John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

According to iCasualties.org, as of today 3504 American soldiers have lost their lives in the war in Iraq , a war John Edwards voted for (and apologized for) even though he didn't read the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

So while American soldiers die, what is John Edwards doing? It's as easy as pie, just ask Edwards staffers Joe Trippi and Jonathan Prince. Give John Edwards your money, he'll give you his mom's secret pecan pie recipe.

John Edwards wants the troops out of Iraq in 12 to 18 months , but would leave some residual troops to guard the American embassy, making them a continued target of sectarian violence.

The other candidates won't end the war immediately either.

Hillary Clinton wants to wait until October to end the war and leave residual troops.

Barack Obama wants a phased re-deployment to have combat troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008, but would leave residual troops to engage in counterterrorism and to train Iraqi forces (again, making them a target for sectarian violence).
[break]

Meanwhile, Governor Bill Richardson, with his considerable foreign policy and diplomatic credentials and extensive experience in these matters, is working to put an immediate end to the war. Bill Richardson may not be a rock star, but he is a serious, experienced candidate who doesn't have to rely on gimmicks or games to put an end to one of the most pressing issues of our times.

Specifically, Governor Richardson is calling on Congress to deauthorize the war in Iraq before it recesses on June 30. If Congress passes a resolution to deauthorize the war, President Bush loses all authority to continue his warmongering. Deauthorization can't be vetoed, and the President would legally be required to bring our troops home.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. The War Powers Act clearly states that a President may not continue a war without Congressional authorization. It's time for Congress to use its legal authority to place checks and balances on the President. The American people demand it.

In addition to deauthorization, Governor Richardson is the only viable candidate who will pull all of the troops out of Iraq this year, leaving no residual troops. Bill Richardson wants our troops out of Iraq now, not sometime in the fall or whenever is convenient for the Bush Administration or the other Democratic candidates.

Governor Richardson's plan is the most comprehensive of all of the Democratic candidates.So join Bill Richardson and let's end this war today.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, deauthorization, Hillary Clinton, Iraq, John Edwards, president, Troll Diary (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

Bill Richardson, the candidate who:

1) Chose Justice Byron White as his favorite Supreme Court jurist (White is the only one to vote against Roe v. Wade).

2) Thought that Roe v. Wade was something "from the 80's."

3) Always points out that he's a "different" Democrat who doesn't want to tax and spend.

Yeah, I'm going to jump right on that ship.

by Vox Populi 2007-06-08 09:34AM | 0 recs
So You Don't Agree With His Position on the War?

You'd prefer to let American troops continue to be targets for jihadis?

While Hillary waits until the fall, and Edwards wants to play games with sending more bills that the President has to sign, and Obama wants to wait until March, Bill Richardson will decisively and emphatically end the war now.

Can you not agree with him on that?

by Ken Camp 2007-06-08 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: So You Don't Agree With

How will he end the war now?
Could he end the war as president? Yes, but they all would.
Could he vote to end the war if he was in Congress? Sure - and those who are, do.

Can he end the war now? No.

by LandStander 2007-06-08 10:15AM | 0 recs
Just like on dKos, why do you present this ...

... as an attack on Edwards?

Edwards calls for an immediate draw down of forces, a regional peace conference, and complete withdrawal of all combat forces.

Clinton and Obama call for the retention of combat forces in Iraq indefinitely.

If you are confident that your candidate's policy is good, why not present this as a positive diary instead of as an attack diary against the best of the policies from the first tier candidates, on your own discussion.

I find both your choice to attack and your choice of primary target inexplicable, if the diary is read on its face value. Which leads me to wonder what is lurking between the lines.

by BruceMcF 2007-06-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

And by the way, does Richardson plan on leaving the US embassy undefended?  Just curious...

by Vox Populi 2007-06-08 09:35AM | 0 recs
No residual troops

Means no residual troops. The U.S. Embassy in Iraq has become a symbol of American imperialism and excess, and to leave a few troops there to guard it would make them a coninued target for sectarian violence.

Bill Richardson has said he'd put troops in Kuwait and other neighboring states where they are welcome.

by Ken Camp 2007-06-08 09:49AM | 0 recs
Here is what Richardson told Chris Bowers

On April 13, Chris Bowers posted the following:

Today, I had a chance to talk for about ten minutes with Governor Bill Richardson. The entire conversation focused on Iraq. Here is what I learned:

   * Apart from a contingent of marines to protect the American embassy, he does indeed mean "no residual force whatsoever." No American troops in Iraqi to serve as trainers, no American counter-terrorism units in Iraq, no American troops to protect humanitarian workers--no any of that. Also, since marines are part of every American embassy contingent, he did not consider that a residual force. He would keep American troops in the region, but not in Iraq itself.

by Ken Camp 2007-06-08 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is what Richardson told Chris Bowers

So, just for clarity mind you, what that means is, yes, he would leave forces to protect the embassy.

Apart from a contingent of marines to protect the American embassy

Which means that:

The U.S. Embassy in Iraq has become a symbol of American imperialism and excess, and to leave a few troops there to guard it would make them a coninued target for sectarian violence.
is not, in fact, a summary of where Richardon comes down on forces protecting the embassy.

by BruceMcF 2007-06-08 11:18AM | 0 recs
I Stand Corrected

Bill Richardson has said he'd leave the Marines to guard the embassy in Iraq. My apologies for the misstatement.

by Ken Camp 2007-06-08 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I Stand Corrected

Which is the same as Edwards said.  If those are residual troops, then even Richardson supports residual troops.  So tell me now, what is the difference between him and the others?

by Vox Populi 2007-06-08 11:05AM | 0 recs
Richardson versus Edwards

Richardson, first withdraw completely, then negotiate.

Edwards, first draw down substantially, then negotiated, then complete withdrawal.

That's about it.

by BruceMcF 2007-06-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
I don't think you'll have much

luck turning anyone from Edwards to Richardson.

every US embassay has a marine in front of it.

don't you watch the movies?

Edwards voted against an Iraq war supplemental, HIllary and Obama vote for 4 of them

by TarHeel 2007-06-08 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think you'll have much

he also co-sponsored the resolution authorizing the use of force. Left that part out ;)

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Congress Can End This War Now

From the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy blog:

The Supreme Court has been clear and unambiguous.  When Congress, acting in the vast areas of overlapping power, tells the President "no," the President must comply.  Thus, Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq War by either of two mechanisms.  First, it may directly define limits on the scope of that war--and forbid the President from exceeding these limits--such as by imposing a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict.  Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations riders that limit the use of appropriated funds.  Indeed, the reason that the Constitution limits military appropriations to two years is to prevent Congress from abdicating its responsibility to oversee ongoing military engagements.

by Ken Camp 2007-06-08 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

Richardson has many issues to overcome. I won't go into them but you can find plenty if you just do some research.

I will take Edwards pie, anyday - love pie. But, beyond his mothers wonderful recipe trying to lovingly help her son some way (as I would do for any of my 3 sons) John Edwards is the main candidate that has brought all candidates to the table on Iraq. He has been the leader on standing up to Bush.

Edwards still has my vote.

by dk2 2007-06-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
I don't think

Bill Richardson would like seeing such a mean-spirited diary presented as a way to support him. I am an Edwards supporter, but I respect governor Richardson. I'm pretty sure he would want his ideas discussed in a straightforward and respectful way.

And John Edward's pie fundraiser is a pretty good thing. While many candidates are going after big donors,  John Edwards is giving everybody a chance to support him and feel good about being a part of his campaign. He is asking for $6.10. I think that is a pretty great idea. And I like the way his mother shows her support for him by sharing her pie recipe!

by bettync 2007-06-08 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

Richardson is undermining Democrats and reinforcing Republican framing with his "I won't raise taxes" jackassery. That's about all I need to know about Richardson.

We have PLENTY of anti-war candidates (by which I mean all of them), so why choose the only one who accuses other Democrats of tax-and-spend?

Yes, he says he will take ALL of our military out of Iraq - but I think he is just pandering and trying to woo the anti-war crowd by one-upping the other candidates.
I am open to the idea that VERY limited training or anti-terrorism forces MIGHT be justifiable - but he precludes this all together. And look at how he fumbled the "what if there is genocide in Iraq" question in the last debate.

by LandStander 2007-06-08 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

Richardson does not come across as very Presidential.  His performance in the debate was a disappointment and he did not have the manner of a President.  That might come across as superficial but the truth is you have to look and act the part to get the job and he's doing neither.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-08 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

Richardson is too Conservative for me to support, but I like the guy. Your unwarranted attack on John Edwards does nothing whatsoever to foward his campaign.

by RDemocrat 2007-06-08 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards: "Let Them Eat Pie"

I'd like to point out that Sen. Clinton is currently sponsoring a bill that would deauthorize the war. Not sure how that fits in with the "she'd wait until October" argument.

by forecaster15 2007-06-08 03:03PM | 0 recs
I Am For Peace

De-fund the frickin war, dammit. I am for peace. I am no "jehadist". Just cut the money for this debacle! What could be simpler?

by blues 2007-06-08 06:24PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads