebee?
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:22 pm#137 Comment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
Have you been talking to Bartlebee?
LOL
Actually, the one comment I made on the second Huckabee thread yesterday didn’t sit well with him. So now I am a “clown.”
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:44 pmAnything other than an unequivocal statement of intent to leave “now†indicates the desire to stay, in my book.
Comment by Merlin — January 2, 2008 @ 6:25 pm
No but Bartlebee was basing his argument on one turn of phrase not the intent behind the statement.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pmComment by Shayne — January 2, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
As I mentioned, there really was no discussion or debate on either of the 2 threads. It was an “I’m better ‘n you” performance by BB, masquerading as debate. Hundreds and hundreds of useless posts signifying nothing. On the other side, a lot of interesting comments were made. Having said this I expect I will lose my favored “clown” title for something more vivid.
Personally, falling into the Secular Humanist camp I never get involved in discussions involving religion, belief or faith of any kind. There is simply no point in my view.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pmGood Golly #79 thinks Vietnam didn’t bankrupt the US Treasury. Oh, really? Where the hell were you in the 1970s & 1980s? Have you not read a history book about the Vietnam War & its impact on America?
BTW — Bush’s Iraq War makes Vietnam look like a Sunday School picnic.
January 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm“I commend Edwards for this sudden change of heart. Unfortunately for him, it may be too late to gain any momentum in Iowa which he needs to win the presidency.”
Actually, (despite an inexplicible dislike of Edwards by lefty blogs, especially Huffpo) according to the newest McClatchey poll Edwards beats both Clinton and Obama by 7%. Scroll to the end of page three where the 2nd place votes have been reallocated to those who would make the cut.
“http://www.mcclatchydc.com/static/pdf/poll/1230iowadem.pdf”
I certainly hope the blogosphere gets on-board soon and stops with the misleading headlines toward Edwards.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:35 pm#142 Comment by Sabyen91 — January 2, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Actually, (despite an inexplicible dislike of Edwards by lefty blogs, especially Huffpo) â€
I certainly hope the blogosphere gets on-board soon and stops with the misleading headlines toward Edwards.
Well, not all Progressive Blogs. Here is today’s running poll on the 3 leading candidates from the DailyKos site. Edwards has continued to grow in strength over the last few months at Kos. (They do a monthly reader poll.) As indicated, 21834 people have voted up till now, the great majority being Progressive I would guess. Edwards is almost at 50% while Clinton is at 8%.
Poll
Who is currently your favorite 2008 candidate?
Barack Obama
27%
5922 votes
Hillary Clinton
8%
1764 votes
John Edwards
48%
10651 votes
Bill Richardson
21834 votes | Vote
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:06 amMerlin, actually, among posters to lefty blogs Edwards seems quite popular. DKos itself has had a Hillary bias for quite awhile and Huffpo has had an obvious Obama bias this year. Huffpo is by far the biggest perpetrator. They have had incredibly misleading headlines about Edwards. Just Google huffpo anti-edwards headline and you will see. Recently they had a headline saying “Edwards radicalizes anti-corporate pitch”. There was absolutely nothing radical about his pitch and the posters excoriated Huffpo for it. I have no doubt that Edwards now has massive support among progressives…it is too bad the blogs themselves are not following their readers.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:14 amGood Golly.
The whole Vietnam war cost America about $165 Billion.
The invasion of Iraq, cost America roughly $166 billion by March 2 2004 – as per congressional spending.
The invasion was on the March 30 2003.
One year of Iraq cost America more than 10 years of Vietnam.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:49 am