Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut the funding.

by MeanBoneII, Fri May 04, 2007 at 01:49:29 PM EST

Voting for deauthorization won't get us out of Iraq. As John Edwards points out in this press release, "Congress has a clear choice - they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it."

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 4, 2007

CONTACT:
Kate Bedingfield
919-636-3203

EDWARDS STATEMENT ON IRAQ WAR FUNDING AND AUTHORIZATION

Chapel Hill, North Carolina - Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about funding and authorization of the war in Iraq.

"This is deja vu all over again. We saw it in Vietnam and we saw it earlier this year. We don't need any more non-binding resolutions or big statements; we need to end the war. I've been in Washington, so I understand the urge to make a statement - but in this situation, statements can be an excuse for inaction. Congress has a clear choice - they can talk about ending the war, or they can just end it. The only way for Congress to end the war is to cut off the money for it, and they should concentrate on doing just that. Anything else is just noise.

"As I said in February, the president exceeded his authority a long time ago. He's never been given the authority to use U.S. troops to police a civil war, so there's nothing to take away now. What's more, we know this just doesn't work. In 1971, Congress repealed the resolution authorizing the Vietnam War - and the war continued for four long years until Congress stopped funding it."

-30-

Paid for by John Edwards for President.

This where the rubber meets the road for 2008. The candidate who is leading in Iowa and is beating every Republican head-to-head has called for cutting off the funding for the debacle in Iraq.

Either you're willing to do what it takes to end the war, or you're more interested in playing political games.




Tags: John Edwards (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 57 Comments :: Post a Comment


deja vu all over again. (3.00 / 2)

I agree the deauthorization idea is more stunt than substance, but I'd want to see more details on exactly what he means by "cut the funding."

We can't just pull out precipitously without expecting some serious consequences. I think alot of the candidates are desperately looking for an easy, simple answer that's easy to explain and will be easy to sell to Democratic voters.

The danger is that one of these easy-to-explain-and-sell ideas actually gets enacted and we find ourselves being rightly blamed for a massive civil war/genocide which could easily erupt beyond the borders of Iraq and leave us nostalgically looking back on the days when we only had 3,300 soldiers dead and were only spending 100 billion a year.


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 02:54:41 PM EST

Re: deja vu all over again. (none / 0)

Isn't there some way to gradually cut the funding? You know, like with a phased withdrawel timetable based on benchmarks? ;)


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: deja vu all over again. (3.00 / 1)

Apparantly not: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070501/ap_o n_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

WASHINGTON -President Bush vetoed legislation to pull U.S. troops out of        Iraq Tuesday night in a historic showdown with Congress over whether the unpopular and costly war should end or escalate.

If Congress follows John Edward's recommendation, that they send the same bill back to the President again and again, it might work because eventually enough Republicans will put enough pressure on him to sign the damn bill.

In the absence of that, Congress can simply stop appropriating for the War in Iraq, as they did in Vietnam.  The President doesn't have the power to appropriate, that is the power of the purse, the power of Congress.  And he can't continue a war he has no funding for.

It would help if our leading presidential candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, could get behind either idea.  Instead, he chooses to support sending a bill with full funding, then working on a different bill with benchmarks.  He only supports sending another bill with withdrawal if 17 Republican Senators sign on.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:15:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: deja vu all over again. (none / 0)

"It would help if our leading presidential candidate, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, could get behind either idea."

Why should he "get behind" one of two bad ideas? His approach is more complex, and so less easy to sell politically, but it has a better chance of success without disastrous consequences.

Once again Obama does what's right rather than what's politically expedient. Edwards on the other hand...

After thinking more about this it seems to be another stunt like Hillary's deauthorization. It sounds good to voters who just want out and don't want to think about the consequences, yet it's safe because there's no chance in hell of it happening.


by Mystylplx on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:57:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what do you expect to happen that isn't already (none / 0)

happening? Its already a blood bath.


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:58:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama actually said (1.00 / 0)

that he didnt like Hillarys plan because it doesnt get the troops out quick enough, which seems kind of weird since up to this point he hasn't called for immediate withdrawal or cuts in funding.

At this point really not sure what he wants.


by okamichan13 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trollrated for stupidity (none / 0)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z? d110:SN00433:@@@D&summ2=m&

That's what he wants.


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thats ridiculous (none / 0)

you are trollrating me for what he said?


by okamichan13 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:56:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For what YOU said (2.00 / 1)

At this point really not sure what he wants.

Jesus, can you really be serious? The man puts out a comprehensive, detailed plan and you have no idea, or think he has no idea, what he wants to do? Good god, open your eyes and ears to the world!!


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure (none / 0)

and I told you why, because of his recent comments regarding Hillary's proposal.

you are going a bit overboard.


by okamichan13 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraq is already in a civil war. (3.00 / 2)

We can't stop Iraq's civil war, and if it escalates after we leave, it was going to escalate anyway. We can reassure the American people that at least we got out troops out before things got even worse. And things already are getting worse. We lost more soldiers in April than any other month this year.

The simple explanation for Democratic voters and all of the American people is that it's now up to the Iraqis to decide the future of their country, and the American military presence there only serves to provide excuses for roadside bombings. It's time to acknowledge what a majority of the American people already believe: This was a mistake, and it's time to stop compounding it.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq is already in a civil war. (none / 0)

Bush's plan was to already be out of Iraq by now...

If you cut off your leg then that's a "mistake." If you apply constant pressure to a tourniquet while you try and figure out what else to do then that's not "compounding" the mistake, that's doing your best to deal with it. If you throw up your hands and decide the bleeding is "going to escalate anyway" so let's jst get up and go for a walk... let's just say you're not going to get very far.


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq is already in a civil war. (none / 0)

That was Bush's hope not his plan.

He also hoped Iraqi oil would pay for the war. He hoped there would be WMDs to justify it. He hoped on a lot of things. But he never had a plan.


by okamichan13 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:22:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq is already in a civil war. (none / 0)

And what does that tell you about HOPE?  Or Audacity....


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:16:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq is already in a civil war. (none / 0)

What plan?


OH's Fighting 16th ActBlue!
by Greg Roach on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:55:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

terrible analogy (none / 0)


"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
by molly bloom on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: deja vu all over again. (3.00 / 1)

Read John Edwards' Plan To End The War In Iraq

Sign The Edwards Stand Up To Bush: End the War Petition.



Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards
by philgoblue on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

here's a link (3.00 / 1)

for those who don't regularly read the John Edwards for President website:

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20 070504-funding-and-authorization/


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:34:25 PM EST

Bush's plan? (3.00 / 2)

I'm not at all convinced that Bush ever intended to get out of Iraq.

As for the bleeding metaphor, I disagree that we have a tourniquet on this wound. I think our military presence in Iraq provides some people with the cover to keep inflicting more wounds.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:37:09 PM EST

Above comment is reply to Mystylplx n/t (none / 0)


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush's plan? (none / 0)

I'm not really convinced of anything at this point. I don't think anyone knows what the consequences of a precipitous, or even a non-precipitious, pull-out would be.

I do believe that we are responsible for whatever happens, not just to us but to the Iraqi's, and I strongly suspect that a too-rapid pull-out would be disastrous.


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One way or another, we're going to pull out. (none / 0)

We can start leaving now, or we can start leaving in Jan. 2009. But either way, we're leaving. I believe the majority of the American people want us to start leaving now.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One way or another, we're going to pull out. (none / 0)

"Start leaving" is good. Leaving all at once is bad.


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:53:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It has to be done as carefully as possible. (none / 0)

Edwards has consistently called for a phased withdrawal. His emphasis has been that it needs to get started.

He's been making that point since his Nov. 2005 column in the Washington Post, when he said that after the Iraqi elections were held we need to start pulling out troops to show the Iraqis that we're leaving, not staying.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It has to be done as carefully as possible. (none / 0)

That's why I asked (above) exactly what he meant by "cut the funding."

But if that's the case then what he's saying really isn't much different than what all the rest of the Dems are saying... just a little more vague on the details is all.


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:05:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It has to be done as carefully as possible. (none / 0)

Hey, I'm on my way out, but I wanted to leave you with a thought--

How do you "gradually" cut the funding in a phased way without ending up right back where we are now? Cut the funding completely and Bush has no choice but to pull the troops out, but try to cut it gradually and we're right back in a game of chicken with an incredibly stubborn guy who has nothing to lose by leaving troops in at current levels and then blaming Democrats for the lack of body armor and such.

These are the facts of life that congressional Democrats have been struggling with since the election and before.

I see no easy answers--including the one advocated in this diary post.


by Mystylplx on Fri May 04, 2007 at 04:15:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It has to be done as carefully as possible. (none / 0)

Cutting the funding is not a way to directly end the war.  It is a way to force the President to compromise with the Congress.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri May 04, 2007 at 06:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bush's plan? (none / 0)

I dont think he wants out either. His idea of victory now and his idea 4 years ago is exactly the same.


by okamichan13 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In The First Of Six (none / 0)

'I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using [it] against uncivilised tribes.' **** Winston Churchill, Secretary of State, British War Office, 1919, authorising use of chemical weapons against Iraqis.. in the first of 6 invasions of Iraq by agents of Anglo Iranian Oil (British Petroleum) in the last 100 years. —

http://www.worldofquotes.com/author/Wins ton-Churchill/1/index.html


by blues on Fri May 04, 2007 at 03:53:26 PM EST

Re: Strategy of Slogan? (none / 0)

With all due respect for the depth of anti-war feeling that I think we all share, I must confess to a certain amount of ambivalence about Edward's position on funding the war.  One one hand, I like many others am inclined to say, "Yeah, it's about time the Democrats stood their ground." OTOH, I think JE's position is more of a slogan than a a strategy.

The dems were only able to pass the last funding resolution with the reluctant help of Nelson, Hagel, and Smith.  I just don't think they have the votes to pass it again and again the way JE is suggesting.  If the votes are not there, then I think we have to ask if Edwards is leading or pandering?  I think his position is great politics, but without the votes, it does nothing concrete to advance the cause of ending the war.  

What do those of you in the Edwards camp think?


by upper left on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:15:18 PM EST

If the votes aren't there, then they aren't... (3.00 / 0)

...and those who vote to continue the war will face the voters in Nov. 2008.

But let's at least have a vote on something that really will bring this to an end, rather than "deauthorizations" that will not do so.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy or Slogan? (none / 0)

What does that mean exactly?  If you bring up the same measure and Nelson, Hagel, and Smith say, "No thanks, I don't want another round."  What are you supposed to do?  Do you simply want to stonewall and pass nothing?

I don't understand how JE's "strategy" works in the real word.  I am not trying to be snarky, I am genuinely curious as to how the Edwards' camp think this plays out.


by upper left on Fri May 04, 2007 at 07:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what's confusing. (none / 0)

Congress sent Bush a bill with funding and a time line. He vetoed it. So send it back to him, and if he vetoes it, send it back to him.

But if some people decide to vote to continue the war instead, then the voters can decide how they feel about that in Nov. 2008.

Voting to "deauthorize" the war is a distraction. The money is what matters.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:20:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy or Slogan? (none / 0)

Thats what some people said the first time the bill came through. Right now its the only thing thats passed. It funded the troops and ended the war.

Anything less than that, is just prolonging a war that should have ended already.


by okamichan13 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:18:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategy of Slogan? (3.00 / 1)

I think it's strategy. Edwards is staking out a hard position to the left. He's drawing a line in the sand, with the power of people behind him. Now it's up to a democratically controlled congress to negiote towards his hard line instead of towards Bush's.


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:11:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (2.00 / 2)

I just wish he were so courageous when he was actually in the Senate. Anyone can display leadership when they are on the sidelines and have no one to lead.


by mihan on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:09:55 PM EST

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (3.00 / 0)

Anyone? Really? So I guess Obama's opposition to the war really didn't mean much.

I certianly don't think so about Obama or Edwards. This is just a ridiculous post.

So you agree with Bush then and everyone that isn't in Congress should not speak out, and if they do, noone should listen?


by okamichan13 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:16:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (3.00 / 1)

So you agree with Bush then and everyone that isn't in Congress should not speak out, and if they do, noone should listen?

Don't presume for a second that you know me. You can hide behind the anonymity of the internet and claim that I, an actual veteran of the Iraq War, don't want Congress to do everything possible to end the war, solely based on my comment that Edwards is not displaying any real qualities for speaking out against the war only when it became politically acceptable to do so.

And for the record, I don't believe that Obama's stance against the war in 2002 meant a whole lot, given that he didn't have to vote for or against it. I DO believe however that Obama's stance against the war back then to be of more value than Edwards stance against it now.  


by mihan on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:02:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your statement is just plain stupid (2.00 / 2)

"Anyone can display leadership when they are on the sidelines and have no one to lead"

and I dont know anything about you beyond what you post. So I'm left to assume based on what you post. The above statement simply makes no sense.

Basically you are saying Edwards should sit down and shut up, that if you arent in Congress your opinion doesnt and shouldnt matter. Personally I dont care why Edwards is saying what he is saying because I agree with him. You dont even have to like him to agree with him

I dont really care who you are. I reject your idea that our voice doesnt matter one bit comletely. And that apparently because Edwards voted for the war, he shouldnt even attempt to have any role in getting us out.


by okamichan13 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well that's not nice (1.66 / 3)

Basically you are saying Edwards should sit down and shut up, that if you arent in Congress your opinion doesnt and shouldnt matter

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I don't really care about Edwards' 'tough' stance against the war because its irrelevant. He can say whatever he wants to...it just doesn't do it for me. If he wins the primary, I'll support him and vote for him in the general, but I read through some transcripts of the debate over the initial Iraq authorization, and I base a lot of my apprehension on Edwards' speeches from the Senate floor during that timeframe.

You have two nasty habits, and I'll tell you what they are since you'll never figure it out for yourself. First, you like to put words into people's mouths, by associating these people with generalizations you've developed over the last few months.

Secondly, you try to dismiss other people's opinions by distorting their viewpoints by assuming to know exactly what their viewpoints are by any one given statement. And then you'll belittle it rather than ask for clarification, as you seem to just assume that one person who disagrees with you equals another and is not worthy of that consideration.


by mihan on Sat May 05, 2007 at 02:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well that's not nice (3.00 / 1)

Thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that I don't really care about Edwards' 'tough' stance against the war because its irrelevant.

Oh my God Mihan. Three typos in three sentences? You must be some sort of idiot. Well I guess we can't take anything you say seriously anymore. I guess it's no loss since you never had anything constructive to say in the first place. Maybe you should get that learning disability checked out. I hope you're not passing on your bad grammar habits to you students.

For others wondering what this reply is about, check out Mihan's troll rated comments.


by adamterando on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:51:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well that's not nice (none / 0)

Why do so many (not all) Edwards supporters insist on never ending pettiness?

That's right--if you can't beat em... find some petty little criticism and crow triumphantly!


by Mystylplx on Sat May 05, 2007 at 12:29:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well that's not nice (none / 0)

Earlier, mihan had a similar reply to adam that I'd TR'd.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well that's not nice (none / 0)

And I do like Edwards, so I guess the pattern fits.


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is exactly what you are saying (none / 0)

"Basically you are saying Edwards should sit down and shut up, that if you arent in Congress your opinion doesnt and shouldnt matter"

I can read between the lines


by okamichan13 on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:47:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is exactly what you are saying (none / 0)

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. He has as much right to speak as anyone. But he's not in the Senate anymore. So its kind of going against his whole 'take action' idea...all he's left to do is cheerlead from the outside rather than be a force for change in the Senate. I really wish he'd have run for re-election in 2004.


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"All he's left to do" (none / 0)

hmm, sorry not buying it - you are pushing the same argument. Congress needs to be pushed and I'm surprised you don't see that. That was a big part of what the last election was about. Congress needs to know what the American people want. If Edwards is a voice for reinforcing that, thats a good thing for everyone.

In 2004 Edwards was running for president, so it would have been disingenius to run for Senate at the same time.


by okamichan13 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "All he's left to do" (none / 0)

In 2004 Edwards was running for president, so it would have been disingenius to run for Senate at the same time.

I probably should have said 'instead of' running for President. And beyond that I'd have liked to have seen him run for Governor instead of the Senate. I just don't know what it is but he's the type of guy I'd have really liked to see run a state for awhile before becoming a Presidential candidate. Maybe it seems like a double-standard since I support Obama but at least Barack was in the State Senate for a number of years. I like to see local experience, personally.

But beyond that, I'm glad Edwards is speaking out. For me, it doesn't have the same value that it would if he were in the Senate. When he was actually IN the Senate he was less than impressive on the issue. If he's a better man now, great, but I'd rather he actually be able to do something. You seem to think that I am not allowed to make up my own mind on the subject. What's up with that?


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 01:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perfectly fine to make up your mind (none / 0)

however you want.

But to say he isn't doing anything now and to imply at least that what he is doing doesnt matter isnt very fair.

He is helping speak for the same people that gave democrats control of the house and senate. He is sponsoring and supporting petitions, rallies, ads etc to help end the war. and has led on a number of other issues including poverty and helped raise the minimum wage in 6 states in 2006.

So your implication that anyone not in public office can not have an impact or by definition has a lesser impact on public discourse is something I completely disagree with.


by okamichan13 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 04:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perfectly fine to make up your mind (none / 0)

See, that's where we get into matters of opinion. You're acting as though its wrong for anyone to even think otherwise.

I don't place the same amount of value on Edwards' efforts as you do. That's all.


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 05:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Perfectly fine to make up your mind (none / 0)

Of course its matters of opinion. I do think its wrong, would you rather he said nothing at all? That would seem rather irresponsible for anyone running for president.

The lower value you place is not a problem. But stretching that to no value seems to be a discredit not only to Edwards but to everyone else that also speaks their mind to influence policy, that doesnt actually have a chance to vote on policy.


by okamichan13 on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (3.00 / 2)

So because Barack Obama wasn't in the Senate, his opposition to the war didn't mean much, either.

You might retort "well he was running for office."  Well, so is Edwards.  Don't be such a tool.  The "not in the Senate" attack is old and invalid.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (none / 0)

Agreed.

I'll remeber your post the next time anyone suggests that Obama's 2002 opposition to the IRW was not significant.


by Sam I Am on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:17:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (3.00 / 3)

I'm saying it's all significant.

I just find it humerous that the people who believe that Obama's anti-war stance as someone who wasn't in the federal government was significant, but because Edwards isn't in the government, his anti-war stance isn't significant.

The Obama supporters hold a double standard in that regard.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:43:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. Cut t (none / 0)

I've personally said that Obama's 2002 non-support for the Iraq war is insignificant...I think there is too much generalization going on here.

The difference to me is that I have more respect for someone who was against the war in 2002 than for someone who did an about-face and is against the war now. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy Edwards is playing for the right team here, but if we are quantifying the value of the two events, I'll give Obama the nod on this one.


by mihan on Sun May 06, 2007 at 12:32:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: This is deja vu all over again. (none / 0)

FTR:

All Amreican troops had left Vietnam by early '73.  

Congress voted in early '75 to cut off military assistance to the South Vietnamese government; that government fell to the North Vietnamese shortly thereafter.

Congress has NEVER in our history cut off funds to American soldiers who were in a combat zone.


by Sam I Am on Sat May 05, 2007 at 10:12:29 AM EST

Many Factors (none / 0)

If I have to choose among Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, I guess I would take Edwards. I WANT DENNIS KUCINICH, DAMMIT!!!


by blues on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:17:14 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: