Edwards Campaign Statement On Senator Clinton's Remarks To Veterans Of Foreign Wars Convention

:popcorn: anyone?

Edwards Campaign Statement On Senator Clinton's Remarks To Veterans Of Foreign Wars Convention
Aug 21, 2007 5:21 PM

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – In response to remarks by Senator Hillary Clinton at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City yesterday, John Edwards for President campaign manager Congressman David Bonior, issued the following statement.

"Senator Hillary Clinton's view that the president's Iraq policy is 'working' is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways. You cannot be for the President's strategy in Iraq but against the war. The American people deserve straight talk and real answers on Iraq, not double-speak, triangulation, or political positioning.

"Our military's hard-won progress in Al-Anbar province should not distract us from the fact that pouring more military resources into Iraq is no substitute for the comprehensive national political solution that will ultimately resolve the situation in Iraq. President Bush's failed strategy has led to increased terrorism in Iraq, as we saw with the bombing of the Iraqi Parliament months ago in the Green Zone and the recent horrendous bombings in northwest Iraq that killed over 250 people. And despite the surge, the Al-Maliki government is disintegrating before our eyes. Even worse, President Bush's mistakes in Iraq have only helped make terrorism worse in the world. As the National Intelligence Estimate recently found, Al Qaeda is as strong now as it was before 9/11.

"As Senator Clinton has observed, words have consequences – and she was right. Suggesting that the surge is working completely misrepresents the facts about Iraq. By cherry-picking one instance to validate a failed Bush strategy, it risks undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war.

"The only answer to the conflict in Iraq is a political solution involving all Iraqi and regional parties. Senator Edwards hopes that Senator Clinton will reconsider her ill-advised statement and reaffirm her dedication to using Congress' constitutional funding power to end this war and help achieve the political solution that would establish stability in Iraq and bring our brave soldiers home to the heroes' welcome they deserve. Senator Edwards has called for an immediate reduction of 40,000 to 50,000 troops to stop the surge and get all regional parties to begin to find a political solution, for a diplomatic offensive with all regional parties, and for all combat troops to be withdrawn within the next year. With these steps, we can finally put Iraq on the path to stability."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070821-clinton-vfw/

This is bullshit.

"We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again."

If she doesn't mean the surge, what does she mean?

The change she referred to had to do with Sunnis fighting insurgents and had no relation to the surge.

posted threads on this same matter.

False flags being flown by JE staff on this issue. At least I hope it is just his staff.

She never said the "surge is working". Those were headlines on Drudge and the NYPost.

on edit: changed to NYPost

I apologize for my war vote (but Bush and Clinton made me do it)and take full responsibility(but Bush and Clinton made me do it)

Hey look at my campaign against poverty (I learned all about it while making half a mil at a hedge fun) ain't it swell...

Look at all my great experience while I was a Senator (just don't remind anyone what I actually did there)

I won't let my religion affect public policy (except on gay marriage)

just about promoting your wonderful candidate? What happened? I am sure your big strong girl needs no defense from you.

eom

I imagine not...

But I am not going to go there.It is all about interpetation in the end. See what you want, I am sure you will anyway!

for praising developments in Anbar. Frankly, I don't see any difference in their two statements. I hope it's Ok to repost this, which I did in the last thread re: HRC's statement, but I think it's helpful to have some background.



Americablog has done a pretty good job of keeping up with specific developments in Iraq, and spent some time discussing the developments in al Anbar. They have also been adamant that it is not part of the surge - e.g., the extra troops weren't sent there, we just made an allicance with the Sunnis there against al Queda. The fear is that it will be claimed as part of the success of the surge and thus earn Bush and co. more time in Iraq, when really, as with the original work in Afghanistan, it was more a matter of using local groups, even those which, previously and in the long run, are the enemies of the type of western-style democratic state Bush states is his objective.

Here's one post from back in June; I'm reproducing it in its entirety because it's so hard to search the site that it might be hard for people to find and it's fairly short so hard to excerpt; I've included the url as well, but I got it from a search so the url might not work. I'm offering it as background to the topic, since there's such debate and interest in it, and it seems like a good summar; agree with it or not as you like.

http://www.americablog.com/2007_06_01_americablog_archi...


Status quo in Anbar is not "victory"
by A.J. Rossmiller · 6/27/2007 09:48:00 AM ET


Rob Farley, who does great work on foreign policy and security issues at both Tapped and LGM, has an excellent analysis of the current situation in Anbar. The idea that some tribes in Anbar are sick of al Qaeda is hardly shocking, and while it's nice that they're not cooperating with foreign fighters, working with Sunni tribes on military operations is hardly an unmitigated win for the U.S. *or* Iraq itself. These are, after all, the same groups that we were fighting before we decided to join up with them. As Rob explains,

The US is currently enrolling in Iraqi police and military units tribesmen who were, ten months ago, part of the insurgency. The loyalty of such individuals can hardly be taken for granted; the tribal elite may decide, six months from now, that they are no longer pleased with the US and shift against us. Even if the tribal elites remain loyal, the alliance poses a larger problem for basic US war aims. The alliance with these tribes serves, necessarily, to strengthen them as political units . . . invariably weaken the central government. As the tribes are also among the least progressive and least interested in democracy of any Iraqi political constituencies, strengthening them also helps undercut efforts towards democratization.

I would even take it a step further: in addition to the potential for tribal leaders to take the money and run, it's not just that the tribes are illiberal, but there is a very real possibility that they could turn against the Iraqi government. Training and arming the disparate groups against each other in a burgeoning civil war is not a good strategy. NOT a good strategy.