This is getting silly.

You have their response.

No one has blind obedience.  But you are beating a dead horse, and one you and Chris were wrong about.  Own up to your error.  Region means region.  Parsing words.  Looking for something that is not there.

I an fine with the Edwards Plan.  I am fine with Reid-Feingold.  My prefernce is the Feingold Bill and Woolsey Bill cutting funding.

However, I do not wish to play medieval philosophy with you and parse words some more.  You guys blew it today.  You made assumptions without saying they were assumptions.  And you were wrong. It happens.  No one is perfect.  But you won't let go.  

See you around.  

Parsing words. On whose part I don't yet know. I suppose that if pressed, they'd say that "combat" troops means troops who are there to proactively engage the "enemy" (whoever that happens to be), whereas "non-combat" means troops who would fight back if attacked, but who are otherwise there to non-combatively defend US personnel, etc. Of course, since they're bound to be attacked, they will, unavoidably, be drawn into combat. But a certain distinction does still exist.

I see it as the difference between combat troops who took part in the Korean War in the early 50's, and non-combat troops who have been posted on the DMZ since the cease-fire and who have not engaged in combat (to my knowledge). Except that the DMZ is a "cold" war zone where such a distinction can be maintained (or has been till now), whereas Iraq is a "hot" war zone where this will be all but impossible. Still, I think there's still a difference, since Edwards et al appear to be calling for the US to end its active involvement in the war. One can of course dispute the soundness of this position, but there is a difference, I believe.

We're crossing over from advocacy into stupidity here.  Put more famously, this is where we become "stupid liberals."

Yes, we want the war to end.  That's the point.  The kinds of purity tests that are being demanded here are no good.

Saying that every candidate must commit now that there will be not one goddamn soldier in Iraq is bad for us and bad for the candidates.  We have soldiers in like 106 different countries.  We are not at war in 106 different countries.  There's a difference between there being any soldiers in country, and there being a War in Iraq that we're a combatant in.  We want to make sure that the second is no longer true.  

If your plan is to go around getting candidates to commit to "not one damn soldier", well, I think that's a bad idea.

You're kidding with this, right?  So you think Richardson is going to leave the embassy undefended?

I'm not a huge Edwards supporter, but you and Chris have a bug up your nose on this one. (See, for example, Chris's lack of response many of the replies in his initial 'oh, woe is the progressive movement!' post. He was challenged pretty effectively, and let those challenges slide.)

Now you're splitting some pretty fine hairs, here.

Are you gonna ask Richardson's people if 'no residual force' means no embassy guards? You should, because Marines guarding an embassy are 'residual force.' He's a hypocrite!

See how easy that is?

The Edwards statement is pretty splittable, fine,  just like the Richardson statement. But clearly Edwards means something like, 'we won't have military troops engaged in combat duties, but we will have them engaged in non-combat duties. And we'll have combat troops in the region.'

My question for Matt and Chris: why is a residual force in Iraq, if President Dodd or Obama or Clinton--or even Richardson, if things change--upon taking  office feels one is needed, necessarily and inevitably the wrong thing to do? Is it bad even if this residual force is comprised only of embassy guards? Humanitarian relief? What about non-military US gov't workers, working outside the US diplomatic mission?  How do we feel about them if they're advising Iraqis on military matters? What if they're advising on economic matters? Is it only military personnel who must leave?

This is complex, and I fear that you're trying to draw a bright line where none should exist.

more here

that maybe Matt and Chris, want Obama to step up and lead, to coming out in front, to be the saving candidate.

But, it seems Obama isn't even though they review and throw out their point of options for Obama's campaign to pick up on. But the campaign isn't.

Rather then turn full support to the leader which is Edwards on issues, it seems some what to put a foot on his throat, hold him down so that others (Obama will mature and hopefully catch up)

IMO!

How long will some wait, when will John Edwards get full and due recognition, instead a little here, a little there, while giving others a chance to do what they should have done in the first place, like a leader would.

John Edwards  has been putting the issues out there, on the table, pushing the others to confront.

That to me is the leader, hands down and no doubt about it.

Edwards 2008, If you what the whitehouse back, and the best leader for today.

The Edwards statement lists two examples of troops that would remain in Iraq: those protecting the embassy and those protecting humanitarian workers.  They're calling those forces non-combat troops.  Stoller calls them combat troops.  If they're combat troops, then Richardson is a hypocrite too, because I'd be willing to accept any reasonable wager that Richardson intends to A) keep an embassy in Iraq, and B) use marines to protect it.  I don't know if Richardson would provide military forces to protect humanitarian workers, but while each of us can define "combat troops" to mean whatever he likes, I don't think most Americans would call those "combat troops."

And whether you like those qualifications or not, I think the Edwards campaign deserves credit for being much more precise about their policy than Richardson has been so far.  Between his Iraq position and his health care plan, Edwards has provided more policy substance than any of the top 4 candidates, I think.

is becoming more and more ridiculous. Not all Democrats agree with Kucinich about war and peace, for good reasons.

"Preventing genocide, protecting an embassy, and protecting humanitarian workers are all good things"

Exactly. So let's do those things.

It seems you are attempting to parse the words of someone you feel is parsing their words. By your logic, any country where there is a US embassy in the world, by default has "combat troops", simply because Marine Guards are there protecting it. Edwards has had this position for awhile now and continues to say combat troops will leave Iraq, but the US should maintain a presence in the region to keep violence from spreading outward from Iraq (He has most often mentioned existing bases in Kuwait). Does not sound different than what Richardson has said, unless you consider Marine Guards at a US Embassy a "Residual Force"

Edwards Supporter

It's your blog, so you can do what you want, but this:

"If you accuse me of stating falsehoods without proof, expect to be banned.

I understand the above warning (posting is no longer allowed until this is acknowledged)."

Is ridiculous.
 

Agree with the other posters. This is just silly and counter-productive. Edwards supports the Feingold-Reid bill which, as I understand it, calls for complete withdrawal. Hillary is the only candidate who seems to want to keep thousands of troops over there after a "so-called" withdrawal. So if you want all the troops out, better to explain why Hillary's position is wrong than to slam Edwards.

I haven't picked a candidate yet, though I do really like Edwards.  But the way I read it, this isn't a contradiction at all.  Troops to protect American humanitarian workers and troops to protect an embassy are not combat troops.  They are peacekeepers.

Troops come in many forms.  Combat troops can conduct aggressive maneuvers when deemed necessary.  They can hunt out and chase down fleeing enemies.  They can advance on a line, they can bomb camps, they can go on patrols, they can infiltrate civilian populations suspected of hiding enemies ... in short, they have full and free range of war conduct.

Peacekeepers have only two jobs: self-defense and defense of the defenseless.  They don't go seeking out terrorist cells that are hiding.  They don't push up against enemy lines.  They exist for entirely defensive purposes and cannot fire unless they or their protectorate are fired upon.  A marine guard around an embassy is not an active combat unit, but it can and will return fire and engage when engaged.

Is this better?  You may say not.  You may say that most of what American soldiers do in Iraq today is keep themselves alive, which is largely true.  But they also get themselves into positions that require them to do that because they conduct aggressive maneuvers.  We simply don't know what sort of condition American troops not doing that would be in.

You may also say that from the perspective of an Iraqi, this doesn't look that different.  They're still around, providing convenient, camouflage-wearing targets, so how does it help de-escalate the violence?  I'm not sure at all on that question.  But they're not combat troops proper.

And you may thirdly say that I'm reading his words too generously.  Perhaps I am.  But these sorts of "technically accurate" statements are part-and-parcel of politics.  No matter how idealistic we are or how hard we push, we'll never eliminate such talk entirely.  In such cases, we can only question whether we think the misleading is intentional, and I don't think this is.

Moreover, troops in the region "to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide" are not combat troops in Iraq.  These may well be combat troops, depending on the specifics of their orders, but the Edwards campaign, in the sentence directly after you stop quoting, makes it clear that they're not going to remain in Iraq.

Heh, if we're super-parsing, the US Embassy is technically US soil, so Marines based there would not, in fact, be in Iraq.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that "combat troops" is a term of art that's distinct from the type of troops that Edwards' is talking about in his statement.  If that's accurate, then i don't think there's anything inconsistent about what he said.  

Also, just to be clear -- don't want to be banned -- I'm simply offering a different interpretation of the statement.  Not saying anyone is lying about anything.  

Oh, c'mon, does anyone actually truly believe that whomever is president in 2009 is going to have zero military personnel in Iraq or the surrounding areas?

Richardson can say that all he wants but it's not gonna happen even if he's the president.  

You CAN stop this war AND have humanitarian workers and embassies protected.  And, yes, perhaps even have a force within striking distance (but outside of the country's borders) to defend Iraq if they are attacked by Iran.  Normally, I'd say fuck that, but we broke Iraq and now cannot leave it vulnerable to Iran.  And whoever is president will not allow Iran to pour into Iraq after all this.  

Yes, Richardson should be commended.  But Edwards' position is certainly anti-war.  To imply that Richardson is the only realistically electable choice for anti-war voters is wrong.

I don't think Matt deserves to be attacked.  I just think he's wrong here.  The campaign is drawing a distinction between combat troops and any troops.  The former is a subset of the latter.

After the tragic example of the last 6 years, Chris is right to demand total clarity from our candidates on issues of war and peace. This is an absolutely essential part of the process. Also, we should no longer accept rhetorical excess in this area, of which the Edwards and Obama (not to mention Clinton) campaigns may be guilty. We have to hold these people to the highest standards of truth. When we argue about policy positions, we have to know exactly what those positions are, otherwise we're just engaging in the personality politics mentioned earlier.

thanks to chris and matt for pushing this.

there's a lot of pressure on candidates to speak in ways that can be interpreted in different ways by different people (so we can all hear what we want to hear).  not blaming anyone here... it's just what happens.

the occupation is too big a deal to let that happen.

I see that supporters of the other candidates are wisely staying out of this forum.  But fellow Edwards supporters, please do the same.  Just move on, let this forum slip to the bottom.

If the US has an embassy in Iraq, there will be US troops there.  I would take "in the region" to mean Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, maybe Northern Iraq where the US is mostly welcome by the Kurds.  If the US is providing humanitarian aid, those workers should be protected.

But the US military should not continue training the Iraqi forces, and should pull out all designated "combat troops" as well (meaning offensive combat soldiers).

Richardson made a great statement.  No residual forces.  Someone should ask him to clarify.  Will the Embassy be protected?  Will we give humanitarian aid to Iraq?  Will they be protected?

Chris, re the update - to call troops that protect embassies "combat troops", is simply a wordplay, and Matt rightly got called on it.

Basically, Matt is saying, "no embassy in Iraq".  That's fine, but, if you have an embassy, then of course you have troops.

I think you sum up the crux of the matter with this:

"If candidates want to say they will almost entirely pull out of Iraq, and leave a residual force behind, that would be fine, because it isn't a contradiction. If you think leaving a residual force behind is a good idea, that is at least something concrete, even though I disagree with you."

You phrase that well.

If I can suggest, as I've said for the 4th time in 5 days, there HAS been an ongoing debate in liberal foreign policy circles, on what a residual force would look like, and the pluses and minuses.  You most likely haven't been paying attention to those debates, but have simply been operating on the assumptions of a full pullout.   But a lot of us who advocate pullout, haven't made a big deal out of the distinction between "full pullout" and "almost full pullout", seeing the two as strategically the same for U.S. interests, and the renunciation of our occupier status in Iraq.

Does not mean we are still at war in Iraq.

This is why blogs are marginalized.

They marginalize themselves.

So, are Matt and Chris conceding that "region" means the "region, not including Iraq," which was the original qualm?

Edwards' position that we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide. But in the region means in the region - for example, existing bases like Kuwait, naval presence in the Persian Gulf, and so forth. I hope this helps explain Senator Edwards' position. Thanks for standing up for what we all believe in.  

This is the Murtha plan, I can't for the life of me figure out why you two want to spend the entire day parsing words.

I'm really confused.  Are you advocating that we leave the American Embassy in Iraq unguarded by American troops, or saying that we shouldn't have an American Embasssy in Iraq, since it would require troops?

Maybe some of the Democratic candidates are nostalgic for that Saigon embassy helicopter evacuation and want a repeat? :-(

Let's get real here. How do you maintain anything resembling a functioning embassy in the middle of a raging civil war? Anybody visiting the embassy would be murdered just after leaving.

Since Embassies are actually US territory, TECHNICALLY, having Marines in an Embassy would not be leaving them in Iraq... they would be on US soil.  Of course, I'm sure this doesn't make a bit of difference to the insurrgents, but it is a point of distinction.

If he means to abandon the US embassy in Baghdad?

Have you asked him to clearly and fully define "residual"?

So... if there are countries whose people hate us... we shouldn't have troops guarding those embassies? But we should have Marines guarding the embassies where we're loved? WTF?

No, that's an inaccurate description of what Stoller said. This is what Stoller said:

Having combat troops in country just cannot be reconciled with "No combat troops in the country." These two statements are mutually exclusive.

Any candidate who says we will absolutely positively have no troops in Iraq ever under any cirucumstances would be a complete idiot. Al-queda? who cares. humanitarian help? who needs it. Embassy? naw, thats for warmongers.

Its a pretty much guaranteed way to lose the election, and not only that, would be an irresponsible position for any future commander-in-chief to take unless the person has a crystal ball. You thought the weak on terror argument stuck well in 2004? Taking a fantasy land purity position like this would be like wrapping a big present and putting it right at the feet of the Republicans.

Basically the straw man argument assumes that once the US leaves our problems will just disappear and whatever happens in Iraq after that just doesnt matter is an idealistic fantasy.

Instead of Edwards caving to fit some ideological purity test that is irresponsible and would cost him the election, i'd much rather him tell it like it is and act like a president.

Personally while I agree with removing troops in Iraq I don't care about it too much really.  Troops staying could be bad and troops leaving could be bad.  

Primarily I want someone in charge who I feel I can trust making those decisons.  

I agree Edwards should clarify. Frankly I'm surprised we are going to have an embassy there at all. Who are they going to talk with? Even Muqtada Sadr doesn't have the level of control over the militias he once had.

What is the point of having an embassy in chaos? A safe haven for Iraqis who tried to rebuild their country?

We are officially at the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" era of the anti-war movement.

"...we will have troops in the region to prevent the sectarian violence in Iraq from spilling over into other countries, for counter-terrorism, or to prevent a genocide."

I think the argument about embassy and humanitarian protection are red herrings compared to the sentence above.

This must be clarified, because preventing sectarian violence and genocide is pretty close to the rational for the current U.S. mission.

Also, to prevent sectarian violence from spreading would mean putting U.S. forces on the Iraqi/Irani border or Iraqi/Saudi border (or both) and I don't see how that can be done responsibly without large number of combat troops.

Well, I don't have any problems with the substance of Edwards's statement, but he shouldn't releasing a statement with a contradiction in it.  It really only opens himself up to the media (rightfully, IMHO) taking a look at his statements on Iraq (now and then), and his actions (now and then). They don't all square with each other. He's playing word games with this statement. The substance of his policy is fine if he'd just reword it.

(Sings) Hijacked roomies lap tap, gonna bring the "straight talk"

Bowers seems like a smart guy and Stoeller has written things I've liked before but they both come across as so damn pathetic here.  I mean aboslutely pathetic. All they do is watch each other's backs and come to each others defense.  How is that "direct Democracy"?  If support is not about blind obidience to a candidate (which it is not) then that also applies to blogs.  Supporting your own blog our the progressive movement for that matter does not mean that you need to rush to the aide of your fellow blogger when they over-react.

As Rodney Dangerfield would say..."SHEESH!"

Stoeller said that he has given to Obama, Edwards, and Clinton and that all of us should focus on building a progressive country.  I actually agree with the building a progressive country part and I think that being a progressive clearly trumps being a Democrat or being an Edwards or Obama supporter.  In fact the party is supposed to represent progressive values and the presidential candidate should in theory, be the best person to bring those values to the Oval Office.  In fact, my desire for a progressive country is why I support John Edwards (among the candidates that are running).  But this begs one question to Stoeller.

IF YOU'RE GOAL IS TO MAKES THE COUNTRY MORE PROGRESSIVE, WHY DID YOU GIVE MONEY TO HILLARY CLINTON?

YOU TALK LIKE YOU GIVE MONEY TO CANDIDATES WHEN THEY DESERVE IT.  WHAT HAS SHE DONE THAT HAS MADE THIS COUNTRY MORE PROGRESSIVE ANY TIME RECENTLY.  DID YOU MEAN HER SENATE RACE?  AND WHY DIDN'T HER RIDICULOUS POSITION ON THE WAR OVER RIDE WHATEVER SHE DID?  

What about when she said that other Dems were running to tell people that the "War on Terror" was not a serious threat but that they wouldn't hear that from her?

And by the way, if Edwards is "in the thrall of the National Security state" then how come when you read comments he made both before, during, and after the Herzliya Conference (the speech you refer to) he says virtually the same thing as Obama, Clark, Dean, and Gore(when he ran).  The only thing Edwards did "wrong" at the Herzilya Conference is that he said "all options are on the table" twice.  Boo freaking whoo.  That means something way different coming from him than it does coming from Bush.  

I am not happy with AIPAC's influence and I actually agree with George Soros.  I think it's ridiculous to suggest that people who are concerned with Israel's safety but also want to make it clear that they must not be allowed to become bullies themselves and over-react the way they did in Lebanon, are somehow anti-Semetic is the most ridiculous and inflamatory thing I have ever heard in my life.  It is the ultimate crock of shit.  It's on the same level as attacking someone's "patriotism" for not supporting the disaste in Iraq but it's almost worse because it implies that you are also a bigot.  Of course I can't understand how Jews in Isreal or even here must feel after what they have been through.  But that does not give them the right to take human life.  It's a violent cycle.  Israel attacks a building they think houses terrorists but they miss and kill most of an innocent family.  The one remaining child of the family grows up to be a suicide bomber and kills innocent Isralies, in return for which Israel attacks again and on and on it goes.  Both sides think that if they can just kill more people the other side will give up and they can both live in peace. Human life is human life and it is all priceless which is why it must be protected whether it is in Israel, America, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, or anywhere else on the planet.  Just like our "war on terror" has only fueled terrorism (torture and racial profiling have alienated the very communities that could provide us with critical intelligence)AIPAC and like minded groups only make the middle east less safe, for everyone, including Israel.  The way the neocons talk about it "supporting" Isreal is like "supporting" the troops, it's not really supporting them at all.  

All of this to say that I would be livid if Edwards was veering on Iran.  You clearly haven't read his Ezra Klein or Tim Russert interviews.  He also became the first major 2008 candidate to back Jim Webb's Iran legislation (Did Richardson do that? He very well could have backed it) and he even enraged the AIPAC crowd when he said that he would consider(down the road)signing a non-agression treaty(or something like that)with Iran.  I'm sure that General Zeeborg at the National Security State was kicking himself with his half robotic foot when he heard that.  

I know I am going after both of you for things only one of you did, and while I am all for being very firm about Democrats not selling out Edwards did not sellout either on Iraq or Iran so both of you can update each other's screeds but all that proves is that you're like Bush and Cheney with the 9/11 commission.  Too afraid to face the music alone after you fuck up.  Pathetic.        

Stoller trashes Edwards.  Also, water still wet.

Meanwhile, to Chris's question "Isn't anyone bothered" that "the second reaction has been to attack Matt and myself" - no, not really.  You reap what you sew.

From at least "The Progressive John Edwards Should Run" forward, Matt's trashed Edwards as little more than liar, on the thinnest of pretexts, and this is yet another post in that tradition.  If this post and its poster are being dismissed for that reason, then it's well-deserved.

Really, why would anyone be "bothered" by that?  No one is "bothered" by the ridicule heaped upon reporters who repeat the "Gore is a Liar" meme.  No one should be "bothered" by similar ridicule heaped upon a blogger engaged in the same behavior.