Edwards: Congress Should Cut Iraq Funding

[JohnLocke]

Edwards: Congress Should Cut Iraq Funding
Former Senator And 2008 Hopeful Says He's The Candidate For Change
Sunday, February 25, 2007CBS
----
North Carolina Democrat John Edwards believes that the war in Iraq will be one of the "dominating issues" in the 2008 race for the White House, and Sunday on Face The Nation, he said Congress should cut funding for the war effort to force a redeployment of American troops.

"I think the Congress should use its authority, its funding authority to bring down the troop level an initial 40- to 50,000 out of Iraq, and continue to use that authority to redeploy troops out of Iraq over the next year or so," Edwards told Bob Schieffer.
(...)
"And while I was doing that, I would engage the Iranians and the Syrians directly, both of whom have an interest in a stable Iraq, particularly with America leaving Iraq," Edwards said.

The former Senator also talked about domestic issues. He said he would rollback President Bush's tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year to pay for his universal health care plan.

"I do not believe, having spent a lot of time on this, that you can achieve universal health care without finding a revenue source, and that's my revenue source," Edwards said.
(...)
"In my case, there was a lot of seasoning that's gone on, both during the last campaign and since that time," he said. "I've done a lot of work overseas, for example, and I've learned. I hope we all continue to learn. And I don't think there's been any change in me as a human being, what my fundamental values are."
----
Read the rest here.

[kurth]

1. Amen

and impeach the motherfucker.

[ForFuxakes]

2. Bravo John

And keep it going...

[halobeam]

3. Okay now.

I'm happy to see a running candidate say this so plainly. He's said and NOT said some things that bothered me, in his running for VP and now for POTUS. This is a HUGE plus in his column and he'd better be EXTREMELY active on this statement, or it will be all hot air and we've certainly had our fill of that in this country.. we do NOT need anymore.

I'm skeptical of almost all the runners, I neither support or oppose any of them, as I find it is ridiculously early to campaign, number one. Number two, I wait to see their actions and how effective they are in implementing ideas they have. Time will tell.

[ClassWarrior]

4. Thanks JE.

NGU.

[Top08Gear_com]

5. Not only issue...

Iraq is not the only issue that Congress should try asserting it's CONSTITUIONAL AUTHORITY & DUTY to reverse/change!

Helping our troops come home, so Iraq can begin to really govern itself, is one of the best ways we can support them and their efforts.

[AtomicKitten]

6. I have a problem with him hollering this from the sidelines.

Cutting funding is really dicey politically which IMO is precisely why he is suggesting it; he isn't in Congress and won't be tagged with voting to do it .... not nice Mr. Edwards.

There's a reason the GOP keeps daring the Dems to do it.

There are other ways through restrictive legislation to accomplish ending the war.

[saltpoint]

8. The hollering appears to be coming from your post.

Edwards speaks in an even, thoughtful tone of voice.

[AtomicKitten]

10. ah, okay

Nice cheerleading, but nowhere in the neighborhood of addressing my point.

[saltpoint]

13. Your point was to knock down a Democrat. The OP's well-stated

and good-hearted intent drew positive responses and you seized the occasion, as you have been known to do, to flip the negative energy switch.

Predictably and right on cue.

[FrenchieCat]

14. You seem to have taken on the tact of attacking personally DU posters

who don't agree with your chosen politician running for office.

Why are you allowed to criticize DUers, but the same DUers are not allowed to criticize John Edwards? How does that work and why should it? According to DU rules, Criticism of Democratic politicians is allowed on these board, while attacking DUers personally is not.

Why are the rules not applicable to you? Why does John Edwards need this kind of protection instead of the post criticizing him being responded to without the personal attacks on the poster posting his/her opinion?

[AtomicKitten]

17. I just realized something.

A Kerry fan has changed horses. That explains the personal attack instead of substantive discussion.

The fact that pulling funding is a dicey political move and one that Edwards doesn't have to deal with since he is no longer in Congress makes it safe AND manipulative for him to press. A perfectly legitimate point for discussion regarding strategic political moves and nothing more.

[JI7]

36. you really have issues

OC was always an Edwards supporter. he also likes and has defended Kerry, Dean and many others. but he was always an Edwards guy first.

talk about not being informed and personal attacks.

[AtomicKitten]

40. whatever

It doesn't excuse the personal attack on me for nothing that apparently only you and OC can't see.

I'm weary of this fractious environment where we are expected to walk on eggshells for some DU'ers and their candidates and expected to sit silent while they eviscerate us and other candidates. The inequity of that is beyond anything in the neighborhood of reasonable, and other DU'ers as well as myself are calling BS on it. Feel free to continue to wallow in it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3135617
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3134470&mesg_id=3134470

[JI7]

41. "whatever"

i was referring to what you said about OC and who he supported. he has always supported Edwards first.

i don't see anywhere on there where i agreed with OC on anything .

[JNelson6563]

42. As a supporter of no one

My view is: Yes, pulling funding is a dicey political move, as you say. Voting for it or calling for it "from the sidelines" both result in being "tagged with it". Both involve the same political risk in that they are on record with that view. For instance, Wesley Clark puts forth a lot of views on this war. I would not consider any statement (on any topic) from him as worth less or risking less because he's not in a position to vote on it. And Obama, he wasn't in the Senate prior to Iraq but he stated he was against it, right? He was "on the sidelines" too.

At least it is a decisive statement (right or wrong), not a cloud picture painted with words that the listener is free to shape as they please, and for that reason alone I think there is some credit due.

Just my .0125

Julie

[AtomicKitten]

46. politics are funny like that

Voting for it or calling for it "from the sidelines" both result in being "tagged with it".

While this might be true in the general election, it is an entirely different animal in the primary election within the Democratic Party.

The Republicans are pressing for defunding for a reason; it's political suicide for the Democrats. Voting for or against such a measure would be devastating and used as a weapon by the GOP in the general election.

And if you look downthread to another discussion, I applaud this maneuvering on Edwards's part as savvy politics.

There are two breeds of conversations at DU: Some folks understand and talk about politics as an overview, others like a 13-year-old crazed fan of the Beatles. It is the latter category that invest emotionally in a candidate and brook no discussion of the process with any kind of graceful detachment.
You can identify the latter by those that took immediate umbrage at legitimate discussion and instinctively attacked me personally.

[JNelson6563]

47. For sure, differences in primaries and GEs

No doubt about it.

Considering the GE isn't for another year and a half or so, the defunding stance could actually be popular by then. Also, the states are hurting badly, lots of federal cuts resulting in less funds to state treasuries. Higher state taxes, more state level cuts...as these hard times continue the cost of the war could come into play moreso than it has already.

I do think, as you say, this is savvy politics from Edwards and it's certainly not without risk. We'll see how the message is received and what other candidates say about it too.

I'll be watching with great interest. I think the reaction to this notion of defunding will be an excellent barometer of the nation's mood in regard to the war. I know it's gotten bad, the question is how bad?

Julie

[ClassWarrior]

44. So I'm not the only one to notice the pattern.

And if Gore came out and said "cut the funds," suddenly we'd all be hearing a different tune from that one.

:eyes:

NGU.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Really?

Can you tell me what the weather will be like this evening so I'll know if I should take an umbrella when I go out? Thanks.

On edit: Funny how only the Kerry Krowd views anything I said as derogatory. Me thinks creating and then burning down a strawman is a fave activity at your meetings.

[KittyWampus]

21. Well, Edwards' record makes it pretty likely he would NOT make a stand and vote against funds

so as far as I'm concerned- his comment is little more than hot air. No matter what tone he delivers his comments in.

[GreenArrow]

30. "Edwards speaks in an even, thoughtful tone of voice."

So does Dick Cheney.

Its less the tone than the content that concerns me. They're both full of shit.

[mtnsnake]

26. You hit the nail on the head as to why Edwards is suggesting cutting off funding

Just like you said, Edwards won't have to VOTE and put his own hide on the line like the other candidates. Because he won't have to vote for or against funding, he won't have to worry about being perceived as looking "unsupportive" of the troops like anyone will if they vote down funding. There isn't a Democratic strategist in our Party who hasn't worried about this perception. How brave of Edwards to call for de-funding when he can't be held responsible for that part of the process himself.

[saltpoint]

7. Edwards handles questions with a great deal of authority, and it's an

authority that has heart and mind.

Dubya likes to take those long cowboy-like strides to a podium and then spout tough-talk about terrorists.

Edwards listens carefully, gets the question, understands the context, and offers a thoughtful answer.

Good post.

[KittyWampus]

22. Authority? From being a one term senator who spent most of that term running for POTUS?

Authority as a senator who voted FOR the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

Edwards has no record of making hard, politically risky positions.

[KittyWampus]

23. dupe

[Senator]

9. Sorry, No Oscar for "Cut The Funding II: The Non-Ultimatum"

We've seen this movie before.

The same goes for all the other funding gymnastics the DC Dems and their consultant/strategerists will promise themselves are a sure cure for what focus group ails them.

Only Impeachment... is a substantive act.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic option.

--

[Triana]

11. I AGREE! Go John!

...love that man.

[IndyOp]

12. Yes! Go John! I so pleased to see this. More! More! (n/t)

[w4rma]

15. Sen. Edwards rocks. (nt)

[ripple]

16. Edwards keeps intensifying his rhetoric

and while I like the guy, I somehow don't think his motives are exactly pure here. If this is what he truly believes, why didn't he say it two months ago?

I think he's trying to bump the ante for the other dems. After all, he won't be in a position to actually vote on such a measure, while his stiffest competition will. He also knows there isn't a chance in hell there will be sixty senate votes in support of such a measure, so he can claim Hillary and Obama didn't do enough to end the war, while implying that he would. And probably more importantly, this shifts the conversation away from his support of the IWR- for the time being, at least.

It's certainly understandable that Edwards would seek out the most advantageous political angle in this situation, but it's important not to confuse political maneuvering with a principled stance.

[AtomicKitten]

18. precisely my point

... the difference being I was personally attacked for it.

I think he's trying to bump the ante for the other dems. After all, he won't be in a position to actually vote on such a measure, while his stiffest competition will. He also knows there isn't a chance in hell there will be sixty senate votes in support of such a measure, so he can claim Hillary and Obama didn't do enough to end the war, while implying that he would.

[ripple]

19. You were unfairly attacked, IMHO

I think most objective observers would view your comments as relevant criticism.

Edwards hasn't gained as much ground as he'd like by apologizing for his IWR vote, so he made a strategic decision to put the other senate candidates on the spot while being able to keep a safe distance. The brilliance of this move is that now, Gravel and Richardson are really the only candidates running at this point who can accuse him of trying to pull funds from troops already in combat- and they aren't the candidates he's most worried about right now. The others might very well be in a position to vote on the issue well before election time.

It's a game of political hot potato that Edwards really doesn't have to play, other than from the sidelines, as you pointed out.

Sorry you were attacked, AK. I agree with ya! :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

20. gotta love politics

Thanks for the validation, ripple. I appreciate it. There is a certain species of folks here at DU that brook no discussion of their candidate if it isn't mind-numbing cheerleading.

Politics truly is a spectator sport. Some people get so emotionally enmeshed in the game; I often compare it to junior high school drama.

I applaud the smooth moves and have been known to utter the phrase "good one" from time to time. It's interesting and sometimes fun to track their calculated moves on the field.

[ripple]

34. It's like watching a game of chess,

only we all have our favorite players on the board and there is a lot more at stake. Your statement sums it up perfectly:

I applaud the smooth moves and have been known to utter the phrase "good one" from time to time. It's interesting and sometimes fun to track their calculated moves on the field.

Edwards made an excellent move and I think it will work well for him. He rearranged the pieces on the board, if you will. He lost a pawn or two, but he still has a rook and two bishops left to guard the queen. Now, if he can just get to the opponents' queen while still guarding his own, the king will be his for the taking.

Again, I'm not aboard the Edwards bus, but this was definitely a savvy move on his part. Altruistic? Hell, no. Good political maneuvering? You betcha!

Politics are the ultimate reality television. :popcorn:

[AtomicKitten]

35. definitely snaps for a smooth move

Better super-size that popcorn
and have plenty of on hand.

It's going to be a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong primary season.

On edit: In my former home town, Santa Cruz, CA, where they have fabulous street performers, I was working for the local entertainment/political paper and, during the Olympics, I did an on-the-street Olympic style rating of the performers with cards showing scores. It was hysterical. Reminds me of politics.

[ripple]

38. LOL...I love the idea of scoring

That would be awesome for the debates! In fact, I'm thinking a debate party might be in order. :)

For now, I'm off to bed. Keep the feathers ruffled around here, AK. It's good for democracy.

[Clarkie1]

37. So, what is it that's really important here?

Doing what's best for Edwards personal ambitions or advocating what's best for America and the world?

[ripple]

39. The latter.

There's still nothing wrong with recognizing a good political maneuver when one sees one and calling it what it is.

[Cosmocat]

43. YEP ...

Edwards had a chance to be "principled" in 2003, and he bagged out ... When he was on MTP a few weeks ago, Russert nailed him pretty good on it, and it was one of the VERY few times I felt Russert was right for running a dem though the grinder over an issue (in the context that if he was a REAL journalist, he would run repubs though the grinder just the same, not likely) ...

Fact is, as noted, he is standing on the sidelines and putting an onus on others that I am pretty darn sure he would not be able to meet if he was in their situation ... Not to the extent he is pushing ...

Keep in mind ... I will back WHOEVER the dem candidat is to death ... Edwards is OK ... I think he will make a decent president if it comes to that ... He isn't my guy, or my second guy, but I like him a little ...

BUT, this Iraq situation does NOT sit well with me in relation to him ...

[BenDavid]

24. That is damn stupid! At this

point in time this war belongs too one George W. Bush. This is his war... Now let the Dems cut the funding and you will have two things happen..
First the republicans will all in unison say, " We would have won Iraq if the Democrats had not cut off the funding." Maybe that would not be so bad in and of itself but I did say two things would happen. Now the second thing. The whoremedia would begin spewing this same talking point and how long would it be before the public turned their opinions on this war from the Bush war to the Democrats war? Not long....So I say do not do anything that even comes close to cutting funds for this Iraq quadmire..
Just remember folks, that Harry Reid caved in to Lieberman even after holy Joe qualified as an Independent...Happy Now Harry? But, we will only have to wait another 18 months and the Senate Democrats will gain about 5 to 8 seats and then we can tell JoeMo to stick it, and remove him from any chairmanship he holds and tell him he can now go and vote with the losers.

[Clarkie1]

25. Clark rationally explains why cutting troop funding is not the best option.

Ed Schultz: Would you uh, be in favor of cutting the funding for this surge, General?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: You know, I'm really not in favor of that at this point. What I'd like to see us do is demand that the administration put the non-military resources into the Iraq mission that have been required - and missing - for a long time. I'm talking about economic advisors, um justice advisors, agricultural advisors, petroleum experts, uh all of the non-military skills that it takes to run a modern economy. They're missing in Iraq. They need help from us and we've been really remiss in not providing it. Instead we've dumped all the burden on our soldiers. And our men and women in uniform are great but they can't make up for a lifetime skill in let's say the oil industry or an understanding of justice and... and, and how to set up courts and things like that. So there's a lot of work that needs to be done over there. I don't think we needed the surge, but the fact is that the policy's been announced at this point and I know there's tremendous anger out there that Bush is ignoring the wishes of the American people, but I think what we really need to do is find a winning strategy in Iraq and then get our troops out.

<snip>

"I'm working the policies, not the politics."

much more....
http://securingamerica.com/node/2262

[Clarkie1]

27. Kick for discussion. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Setting up courts will be useless when the Malaki government is overthrown by Al-Sadr

And honestly I don't see how that isn't going to happen.

[Clarkie1]

32. O.K....what do you think about helping more with issues besides the court system?

Assuming that the hypothetical you posit is in fact certain to materialize?

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Unless we can and are willing to cooperate with Al-Sadr's government...

I don't see the point of helping with anything. Democracy in Iraq was a nice idea but the democracy will be violently overthrown by a Shia Iran-friendly government the second that we pull the troops out. There's no sense in letting this happen two years from now when we can just let it happen now and save American troops' lives in the process. The bloodshed was inevitable the second that we overthrew Saddam.

[Clarkie1]

28. What the hell is "seasoning?" nt

[Ninja Jordan]

31. Some of his positions seem reckless.

It's Obama, Richardson, then a distant Edwards for me.

[JohnLocke]

48. Kick (nt).