How To Talk About Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 10:17:00 PM EST
Tags: War In Iraq, John Edwards (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

John Edwards tonight at the Move On event:

. . . President Bush has promised to veto that funding, calculating that he can use the bully pulpit to intimidate Congress and get them to back down.
But this is not the time for political calculation, this is the time for political courage. This is not a game of chicken. This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy. This is about life and death—this about war. We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism, only to use our troops as political pawns. If Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he's the only one standing in the way of the resources they need. Nobody else.

Congress must stand firm. They must not write George Bush another blank check without a timeline for withdrawal—period. If Bush vetoes the funding bill, Congress should send another funding bill to him with a binding plan to bring the troops home. And if he vetoes it again, they should do it again.
The American people are overwhelmingly in favor of ending this war. If our side stands firm, if we show courage now, we can finally bring our troops back home and bring this war to an end.

< Don Imus Advertisers Jumping Ship | Decision Likely in Duke Lacrosse Case Tomorrow >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

How To Talk About Iraq | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm still militantly undecided (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by Maryb2004 on Tue Apr 10, 2007 at 11:53:12 PM EST

but, damn, that's good.

And it's so easy to say -- why do the others make it seem so hard?

: It seems hard to the others . . . (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by walt on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:21:49 AM EST

. . . because they get campaign contributions from BigOil, military contractors & AIPAC. Also, many of them have huge military installations in their states & all of them want on-air time from the lame stream muddya.

: It is easy (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:14:40 AM EST

and I have no diea why they make it hard.

Good to Hear (5.00 / 4) (#5)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 05:06:19 AM EST

I do not think that Edwards is pandering to anyone. It seems that he is in tune with most of America but ahead of the curve in that most of America may be against the war but can't be bothered to do anything about it.

For most Americans the war is an abstraction; they have nothing tangeable on the table to lose. Or so they think.

Does it matter if he is pandering? (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:04:06 AM EST

Is not that what pols are supposed to do?


: Yes, it does (none / 0) (#16)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:03:36 PM EST

Only because it is a matter of language or spin. Pandering implies that the candidate could care less and is just giving mouth service in order to get votes . Being responsive to ones constituents, on the other hand, implies backbone in that the politician will fight for her voters rather than bag them after they get the cushy seat.

Well said. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:40:16 AM EST

Because most aren't thinking. When they do they realize they have literally everything on the table, and are risking losing the hand.

( "occupation"... not "war" )


at least (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by profmarcus on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 06:21:35 AM EST

he's using the right words, and, for that, i'm grateful... i'm with meteor blades... i'm still undecided who to support, but, given the current field, edwards is leading the pack...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Edwards gives me hope (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Lora on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:53:49 AM EST

Edwards gives me hope that there might actually still be checks and balances in our government.

Ok, I'll bite (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 12:24:39 AM EST

This is not about making friends or keeping Joe Lieberman happy.

He's pandering to the anti-war base, and it makes me a little queezy. He REALLY doesn't want anyone to think about the fact that he spent six years in the Senate, at least, not about what he did there.

(Damn, I didn't expect to be the opposition to Edwards around here.)

But his plan is about half right ... (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 04:15:39 AM EST

...which makes it about 25% better than most of the other plans. I'm willing to give Edwards some slack on the war because he's apologized and seems to be doing what any good penitent should do: sin no more. Capping funding now at 100,000 and attaching binding withdrawal deadlines is better than the current supplementals. First, it means pulling 50,000 troops out immediately, a good thing.

(For the record, I am undecided about who to support. None of the choice wow me. At least not yet.)


: Edwards leads the pack for me (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by TexDem on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 08:01:06 AM EST

I still have a wish for Gore and Clark, but for now that seems unlikely. Edwards hands are untied by not having an office to defend, I think I might prefer that model. Lieberman is the extreme end of the opposite of that, running for two Offices in 2000 showed a lack of confidence in Gore and the Democratic Party. We had a good sign of what kind of worm he was to become.
Edwards populist approach is what is needed to pull the Dems away from the corporate interest.

: I don;t think slack is needed (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:05:44 AM EST

I do hold it against him. But now is more important than then in the scheme of things.
I do not get how the NOW is someohow less important than then. Obama supporters will never deal with that.

: 50,000 troops immediately withdrawn (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:11:16 AM EST

also means that we must pull our troops out of the of the cities, we must pull them to the perimeter. That would allow Iraq to begin to deal with Iraq and we would still have enough troops there to deal with genocides or another country attempting to bully in and take over. Those who are fighting our troops would have to come out to the perimeter to fight us and would no longer be engaging us within cities surrounded by other civilians who just want to get on with living and building a life. Our intelligence would likely improve because we wouldn't have to be spending so much intelligence energy just trying to stay alive as well. I could go for this plan so fast it isn't even funny given that we spend time, energy, and money helping Iraqi families living in areas hostile and dangerous to them relocate! It isn't fair to them but living the way they are having to live isn't working either.

Pandering is what pols do (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:04:33 AM EST

Would you rather he pandered to the pro-war base?


: I prefer (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by andgarden on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 09:52:01 AM EST

the Robert Byrd method:
Speak softly (usually) and carry a big chairmanship. :-D

It's about time. (none / 0) (#17)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:29:59 AM EST

We are done letting George Bush manipulate the rhetoric of patriotism

I've been done with it for years. Done with Bush doing it. Done with rethugs doing it. Done with mainstream media doing it. Done with trolls doing it. Done with anyone doing it.

Done with anyone who uses manipulatory language based on the assumption that the average person is so friggin' stupid they'll believe the bullsh*t. Done with it, period.

So, much as I like to hear that kind of statement from a guy like Edwards, it really pisses me off to hear him go on and say in the next breath:

If Bush vetoes funding for the troops, he's the only one standing in the way of the resources they need.

The supplemental funding bill is not about funding the troops.

DOD and the Pentagon have more than enough money in normal allocations for funding the troops. That is part of the departments normal budget. It is not part of war funding budgets.

The supplemental funding bill is not about funding the troops.

It's also not about funding the war. There is no war. There was a war. The war ended about six weeks after the invasion 4 years ago. Then the manipulatory bullsh*t took over and there has been an illegal occupation ever since. There is an occupation. The supplemental funding bill is about funding the occupation. It is about continuing the same illegal occupation and continuing the same manipulatory bullsh*t we've been hearing for six years. A lot longer that really, but I'll confine to the current situation here.

When President George Bush claims that the money is for the troops, he is quite simply lying. The funding is not for the troops.

When Senator Barack Obama or Senator Carl Levin claims to want to pressure Bush to end the war, while at the same time promising to fund the war forever in the name of funding the troops, we are being told something that cannot possibly make any sense. The funding is not for the troops. It is for the war. You can't end the war while providing it. You can't hurt a troop by denying it.

Defunding The Iraq War Is Supporting The Troops

And much as I like to hear Edwards say he's had enough of Bush manipulating rhetoric of, he turns right around and does the same thing.

Let's be brutally clear here. When John Edwards claims that the money is for the troops, he is also quite simply lying.

What am I getting at here? What I'm very concerned about is that this kind of talk from Edwards, and from anyone else, is going to have the effect of forcing Bush to not veto the supplemental out of fear of the Feingold-Reid Bill hanging over his head like a sword of Damocles.

What I'm very concerned about here is that we'll end up back in the same situation, this time with the Democrats having given George Bush and Dick Cheney and the Neocons exactly what they want... this time with the Democrats owning the god*amn debacle.

Owning the occuaption and being fully responsible for it's continuance.

I like John Edwards. I hope he wins the nomination, and I hope he wins the presidency and finally and completely buries George Bush and Dick Cheney and the rethugs and the neocons.

And I hope he will be an honest man instead of another god*amn manipulatory politician spewing bullsh*t at people with the insulting assumption that they are so stupid they cannot see through it.

I, for one, have had enough of anyone manipulating rhetoric. Is that too much to hope for? I think not. Do I think we'll get it?

Let's be brutally honest here. No. I don't.

: And yes, now I feel better! Thx. ;-) (none / 0) (#18)
by Edger on Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 08:39:48 AM EST