Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 8:00 AM ET, 11/12/2007

Edwards vs. Clinton on Iraq

By Michael Dobbs


Edwards talking to New Hampshire voters.

"I believe every candidate for president owes the American people a clear and specific plan for ending the Iraq War...All she [Hillary Clinton] has said is that she will meet with her generals within two months of taking office. That's not a plan. That's not even a real promise. It's the promise of a planning meeting.

--John Edwards, Speech on foreign policy, Iowa City, November 5, 2007

I examined Hillary Clinton's promise to "end the Iraq war" in a previous post, and found it woefully lacking in specifics. But John Edwards caricatures Clinton's position on Iraq, while skating over his own refusal to commit to pulling all U.S. troops out of that country by the end of the next presidential term, in January 2013. The claim that Clinton's only electoral pledge on Iraq is the "promise of a planning meeting" is a great sound bite. But is it true?

The Facts

In my previous post, I refused to buy the Clinton campaign line that she has "a definite timetable" for bringing the troops home from Iraq. The senator has carved out several significant exceptions to the withdrawal of combat troops. Among other missions, she wants some combat troops to stay behind to fight al-Qaeda, support the Kurds in the north, and counter Iranian influence. But she has also said that she "wants" to begin troop withdrawals in the first 60 days of her presidency, and she has voted in the Senate for "phased redeployment" immediately.

Here is her most recent statement on the subject, in an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs: "As president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration." On her website, she promises to "end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home."

It is true that this "first 60 days" pledge can be interpreted in different ways. Edwards claims that Clinton has only committed herself to holding a meeting with her national security advisers and directing them to "draw up a plan." It is also true that politicians choose their words carefully, and there is a significant difference between "WANT" and "WILL." Recall the metaphysical debate a few years back about the meaning of the word "IS".

In an attempt to remove any remaining ambiguity, I asked Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer to clarify the senator's position. Here is his e-mailed reply:

As president, she WILL begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq within 60 days of her inauguration...Hope Edwards gets a few Pinocchios.

That would appear to settle that one, although it would be nice to have it on the record from Clinton, rather than her spokesman.

The Edwards campaign argues that Clinton could fulfill her promise by withdrawing a few platoons of soldiers and leaving the rest in Iraq. I find that to be an exaggeration. At the MoveOn forum back in September, Clinton said the following: "We do envision a vastly reduced residual force to remain for some limited period of time." "Vastly reduced" obviously means something more than the withdrawal of a few thousand men. On the other hand, note the usual qualifier, "envision." "Envision" and "promise" are two different things.

Enough about the Clinton plan for Iraq. What about the Edwards plan? It is certainly more specific than the Clinton plan, committing Edwards to the withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops "within several months" of his inauguration. According to Edwards communications director Chris Kofinis, this would lead to the withdrawal of all "combat troops" within "nine to ten months," although some "Quick Reaction Forces" would remain in neigbboring countries such as Kuwait to "work against the emergence of an Al Qaeda safe haven in Iraq." Under the Edwards plan, as many as 10,000 troops could be stationed in Kuwait, available for "targeted" missions, such as:

  • Capturing and killing Al-Qaeda or other "high-value targets"
  • Seizing buildings and other places of interest
  • Extricating prisoners, contraband, and intelligence
  • Re-taking critical infrastructure which had fallen into the "wrong" hands
  • Providing immediate security strengthening for an embassy or airport
  • Supporting overwhelmed friendly units anywhere in country
  • Deploying rapidly to secure border or seize smugglers, foreign fighters, etc.

  • Even though Edwards promises the withdrawal of all "combat troops" from Iraq, he does not promise the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of his first term. Here is what he told Tim Russert during a Democratic debate in Dartmouth on September 26:

    [The U.S. embassy in Baghdad] has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that -- 3,500 to 5,000 troops.

    Over the next few weeks, I will be looking at the positions of other candidates on Iraq. Let me know what you think. Next up: Bill Richardson.

    The Pinocchio Test

    There are significant differences between Edwards and Clinton on Iraq, including the timing of the withdrawal and the number of residual forces left in Iraq. But Edwards has exaggerated his differences with the Democratic front-runner by misrepresenting some of the details in her withdrawal plan. His own plan could still leave a significant U.S. military role in Iraq for years to come. Two Pinocchios.


    (About our rating scale.)

    By Michael Dobbs  | November 12, 2007; 8:00 AM ET
    Categories:  2 Pinocchios, Candidate Watch, Iraq  
    Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Richardson: 'I Am the Greenest of Them All'
    Next: Richardson Misstates the Facts on Iraq

    Comments

    Let's remember what the republicans are saying about Iraq. They are happy about our current "plan" in Iraq.

    Any of the plans from the Democrats are much better than that alternative. That being said, no one has had to prod Mr. Edwards for his position on issues. He was the first of the major Democratic candidates with a plan for Iraq, Universal Health Care and the environment.

    Posted by: MickNH | November 12, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

    A fine column; two is the perfect number of long noses.

    While campaigning, both these candidates want to cater to the anti-war left that they know no responsible president could cater to in office.

    Each of them loudly stresses "withdraw troops now!" and quietly mentions "except to..." and then lists all the things the troops are currently doing. 100,000 troops is probably too few for that; Edwards' 5,000 troops is comically too few.

    Edwards did seem to leave out explicit support for Kurdistan and both he and Clinton seemed to leave out involvement in the Sunni-Shiite "civil war" other than to engage Al Qaeda. To steal from Stalin, other than Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, how many divisions do the Sunnis have?

    "Deploying rapidly to seize foreign fighters" is one item Edwards mentioned. Sounds like a job for multiple bridgades to me.

    Edwards understandably wants to attack Hillary Clinton as the front runner with the well focused-grouped, ambiguous policy statements. But of course by doing so, he's doing what the focus groups tell him (i.e. sharpen those attacks).

    Posted by: The Angry One | November 12, 2007 10:55 AM | Report abuse

    Interesting thoughts. But if all of it is true then why don't Kucinich, Paul and Obama stand heads above the rest? Edwards at least has been man enough to hone up to the mistake he made years ago in voting for the war. Hillary continues to refuse to do so. Edwards refuses to take a single dollar from lobbyists while Hillary is wallowing in their cash. What Bush and his gang have done to our country will takle years to undo so ask yourself who will be better equipped for that job, Edwards or Clinton? To me the choice is too obvious to even contemplate further .

    Posted by: Michael Rapaport | November 12, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

    WHAT WOULD BE VERY NICE IS TO HAVE A VERY CLEAR PLAN FROM EACH AND EVERY CANDIDATE LAID OUT TO COMPARE.
    SIDE BY SIDE.
    PULLING OUT TWO DOESN'T SHOW US OUR OPTIONS.

    AND CERTAIN PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA AND BARBARA LEE SAID
    NO FROM THE BEGINNING. WHO ELSE WAS ALWAYS CLEAR THINKING?

    SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK CLEAREST FROM THE START. WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM TO SOLVE DEATHS DISABILITY AND OTHER UNGODLY COSTS ON THEIR WATCH
    AN IMPORTANT POINT YOU'RE VERY MUCH MISSING.

    Posted by: MACDOODLE | November 12, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

    Dear Michael:

    Please be different from much of the major media and check the claims of ALL candidates including Richardson (as you note you will), Kucinich, Gravel, Dodd and Biden. Not just big money raisers.

    I will be fact checking your sentences:

    "Over the next few weeks, I will be looking at the positions of other candidates on Iraq. Let me know what you think. Next up: Bill Richardson."

    Posted by: Larry Romsted | November 12, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

    The media in our country no longer serve the public by reporting or investigating the TRUTH. Consider a handful of wealthy media moguls, most of them Repubicans, now own most media outlets, whether they be newspaper, magazine, cable, etc. Which Dem candidate do the Republicans want? Why, Hill the Shill, of course. Why? Because she can't be truthful or give the same answer twice. She can't give us detailed plans because she knows Americans wouldn't like her Republican-lite brand of governance, which favors rich men and women over poor men and women.

    Since most Americans are poor or at best middle class, and so very few are rich, which candidate speaks to the majority?

    JOHN EDWARDS. He's the ONLY ONE who's been "telling it like it is", without the impractical idealism of Kucinich or the lofty rhetoric of Obama.

    John Edwards hits the nail smack dab on the head of it. What we need is jobs in America, not south of the border or overseas. What we need is a multilateral approach to dealing with international policy. What we need is to level the playing field so that EVERYONE in America gets an even break, not just those who are willing to steal from and walk over the poor so that they themselves can get rich. What we need is a healthcare system that everyone can benefit from, not one that only the rich can afford.

    EDWARDS GETS IT!!! I think an Edwards/Obama ticket would be wonderful!

    So how about we Americans listen less to the media's commentaries and more to the candiates themselves?

    Posted by: kentuckywoman | November 12, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

    It's very much a no win situtation for candidates. It is virtutally impossible, if not irresponsible, for a leader to present a detailed plan re: a war 14 months in advance and suggest that it is ABSOLUTELY the plan they would follow. But if they aren't ABSOLUTE, they are accused of being evasive by their opponents and the media. Tough situation.

    Posted by: Rick O'Rourke | November 12, 2007 12:59 PM | Report abuse

    It's a hopeless mess. I'd say all the reactions to 9/11 did provide lots of shocking human behavior.

    I'm wondering what the psychological effect on global warfare would be if USA elementary school kids were encouraged by their parents to debate the Catholic Bible and the Koran directly as modern influential literary artifacts.

    Guess you'd have to find out if the majority of parents really do think these books are untouchable by each other. Even parents with college degrees. I don't get it myself. Seems to me if the majority of USA would simply allow the Catholic Bible and the Koran to be examined as books by our own kids, it might make a huge difference in even what these kids will be fighting for. My kids and I were told what the bible said all our lives. We were told we weren't good enough to read it ourselves and discuss it. Found out for myself that denied me the true evolution of my own brain.

    Seems we are a "Holy Democracy" ourselves. For those who are not interested, I say the Catholic Bible because the only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is that Rev. Martin Luther tore out 1/3 of the Catholic Bible. Funny thing about this is that Khanookah is based on this missing 1/3rd. Talk about the Sunnis and the Shi'ites:)

    Then we can talk about "oil" more honestly.

    Posted by: Ethel Saltz | November 12, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

    Let's be brutally blunt! Hillary regardless of her personal feelings has capitulated to establishment democratic neocons including her rabid pro-Israel lobby supporters which demand perpetual U.S. occupation of Iraq. For Hillary, our Middle East foreign policy is not about American interests, but a diabolical campaign issue to garner neocon media and financial support while placating the public with platitudes and euphemisms!

    Posted by: David G. Ward | November 12, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

    It is amazing to me that anyone could be irresponsible enough to believe that it will be possible to withdraw all combat troops from Iraq in four years. The only responsible way to do this would be to engage Iraq's neighbors, who let's face it aren't exactly our staunchest allies, to relieve our forces. Since, we won't be doing that anytime soon, I'm afraid that all we can hope for is "evasive" answers about withdrawal from Iraq, because the candidates are trying to find a responsible way to do it. I would much rather have a president who waits until she has all the facts before she makes important decisions, than one who behaves rashly to satisfy their constituents.

    Posted by: David17 | November 12, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

    angry one says that Clinton and Edwards are catering to the "anti-war left", but don't forget, 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq...

    And it's not a now win situation as O'Rourke says... people can have plans and change them... i might plan to buy a car and save money, but then need a surgery that makes me have to change my plan... the same thing can happen with a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

    there should still be a plan though. otherwise what is guiding peoples actions?

    Posted by: Seth Long | November 12, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

    john edwards voted to give pres. bush authority to proceed in iraq. a year plus later, in an appearance on the msnbc chris matthews show, he said in 2004, at nccu forum, durhan, nc, that he would still vote for the Bush resolution, kn owing in 2004 what he had been told in 2002-03. he did not argue that he had been misled into approving Bush's request by misleading intelligence provided by Bush adm. "cherry-picking" certain intelligence information. edwards only changed when insurgency emerged and war began going south.

    edwards is ot well regarded in north carolina, as he was elected to the u.s. senate and never really served. he did not attend to the needs of his constituents, introduced no significant legislation, local, state ,or national and did not run for re-election to othe senate at same tinme he was on kerkry's ticket for veep because he knew he wouldn't win the senatorial post.

    he claimed a few weeks or months ago that he would be the strongest candidate this year because he could carry the South. No, he could not. what red state in 2000 did he turn blue in 2004? None. he didn't even help kerry carry North Carolina or South Carolina, his two home states. Indeed he did not carry hhis own hime tiwn of Raleight, or his own precinct in the 2004 election, and now he claims he could carry the South? Preposterous. He woould makek the weakest candidate the Dem os could nominate. Hillary or obma is far preferable.

    of course one sympathizes with edwards in the loss of his first son many years ago and with him in his c oncern for is wife elizabeth's healtlh. but ellizabeth may well overcome her illness, and edwards seems willing to capitalize on pefsonal adversity for political advantage... a very unattractive personal trait.

    he also lacks political sensitivity in bldg. a huge mansion at a time he is running for the presidency on a populist ticket; in working for a hedge fund, in charging for speeches for a poverty center he's never spent any time with, and as for the hair cuts, why even go there ,as the political insensitivity is too obvious to belabor.

    edwards , a successful damage suit lawyer, has nothing to recommend him except "vaulting ambition that o're reaches itself and fall on the other side", to misquote MacBeth.

    if the democrts want to win and not snatch defeat from the jaws of v ictory again, they 'd better stick with hillary, first, obama second, or maybe someone like Biden.

    edwards is an empty suit.

    Posted by: a. m. secrest | November 12, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

    Kentucky Woman you are sooo spot on!!! I second everthing you said.

    Edwards 2008" The Peoples President"
    A champion for "We the People"
    returning the government back to the people.

    Posted by: Braveheart | November 12, 2007 4:54 PM | Report abuse

    The candidates were asked at a recent debate if they would commit to having all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in office. Senators Clinton, Edwards, and Obama all said "No."

    Christopher Dodd said "Yes, I will get that done." So he has my vote in the primary. I strongly suggest that others look past the cleverly worded commercials and pay attention to what the candidates are actually saying when asked a direct question.

    The so-called "second tier candidates," Dodd, Biden, and Richardson have a lot of wisdom and experience among them. Voters should give all of them a second look.

    Posted by: ancient_mariner | November 12, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

    hillary voter's....be very careful what you wish for....

    remember this is half of the couple that had to define what "is" is.....
    also the couple the decided NOT to allow the 4 thats right four investigations that were pending for bush daddy 41 that had yet to be resolved...iran contra, iraq gate, passport gate and october surprise. they thought that if they let them go by they would get more bi-partisean support during their term...really worked out well didn't it.
    think about this for a second...had the investigations run their course and all of the dirt had come out re: what a sleeze daddy and regan really were, baby bush would have never been elected sorry placed into office once much less twice.
    also, if anyone thinks that thi is not a package deal...well i have a bridge for sale..cheap. now i have nothing against him as president...he was okay...so he had a loose zipper....and got caught...but i have a real problem with this dynasty syndrom.
    enough already with these two families.
    the biggest fear is that there are more bushies in the wings.....waiting

    Posted by: alan1111 | November 12, 2007 5:20 PM | Report abuse

    It would be next to impossible to just pack-up and leave Iraq,as much as I'd like to. This country does have interests there that we have to protect(OIL). If we were to just leave you'd be looking at $10 a gallon or more. Until we are self reliant on energy we are stuck doing what's necessary,it's called reality. As for Dodd saying he could do it,don't think for a minute it would happen.It reminds me of pappa bush with his famous "No new taxes" rhetoric. After one year and the troops aren't home yet,do we kick Dodd out? Yeah right! As for Hillary wallowing in Big Business money,where do you get your facts,Faux News???? She has more than quadrupled her finances from civillians to big business donations. And what's wrong with it if she does get donations from them,maybe they are just as sick of the Republicans destroying this country as we are. All business doesn't necessarily deal with them,and have been hurt in the process.

    Clinton/Biden 08'

    Posted by: jime | November 12, 2007 7:19 PM | Report abuse

    Let's see:

    Clinton has made some of her clearest statements on her intention to leave combat forces in Iraq to combat al Qaeda.

    FACT: Clinton will not remove all combat troops out of Iraq, period. She's in it for the long haul.

    Edwards has clearly stated his intention to have all combat troops out of Iraq within the first year of taking office:

    http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

    Withdraw Combat Troops within Nine to Ten Months: Edwards believes we should completely withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months and prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq. After withdrawal, we should retain sufficient forces in Quick Reaction Forces located outside Iraq, in friendly countries like Kuwait, to prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven, a genocide, or regional spillover of a civil war.

    FACT: John Edwards will remove all combat troops from Iraq because combat troops in Iraq represent the United States as an occupying force and are thus continuing targets for Iraqi militants, excuses for the Iraqi government not to get its own house in order, and magnets for recruiting more to the al Qaeda movement.

    If you are going to call this column FACT CHECKER, you might at least check your facts!

    Posted by: edgery | November 12, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

    How many is the max number of Pinnochio's on your rating scale? Because I think you have just earned all of them yourself.

    Edwards would not leave "significant" troops in Iraq. He would pull ALL combat troops out of Iraq within 9 months to a year of taking office, and the ONLY troops he would leave in Iraq would be about one brigade of non-combat troops specifically to guard the embassy.

    Posted by: Laura | November 12, 2007 8:02 PM | Report abuse

    Where was The Fact Checker prior to invading Iraq? or
    After proclamations of Sadaam's WMDs? or
    After "the insurgency is in it's last throes"? or
    After the"surge is working?"or
    After Bush's staged 04 campaign town hall events with pre-screened questions?

    You're column is too late. Four years & thousands of dead & injured too late. Iraq is a fiasco. Expecting an answer to that question in 30 seconds is disingenuous at best.

    Posted by: jcgrim | November 12, 2007 8:28 PM | Report abuse

    If Hillary is backed by the corporate dollar it only means one thing. Politics as usual!!! PERIOD!! Mr. Dobbs, shame on you. Give yourself two, yes two, pinocchios.

    Posted by: m. edmund howse | November 12, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

    edgery and Laura,

    Have you read Edwards' long boring speech about how the War on Terror should be fought?

    He has stated that we should stay on offense. That's nearly a verbatim quote.

    Obama has said almost the same thing.

    Granted, Edwards has also called it a bumper sticker.

    Wanting it all ways so blantantly befits a successful trial lawyer. And a lousy presidential candidate.

    Posted by: The Angry One | November 12, 2007 11:22 PM | Report abuse

    Your comments regarding billy & hilly making vague, complex, multi sided, ridiculous, hair splitting statements, during their 8 years in the White House, that required all Americans, not just those in the media, to have to attempt to define the defination of the word "is," just to try to understand if Billy & Hilly were telling the truth or not! Further more, they tryed to make all of us believe that oral sex really wasn't really sex, after Billy looked us in the eye and told viewers in TV land, that he did not have sex with that woman. After being impeached, by the house of representatives, their political machine, told us he shouldn't be impeached cause he only had sex, and that sex wasn't a high crime. He wasn't impeached for sex, rather it was lying under oath, which is a felony. No American should ever have to be subjected to this type of outrage, ever again! They parsed their words, to the extreme, in order to insult the public's intelligence, just so they could never be held accountable for any thing. When a candidate takes all sides of every issue, they don't stand for anything. Wake up Democrats smell the coffee, Billary can't be trusted and is unelectable in the general election because Billary can't fool all Americans, all of the time. She thinks that she actualy is smart enough to fool all of us, all of the time. It is too bad because she is only fooling herself and not even Bubba really listens to her any more.

    Posted by: Charles Ellis | November 13, 2007 2:23 AM | Report abuse

    How many troops will Clinton withdraw from Iraq? Ten, three hundred? That's the bottom line but the bottom of the barrel is Clinton and Edwards', and for that matter Obama's refusal to commit to withdrawling all the troops by even 2013. They can try and sell a withdrawal all they want but as long as none of them commit to bringing all the troops home by even 2013, they're just medicine men selling rotgut.
    Notice they say they'll bring the combat troops home but leave residual forces there, forces that will be labled something other than combat troops yet who will be fighting for their lives every day resulting in us having to send combat troops back to protect them. As long as any troops are left behind this war will go on and on. Clinton won't end this war and neither will Edwards or Obama. What a mess.

    Posted by: Steamboater | November 13, 2007 4:40 AM | Report abuse

    So glad people are talking about the election. Now if they really listen to the candidates and VOTE next November. People can talk and talk but to make voices heard must vote. I have worked for candidates in the past and will continue to work. Right now I like Clinton but things can change in the next year. How exciting. Bush, can't stand him and what has happened to this country while he has been in office. Let us not go back to sex thing with Clintons. Pres. Bill Clinton was good pres...better than I thought he would be...make love not war?!?

    Posted by: Martha Nichols | November 13, 2007 8:12 AM | Report abuse

    Good job Mr. Ellis, you summarized Clinton's weaknesses quite well. I hear a lot of screaming about how the current pres lied to the american people ( I didn't perceive it that way, myself ) but Clinton supporters have quite forgotten how transparent Bill's lies were at the time. Fact is, they want HIM back and Hillary is the best way to get him back in the white house. What a laff.
    Hats off to "kentucky woman" for knowing "the truth," I am so happy to have her enlightening us! Bla.

    Posted by: Skydog | November 13, 2007 1:25 PM | Report abuse

    I feel nervous about the "unconditional" statements of some candidates: "I will ...", "We must ..."! It makes allies nervous, and un-coperative (they don't really know what to expect when the time comes to act, and do not always support the implied policy. And it bothers me when I hear "I voted for ..." was wrong, & now apologize ...I'd prefer a vote they will stick with, even though it appear in the view of later events to not the best choice. The "apology" suggest a wrong choice and weakness not the strength we should see in our leaders. And unwillingness to stick with a decision once made .. talk about "pollo driven"!

    Posted by: raven.bil | November 13, 2007 4:28 PM | Report abuse

    Some common sense realities.
    1-The war in Iraq being mostly defined as urban guerrilla warfare it's doubtful any kind of standard military victory is possible without large scale involvement by the Iraqi's themselves in exposing the operations of the various insurgent,religious,sectarian,terrorist,etc org's inside and outside Iraq.
    2-Since a conventional military victory is largely beyond the control of the US any president will have no choice but to react to the fluid situation in Iraq and thus current plans,intentions,policy statements,etc are worth little more than the paper they're written on.
    3-The election of ANY of the republican frontrunners will be seen (and taken) as a mandate for the continuation of the war in Iraq,albeit with some actual competency as opposed to the complete blunder the Bush team has managed to foist on an unsuspecting and largely uninterested American population.I could go on and on about the dangers represented by the combination of an all volunteer military,zero sacrifice asked of the citizenry and a combat mortality rate that manages to be low enough to somehow fly under the radar on a daily basis.That combination is the only reason the current President isn't facing a firestorm of enraged criticism on every news outlet in the country.
    4-Of the 2 major political parties it's the republican party that has staked it's future on the outcome in Iraq.That party cannot be expected to get this country out of Iraq without achieving something that can reasonably be called "victory".The dems are vested in getting out of Iraq,either quickly enough to entrench the war as a republican disaster or by waiting long enough to call it a "democratic" war victory brought on by the American people voting for competent leadership.Again enough progress will have to have been made to declare "victory" and bring the troops home.
    5-Electing a republican for a 3rd straight republican presidential term can only be interpreted here and around the world as a failure of the American people to hold a party and it's president's accountable for not just a war, but an occompanying invasion and long term occupation of another country based on completely unjustified reasoning and thus an approval of such behaviour.It would leave one to wonder with what,if any, difference history will regard this country versus nazi Germany under Adolpf Hitler or the USSR under Joseph Stalin.
    Paul

    Posted by: P Herring | November 14, 2007 1:11 AM | Report abuse

    It is nice to say exactly what you will do 14 months from now. Who knows what the situation will be then? Heck, we don't even know what it is now, do we? For those of you who have ever been put in charge of anything mildly complicated, it's never as simple as it looked. Yes, goals are necessary, but the means to achieve them may have to be adjusted as the facts at the time exist. What's the old saying? "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your objective was to drain the swamp."

    Posted by: Pattyann | November 14, 2007 7:02 AM | Report abuse

    This article is interesting. Just because Hilliary doesnt know what exactly to do as of right now doesnt mean that she wont have a clear thought out plan of what to do. You cant just wake up one morning and have a plan and expect it to go right. You need time to come up with a good plan.

    Posted by: Rahel Barihe | November 16, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse


    To anybody who really cares about the country, First, let's agree that any Democratic President would be better than any Republican President, unless, of course, you think George Bush has been one of our better Presidents. Secondly, recognize that Hillary Clinton is probably the strongest, and most honest, most decisive candidate and is recognized as such by the recent AP/Yahoo poll. She is highly electable unlike the clowns at the Washington Post would prefer you to believe. Remember if you, or the very Fact Checker himself, were subjected to a multi-year 60 million dollar investigation by a manical agent of people who literally loathed your very existence with all the power of the courts and federal government behind him (Ken Starr), you could easily although dishonestly be made to appear as one of the most craven sleeze-balls in history. Hillary took all that and came out on top. She is the person the coutry needs to be President. Thanks for considering my points

    Posted by: Mr. Arnold | November 20, 2007 4:18 PM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting!

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | December 8, 2007 7:42 AM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | December 22, 2007 5:04 PM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | January 2, 2008 6:33 PM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | January 3, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | January 16, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | January 16, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

    I'd prefer reading in my native language, because my knowledge of your languange is no so well. But it was interesting! Look for some my links:

    Posted by: MypeBaryFrasp | January 17, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

    The comments to this entry are closed.

     
     
    RSS Feed
    Subscribe to The Post

    © 2011 The Washington Post Company