Edwards Statement on McCain Iraq Speech (Congress should reject veto threat, send back same bill)

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Statement on McCain Iraq Speech
John Edwards for President
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement regarding Senator John McCain's speech today on the war in Iraq.

"John McCain said today that we should seek the "judgment of history" rather than the "small politics of the day." But the people playing politics with Iraq are Senator McCain and President Bush, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

"McCain and Bush are brazenly trying to claim that Congress is failing to provide our soldiers the resources they need. Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress funded the troops. If the President vetoes that funding, he's the only one responsible for blocking funding for the troops. And John McCain knows that.

"I have urged Congress to stand up to the President's veto threat, rather than back down in a false game of chicken. If he does veto funding for our troops, Congress should send the same bill right back to him. And they should do this again and again, until the President finally understands that he cannot reject the will of the overwhelming majority American people.

"We must end the conflict in Iraq, and force the Iraqis and their neighbors to find a political solution to the conflict. The plan I announced months ago would cap funding at 100,000 troops to stop the McCain Doctrine of escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops followed by a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months. Under my plan, complete withdrawal is not just a goal, it is a requirement backed by Congress' funding power."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070411-mccain-speech/

[rurallib]

1. I'm liking this guy a lot

Just got off the phone with a staffer. He's moved up to #1 in my book right now.
1) Edwards
1A) Richardson
1B) Obama (shouldn't have said senate would pass the spending bill sans timeline.)

[BamaLefty]

2. Notice the stark contrast

Between John Edwards and our 04 nominee. No bullshit or indecision... just cold, hard facts.

This is the leader that our party and nation needs. I'm proud to have a Edwards bumper sticker on my truck. Yes, indeed.

[littafi]

16. John Edwards

I agree. Straight talk. He's right about the veto. Send it back to Bush.

[Catchawave]

17. Welcome To DU littafi

:hi: :toast: :hi:

[Tejanocrat]

3. This is another issues all our candidates should be pushing. This position is the mainstream view in

America today, and their candidates will not support this mainstream view because they are so worried about bending rightward to win their nomination. Now is the time to define their candidates as the ones who support an endless war with no clear goals, no exit strategy, and no popular support.

[AshevilleGuy]

4. Has this excellent statement gotten any press at all today??

I know it's been about the Duke Lacrosse players and Imus and of course Anna Nicole whats-her-name, but what about this story??

[flpoljunkie]

5. "Cap funding at 100,000 troops" for how long? Why withdraw 40-50,000 immediately and leave 100,000?

I would like to see John Edwards further explain the rationale behind his plan, described below in the statement you linked.

We must end the conflict in Iraq, and force the Iraqis and their neighbors to find a political solution to the conflict. The plan I announced months ago would cap funding at 100,000 troops to stop the McCain Doctrine of escalation and force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops followed by a complete withdrawal in 12-18 months. Under my plan, complete withdrawal is not just a goal" it is a requirement backed by Congress' funding power." - John Edwards


I urge all our nominess to get behind Feingold's withdrawal plan to end our involvevment in Iraq.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/07/04/20070410.html

FEINGOLD INTRODUCES BILL TO END U.S. MILITARY INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ

Senate Majority Leader Reid Cosponsors Legislation Forcing President to Safely Redeploy Troops by March 31, 2008

April 10, 2007

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold introduced legislation today to effectively end U.S. military involvement in Iraq. The bill, supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill passed by the Senate. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008. In addition to Reid, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Pat Leahy (D-VT), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). If the President vetoes the emergency supplemental spending bill, Reid has said he will work to ensure Feingold’s bill gets a vote in the Senate before Memorial Day.

“The President says he will veto legislation already passed by the Senate that both funds the troops and responds to Americans’ demands for an end to the Iraq war,” Feingold said. “Since the President refuses to change his failed Iraq policy, that responsibility falls on Congress. By setting a date after which funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy will end, we can give the President the time and funding he needs to safely redeploy our troops so we can refocus on the global terrorist networks that threaten the lives of Americans.”

The language of the legislation reads:

(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.

(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.

(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

[AshevilleGuy]

7. For how long?

You quoted it yourself: "an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops followed by a complete withdrawal in 12 - 18 months.". I assume that 'complete' means complete. That's about as clear as anyone can get.

[flpoljunkie]

18. But why leave 100,000 troops to try and do the job the job 150,000+ cannot do now?

[obamian]

9. I don't understand Edward's plan either

Lost in the coverage of the Obama articulate, clean comment, Biden offered a critique that I have yet to hear Edwards address:

Mr. Biden seemed to reserve a special scorn for Mr. Edwards, who suffered from a perceived lack of depth in foreign policy in the Presidential election of 2004.

“I don’t think John Edwards knows what the heck he is talking about,” Mr. Biden said, when asked about Mr. Edwards’ advocacy of the immediate withdrawal of about 40,000 American troops from Iraq.

“John Edwards wants you and all the Democrats to think, ‘I want us out of there,’ but when you come back and you say, ‘O.K., John’”—here, the word “John” became an accusatory, mocking refrain—“‘what about the chaos that will ensue? Do we have any interest, John, left in the region?’ Well, John will have to answer yes or no. If he says yes, what are they? What are those interests, John? How do you protect those interests, John, if you are completely withdrawn? Are you withdrawn from the region, John? Are you withdrawn from Iraq, John? In what period? So all this stuff is like so much Fluffernutter out there. So for me, what I think you have to do is have a strategic notion. And they may have it—they are just smart enough not to enunciate it.”

http://thepoliticker.observer.com/20070205_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_newsstory1.html

[AshevilleGuy]

10. Well, my former good will towards Biden is over with.

What is not to understand about Edwards' withdrawal plan? Complete withdrawal in 12-18 months. How more clear can that be?

What 'interests' are Biden referring to?? The OIL, perhaps??

[obamian]

11. Interests

The U.S. has humanitarian, economic, and security interests in Iraq. We want to protect these interests as much as we can while we're withdrawing from the region. If we don't do a good job, there will be unnecessary humanitarian, economic, and security consequences.

[AshevilleGuy]

15. How transitory would that be?

I hope we all agree that complete withdrawal from Iraq is desirable, as quickly as possible. Do we think that, what good works we do as we withdraw would survive that withdrawal for any length of time?

What sort of government do you see there once we are out? I envision, sadly, some sort of theocracy that will quickly erase any vestiges of our occupation. We should never have gone there in the first place; the only decent thing we can do now is get out as soon as possible. But whatever we do will have the consequences you speak of; we can't rule that country forever to protect our 'interests' (oil).

[BamaLefty]

19. Barack,

spare us. We've got you figured out by now.

When you gave the keynote address in Boston, we thought you would become a beacon of light for a then struggling party. Despite getting an overwhelming mandate from Illinois voters, you've become a GOP troll on numerous issues. You duped us. We admit it, okay? We were wrong for ever supporting you and assure it won't happen again.

Sincerely,
Rational Democrats of America.

[Beaverhausen]

6. Excellent!

[w4rma]

8. Perfect. (nt)

[gordianot]

12. Coherent, well thought out, specific, all from an American politician.

I almost gave up hope we would ever hear something like this again. Someone who is not going to let the RW Rove machine run him into the ground.

[Tom Joad]

13. I like the idea of refusing to back down. carl levin should listen up.

[Vincardog]

14. No they should strip the plan of the requirement to give control to exxon and send the rest back.