View Story | 64 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
You said John Edwards "would follow." FALSE
From his Iraq Plan email in late January or early February:
Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq within the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
No permanent bases.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:45:08 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I did not know that. one more reason to vote for Edwards (I'm a big fan of his people before corporations approach). Obama better step up and separate his Iraq policy from Hillary's or he is going to be in trouble. Two months ago I was in the Obama camp and wasn't even considering Edwards.
And I'm surprised i haven't seen this anywhere else, perhaps i've missed it. But of the top three dem candidates Edwards is the only white male. I'm not a statistician but i believe there have been a significant number of white males as president of the US and I'm surprised that isn't being considered as more of a plus for Edwards.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:51:29 PM PDT
the problem I have with Edwards is that I have almost zero confidence that he won't "grow" into a new position once in office. My gut says that there are going to be permanent bases in Iraq, regardless of who gets elected. Can you offer me reasons (other than promises) that Edwards is going to be able to get around leaving bases?
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 12:58:47 PM PDT
I have little hope that any candidate who can raise enough money to win will be a candidate i'm very happy with. However, I'm not going to vote for Hillary and then say, "i wish i had known she was such a hawk...I can understand Iran but did we need to go into Syria?" Like all the people i know who admit to voted for Bush the second time and now regret it. Or all the people who elected lieberman based on this outright lies.
Will Edwards be able to get universal health care? I dont' know. Is he saying he will try? Yup. Is Hillary? Nope. Once you've been on the board of Wal*Mart, I'm sure you just can't get back to that point.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:03:33 PM PDT
nt
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:05:35 PM PDT
I just read (here or on MYDD) that last week she said it wasn't going to happen in her first term.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:11:19 PM PDT
she gave a speech where she said she promised UHC would be in place by the end of her second term---folks with a desire to do so twisted this into: she wouldn't start on it until her second term.
Her UHC is a standard part of her stump speech, and major campaign promise for her. She has said she will do it incrementally, rather than one grand plan. She has already started by introducing legislation that she intends as "first steps towards universal health care."
Here are a couple of videos of her talking about coverage for children, she has recently proposed significant expansions of programs that cover children
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...
I didn't find an ez link that just is a simple statment of her promise, but if you google it you should find it. It is a standard part of her stump speech at this point.
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:23:53 PM PDT
edwards has said its a priority in his first term. I prefer that.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:36:08 PM PDT
After all, if it's a race then Hillary wins, cause she has already started making it a priority.
But that is not the issue, it's about incremental versus all at once. She has taken the position that incremental changes will work better. Edwards has said, let's go for it the second I get into office.
I like his enthusiasm, but my opinion is that she is more likely to be successful.
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:40:30 PM PDT
on all the big issues edwards is starting at a better place.
If she can't even start there, I'm not looking forward to where she will finish.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:47:52 PM PDT
untethored to a plan, or realistic considerations. Maybe it's just me, but I say talk is cheap. Hillary has given me evidence that she is aware of the world that she is working in, and has a plan to navigate it. To me, this is a far better starting place.
I don't need to overstate my case, I know that Edwards does have some plans, and good ideas. But I look at his record of governing, and I see someone who adapted to his circumstances. And now, he is running a progressive campaign, and he has progressive rhetoric, he's adaptable, not an entirely bad trait. But it does mean that his rhetoric means very little to me.
There are obstacles to executing a progressive agenda, I want evidence that he (and every other candidate) is aware of the obstacles and has a realistic plan to get around them.
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:57:15 PM PDT
vote for hillary. At least you can be sure of what you are getting (if you don't buy her talk about ending the war and bringing home the troops).
if, if, if.....this could've been a great war.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:13:43 PM PDT
in the past....
DLC=RNC-30years
by hardleft on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:32:23 PM PDT
I can tell you Clinton wants bases and Obama also is keeping troops there.
As for your "confidence" level, that's up to you. I have confidence that Clinton will have bases. Obama looks like it also.
by TomP on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:05:02 PM PDT
fates are stacked in one direction. If Edwards wants to go against that grain, he should offer some substantive explanation of how he is going to get around a need for permanent bases.
Ending the war is crucial, and must be done ASAP, but it isn't exactly a solution to our middle eastern problems. There has to be an after-strategy, and everyone I've ever head talk about post-war scenarios has talked about a US presence in Iraq.
I am certainly open to alternatives, I would LOVE to hear alternatives, but there needs to be more than just one liner rhetoric.
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:10:38 PM PDT
would that have stopped 9/11?
What is the basis for this "need" other than to protect the oil extraction process. Because Hillary makes it clear it isn't to protect the Iraqi's.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:12:50 PM PDT
and fucked everything up.
The U.S. has an interest in preventing all and out collapse of civil order in the middle east. We are doing a crappy job of protecting that interest so far, but nonetheless, it would be nice to minimize ethnic cleansing, civil war, the growth of terrorism, etc, if at all possible.
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:27:37 PM PDT
it might be nice to listen to the iraqi people who want us the fuck out of their country. They didn't invite us an they don't want us to stay.
that might be nice. Before we kill another 600,000 of them.
The iraqis want us out. Can you blame them? If you are scared of iran, float the carriers where you are currently floating them. The fish won't mind.
If you are just in it for the oil. Dig in and stay.
by onemadson on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 01:50:08 PM PDT
by heartofblue on Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 02:05:19 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 64 comments