Edwards ad: Iowans tell Congress "don't back down."

I liked "compromise is concession on this question". Usually, I am a firm believer in mediation and finding a solution that all parties can live with. This is not one of those times. Bush does not listen to anyone that does not agree with him and has already shown himself untrustworthy on following agreements (including the original authorization). He can't be given any more wiggle room--he would use it to keep our troops there until after he leaves office.

I think Sen. Edwards has the best approach here. Fund the troops, but bring them home. Don't back down.

Go Iowa!!!!

I think Edwards has put his money where his mouth is, and the video does not even ask for anyone to vote for Edwards.

I gained a lot of respect for him as a result.

Don - yep, I'm proud of my home state here. I'm hoping we as Iowans can repent for letting our state go Republican in '04 (we were in the D column for the 3 previous presidentials), and that the rest of the country can see fit to forgive us.

I like Edwards aggressive approach here, but I do think we need more than "get out now." We need a plan for how to clean up this mess, and that I've seen so far, Sen. Biden is the only one to offer that.

I just started a thread about it at

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976996008

Astro - do you know Sen. Edwards opinion of the Biden plan? I haven't heard him say yay or nay about it.

It looks like John Edwards has whipped out a political backbone for his party. It's about time somebody did.

The phrase "compromise is concession on this question" just might be the kind of phrasing that the Republicans will be able to understand.

Let's all give a shout-out to the new Congress: "Stay on your new Course!"

Laura, I agree - no more wiggle room for Bush.

Don, I don't think Congress should mess with the Iowans in that ad, do you? They look like they mean business!

Karl, yes, I think it's very telling that the first ads of Edwards' campaign are aimed at getting us out of Iraq, and not focused on his campaign.

Kurt, I'm not totally familiar with the Biden plan, but I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong) that Biden wants to leave troops in Iraq and try to persuade, or maybe force, the country to divide into 3 distinct areas for Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds. OK, I just looked at your article and it seems like I basically am right.

I can't speak for him, but I believe Edwards would be opposed. He thinks we should get the troops out of Iraq and let the Iraqis have sovereignty in their own country. He has said the only solution there is a political solution and that the time has come for Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country.

He would pull the troops out of Iraq itself, but leave a few in the region in case the country goes more chaotic and the chaos spills over (but as he points out, nobody can be sure what will happen in any case). He would also try to establish diplomatic relations with other countries in the region, because those countries have an interest in keeping Iraq from going totally chaotic.

Bill's Spirit, yes, Edwards has definitely got a backbone. If you want an easy way to give a shout out to the new Congress, you can sign the petition here. The Edwards campaign also welcomes video responses to their ad. Just record a short video of yourself and/or your friends saying "we the people" and post it as a response to the Edwards ad here.

By the way, CNN has a new poll out that shows Americans agree with John Edwards' approach on Iraq:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Most Americans disagree with President Bush's decision last week to veto the war funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

What do they think Congress should do now?

Former Sen. John Edwards said Congress shouldn't back down. "If we don't have the votes to override the veto, the Congress should send him another bill with the funding authority for the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal," the Democratic presidential candidate said.

The public agrees. In the new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Tuesday, 57 percent want Congress to pass another bill with funding and timetables.

The "new" course is nothing but withdrawal and to hell with what happens. The Democrats have decided to play a very dangerous game, which they have deluded themselves into thinking is the right course. If the troops are withdrawn before the election, the Democrats will regale us all with how they ended the war, but if the situation then explodes, as it probably will, the Democrats will TRY to blame Bush for the failure. This will not play well as the DEMOCRATS are the ones pushing for a totally date based timetable.

The Democrats forget the American people are comfortable with the troops being in Iraq to the end of 2008 at least, provided there are benchmarks for success. They don't want to watch an endless bloodbath on CNN that could have been prevented. The people understand that there must first be some security before any reconciliation can take place and are willing to provide the time for the security situation to improve. The Democrats are only trying to be able to claim to have ended the war before the elections so that they can obtain political advantage from saying they "ended" the war, no matter what the cost later.

Mark, the majority of the American people want us out of Iraq. The Bush administration has failed there. I'm tired of hearing the same old tired excuse that "we haven't succeeded so far, so we have to just keep trying the same thing." Baloney.

Mitch, that is exactly what John Edwards is trying to get them to do. I believe Congress has not agreed yet on what their response to the Bush veto will be, so that is still an option.

Mitch,

Yes, that has been proposed by some members of Congress. The important thing to note about this, though, is that the proposal about eliminating the timetable and giving him all the money he wants, in stages, has not been passed yet by either house. That's why this week is critical in letting your Senators and Representative know where you stand. Don't hesitate to contact Republican members of Congress, either. Some of them are thinking of jumping ship on the Iraq issue. They need our encouragement to do so.

There is another proposal in Congress right now. It is Feingold-Reid. This legislation was previously introduced, in April, but Feingold said yesterday that he will reintroduce it, or some version of it. Feingold's statement:

"With brave Americans fighting and dying for a failed policy in Iraq, members of Congress shouldn't delay action to end this misguided war for weeks or even months just for the sake of political comfort. That is why, when the Senate takes up the Iraq supplemental, I plan to offer the Feingold-Reid bill as an amendment to force the President to safely redeploy our troops by March 31, 2008 at which point funding for the war would be cut off."

John Edward has said that he basically thinks Feingold-Reid is moving in the right direction, but he favors an even stronger and more immediate approach. I think Feingold-Reid is definitely better than the other bill being proposed in Congress.

In case you missed it, you can sign John Edwards' petition to Congress here.

Edwards' statement just out this morning:

EDWARDS STATEMENT ON BUSH VETO THREAT OF NEW IRAQ WAR FUNDING PROPOSAL

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the following statement today following the White House's announcement that the president would veto the new Congressional proposal on funding of the war in Iraq. The proposal would give President Bush half of the funds he requested for the war in Iraq and require a vote in July to determine whether to give the president the rest of the funds.


"Earlier today I said the compromise under discussion is a concession, and now the president is already saying he'll veto it. The president has just demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cannot be negotiated with, he cannot be compromised with.

"He is dead set on pursuing his discredited strategy in Iraq without regard to the cost in lives, the evidence of its failure, or the clear will of the American people.

"There is only one way to stop him - Congress must cut off funds to prolong the war. That's the only real power they have to end this war. They passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again.

"Nothing else will work. And if the president vetoes it - if he vetoes any bill that supports our troops but sets conditions - then it is his willful behavior alone that is standing in the way of what our troops need."

Go Iowa!!!

Mark M.: "the Democrats will regale us all with how they ended the war, but if the situation then explodes, as it probably will, the Democrats will TRY to blame Bush for the failure."

It is all Bush's responsibility, regardless of what happens now or after he leaves office. It's like a baseball game when the pitcher is pulled (after giving up lots of runs and walks). The runners on the basepaths are his responsibility. The dead, the displaced (6 million of them), the brain-injured, they are all his responsibility. No need to wait till next year for that judgment.