Iraq Choice: Edwards, Reid & Feingold vs Obama & Hillary (poll)

Differences between the 2008 candidates on Iraq just got much starker.  As Bush renewed his threat to veto Congress's Iraq Supplement because of its withdrawal provisions, John Edwards responded immediately:

"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."

Edwards' position on confronting Bush puts him to the left of Obama.

At the same time, Senate leader Harry Reid has awakened, teaming up with Russ Feingold with a new, stronger Iraq withdrawal bill that says he won't roll over either.  (Hillary says she hasn't read it.)

In stark contrast, this week Obama signaled he will vote for any Iraq war funding bill the president will sign rather than "playing chicken with the troops on the ground" - in effect, helping Bush call Congress's bluff in advance of any veto.

The ABC News article cites the "influential" Daily Kos, and closes with a powerful quote from Markos Moulitsas, below the fold.

ABC News writes:

Markos Moulitsas, who runs the influential liberal blog Daily Kos, wrote Sunday, April 1, that he hopes Obama's comments were an April Fool's joke.

"What a ridiculous thing to say," wrote Moulitsas. "Not only is it bad policy, not only is it bad politics, it's also a terrible negotiating approach. ... Let me repeat that — Obama just surrendered to Bush."

While you're here - which choice speaks with your voice?  Should Congress fund the Iraq supplemental on Bush's terms, or bring the troops home now?

•  Edwards is right

  We need to keep taking it to Bush, make him realize he can't always get what he wants. His speech yesterday to an all millitary audience wasn't exactly applause filled. Bush is loosing support from everyone, even the military. I say keep hammering him, mae him commit to a withdrawl timetable, and don't settle for anything less. What will happen? Troops wont get trained? They wont recieve armor? Wait, both of those already have happend!!! So unless Bush says this will incrase the rate at which I screw the troops, we don't have to fear.

  As for Obama, please stand up to end the war, you said you were against it before you were elected nationally, so now that you have the spotlight on you, please walk the walk and talk the talk.

  by kingdomemariner on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 01:21:24 AM PDT

•  I can't understand

  Why Obama gave Bush that gift. Bush is at his obstinate worse right now.

  by StealthAmerica on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 01:25:33 AM PDT

•  If that was Obama in context, he's out. (nt)

  by dov12348 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 02:02:26 AM PDT

  •  It was NOT Obama in context....

    According to this...he is pretty much in line with Feingold....

    "We have now provided adequate funding for the troops in a bill that contains timetables," he said. "None of us are interested in playing chicken with the well-being of the troops on the ground. So, we are going to do what it takes to ensure they have the equipment that they need."

    He said he never suggested that after a Bush veto, Congress should pass a funding bill without timetables.

    "There are a lot of options we should explore," he said. "We could put a very tight leash on the President and say that we're funding troops for a much shorter period of time. If he won't accept a timetable that's written into a bill, then we may not be willing to fund the operations there for an indefinite period of time or a full year. We might fund for a shorter period of time and reassess based on whether some of the benchmarks that were outlined in my bill have been met.

    http://www.unionleader.com/...

    by elizm on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:20:05 AM PDT

    •  Congress shouldn't fund at all

      They shouldn't fund for a shorter period of time. They shouldn't fund period.

      by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:31:49 AM PDT

      •  He was against it before he was for it

        n/t

        by Da Rock on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:28:54 AM PDT

      •  Some general was asked during Vietnam,

        "How do we get out of here?"

        "In ships", he replied.

        All it takes is "round 'em up and head 'em out". Should be possible in less than a month.

        by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:10:08 AM PDT

    •  Better. But...

      We might fund for a shorter period of time and reassess based on whether some of the benchmarks that were outlined in my bill have been met.

      This looks weak.  And what are these so-called "benchmarks" of his?

      by dov12348 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:43:37 AM PDT

      •  Whatever WE say ...

        not whatever BUSH says.

        Obama also actually said that getting what we want may require more pressure from the public on Congress so that whatever we propose has a veto-proof majority.

        By the way, where's the quote from Obama or a spokesperson that says he personally would vote for

        any Iraq war funding bill the president will sign

        by chicago jeff on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:52:53 AM PDT

        •  You don't change public opinion by saying this

          "I think that nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground," he told the Associated Press, adding: "I don't think we can muster at this point a majority of Senate Democrats or Republicans to vote for a cutoff of funding."

          It sounds like he's trying to change public opinion so that the public gives up on the idea that we can end this war. He needs to learn from Feingold, Dodd and Edwards just HOW to change public opinion to OPPOSE the war, not to give up on the idea that we can end it.

          by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:03:13 AM PDT

          •  I disagree, respectfully, for two reasons.

            First.  If we had the votes to begin with, then I think  our supplemental funding bill would have been much different.  It would have been stronger or it would have passed without the extraneous spending we used to entice a few hold-outs.  Or it would have passed by a larger margin and we'd be talking about trying to override the veto now instead of some plan B, C, or D.  The quote you give is a statement, not a wish, that describes this apparent fact.

            Second.  Overcoming that apparent fact requires movement.  Not just from us (though we're a little more riled up and not feeling so contented as the day we "won" by passing the supplemental).  But from people who are not us, who are more ambivalent, less trusting of us, less sure of what to do.  We need more push from them.  You think we get that by not budging.  I think we get that by throwing every conceivable reasonable solution at him until we get our way.

            Bush's winning frame is cynicism where the majority who aren't just like us see both sides as stubborn, unreasonable, petty, intransigent.

            Our winning frame is that we are the adults in this relationship and we will do whatever is reasonable to get the job done.  

            Either way, our goal is to get out of Iraq and there are uncertainties and risks with any approach we take.  You point to one, shifting away from one tactic without replacing it with a better one.  I point to another, mirroring Bush and alienating supporters that are tired of stand-offs and inaction.

            by chicago jeff on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:17:16 AM PDT

            •  I agree that, with the votes they have now...

              it wouldn't pass. I respectfully disagree that Obama's statement has no effect on popular opinion. It does. He could have said that if the American people want the war to end, it will. It's not over til it's over; but he chose to defend a weak congressional position rather than garner public support to change it. As you said, "Bush's winning frame is cynicism".

              by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:27:26 AM PDT

            •  But it is a dynamic situation

              Congress demanding more from Bush moves the discussion in our direction.  Public opinion is not unchangable.  And a lot of these Republicans are headed for very tough election in'08.  Make the conversation about who is stopping us from leaving Iraq.  They will start getting a lot of pressure from home to change their positions.  

              by jct on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:30:23 AM PDT

              •  Sort of.

                The problem with going Bush's chicken route is that it may just freeze the "conversation" until summer when the money runs out.  Then the talk changes from "Bush's war sucks" to "bad things are happening, who's to blame--Bush or the Democrats in Congress or both."  That's probably a losing proposition because we need a supermajority and that's really doubtful in a "chicken" framework.  

                It gives Bush two things he wants:  time and rhetorical cover.

                I prefer to start a game of dodgeball.  Imagine bombarding him with more than he can handle, relentlessly.  He's not that nimble and we outnumber him.

                by chicago jeff on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:53:09 AM PDT

        •  Except...

          Congress no longer listens. An insider was referenced in a Slate podcast that many in Congress no longer take or monitor public input. If they did, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, we wouldn't have pork in any bills, lobbyists wouldn't be allowed to bestow any favors, gifts, or campaign contributions, our budget would be balanced, energy policy would not be made for the oil industry,....

          by armchair president on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:12:03 PM PDT

•  Al Sharpton says Obama isn't ready.

  And I think he is right.  Obama better than Hillary? I hope.  Obama better than Edwards?  No way.

  by dkmich on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 02:27:11 AM PDT

  •  Edwards really is no more experienced than Obama

    Edwards had one term in the Senate, with the last 2 years spent running for President. He has spent the time since 2004 working on issues, but not really gaining that much experience.

    Obama has 2 years in the Senate, 8 years in the IL Senate, and was a civil rights advocate and a constitutional law professor. This set of experience does make him more than competitive with Edwards on a domestic level.

    On foreign policy, both are weak. Neither have the breath of experience that Senator Kerry brought to the 2004 first debate or that Al Gore had in 2000. Edwards (and likely Obama) also have no long term environmental record, unlike Gore and Kerry.

    Especially now that Kerry and Feingold will not run, it would be great if Gore did. Limiting it to only those who are running, Senator Dodd may be worth looking at. He has been on the SRFC for over 20 years, is a co-sponsor of the Feingold bill (which as of yesterday, Edwards said he didn't know if he supported) and gave one of the stronger speeches against the torture bill last year.

    by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:55:41 AM PDT

    •  Same amount of experience...

      But the difference is Edwards actually has ideas and plans to try to fix things.  Obama has a lot of speeches about hope, togetherness, etc, but when the time comes to lay some actual facts on the table he comes up short.  

      by Asak on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:01:17 AM PDT

      •  Excuse me...

        Not facts, but actual plans.  

        by Asak on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:01:37 AM PDT

      •  I agree, but

        Bush has plans - not one of them good. Just having plans is not enough. It seems that Edwards pushing ethanol is inconceivable. The linking of our food and livestock prices to oil will only make the cost of eating go up rapidly. Plus, since ethanol is about 25% less efficient than unleaded gas, Americans will use more ethanol to get the same fuel benefits. That means more pollution and since the ethanol manufacturing/refining is powered by goal, no benefit for global warming.

        So the poor people are going to get hurt the most from using more ethanol and there are no benefits because the scale is never going to replace foreign oil. That to me is just one example of a bad Edwards plan.

        by armchair president on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:20:28 PM PDT

    •  The question isn't # of years in office

      The question is if the person is ready.  Lincoln had very little experience.  But, he sure was ready!  

      by jct on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:32:18 AM PDT

  •  fuck al sharpton.

    If you think Al Sharpton is someone worth listening to, you may as well listen to Bush.

    by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:30:32 AM PDT

  •  Since Money talks and Bullshit walks, Obama is #1

    You can quote wackos like Sharpston all you want or a NH poll with 5.5% margin of error. Obama raised more campaign fund than Hillary minus Bill and Edwards and has a donor base larger than both Edwards and Hillary combined.

    Obama is on fire and you know it. Also, Obama's view on the veto is the same with Reid...ratcheting up the pressure if Bush vetoes the bill.

    Edwards has no role to play here. He cannot influence the outcome he can talk all he wants. As I said, talk is cheap.

    As Kos wrote previously, when all the vote are counted, Obama will be the only one standing.

    by ameri on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:34:52 AM PDT

    •  If you truly believe that

      Get used to saying President Guiliani.

      by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:38:55 AM PDT

      •  Obama raised more money than Guiliani

        What are you talking about.

        by ameri on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:44:31 AM PDT

        •  Nothing

          Just the blah blah blah common to candidate cultists who don't know enough about politics to provide any cogent analysis.

          by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:52:38 AM PDT

    •  Then why not dispense with the formalities and

      auction off the office to the highest bidder?

      by jct on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:33:34 AM PDT

      •  Where have you been? That is what's up

        The US Government is up for grabs to the highest bidder.  Why do you think Bush appointed Fox to be the US Ambasador to Belgium. For his good looks.

        by ameri on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 08:08:28 AM PDT

        •  So you admit enough inexperienced young people

          are enamored of rock star Obama enough to give him enough money to buy the oval office.

          by dkmich on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:51:27 PM PDT

  •  Only reason this guy brings up Sharpton...

    is because Sharpton is black.

    Same kind of racialist thinking one expects from the right.

    by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:37:54 AM PDT

  •  Got a link? n/t

    by CAL11 voter on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:58:03 AM PDT

  •  I agree...

    But I think we're going to get Obama regardless.  

    by Asak on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:59:08 AM PDT

    •  Depends on whether or not the Dems want him.

      They took down Dean and they circumvented Lamonts win.  If the Dems want Hillary, she'll be it.

      by dkmich on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:52:19 PM PDT

•  I'll stick with Russ,,,

  on his Iraq stance, and just about every other issue as well.  Been working out just fine for me for over 20 years now.  Since John Edwards sees the sense in this approach he's got my full support as well.

  For what it's worth, Al Sharpton can be a very wise man.  

  by Miss Blue on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 02:59:36 AM PDT

•  I've been concerned that

  Congress would sway public opinion on the side of Bush by backing down so much. It seems that everytime dems get some power, it's not used to lead boldly. I hope that turns around.

  by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 03:18:47 AM PDT

•  I don't think that Edwards is for Feingold's bill

  yet - at least per comments yesterday which may simply reflect he hasn't had a chance to read it yet. So far, the other people who have opted to co-sponsor it are Kerry and Dodd.

  Dodd is running, so he should be included in your list - in addition to Edwards.

  by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:35:06 AM PDT

  •  As you wish

    But remember it was Dodd, not the Republicans, who brought us electronic voting machines.

    by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:54:31 AM PDT

  •  He supports it, he just thinks it should get

    us out of Iraq quicker.  See:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by jct on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:36:00 AM PDT

•  I don't think he has had a chance to read it

  My point is that the two frontrunners in the presidential primary are playing it politically safe. They are unwilling to stand boldly against the war. This seems to be causing public opinion to shift. We really need a bold democratic leader... not more of this backing down.

  I agree with Feingold. I think more would if Clinton and Obama would or if dems would put the issues over the candidate hype so that we can end this war and encourage dems to lead rather than follow.

  by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 04:47:17 AM PDT

•  I think we need to wait to see what Obama

  will do on the Feingold bill. At this point other than Reid, only Kerry and Dodd have signed on. The Senate is out of session and Obama, like Edwards has not had time to decide where he is on this.

  I suspect that many will come to regret that Senator Kerry is not running again. He, rather than Edwards or Obama, has been (with Feingold) a real leader on this issue. I was dissapointed last year that Obama voted against Kerry/Feingold and Edwards made no effort to use his voice to get popular support behind it - likely for fear of strengthening Senator Kerry.

  I am genuinely undecided because there is no candidate I am really impressed with.

  by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:03:51 AM PDT

  •  We have to win the general election

    and I knew in 2004 that Kerry couldn't do that... even with Edwards as VP. People don't vote for VP. They vote for president. It was like running Dukakis again. Edwards could have won the general election last time and he can again.

    He is also the only one leading when it comes to major democratic issues. He is the only candidate who has a comprehensive healthcare plan that will work because it's transitional. It insures everyone and won't take 4 or 8 years to put in place. Every one of the candidates had a chance to present their healthcare plan and only Edwards had one.

    It's amazing to me that I am even the least bit concerned a republican could win the presidency again even after all the corruption, lies, abuse of power and incompetence we've experienced with them in power for so long; but I am. Now, just as in the past, dems have had a candidate who stands up for them and appeals to swing voters both. Will they nominate him this time?

    by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:17:32 AM PDT

    •  Sure he could...

      if he is able to assemble the political team to bring it into fruition.

      He is betting all the marbles on Iowa. If he does not come out of there with a clear convincing victory, he's going to be in trouble.

      by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:42:26 AM PDT

      •  Absolutely not true

        Edwards has been all over the country and continues to do so. He isn't taking anything for granted. He's very industrious and works for the votes. NH is starting to hear his message... Ohio, NC. Once the debates begin. Clinton and Obama won't be able to ride the media hype wave. They will have to start talking about the issues that matter.

        by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:59:09 AM PDT

        •  I don't think so...

          Most americans, the great uninformed majority, get all of their information from the media.

          If you think the media will not have a significant effect on this election, you havent been watching elections in America. The media will have a major effect, especially in next years Feb. 5 national primary.

          You cant campaign door to door in California, New York, and Texas all during the same two-week period. You gotta be on the air, and that means you need money and the media.

          by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:18:26 AM PDT

    •  Kerry was our worst candidate

      Because he was a poor communicator and he ran a poor campaign.  His eventual downfall was the same reason he was dead in the water for so long during the primaries.  We had due warning, but the Iowans decided to nominate hm anyway.  Just about any other candidate could have done better.  We should have won in 2004, no question about it.  

      If Kerry had run a more aggressive campaign, instead of trying to play it safe, we would have won.  Kerry didn't grow a spine until after he lost the election.  I would not want to be John Kerry because I bet he's kicking himself everyday about what he didn't do.  

      by Asak on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:04:45 AM PDT

      •  Totally untrue

        2004 was never going to be easy.

        Kerry is an excellent communicator, which is why the media gave him so little coverage. It wasn't just winning IA. After IA, Dean could have regained the lead in NH. After NH, Edwards or Clark had an excellent chance to win big the first multi-state day. The states were mostly southern or southwestern and many were rural - not a northeasterner's dream. (NM, AZ, DE, ND, OK, SC, and MO). Kerry won big.

        Kerry easily beat Edwards.

        by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:28:23 AM PDT

      •  Know why Kerry lost?

        Because he did not have a consistent position on the war.

        Its a very simple narrative: How can you be against it when you voted for it?

        When he said "I voted for the $87 Billion before I voted against it.", he basically gave away the store.

        When questioned on this, he was flummoxed.

        When Edwards is asked this question, at least he has the character to say he was wrong.

        Now the question is, do we want to elect someone who was wrong about something so serious as war?

        Thats going to be Obama's question during the primaries. And its perfectly fair.

        by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:43:43 AM PDT

    •  A Republican Could

      On the whole, American voters don't take party affiliation nearly as seriously as the partisans do, and are less inclined to tar everyone with any given brush.

      More important, party affiliation matters far less in the White House than in Congress, where a majority vote is needed. The President's vote is always the majority vote in the Executive branch. So Americans vote "for the guy" for President, because the President doesn't much need to tow the party line.

      If the Republicans nominate someone that doesn't strike voters as particularly more prone to corruption, deceipt, abuse of power, and incompetence than the Democratic nominee, Americans will give them fair consideration, rather than dismiss them because of their party affiliation.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:08:15 AM PDT

      •  unfortunately, I agree

        That's why I think it's important to look at the issues and not the media hype.

        by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:13:31 AM PDT

    •  Kerry was a far better candidate than Edwards in

      2004. Even on the issue you mention, it was Kerry who had the far better health care bill. However in 2004, the issue was national securiy.

      After winning IA and NH, the next contests were 7 states on the first multistate day. They were DE, MO,OK,SC,ND, NM, and OK.  That was the time when Edwards could have taken the lead and in the week leading up to it there were many MSM articles on the "sunny" John Edwards. Those were tough states for a Northeastern and Kerry was the BIG winner that day.

      In the later debates, when most of the candidates had dropped out, Kerry blew Edwards out. It was obvious, even though the media loved Edwards, that Kerry was by far the more qualified candidate.

      by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:20:31 AM PDT

      •  Edwards' transitional healthcare plan

        will work. It won't take another decade to get healthcare for all because he offers a compromise. His plan allows private insurers to compete and leads to single payer.

        I knew many republicans who would have voted for Edwards in 2004; but guess who they voted for when Kerry was given the dem nod.

        by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:35:46 AM PDT

        •  I know many moderate Republicans who crossed

          to Kerry who wouldn't consider Edwards. Neither of our limited non-random contacts are reliable indicators of the population as a whole.

          by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:51:26 AM PDT

  •  I doubt it

    I think even a cursory look at Kerry Before, Kerry During, and Kerry After leaves little doubt that he is exactly where he belongs.

    by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:57:49 AM PDT

  •  Kerry has never been an anti-war leader.

    Remember that during his ill-fated presidential campaign, Kerry's critique of the invasion was that Bush was botching it up and that he could do it better. Not pull out, but manage a better occupation.

    by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:03:42 AM PDT

    •  He was an anti-war leader in Vietnam

      I know it was a long time ago, and not what you meant.  But, it bears saying.

      by jct on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:37:46 AM PDT

      •  Agreed.

        by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:51:52 AM PDT

    •  I was speaking of 2005 and 2006

      when he was far more clearly the person leading against the war than Edwards or Obama.

      As to 2004, Kerry offered a plan for what he would do. It was not to manage an occupation - which is why he said in the first debate that he was against permanent bases. At NYU, Kerry spoke of a major diplomatic summit, involving the international community, and rapidly training the Iraqis. He spoke of the need to assist the Iraqis in their internal diplomacy to create a stake for everyone in having a successful country. He saw the possibilty of withdrawing some troops in 2005.

      In 2004, there are three things that were conflated:

      • Whether there should have been an invasion - Kerry said it was not a war of last resort and it was the wrong war. (He even said this on the Daily Show) He spoke out before the war - on January 23, 2003 saying that the diplomacy was not exhausted. He said in Sept 2004 (at NYU) that he would not have taken the country to war. (Edwards was in favor of the war when we invaded and a period afterwards.)
      • What he would do - that was best stated at the NYU speech and in the first debate - the Bush people claimed it was what he was already doing - but as you can see - it wasn't and the ISG has recommended many of the things Kerry was for.
      • Arguing that Bush had created a mess and would continue to create a mess. This is why Kerry spoke about everything from breaking international law, not planning for the "peace", lack of bodyu armor, not securing the ammo dumps etc.

      Far more than a majority of the country felt that were in the war and we had to stabalize things - to win Kerry needed a substantial number of these votes. In addition, when Kerry spoke of a "smarter" war on terror - he clearly was not speaking about Iraq and he said it would be mostly law enforcement and intelligence - and in retrospect many people have said he was right.

      by karenc on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:48:53 AM PDT

•  KOS followers are sheep.

  I find it amazing that so many people on here just accepted kos' blatantly vicious and excessive characterization of Obama's position.

  I also find it amazing the loyalty to a guy who voted for the war, made speeches in favor of it, went around touting his vote for it, and then when it gets unpopular, turns against it, would suddenly be viewed as strong man of principle.

  Just like Tim Russert said to Edwards on meet the press: "Obama's judgement was right on the money and you were dead wrong."

  Amazing.

  by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:36:26 AM PDT

  •  We had every reason to believe Iraq had WMD

    Voting to allow the president the authority to use millitary means to seek out and destroy such a threat was not unjustified.
    http://www.freedomagenda.com/...

    We are no longer there for the reason we went. Our presence there now can and should be considered an occupation. Making statements that suggest there is nothing congress can do does more to sway public opinion in Bush's favor.

    What we didn't know then, we do know now. Now is the time to stand up and help gather public support for withdrawel... not speak out in defense of a weak congressional response.

    by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:51:34 AM PDT

    •  No, we didn't

      Every friend of mine at the time said that it was a bogus trumped-up war to finish Cheney's 1991 Iraq business and to prop up Bush as a war president. Period.  I don't know one person who believed the WMD bullshit.  Clinton and Edwards were going to run for president and they took the popular, more hawkish road at the time.  Anti-war people were having their patriotism impugned at every turn.  Let's not rewrite history here.

      by chicago minx on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:02:40 AM PDT

      •  Did you click on that link?

        If Clinton and Edwards took the "popular" road at the time... voting to give the president authority to use millitary power to seek and destroy wmd, why was it "popular"? If everyone one of your friends knew it was a "bogus war", why was it "popular"? Could it be that war for any reason is "bogus" to those who were against it? I stand by my claim that it was perfectly reasonable to believe that Iraq had wmd.

        by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:08:57 AM PDT

        •  The war was "popular"

          because saner voices were being labled as traitorous and anti-American. Presidential hopefuls bet their souls against the fear that they would appear weak on "defense".

          Do you not remember the pervasive atmosphere of fear in 2002? That and the lust for "revenge"--even if that revenge was to be carried out aganist the wrong target.

          Edwards, Hillary and Kerry were doing the political calculus at the time and they got it WRONG. Now they're trying to backtrack. But, sorry, they've still got blood on their hands. I give Edwards some credit for admitting he was wrong, but please stop spouting this BS that giving this pResident the authority to blow people up was "popular" because of legitimate concerns about WMD. It was considered "popular" because the administration exploited people's FEAR.

          by Jennifer Clare on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:19:43 AM PDT

          •  Hillary Clinton is not backtracking.

            She stated clearly in her interview with the NY Times that she would keep troops in Iraq indefinitely if she became president.

            by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:24:12 AM PDT

        •  Even if it was reasonable

          to believe Iraq had WMD, it is not reasonable that the US invade third-world countries at will. It is precisely that policy that has gotten us into such a mess.

          by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:22:23 AM PDT

    •  He's speaking out against a moment of weakness...

      as evidence of the candidate's true character.  Edwards' nuclear threat position then is the most troubling aspect of Edwards' judgment then.  Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee after all and had access to much more information.

      But your point about the need for Dems to find a unified position is well-taken.

      by CAL11 voter on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:05:23 AM PDT

    •  Oh come ON!

      We had NO reason to believe the WMD hype! Crimony, many of us "out-of-the-loop" ordinary citizens knew better than to trust thie pResident with a blank check to blow up another country.

      And Obama is not, and has not been, "making statements that suggest there is nothing congress can do".

      These slams against Obama are really getting old and tired.

      by Jennifer Clare on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:09:40 AM PDT

      •  Here is what your hero had to say

        "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.  

        We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."  

          Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President
          Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club
          September 23, 2002  

        by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:15:47 AM PDT

        •  Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee.

          He had access to up to date information.  Did he take advantage of that access to assure he made the correct decision, or did he just blindly defer to the President?  Were there any intelligence reports to review, and did Edwards review them prior to casting his vote?  And Edwards also talked Iraq as a nuclear threat, didn't he?

          by CAL11 voter on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:24:46 AM PDT

          •  Thats right.

            But to me, it does not matter that if he saw the intelligence or not.

            What matters most to me is: "Is this the right thing to do?"

            None of our allies, except Britain, supported the war. The whole world was against the war. Bush could not even win a UN resolution in favor of it.

            THAT should have been enough to give Edwards, Clinton and the rest a little bit of pause. There were academics all over the country who said that even if Saddam had WMDs, he did not have the capacity to deliver them. He was largely contained and weak.

            If Obama and the whole world knew that, why didnt Clinton and Edwards? I'll tell you why: TOO AFRAID TO STAND UP TO BUSH WHEN IT REALLY MATTERED.

            by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:31:32 AM PDT

        •  Uh, you're quoting Al Gore

          I was challenging your statement that Obama said that there is nothing Congress can do regarding Bush's threat to veto the latest round of funding.

          by Jennifer Clare on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:01:41 AM PDT

        •  This is how wingnuts misquote Gore's speech

          Good job imitating them!

          In 2002, everyone did think that Saddam had chemical/biological WMD because some of his original stockpile had not been accounted for.

          It was the job of those in power in 2002 to press for and obtain fresh and credible intelligence to assess the status of those WMD. Saddam releaseed 10 thousand page document in Dec'02, but Bush admin and war backers ignored it.

          What you have done here is wrongly quoted Gore. Here is the meat of Gore's argument and related material:

          Gore's speech against the war, 9/23/2002
                  Former Vice President Al Gore
                   Iraq and the War on Terrorism
                   September 23, 2002
                   Prepared Remarks

                   "If Saddam Hussein does not present an imminent threat, then is it justifiable for the Administration to be seeking by every means to precipitate a confrontation, to find a cause for war, and to attack?"

                        "I believe we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and have thus far gotten away with it. "

                        "the coalition assembled in 1991 paid all of the significant costs of the war, while this time, the American taxpayers will be asked to shoulder hundreds of billions of dollars in costs on our own."

          ~~~~~~~~~~

               Hardball College Tour: Al Gore

               Dec. 11, 9 p.m. ET Lehman College, The City University of New York
                Updated: 3:25 a.m. CT Nov 26, 2002

               MATTHEWS: But you would have voted against it.

               GORE: I would have voted against that resolution. I would have voted against it.

          ~~~~~~~~~~

             posted October 3, 2002 (October 21, 2002 issue)
             Al Gore, democrat

             Eric Alterman

          The nexus of the punditocracy's twin "love war/hate Gore" obsessions helps to explain the astonishing explosion of invective unleashed by Gore's calm and soberly delivered warning in San Francisco--one that echoed the underreported testimony of three four-star generals given to Congress the same day.

          The New York Post headlined its editorial, "Al Gore, Wimp." Sean Hannity observed, "He's sweating profusely.... He didn't look presidential. I didn't see any gravitas, any leadership," and added, "Are we watching something similar to appeasement before our eyes?" ABC's George Will called the speech "moral infantilism." His Washington Post sidekick, Charles Krauthammer, called it "a disgrace." Their colleague Michael Kelly penned a column that makes Ann Coulter sound like Isaiah Berlin. Kelly termed the speech "dishonest, cheap, low," "hollow," "wretched," "vile," "contemptible," "a lie," "a disgrace," "equal parts mendacity, viciousness and smarm" before running out of adjectives. (If the Post really wants this kind of thing, they should consider replacing the barking-mad Kelly with our prodigal son, Christopher, who at least bashes liberals with a bit of style and panache.)

          ...

          But he sure galvanized Tom Daschle and other Democrats to face up to a frightening juggernaut for war they would have preferred to duck for the sake of re-election. Naderites take note. It was not "smart" in the Washington sense. It was not strategic. But damn it, it was brave. The victim of a stolen presidency demonstrated why democracy matters.

          ps: Eric called for Gore/Obama.
          ~~~~~~~~~~

          The Politics of Preemption

          By Sam Parry
          October 8, 2002

          George W. Bush's doctrine of "preemptive war" -- the elimination of foreign governments he deems a threat to U.S. security interests -- is quickly developing a domestic corollary. Any politician who questions Bush's strategy can expect to be confronted by a rapid-deployment force of pro-Bush operatives who counterattack using weapons of ridicule and distortion.

          In a kind of test run, this army swung onto the offensive immediately after former Vice President Al Gore on Sept. 23 delivered a comprehensive critique of Bush's radical departure from decades of American support for international law. Rather than welcome a vigorous debate on the merits and shortcomings of the so-called "Bush Doctrine," conservative commentators treated Gore and others raising questions as dishonest, unpatriotic and even unhinged

          ~~~~~~~~~~~

          Edwards was on the senate intel committee and despite warning signals, co-sponsored the war resolution.

          by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:30:58 AM PDT

          •  Thanks for the links. n/t

            by CAL11 voter on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 08:49:11 AM PDT

    •  No we didn't

      That kind of talk makes Democrats sound like either naive fools or outright liars.

      by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:11:05 AM PDT

    •  Obama knew!

      Read the speech.

      by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:23:36 AM PDT

  •  This 93% are NOT Edwards or even Kos fans.

    We're just the 93% who want out of Iraq now and aren't fooled by the "playing chicken with the troops" argument.  GOD, we've dreamed of having Obama in our ranks.  So it's proper for Kos to report it when Obama dashes those dreams.

    We're just saddened that even now, no one has been standing up to Bush or leading.

    Far from "loyalty", this Edwards surge is more like nature abhorring a vaccuum.  

    Of course we'd prefer someone who was right about Iraq in 2002 and right about not funding it now, like Gore, Feingold or Kucinich.  Kucinich is the one candidate fitting that spec.  The only "sheep" effect here is that Kos openly hates and attacks Kucinich, to the point of removing him from poll reports even when he beats Hillary.  So Edwards becomes the main beneficiary of Obama's stumble.

    If Obama disavowed the Cheney "playing chicken" model tomorrow, support would quickly flow back toward him.  Only politicians have a vested interest in voting to continue funding the war.  Deep down we all know it.  It's tragic Obama became one so quickly.  

    Maybe our voices will wake him up.

    by Levity on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 01:15:41 PM PDT

•  After McCain's failed "photo-op"

  which exposed how we've been misusing our troops, I want them home now.

  by catchawave on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 05:38:38 AM PDT

•  Obama's remark is not surprising.

  As David Sirota pointed out earlier this week, one of Obama's biggest backers is the Chicago-based family that owns General Dynamics.

  In case you have any doubt who that is, "General Dynamics is a market leader in business aviation; land and expeditionary combat vehicles and systems, armaments, and munitions; shipbuilding and marine systems; and mission-critical information systems and technologies."

  Did I say military-industrial complex?

  by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:00:16 AM PDT

  •  Isn't that the guy

    Who pointed out last year that Sen. Clinton voted for the Bankruptcy Bill?

    Well.  Maybe it's true about Obama and General Dynamics.  It's nice, for once, to see the same ludicrous shit that's been flung at Clinton from the left finally get flung at Obama.

    Actually.  No.  It's not.

    Innuendo and slander is innuendo and slander no matter where it comes from (leftists get no free pass here) or who it's flung at (even Republicans because the truth is damning enough to keep Republicans in the minority for another 50 years as long as we stay focussed on the truth).

    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:25:11 AM PDT

    •  All you have to do is look at the FEC statements.

      You can tell what a politician's policies will be by where his money comes from. Nobody gets near the top in US politics without the consent of the establishment. That's the folks who own the country, and they aren't going to allow management that is likely to upset their apple cart.

      As soon as the data for Q1 2007 are up on Open Secrets, we owe it too ourselves to look carefully at which industries are backing which candidates.

      http://www.opensecrets.org/...

      by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:32:11 AM PDT

      •  That is a sad way to look at politics

        Of course some people actually look at who advertises on this site and they make conclusions about the guy who owns this site.

        While "follow the money" can be an important piece, it is not the only piece.  A failure to incorporate other pieces of the puzzle renders "follow the money" about as effective as innuendo.  You can not convict.

        Motive alone doesn't make the crime.

        by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:37:59 AM PDT

        •  Do you think corporate America

          gives money to candidates out of charity?

          by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:54:42 AM PDT

          •  What about Edwards getting

            the vast majority of his money from trial lawyers?

            That doesent bother you?

            by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 08:01:23 AM PDT

            •  Yeah, it does.

              by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 08:03:38 AM PDT

  •  I'd hate to see someone slip and fall at Edwards

    campaign events!

    The paramedics would have to treat that person for suffocating under a barage of business cards.

    Theyd have to have a police escort for the ambulance just to keep all the trial lawyers away!

    by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:52:05 AM PDT

•  Edwards and HRC voted FOR the war

  Obama stuck his foot in his mouth.  

  You can decide which is more presidential.  I already have.

  by baltimoremom on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:04:20 AM PDT

  •  Well...

    According to the Democratic "wisdom" in 2004, voting for and continuing to support the war was a lot less of a political liability than putting your foot in your mouth.

    by Free Spirit on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:14:42 AM PDT

  •  Obama voted for

    Rice.

    and OFTA.

    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:26:06 AM PDT

  •  Obama also voted to re-authorize the patriot act

    He didn't make a stand regarding the FOX debate until AFTER he decided it was politically correct to do so. He's a follower who will not lead on the important issues. He went to the healthcare forum with no healthcare plan... just more promises and media hyped speeches.

    by 123Mary123 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:31:13 AM PDT

    •  And Edwards voted for the origional!

      Right along with his buddy Jesse Helms.

      by brooklynbadboy on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:56:30 AM PDT

  •  Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq war

    resolution. Not just voted for it.

    by jj32 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

•  The sides are becoming clearer.

  The divisions among us more stark. Edwards looks to be the only option for the netroot Democrats, us lefties who spurn DLC politics.

  by makemyday9 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:17:17 AM PDT

•  As I pointed out in the original Front Paged

  Story on Reid/Feingold.  If Reid is co-sponsoring the bill with Feingold, then it's fair to say he's been pro-active to know what support it has in the caucus.

  Reid, btw, is more conservative than both Obama and Clinton.  So maybe they haven't read it, I don't konw.  Frankly, I don't see much out there on it as it is so people are kind of free to make up definitive conclusions about where people stand based on haphazard quotes taken out of context.

  I'm going to bet that Obama and Clinton both support this proposal, they will vote for cloture.  And if it makes it to a vote, they will vote for it.

  by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:30:34 AM PDT

•  Edwards has a fighting petition on his site:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  He's calling on Congress to step up the pressure on Bush if he vetos the appropriations bill.

  by unclejohn on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:36:52 AM PDT

•  Tags corrected and added

  Original tags:

  Iraq, 2008, funding, veto, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Markos Moulitsas

  Please do not use "2008" alone for election diaries.  The correct tag is "2008 elections" with the office being discussed entered separately.  

  EX: "President" "Senate" "House"

  During primary season, the "primaries" tag is generally added.

  Please remember this information for future diaries and enter your tags correctly.

  Thanks!

  ======
  Try to use tags from this List of the most used standard tags.
  Find good tags (and their diaries) by using this Great Tag Search Tool
  TUs, please consider giving an hour a week helping with these Tag Clean Up Jobs

  by SarahLee on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 07:35:07 AM PDT

•  Separation of Powers?

  I think Bush has and continues to embrace every bad idea practically possible, but the Democratic Congress is doing just what the Republican one did - ignore the Constitution. If Congress wants to exert their authority then grow some vertebrae and cut the military budget, but Dems would be held accountable for their actions and that is every politicians worst nightmare. Otherwise Congress is overstepping its authority and just playing politics with this issue from Bush and his hypocritical excuse for vetoing a bill because pork resides in this supplemental finance bill to Clinton, Edwards, etc. pretending to act on behalf of Americans.

  by armchair president on Thu Apr 05, 2007 at 06:06:42 PM PDT