Edwards Campaign Statement on Clinton's Failure to Offer Straight Answers on Iraq and Iran

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Campaign Statement on Clinton's Failure to Offer Straight Answers on Iraq and Iran
John Edwards for President
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement regarding a new estimate for the cost of the Iraq war and Senator Clinton's continuing failure to offer straight answers on Iraq and Iran:

"The staggering estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that the war in Iraq will cost $1.9 trillion is a stark reminder of why it is so critical that every presidential candidate offer the American people a real plan for ending the war.

"For over a year, Senator Edwards has proposed a very specific plan for withdrawal, including the immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops to jump-start the political solution needed to end the violence, a diplomatic offensive involving all local, national, and regional parties, and a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 9 or 10 months. Unfortunately, other than political rhetoric and doubletalk, we've heard nothing from Senator Clinton about her specific plans to end this war.

"Even more disturbing, while Senator Clinton still refuses to lay out a detailed plan for ending the war in Iraq, she seems more than willing to help President Bush take America closer to war with Iran. After nearly seven years of George Bush, and a terrible and costly war, the American people deserve straight answers on Iraq and Iran from every presidential candidate -- the real question is when is Senator Clinton going to start providing them?"

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071024-clinton-iraq-iran/

[liberalhistorian]

1. Perhaps he should offer an explanation

as to why he even voted for the IWR in the first place? He does not have clean hands in this, by any means.

[cuke]

2. And co-sponsored it

He might also want to read the 3 page explanation Hillary has mailed out explaining her vote on Kyle/Lieberman. This way, Edwards can start telling the truth that Hillary has explained her vote.

[JDPriestly]

4. I will also respond to you by giving you a link to a video

in which Edwards explains his vote and apologizes for being wrong. http://johnedwards.com/media/video/nh-iraq-vote/

[JDPriestly]

3. He explains it in this video

http://johnedwards.com/media/video/nh-iraq-vote/

He says he got lots of information including from high level Clinton people, and they all said Hussein had WMDs. He also says that he did not trust Bush but made the decision to defer to Bush. He says he learned a lesson from that. If your question is sincere, please listen to his statement in his own voice and words and then judge whether you think he is someone you can trust.

I respect those who had to vote and voted against the war. I have to admit, however, that I too trusted the Bush administration and supported the War. I told myself that no American president could be so immoral as to kill innocent people without a compelling reason. I was wrong. Edwards was wrong. But, that does not mean that we are wrong about everything. We both have admitted we were wrong. So, we are right about admitting we were wrong. I know I will never be right about everything. Anyone who claims to be right about everything is wrong in making that claim.

[NCarolinawoman]

15. He still supported the war even after NO weapons were found.

I remember that interview on Hardball toward the end of 2003; he was still gung-ho over the war.

He did not disown his vote until the summer of '05. By then, the war had become unpopular. The time for him to apologize for his vote was right after it was established that no weapons of mass destruction existed.

I wonder if the people in Iowa and NH are aware that he never read the Intelligence report while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[GreenArrow]

16. I wonder if the people in Iowa and NH are aware...

I doubt it. He certainly isn't going to bring it up, and his main opponents are essentially ignoring him.

As for his apology, I'd like to see him apologize - with nothing to gain from it - for morally supporting an illegal aggressive war of choice and plunder, and for the consequences visited on those who were the object of that aggression rather than for his having made a poor political calulation.

[penguin7]

17. He was on the intelligence committee

He knew or should have known Iraq had no WMDs.

Scott Ritter analyzed the WMD problem in Iraq in great detail before the war. Dennis Kucinich used this analysis to persuade 125 members of congress to vote against the war.

This was a hell of a mistake if it was a mistake. He not only voted for the war, he banged the drums.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/
My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we’re currently considering.--John Edwards October 2002

[JohnLocke]

5. Kick (nt).

[Ninga]

19. K & R.

[OhioChick]

6. Thanks for posting

daily news/statements regarding Edwards. I've been reading them daily and am heavily leaning toward Edwards. :thumbsup:

[calteacherguy]

7. Edwards has no credibility left with me. How can he say how many troops to withdraw months from now

Nobody knows what will be happening then in Iraq or anywhere else. How can an ex-senator, ineffective VP candidate, and sponsor of so much rotten legislation in the brief period he was senator have any credibility left. He won't even carry his home state.

[Ninga]

10. Please do not high jack this thread with your broken record memes. True leadership requires the

ability to be humble and learn.

John Edwards is the right leader for these times.

[GreenArrow]

11. humility does not involve throwing

one's "apology," -- an "apology" delivered in a political framework, and purely for political reasons -- in the face of one's political opponents, over and over again. There's nothing of humility there, but rather, smug pride. He's shown no remorse, paid no penance. No, true humility in this matter would preclude his even considering that he was in any way qualified or deserving of the Presidency. His self-serving pseudo apology does nothing to add to his credibility level, and frankly, is patently insulting. Edwards a leader? He's a chameleon, a classic self-promoter and a cheap huckster. He's all ego and slick persona. He's white bread...vanilla...mashed potatoes with no butter...a saltine cracker with no salt.

[Ninga]

13. Your arguement is void of substance and completely disregards the basic precepts of debate.

You resort to ad homonym attacks, which is unseamly and rather crude.

Political debate, is just that. Point and counter point. Your characterization of Edwards says more about you, than him.

You lose.

[GreenArrow]

14. nonsense

It's perfectly appropriate to call a snake a snake.

See, I'm not really interested in debating. I'm making an observation and stating an opinon. To argue Edwards' points, I would have to find him and trustworthy and them credible. I don't. Edwards himself says in the video linked above (Post # 3), that as a voter, we get to do this, we get to decide who is telling us the truth and who is feeding us political doublespeak. Are Edwards' past positions germane? Because he says one thing now, how do I judge that against what he said and did before? Has it become irrelevant? We should believe him now, why?

If you want a "point", take it then that Edwards is hypocritical in criticizing Clinton on this, and for trying to score points off it, since he has made the same "mistake", as he likens it, in the past, and there is nothing of humility in his approach on this issue. He can criticize all he wants, and carp and crow about all the lessons he's learned, but at the end of the day, it won't help him win. His back and forth on the war issues (amongst many) will not be viewed favorably. At the end of the day, voters are not going to trust him. If the "flip-flop charge damaged Kerry, it will crush Edwards, since he is even more susceptible to it. Clinton - no less disingenous than Edwards - at least has been more or less consistent. If either of them were to become President there would be no appreciable difference between their respective foreign policies.

[Ninga]

18. I appreciate your passion. I patently disagree with your assessment. In my view,

Edwards brings the sum of his entire life's experience to this election, and I believe that he has evolved and grown and will chose wisely those who will council him when he is President.

Your "point" that Edwards is hypocritical in criticizing Clinton is a curious one. Candidates point out the differences in policy and approach, it is customary. Call it "carp and crow" all you want, he is saying what needs to be said.

His apology is just that, nothing less nothing more. He is well prepared for the criticism, and has not backed down from it no matter the names he has been called, from people such as you.

History is replete with "death bed" conversions...... people on their death beds finally expressing love, or sorrow, or regret....does not mean that they are not truthful statements just because a person is facing death.

It is part of the human condition to evolve. I do not want a President who has not faced their demon's, and over come them. The richness of life's experience, when embraced, brings a value that can benefit others.

Edwards in 1997 or 1998 was awarded a humanitarian award for service in his profession. He spoke passionately then, as he does now, about those who struggle, the poor and the working class.

As in all things political, we chose what we want to hear and believe.

If he fails in his effort, then so be it. But if he is able to overcome the polls, the competition, and the money, then he will be a stellar President, one we can finally be proud of, a President who will owe no one but the American people.

[Ninga]

8. I hope and pray his strategy and campaign plan is successful. If it is, he will be the

President this country will turn to for true leadership.

He is the most inclusive candidate to date.

[MichDem10]

9. Edwards has been out front on Iraq all along.

The American people deserve a straight answer.

[GreenArrow]

12. yeah, he was way out front when he co-sponsored IWR,

threw out red war meat on the Senate floor, and wrote puerile pro-war op-eds in favor of it. He was way out in front when he argued with Kerry not to backtrack on their respctive IWR votes, and way out in front when he changed his position when the polls started showing that his orignal position was a non-starter. "Out front"? He's sticking his finger in the wind. His credibility is nil.