John Edwards 2008: What’s not to like

MANCHESTER, NH — Revelations in today’s New York Times regarding John Edwards’ staunch pro-war stance as a Vice Presidential candidate in 2004 “raise serious questions about the credibility of his positions on every issue being debated in this Presidential campaign,” Ohio Congressman and Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said today.“Voters have every right to ask, ‘Were you telling the truth then, John, or are you telling the truth now?’ And Senator Edwards has a responsibility to answer,” Kucinich said.

In a major story today about the relationship between Edwards and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry during the 2004 campaign, the Times reported, “Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.” Edwards was a co-sponsor of the 2002 war authorization resolution, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman.

“Mr. Kerry yielded to his running mate,” according to the Times story, and told reporters early in the 2004 campaign that he would still have voted for the 2002 war authorization even knowing that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction. Six weeks later, in a speech at New York University, he reversed himself, over the objections of Edwards, the Times reported. A year later, in an opinion piece published in The Washington Post, Edwards reversed his own position, a move that some Kerry aides described as “politically expedient” in the planned run-up to the 2008 Presidential campaign.

“John Kerry was hammered by the Republicans and by many in the media for changing his positions on the war and other issues in the 2004 campaign,” Kucinich noted. “The fact of the matter is that he wanted to come out against the war in 2004, and John Edwards argued against it.”

“Now,” Kucinich continued, “we have a candidate who voted for the war and voted to fund the war, but says he against it. He voted for the Patriot Act, and now he complains about its abuses. He voted for China Trade in 2000 knowing that Americans would be hurt, and now he’s decrying the unsafe products pouring into this nation from China. He supported nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, now he’s against it.” “Will the real John Edwards please stand up?” Kucinich said.

Dennis 4 President 11/21/07
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/newsroom/edwards%92-pro%11war-posture-in-%9204-raises-serious-credibility-questions/

Democratic presidential contender John Edwards, who has stepped up attacks on rival Hillary Clinton for her plans to continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq, said yesterday that he would also carry out “expeditions” against that insurgent group - but from bases outside the country.

Edwards told Boston Globe editors that in case of civil war and to battle Al Qaeda, he would keep a quick reaction force of 4,000 to 5,000 troops in Kuwait and station others around the Middle East, including in Afghanistan and possibly Jordan.

He said, however, that ending the permanent military presence in Iraq - what he calls an occupation - is a significant distinction between him and Clinton. Keeping troops in Iraq is “like putting a target on the foreheads of American combat troops who stay there,” Edwards said.

We’re battling Al Qaeda all over the world right now and we don’t occupy countries to do it,” he said. “We don’t have to occupy Iraq.”

But a Clinton spokesman, Phil Singer, said Edwards’s comments contradicted statements he made at debates and on the campaign trail.

“You can’t end combat missions and go after Al Qaeda. That’s a combat mission,” Singer said.

snip: During the interview, he criticized Washington lobbyists, including their role in derailing congressional efforts to close a loophole that allows executives of hedge funds and buyout firms to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries and janitors. “It’s a complete embarrassment,” said Edwards, who until last year was an adviser for a New York hedge fund, Fortress Investment Group.

Edwards, a former trial lawyer who made millions representing poor, injured people, acknowledged that he has raised significant funds from Wall Street and special interest groups, including lawyers.

“I’m not claiming purity or holier-than-thou. . . . I don’t claim to be the perfect messenger,” Edwards said. “I do believe that all of us have gotten so accustomed to this that it feels okay. . . . We need to recognize that it’s not right and actually make a serious effort to do something about it.”

Boston.com

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/08/edwards_advocates_combat_expeditions/

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, launched a web ad so aggressive towards Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, upon first viewing I thought it was put together by the Republican National Committee. (WATCH IT HERE).

And today Edwards will continue making his case against the former First Lady in such a fashion, saying in Iowa City, per remarks released by his campaign, that “Senator Clinton is voting like a hawk in Washington, while talking like a dove in Iowa and New Hampshire. We have seen this movie before. And it doesn’t end well — in fact, as we all know too well, in Iraq, it hasn’t ended at all.”

I agree that Clinton’s debate performance exposed her to several charges of not presenting a clear opinion — what Edwards calls “double-speaking.”

But has Edwards exposed himself to that charge as well?

ABC Political Punch 11/5/07
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/11/the-high-standa.html

It’s a bird, it’s a plane …

Like other Democrats, Edwards named his top three priorities as ending the war in Iraq, enacting universal health care and overhauling the American energy system. “Those are three things instantly I would do,” he said.

Edwards also ripped fellow Democrat Sen. Hillary Clinton, who leads most polls nationally and in New Hampshire by a wide margin, for taking campaign contributions from federal lobbyists and for her recent vote in favor of naming Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group. Edwards barely mentioned Sen. Barack Obama.

Both Edwards and Clinton have proposed universal health care plans that mandate insurance for everyone, while Obama has proposed a plan that requires coverage only for children. Edwards, who was first to propose a plan, called Clinton’s a “carbon copy” of his but said he is better positioned to negotiate because he has the “clean hands of not taking money from lobbyists.”

“Senator Clinton has over the years has taken millions of dollars from lobbyists and defends the status quo system,” he said. “She just basically says the system works and her argument is, ‘I’m experienced, I can operate within the system.’ “

Clinton spokeswoman Kathleen Strand questioned the line Edwards has drawn. He takes money from state lobbyists and from a variety of industry groups; according to a Washington Post roundup, he’s taken more than $8 million this year from lawyers and law firms, including some that also employ lobbyists.

“It is disappointing that instead of taking the opportunity to lay out his ideas to New Hampshire voters, John Edwards is consistently choosing to engage in misleading, desperate attacks against Senator Clinton,” Strand said.

Concord Monitor 10/26/07
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071026/FRONTPAGE/710260384

The Democratic presidential candidate also said that his rivals seeking the nomination who voted to authorize the war in Iraq would be subject to Republican criticism that they “flip-flopped” now that they oppose the war.

In the context of Iraq, Obama did not name Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, who along with fellow senators, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd and former Sen. John Edwards, voted to give the president the authority to go to war.

But he did single her out later as he explained why his decision to speak out against the war in 2002 when others in his party were keeping quiet is an example of how he bucks conventional wisdom and “inside” politics of Washington.

Nevada Appeal 10/19/07
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071019/ELECTIONS/110190174

But could Gore endorse Hillary, considering her vote on the war?

Gore endorsed Howard Dean on Dec. 9, 2003, when Dean was widening his lead in the polls over — wait for it — Wesley Clark.

“He was the only major candidate who made the correct judgment about the Iraq war,” Gore said of Dean. “He had the insight and the courage to say and do the right thing.”

So considering Hillary did the wrong thing — she voted to authorize the war — why would Gore back her now? Why not back Barack Obama, who opposed the war, or John Edwards, who now admits his vote was wrong?

Because the entire Democratic top tier now has the same position on the war, that’s why. In a recent debate, when asked by Tim Russert whether they could guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 2013, the replies were:

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Obama.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” said Clinton.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said Edwards.

The Politico 10/16/07
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6358.html

Taylor Marsh

snip: don’t fault any of the top tier for not promising to get out of Iraq in months, which I’ve been saying is now our reality, especially once the primary season was upon us. I do fault them for not being willing to commit to getting our troops out by 2013, as long as the caveat Bush made things worse so we can’t is included, which seems fair and obvious to anyone following this long, sad war tale. Biden’s plan for Iraq actually offers hope to make this happen and even got bipartisan support, proving that creativity is an asset even if it may not lead the author to the presidential promise land. So I find the deification propaganda being put forth by supporters of Obama and Edwards overwrought, no matter how heartfelt and righteous; as supporters postulate their candidate is more intent on redeployment from Iraq than the other. With all three unable to commit to getting out by 2013, though Obama did recently flip flop to say he’d get us out in 16 months (which is it?), they simply blur together as one choice. Beyond that it starts centering on the intangibles and emotional attachments people have for or against a candidate.

snip: I understand everyone’s passion for their particular candidate. But the arguments are specious when trumpeting policy on Iraq. Obama and Edwards have chosen to align themselves with policies that blur into being basically the same as Clinton’s. Splitting hairs over brigades and combat forces isn’t something that reaches voters. Shifting positions after the Dartmouth debate, Obama obviously realizes the mistake made. However, someone saying “I commit to having all troops out of Iraq by 2013″ — insert Bush made things worse so we can’t caveat here — is much stronger and likely will resonate with Democratic primary voters. Dodd or Richardson may not get enough votes to win the nomination, but the case they’re each making is likely to hit home in Iowa, especially since 80% of voters could change their candidate preference before the primary. There’s plenty of time left for that to happen.

Taylor Marsh

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26350

Today on Meet the Press, former Senator John Edwards said that he believes Congress should continue to send bills with a deadline for ending the war to the President to force his hand. He specifically said there was a difference between sending bills with a deadline and cutting off funding for the troops.

This is Sen. Edwards’ latest position on his ever-changing stance on whether or not to support a firm, enforceable deadline tied to funding to end this war.

February 2007: Edwards Said He Would Not Cut Off Funding for the War in Iraq:

Edwards: “I would not cut off funding for the men and women who are part of our troops and serving in Iraq.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 2/4/07]

May 2007: Edwards Said that Congress Should Use Its “Funding Power” to End the Iraq War:

Edwards: “It is time to end this war. The only real power Congress has to end the war is their funding power, which is why I and others have been calling on them to use it for some time. I would actually go further than Reid-Feingold and use the funding authority, not just to set an ultimate deadline, but to force an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops, followed by a complete withdrawal in about a year. But using the funding authority to bring this war to an end is exactly the right thing to do. Every Senator who believes this war is wrong and wants to end it should support Reid-Feingold.” [John Edwards for President press release, 5/15/07]

October 7, 2007: Edwards Claimed That He Does NOT Support Cutting Off Funding for the War:

Tim Russert: “You’re now are in favor of cutting off funding, aren’t you?”
Edwards: “No sir. No. I am saying now what I said in February.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 10/7/07]

“For months Sen. Edwards has been lecturing Congress on what it must do to end the war. And while it would have been easier to do with his vote, we agree that the only way to end the war was to force the President’s hand through Congress’ funding power,” said Dodd Spokesperson Colleen Flanagan. “We are so disappointed that Sen. Edwards is now backing away from his position on ending funding for this failed policy. If we are going to end this war, we need to be clear and consistent with this President.”

“If Sen. Edwards is going to offer Congress advice as to what to do from afar, the least he could do is be consistent about it.”

nhpols.com

http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=4802

John Edwards returned to New Hampshire this week accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to continue the war in Iraq because she refuses to pledge to remove all combat troops if elected. Continuing the line of attack he began at last week’s Dartmouth debate, Edwards says he would leave only non-combat personnel in Iraq to protect the U.S. embassy and a small force just outside the country for counter-terrorism efforts. He first brought this up during an anti-terrorism speech on Sept. 7.

Clinton has said she would leave a small force inside Iraq for “continuing missions” to do essentially the same thing.

Is there a difference? Clinton’s campaign says no, and that Edwards flip-flopped between Sept. 7 and last week’s debate. Edwards campaign says there is indeed a “fundamental difference” between leaving troops in Iraq and stationing them just outside. It says the Clinton camp is distorting this fundamental difference.

The Edwards camp says leaving troops in Iraq will make them symbols of continued U.S. occupation and targets of insurgents that will inevitably be drawn into broader and broader fighting — effectively continuing the war.

Clinton’s camp says there is no difference in their positions and that she is committed to ending the war, despite Edwards’ accusations.

UnionLeader.com

http://unionleader.com/columns.aspx/Opinion?channel=139832ce-97eb-4460-bf99-b71df3b7f0cc

WASHINGTON, DC– New Mexico Governor and Democratic Presidential candidate Bill Richardson today released the following statement on John Edwards’ new rhetoric on Iraq:

“When asked directly by Tim Russert if, as President, he would pledge to have all American troops out of Iraq by 2013, John Edwards said no. He could not commit to ending this war even in five and a half years. We need less rhetoric and more resolve on this issue.

“Edwards says that he would get all of the combat troops out of Iraq, but he would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in the middle of a civil war. That is not ending the war. Just look at what he has said– look at the plan on his web site. If you leave thousands of troops behind, you are not ending the war.

“Leaving behind thousands of non-combat troops contradicts Army doctrine and common sense. It is simply irresponsible. Furthermore, Edwards’ plan to keep a brigade in Iraq for five years for humanitarian workers and civilian contractors is equally mistaken. Five thousand troops will not be able to do what he is asking. History teaches us that putting undermanned forces in the middle of sectarian conflict, whether in Somalia, Lebanon, or anywhere else, is a recipe for disaster.

“In his speech today, Edwards tried to widen the rhetorical distance between himself and Senator Clinton. However, the actual difference in this race is between me and Senators Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. They will leave thousands of our brave troops behind. I will get all of them out and leave behind no residual forces. John Edwards would change the mission. I will end the war.”

Campaigns & Elections 10/3/07
http://campaignsandelections.com/sc/releases/index.cfm?ID=4693