home

How To Talk About Iraq

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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?

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    Well said. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    For most Americans the war is an abstraction; they have nothing tangeable on the table to lose. Or so they think.
    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" )

    Parent

    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