Edwards calls for immediate withdrawal, slams Obama

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: September 12, 2007
Edwards calls for immediate withdrawal, slams Obama


Edwards slammed Obama's Iraq plan Wednesday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, on Wednesday called for an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops from Iraq following two days of Congressional testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Edwards, who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination, said his Democratic rivals: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, as well as Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, have “a moral responsibility to use every tool available to them, including a filibuster, to force the president to change course.”

Edwards also called Obama’s plan for troop withdrawal a copy of the president’s plan.

“Sen. Obama would withdraw only 1-2 combat brigades a month between now and the end of next year,” explained Edwards, “which for the next several months could essentially mimic the president’s own plans to withdraw 30,000 troops by next summer.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/09/12/edwards-calls-for-immediate-withdrawal-slams-obama/

[Colobo]

1. John Edwards, the anti-war candidate who voted for the war.

[Critters2]

2. Ahem. Who SPONSORED the resolution that started the war.

He ought to be working to get us out. He got us in.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Also Caused Others To Vote For The War

When the IWR was being discussed, Edwards yammered that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Commitee, he knew secrets that other senators didn't, which made him even MORE convinced that Saddam was minutes from nukin' us. I suspect that others used this as cover for their vote to attack Iraq.

[Adelante]

11. He keeps this up

I think some inside stories we've long been waiting to hear will come dribbling out in the press. Can't wait.

[ludwigb]

15. Let's Not Beat Up On Him

Edwards deserves credit for pushing the envelope. While it would be unfair for him to suggest his record on Iraq is better, it is perfectly fair to criticize Obama and Clinton if he has the right position now and they have the wrong one.

[zulchzulu]

16. Way to go, Smilin' Johnny!

I've been trying keep to myself what I think about Edwards, but this bullshit is truly over the top.

Here's a mooyak who knew the intelligence was bogus while on the Senate Intelligence Committee and didn't even do his friggin' homework to read the NIE at the time in 2002 and THEN has the infinite wisdom to not only vote for the Iraq War Resolution, BUT co-sponsor the free pass for Bush and the neocons to invade Iraq with our delightful friend Joe Lieberman.

His speeches were such fine examples of Democrats wanting to go to war in Iraq that Bush even put them on the White House web site as proof that Bush was correct to invade.

Now this mooyak thinks with a simple used car salesman apology that it all just goes away. No blood on his hands, no sir f*cking ree...

Anyone who is for Edwards at this point is either blind or just thinks he's "cute".

A little reminder for Edwards and his nice work as a warmonger:

Cost of Iraq Occupation:
(running total):
$450,150,641,161

American Deaths:
3,761

American Wounded:
27,767

Iraqi Body Count:
71,485 (Min) 78,065 (Max) As of September 8, 2007 at 12:00AM

Sources:
www.iraqbodycount.net
www.defenselink.mil
www.antiwar.com/casualties
www.costofwar.com

[Colobo]

18. John's desperate. I like him a lot, but he's attacking the guy with the right judgment and policy.

[zulchzulu]

25. The Iowa voters he's talking to are going to catch wind of his vapidness

Insert a pin in that balloon. Pchhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

[Adelante]

46. Well, they know him pretty well by now

He's practically lived there for five years, came in a surprise second last time and was on the national ticket. But because of that, voters might not recognize the 2008 version and begin to wonder where the 2004 version they liked so much went off to. Iowans don't like duplicity in my observation.

[tired_old_fireman]

35. Was that really an attack?

Edwards basically said Obama's plan wasn't aggressive enough. The author of the article tried to make it controversial and call it a "slam." That's hardly a slam in my book.

I'm sure you understand how this game has been played with the media trying to stir up controversy between Michelle Obama and Clinton. This seems like the same thing. These candidates are all trying to differentiate themselves from each other and say their plans are better than the other candidates plans. Isn't that the point of being in the race?

Edwards and Obama are probably both a little desperate because of Clinton's early success.

[tired_old_fireman]

34. Give me a break.

I'm not blind and I don't think he's cute. I think he's taking the right position on the war and I applaud anyone who takes the right position on the war. We all slam Bush because he is too stubborn to change his positions so why slam Edwards because he changed his position from the wrong one to the right one? If we want to get out of Iraq, we need more people to follow Edwards and change their minds.

I think it's fine to not vote for Edwards because of his past, but if you slam him for pushing to get us out of Iraq now than it appears you want to be in Iraq. At least, that's the way it comes across.

[zulchzulu]

41. It gets down to credibility and a record of leadership

If you think a guy who not only voted for the war but was one of the biggest cheerleaders and a co-sponsor of the war resolution with Lieberman while knowing full well that the intelligence was cooked can now catcall that it's all wrong, then I have no idea what to tell you.

Edwards, in regards to understanding war and its repercussions, has zero credibility in my view. Zero.

[zulchzulu]

42. DUPE

[Prince Paul]

24. But at least he's not funding it anymore

[zulchzulu]

28. Catcallers on the sidelines don't get to do much

Then there are people that offer "solutions" that haven't and never will happen in congressional history... yeah, just get everybody to show up at the White House and demand the war to stop... yeah, friggin' brilliant.

:crazy:

[Prince Paul]

29. You mean the same way how Obama was a "catcaller" in 2002 ?

[zulchzulu]

31. Heh...btw, welcome to DU!

Yes, Obama was against the war in 2002. Was he a "catcaller"?

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

I'd call that correct and politically brave, especially at the time.

[Prince Paul]

39. Thanks for the welcome but you're forgetting that

Obama was just some nobody state legislator from Illinois back in 2002. Do you honestly believe he would have voted against the war if he was in the senate then. Maybe in his heart he would have wanted to, but the pro war lobbyists simply would have not allowed it.

[zulchzulu]

47. ...a nobody state legislator... ferchrissakes...

Obama was a state senator for eight years. If you don't respect that, I don't know what to tell you. Whatever...

[greatauntoftriplets]

56. Yes, Obama would have voted against the war in 2002 had he been in the Senate.

He ALWAYS opposed it, unlike Edwards. And to hell with what the "pro war lobbyists" thought he should do.

And he was a very high-profile Illinois State Senator in 2002.

[JNelson6563]

71. Ok, now you've gone and done it!

;-)

This fact is glossed over everytime the who-supported-the-IWR-and-who-didn't discussion takes place here.

Watching the primary process in the DU bubble as a non-committed viewer is very interesting.

Julie

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. He can't, he's not in Congress anymore

[antiimperialist]

45. So because Edwards voted for the war, Obama's slow withdrawal plan is better?

I would have thought that withdrawing a higher number of troops in the shortest amount of time was an appealing proposition to you.

[zulchzulu]

48. Edwards should let the adults make the policy

He had his chance and he blew it...

One might think someone, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee and saw the crap being thrown at them and still decided to co-sponsor the free pass for Bush to invade, has even a pinch of credibility to tell anyone what to do about the war he is absolutely complicit on making happen.

Edwards either knew what he was doing then for poltical expediency at the cost of countless lives and half a trillion dollars or he has no concept of how war works and what happens when war starts.

Sit down, John. Let the adults and those who knew this was idiotic try to fix what you helped start.

[antiimperialist]

53. My question again. Is Obama's plan better just because Edwards voted for the war?

?

[zulchzulu]

58. I think Obama's plan is realistic and visionary

I think Edwards has no credibility to tell anyone what to do about the war he is complicit in starting. Period.

How can you actually trust him? Seriously...

[Critters2]

61. Realistic, visionary, and consistent. nt

[bpeale]

63. & obama is the one who didn't but still votes to funnd it

i fail to see how one is better than the other, so STFU

[JNelson6563]

72. I have to say

I get a chuckle out of that pic in your sig-line everytime I see it. It really is worth "1000 words". :-)

Julie

[MrRobotsHolyOrders]

3. Edwards Should Lead The Filibuster

Oh wait, he decided to serve one term and leave an open seat for an easy Republican pickup.

Sure is easy to have all the answers when you're in the bleachers.

[Ethelk2044]

4. How and the Hell can he try to slam somebody when he PUSHED FOR THE DAMN WAR

The logic of some people. Then the post of talk to your black friends about Edwards. Don't get me started. Men and women have died because of his push for the war (over 3000). There was no justification for this DAMN WAR.

[Colobo]

5. LOL! I gotta tell my black friends Edwards voted for the war.

[greatauntoftriplets]

57. ......

:spray:

[ludwigb]

12. That's probably taking it too far

He was never shilled for the war. He co-sponsered the enabling resolution. On the primary campaign trail, he would occasionally trot out his vote before sympathethic audiences(read Southern and Union) and argue he was better on security than Dean (which he wasn't).

But in his favor I bet he would admit that Kucinich and Dean were right on the war and he was wrong.

[Adelante]

14. He certainly did shill for the war nt

[ariesgem]

69. Yes, he did shill for the war...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

[rodeodance]

6. Thanks John------those other Dem Candidates need to be pushed and you are doing that.

[jillan]

7. Dodd and Richardson also had some negative comments today

about his plan.

[sandnsea]

9. Everybody shilling for Hillary now?

This is pathetic.

When are they going to support the Dem leadership and go after the Roadblock Republicans?

[rodeodance]

10. Dodd's statment criticizing Senators Clinton and Obama for stepping backwards on Iraq

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Senator Dodd's statment criticizing Senators Clinton and Obama for stepping backwards on Iraq
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1796095#1796095
1796095, Senator Dodd's statment criticizing Senators Clinton and Obama for stepping backwards on Iraq
Posted by ProSense on Wed Sep-12-07 09:52 PM

Video: Dodd: A Call for Clarity

"I was disappointed that Senator Obama's thoughts on Iraq today didn't include a firm, enforceable deadline for redeployment, and dismayed that neither he nor Senator Clinton will give an unequivocal answer on whether they would support a measure if it didn't have such an enforceable deadline.

"It is clear to me - especially after yesterday's testimony - that half-measures aren't going to stop this President or end our involvement in this civil war. I thought it was clear to Senators Obama and Clinton as well after they finally came around to supporting the Feingold-Reid measure and voting against a blank-check supplemental spending bill this spring. If 'enough was enough' then, why isn't it after the bloodiest summer of the war?

"Senator Obama has a gift for soaring rhetoric, but, on this critical issue, we need to know the substance of his position with specificity. Without tying a date certain to funding how does he plan to enforce his call for an immediate redeployment?

"The only specificity Senator Obama offered was a call for a new constitution, but that will do nothing other than provide the Iraqis and the Bush Administration another excuse to delay -- the ink is barely dry on the constitution they have.

"It is going to take bold leadership to change our course in Iraq. We need to do more than write letters to the President, we need to be clear with him.

"I urge Senators Obama and Clinton not to backtrack on the need for a firm, enforceable deadline and state clearly and directly whether they will support an Iraq measure if it does not include one."

link

[Colobo]

13. Yeah, the desperate second tier...

[maximusveritas]

21. Yep, they're just blowing in the direction of public opinion.

When the public supported the war, they supported it. When the public wanted us out, they tried to come out with the plan to get us out the fastest, regardless of how practical or responsible such a plan was.
And then they have the nerve to criticize candidates who have just tried to do what was right, regardless of public opinion. It makes me pretty angry.

[zulchzulu]

19. Dodd voted for the war...he should reflect on that a little before attacking Obama

A call for clarity for Dodd would be to drop out now and stop wasting money.

He's going nowhere.

He should merely look in the mirror and ask himself why he has blood on his hands for supporting the war.

[Colobo]

26. Dodd is a blowhard who knows he's going down, so he's trying

to take someone down with him.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Edwards who defended his war vote until 2005

Who blew off the reading the NIE before co-sponsoring IWR.

Can't wait for him to challenge Obama face-to-face on this issue again like he did in the NH debate a while back. "I opposed this war from the start; you took four-and-a-half years to lead, John."

Stick to the faux-populism, John. You know, the kind where you rail against big money and plow half of your $30 million fortune into a hedge fund with ties to the subprime market.

[sundancekid]

50. agreed ... he has become a caricature of himself ... nothin' but juvenile shots from the cheap seats

[flpoljunkie]

65. Obama made the point this week that Hillary did not oppose the war until 2007 w/o actually

mentioning her name, but his point was very smartly made.

[maximusveritas]

20. Edwards being misleading as usual

Obama is talking about removing combat brigades every month (key word = combat), such that all our combat troops will be out by the end of next year. President Bush is talking about overall 30,000 troops, such that we'll still have the pre-surge level of combat troops.
For Edwards to try and confuse the difference between Bush and Obama's plans is harmful not just to Obama, but to the Democrats overall as they try to build opposition to Bush's plan.

[Ethelk2044]

23. Agreed

[madrchsod]

38. combat brigades=1500 to 4,200 soldiers

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/bua.htm
Brigade Unit of Action

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/bct-infantry.htm
Infantry Brigade Combat Team Unit of Action

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/bct-heavy.htm
Heavy Brigade Combat Team Unit of Action


any plan would be difficult to implement in the real world.

[greatauntoftriplets]

59. The logistics alone would be almost overwhelming.

Thanks and :hi:

[sundancekid]

52. the most infuriating part for me is that he STILL is in it for himself,

and pays NO FRICKING attention to the damage being done to the greater good of the country or the party ... he stinks of political expediency - I see nothing authentic - what road to Damascus? How people lived their lives in the past are a pretty good prelude to their futures. Of course I applaud anyone that re-evaluates positions as the truth and reality demand. But it takes more than a costume change to change the stripes beneath.

[Cameron27]

22. Obama's got to go after him,

and there's plenty of ammunition to use.

[Colobo]

27. I agree- Obama needs to smack John on this.

[zulchzulu]

30. Obama will take aim at all the Bush enablers

Giving Edwards a full frontal attack will only make it seem like Edwards matters. He doesn't.

[Colobo]

32. True.

[Cameron27]

33. I don't know about that,

depending on how he plays it, I think he could do real damage to Edwards' recent anti-war "transformation."

[BlueStater]

36. What do you mean he doesn't matter?

He's running neck-to-neck with Obama or is only slightly behind him in most polls.

[Adelante]

40. Myth-making?

Or can you back that up with links?

[BlueStater]

66. Take a look at this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Obama doesn't even have a 10 point lead in most polls taken. Rasmussen only has him 4 points ahead of Edwards.

And I don't know where you got that poll from but Gore isn't running and should not be included.

[Adelante]

67. That doesn't put them neck and neck

The nationals have barely budged all month. Edwards is in the mid-teens and Obama in the low-mid twenties. Edwards has to break 20% consistently before I would consider it neck and neck.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html#polls


The chart above came from Pollster.com - sorry I forgot the link

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Gore is included in just about every national poll taken. I agree he shouldn't be a this point, but he is.

[tired_old_fireman]

37. If Obama and Edwards get into it a bit it's a good thing in my book.

Anything to get the attention off the Clinton inevitability stories is a good thing in my book.

[bpeale]

73. better start with himself then

he is voting to ENABLE this war to continue by funding it. he is no better or worse than any of the rest of them.

[Mass]

43. "Immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000". Still good, but not what the title implies.

It would still leave 100,000 troops there, to be withdrawn at a later date, and he does not tell how he does that. Anyway, this is not new. He has had this plan for several months now.

[jmp]

44. A 50,000 reduction would be a good start.

They should be home by Christmas.

[Enrique]

49. next we'll have Kucinich going after Edwards

then Dodd going after Dennis, then Gravel going after Hillary.

[Adelante]

51. It's the primaries!!

Enjoy :)

[Cameron27]

54. It could even get to a mass spouse attack, ROFL

[rinsd]

60. Who is doing attack strategy for the Edwards campaign?

I know he's pretending that his Senate career does not exist but does he think he will burnish his anti-war cred by attacking one of the few candidates who was against the war?

This attack would make sense on Hillary or Biden.

But Obama?

:shrug:

[Colobo]

62. Weird, isn't it?

[Lord Helmet]

64. Edwards is trying to wipe his bloody hands on others.

He can never live down throwing in with the GOP on Iraq.

[alteredstate]

68. Ugh.

[leaninglib]

70. John, you are so predictable

and soooooooo boring. :boring:

[calteacherguy]

74. This wannabe becomes more of a joke everyday.

Best to just ignore him.