Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Contrary to the spin, Edwards WILL leave forces in Iraq.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:34 PM
Original message
Contrary to the spin, Edwards WILL leave forces in Iraq.
According to John Edwards, "No residual forces in Iraq for an unspecified length of time."

This means he will, in fact, leave forces in Iraq.

Translation in easier to understand English: "I will leave forces in Iraq for a specified period of time."

Now the question is, what period of time will forces remain in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hate to say it - but I have always had the same reaction to "permanent bases"
As nothing is permanent - what does "no permanent bases" mean. (and why did some refuse to agree to such a low bar?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. I completely agree.
What exactly does permanent bases mean?

Exactly how many troops will remain? How long?

We need information, specifics - not spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. With the troops, the other thing is, at each interval of time, will be their misson
They should not be going out patrolling in the middle of a civil war - starting immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. clearly we will need to hold the candidates down for an answer
I am torn between pressing them for answers, and not, because I understand the game and that everything we make them say now can and will be used against them in the general.

"It is a prickly time these primaries are."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ludwigb Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-29-07 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. Yoda With the Green Lightsaber
ROOOOOCCKKKKSSSS!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. Have you read his statements and plan re: Iraq on his site?
http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Am not sure what you are trying to get at here, AtomicKitten...? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3481446

We have enough BS to wade through at DU without people misrepresenting a single damn sentence to mean something other than what should be obvious to most by simply reading the sentence. I resent the propaganda particularly when it is used as ammunition.

That's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's a lawyer - and talks like one.
Like when he slams Obama and Clinton, and then claims he's not.
Rove et al would *love* Johnny Edwards as our candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. So did Bill Clinton...
What's your point?

And, sorry, but the Karl Rove argument doesn't fly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. That Bill Clinton did too, is not helping your case
Exploring the nuances of the various tenses of the verb To Be was not done to make things crystal clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. What case?
Edited on Tue Aug-28-07 07:11 PM by Mythsaje
Bill Clinton was a lawyer, and damn good at playing the language. I'm not sure that's automatically a BAD thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenArrow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. depends on what the meaning of "bad" is
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-29-07 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. The point was he was "good at playing with language" and in a very public case used
Edited on Wed Aug-29-07 09:16 AM by karynnj
it to onbscure the truth. There are also lawyers who used the letter and spirit of the law to insist on holding ourselves to a higher standard. Some lawyers are actually more inclined to be precise in their usage, due to their legal backround. Also, Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden are all lawyers.

After all the lies of Bush, I think we want someone who will tell us the truth - all the time. I hear no one wanting silly words tricks to mean things that are different from how they appear on the surface.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I agree.
Misrepresentation of that one sentence has been retooled to fit an agenda.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3481446

My agenda is to unspin the spin. That's it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. He means to keep people on as an embassy force
and place some in Kuwait and, if possible, Jordan, to move in if things get out of hand. He's covered all of this and this is a pure hit piece designed to screw with the most dangerous possible Democratic candidate.

He wants to clear out our forces to enable, if not force, the Iraqi government to seek out a political solution to the civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. All three top contenders seem to embrace a similar plan.
Edited on Tue Aug-28-07 04:55 PM by AtomicKitten
My point here is to unspin the spin of a single damn sentence used to state something that simply isn't true. I realize we seek to find issues that set the candidates apart, but let's not create that artificially by virtue of spin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. They're probably not all that different re: Iraq...
I think their domestic policy positions are what set them apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. agreed
cheers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I have NEVER read JE's plan was to bring home ALL
the troops. Please share :D I've never seen it spun as such either.

Combat troops are one thing, security forces are another, especially to guard our citizens at our Embassies.

Someone needs to brush up on their military history. Sigh. Even Kuch will leave "some" forces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. here
Edited on Tue Aug-28-07 05:44 PM by AtomicKitten
Again, it is the misinterpretation/misrepresentation of Edwards' policy statement here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3481446 that this OP is in reference to, nothing more.

>> "Someone needs to brush up on their military history." <<

I agree. Perhaps you can advise the OP of the thread I referenced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
19. No of course he's not, but he's hell-bent on 'distinguishing'
himself from the others, and his supporters are carrying that message here. (Despite evidence like this.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-28-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. the irony is that sort of stuff is --
It's really kind of pointless when the record is out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC