Edwards bashes Iraq bill & Clinton, Obama comment on Iraq 'no' votes

[nevadamedic]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had sharp words for the $120 billion Iraq spending bill, which President Bush signed into law Friday evening.

At a campaign event in Fairfield, Iowa, Edwards said the following:

"I think Washington let us down yesterday. The Congress should have stood its ground against this president. He will never leave Iraq unless we make him leave Iraq, and the Congress has the power to do that. They have the constitutional authority to fund. They should not have submitted a funding bill to this president that did not have a timetable for withdrawal."
Posted 5/25/2007 10:22:00 PM | Permalink
Clinton, Obama comment on Iraq 'no' votes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senators and Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama each commented Friday on their "no" votes on the Iraq war funding bill in separate campaign events.

Clinton in Mason City, Iowa: "I think it's important for someone like me who's been a strong supporter of the military and has worked hard to get our troops everything they need to start saying, Look, the best thing we can do for them is to get them out of the middle of this sectarian civil war."

Obama in Chicago, Illinois: "Because I rejected President Bush's approach, John McCain and Mitt Romney tried to score some political points saying I don't support the war on terror. Said I don't support the troops. Let me tell you something, when I talk to mothers grieving for their lost children, when I visit Walter Reed and see 18,19, 20 year olds who lost an arm or a leg, I know the toll of this war. What I know is what our troops deserve is not just money; they deserve a new plan."

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

[stephanie]

Too bad Breck girl...

Ya....still can't take that vote back...

Ya know, that one you gave President Bush, authorizing the war..:poke:

[nevadamedic]

Too bad Breck girl...

Ya....still can't take that vote back...

Ya know, that one you gave President Bush, authorizing the war..:poke:

Shhhhhhhhhhh he might sick his Secret Service Agents on you :laugh2:

[lily]

Hell, I give him credit......he's the only one that has the balls to admit it was a mistake.

[No1tovote4]

Hell, I give him credit......he's the only one that has the balls to admit it was a mistake.
Yet they did submit it. I give almost none of them credit. If you truly believe that it is immoral to be there and that our soldiers and marines are dying there for such a cause there is no other moral option than to defund it. This shows me that it is political expediency and not real belief in the immorality of the war that propels them down this path.

Making military decisions based on political expediency is a recipe for bad policy. It was in VN, it is here, it will remain so in every war from here to the end of time.

I wouldn't give "timetable" people any credit. If it is wrong to be there, it is still wrong on a timetable. And broadcasting withdrawal dates is simply inane militarily. We'll war there "this long" and no more! That's all you are worth, Iraqis regardless of the fact we caused your current woes....

Rubbish.

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=nevadamedic;67188]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had sharp words for the $120 billion Iraq spending bill, which President Bush signed into law Friday evening.

At a campaign event in Fairfield, Iowa, Edwards said the following:

"I think Washington let us down yesterday. The Congress should have stood its ground against this president. He will never leave Iraq unless we make him leave Iraq, and the Congress has the power to do that. They have the constitutional authority to fund. They should not have submitted a funding bill to this president that did not have a timetable for withdrawal."









QUOTE] I fully agree.

[Kathianne]

[QUOTE=nevadamedic;67188]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had sharp words for the $120 billion Iraq spending bill, which President Bush signed into law Friday evening.

At a campaign event in Fairfield, Iowa, Edwards said the following:

"I think Washington let us down yesterday. The Congress should have stood its ground against this president. He will never leave Iraq unless we make him leave Iraq, and the Congress has the power to do that. They have the constitutional authority to fund. They should not have submitted a funding bill to this president that did not have a timetable for withdrawal."









QUOTE] I fully agree.

Then there was Hillary, before there was not. Dems better HOPE she isn't the nominee:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101397.html


Clinton's Search for Common Ground Gets Mixed Reviews in N.H.
Senator Says She Won't Support Defunding Troops

By Chris Cillizza
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, February 12, 2007; A03

KEENE, N.H., Feb. 11 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) touted the politics of the possible Sunday during her inaugural visit to New Hampshire as a presidential candidate, a message that found an energetic but not ecstatic reception in town-hall meetings and house parties across the state.

Clinton veered away from drawing simple conclusions on issues such as the war in Iraq and health care, insisting that each is a complex problem that does not lend itself to a simple solution.

On Iraq, an area where Clinton has drawn considerable criticism for her unwillingness to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the war, she defended the Senate's effort to pass a nonbinding resolution condemning President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq, calling it a first step in changing U.S. policy on the war. She also said she opposes any proposal to defund U.S. troops now or in the future.

"I know that is hard medicine for people," Clinton said at a town-hall meeting Sunday night in Keene, a western New Hampshire town.

Earlier in the day in Manchester, Clinton described Iraq as a "gnawing, painful sore" and added that she understands "the anguish and the outrage of people" about the conflict. Even so, she repeatedly rejected the opportunity to call her 2002 vote a mistake.

"What I say is what I believe," Clinton said. "The problem with this president is he should not have been trusted with this authority." She added that she would love to "wave a magic wand" and change the circumstances in Iraq but that is simply not possible. She did use the phrase "civil war" to describe the conflict in Iraq -- a description she has used before but not since becoming a candidate for president.

Clinton's unwillingness to offer a rhetorical olive branch to the antiwar left contrasts sharply with the positions taken by her two main rivals for the Democratic nomination -- Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former senator John Edwards (N.C.). Obama, who formally entered the race Saturday, has called for all U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by March 2008 and on Sunday called on Clinton to better explain her plan to extricate troops from Iraq. Edwards has advocated an immediate withdrawal of U.S. military forces....

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=Doniston;67591]

Then there was Hillary, before there was not. Dems better HOPE she isn't the nominee:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR2007021101397.html Again, I agree. But not only the Dems.

[lily]

Yet they did submit it. I give almost none of them credit. If you truly believe that it is immoral to be there and that our soldiers and marines are dying there for such a cause there is no other moral option than to defund it. This shows me that it is political expediency and not real belief in the immorality of the war that propels them down this path.

Well......we agree on one thing. It was the cowardly thing to do.




I wouldn't give "timetable" people any credit. If it is wrong to be there, it is still wrong on a timetable. And broadcasting withdrawal dates is simply inane militarily. We'll war there "this long" and no more! That's all you are worth, Iraqis regardless of the fact we caused your current woes....

Rubbish.

Yep. we did cause their current woes, but sorry.....after all this time I expect something done by the Iraqis. Those soldiers standing up, their parliment doing what they were elected to do and not take the summer off, like it's some kind of party there.

[avatar4321]

I know McCain and Romney were going on the offense over Clinton and Obama's no vote.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bcsFbybognY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bcsFbybognY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[nevadamedic]

I know McCain and Romney were going on the offense over Clinton and Obama's no vote.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bcsFbybognY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bcsFbybognY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

They should.

[lily]

[QUOTE=avatar4321;67954]I know McCain and Romney were going on the offense over Clinton and Obama's no vote.

QUOTE]


It's too early to start the smear campaigns, it can only be used against them later.

[nevadamedic]

[QUOTE=avatar4321;67954]I know McCain and Romney were going on the offense over Clinton and Obama's no vote.

QUOTE]


It's too early to start the smear campaigns, it can only be used against them later.

It's to late, the Dems have already started on eachother.

[avatar4321]

It's too early to start the smear campaigns, it can only be used against them later.

It's a smear campaign to show why your opponents are wrong?

I thought a smear campaign was making things up about your opponents.