There has been a great deal of talk lately about how the Democratic candidates are dealing with the Iraq war, the Bush's threatened veto of the ... and the as-of-yet-unformulated Reid-Feingold bill. I thought I'd give an update of John Edwards' position as best I can.
On Tuesday (3 April), Edwards appeared on CNN's Situation Room and said that the "President is dead wrong" with his veto threats.
"If he vetoes that bill, I'd send him another bill that draws down troops in Iraq."
Yesterday, Edwards expanded on these ideas in an email to supporters:
The Edwards Stand Up To Bush: End the War Petition
Today, right now, you and I have the best chance in years to help end the war in Iraq but we must take immediate action.
Here's the situation: Both houses of Congress have voted across party lines to bring our troops home with a plan to fully fund their redeployment and safe return. President Bush has vowed to veto this funding because it hampers his ability to wage endless war —- he'd rather block funding for the troops than listen to the overwhelming majority of the American people who want the war to end.
That's impressive framing, put the onus right where it belong, on BushCo.
Yesterday, Bush called a special press conference and made his strategy crystal clear: veto funding for the troops and then blame Congress for the results. He's betting that Congress will buckle under the pressure and just drop their plan to end the war. We cannot let that happen.
So today, I'm launching an emergency petition to Congress, urging them to stand firm on Iraq. We have to show every senator and representative that their constituents will not be fooled by Bush's ploy—Congress must not abandon the plan to end the war. We're aiming to gather at least 100,000 signatures before the showdown begins after Congress returns to Washington next week. Please add your name today: http://johnedwards.com/...
President Bush's calculation is simple. He knows the people are against him and his occupation is a failure, but because he controls the bully pulpit he thinks he can control the debate. So he'll continue to use the full might of his legendary spin machine to tell the American people that Congress is de-funding the troops, even as he vetoes that very funding with his own pen.
As the President of the United States, Bush has a responsibility to the troops, and he has failed this responsibility over and over again. Congress also has a responsibility: To decide how to spend the people's money—and to say when enough is enough.
It's true that Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the president's team are master political calculators—and they do have a head start in shaping the headlines and controlling the spin.
But this is not the time for political calculation. This is the time for political courage.
If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send it back to him just as before—with a plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should pass it again. And they should do this as many times as it takes for Bush to understand that the American people will not be bullied into writing another blank check for his war without end.
For years, Bush has abused the rhetoric of patriotism to frighten his opponents and divide our country—we can't let Bush get away with it anymore. When Congress funds the troops with a plan to bring them home, they are supporting the troops. When Bush vetoes that funding, he is responsible for blocking the money the troops depend on—nobody else.
But where will our representatives in Washington find that political courage, in the face of such powerful opposition? They will find it where courage has always been strongest in our nation's most critical moments. They will find it in the voice of the people—they will find it in you.
Will you add your name—your voice—to our call for courage? We're aiming to gather a hundred thousand signatures before Congress returns to Washington, and we can't do it without you. Please sign today: http://johnedwards.com/... -- John Edwards
This has been Edwards position for several days, the earliest report I've seen is from an interview with the Union Leader on Monday, 2 April:
The Democratic presidential candidate said that if Bush carries through on his threat to veto legislation that funds U.S. troops in Iraq while also calling for withdrawal next year, Congress should "send the bill back to him" as many times as necessary.
"Then, it's the President who's responsible," he said. He said the troops are well-funded for the next several months, "so there is time to do this.
"I think the President has to accept responsibility for a decision not to sign a bill funding the troops," Edwards said.
Thanks to Tarheel for the link.
On Tuesday, Edwards released this statement:
"The Congress should make absolutely clear that they are going to stand their ground, supporting the troops and reflecting the will of the American people to end this war. If the President vetoes a funding bill, Congress should send him another bill that funds the troops, brings them home, and ends the war. And if he vetoes that one, they should send him another that does the same thing."
Now this is extremely similar to the stance taken by Harry Reid (D-NV) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and their plan for what to do if Bush goes through with his veto of the spending bill
On Monday, Feingold described the forthcoming bill:
Our bill would require the president to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops out of Iraq in 120 days, with redeployment to be completed by March 31, 2008. After March, funding for the war in Iraq would be cut off, with three narrow exceptions -- targeted counterterrorism operations, protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, and training and equipping Iraqi forces. In other words, the current military mission in Iraq would be effectively ended. Sen. Reid has said he will work to make sure the Senate votes on our bill by the end of May.
On Tuesday, when Edwards was asked directly by Susan Malveaux if he supported Reid-Feingold on The Situation Room.
I can't tell from the way you're describing it enough of the specifics. I can tell you what I support, if Bush veotes a bill, we should send him a bill that forces a drawdown of troops. This president has made mistake after mistake and he needs to be stopped. It's President Bush who is not funding the troops if he vetoes the bill. What we ought to be doing is standing strong and forcing this president to draw down troops.
Ben Smith at Politico asked the Edwards campaign to elaborate on Edwards' view of Reid-Feingold. Smith reports:
"EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods."
The Edwards Iraq Plan (from 14 February 2007; the link also discusses his support for non-funding the escalation):
- Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
- Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
- Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
- Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
- After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide. In addition, Edwards believes the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria and work to bring about a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference. He also believes the U.S. must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.
To make my long story short, mcjoan argued on Monday, that "Reid/Feingold should become the new unity position for Congressional Democrats." It's clear that it is, essentially, the position of at least one major presidential candidate: John Edwards.
I hope you'll join me in signing The Edwards Stand Up To Bush: End the War Petition
PS: Edwards has also come out in favor of Murtha's Bill to cut funding for the war at a time when many leading Democrats were distancing themselves from Murtha.
Crossposted at Michigan for Edwards.