Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Attacks Clinton on Iraq

Former Sen. John Edwards had sharp words for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday, accusing her of proposing a plan for Iraq that would not end the war.

"A week ago Sunday, Hillary Clinton said that she would continue to conduct combat missions in Iraq. If you're not ending combat operations, you're not ending the war," Edwards said during a campaign speech in New Hampshire, according to a release issued by his campaign. "Our party, the Democratic Party, has to offer the American people real change, and that starts with ending this war for good, not just trimming it. Because being just a little bit better than the Republicans is not reason enough to be the President of the United States."

Edwards is stepping up his attacks on the Democratic frontrunner as she is consolidating her national lead, but as the two and Sen. Barack Obama remain in a three-way tie in Iowa, where the first primary contest will be held. In his speech, Edwards also announced a proposal to end the outsourcing of security in Iraq, on the heels of congressional hearings on the work of the security firm Blackwater.

--Anne E. Kornblut

By Washington Post editors  |  October 3, 2007; 6:53 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Florida Lawmakers Sue Dean, DNC
Next: For Iowans, Thompson Has 'Reagan-like Appeal'

Comments

John Edwards would probably have my vote. He has to keep challenging HRC on her war votes, her unwillingness to debate the cap on income subject to social security withholding. Even his position on all out by '13 was not good enough, but his proposal re: the soc. sec. cap was reasoned.
Enough of Hillary... Why does the Post and NY Times keep pushing her. Edwards is deserving of much better coverage.. He really has a chance of pulling the South and North together.. NOT Hillary.
Why does the news media keep shoving her down our throats? Give the others a chance and watch their poll numbers rise.

Posted by: compass1 | October 4, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

The author is trying to say that hillary Clinton should not be president as she is still continuning the War or combat missions with iraq. John Edwards used this as a disadvantage to gain votes from the people who are against the war.

Posted by: karthikbalaji | October 4, 2007 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Listen up all ye forecasters, there is a story to tell.
Hillary Billary are doing quite well.
A big ole lobby is gonna make sure
That Hillary Billary will be hard to endure
Check all the records from times gone by
Can't find a flaw in the lobby's political tie.
Many were the politicians who considered a win
Only to find that the lobby was makein em bend
Pappa Clinton was the winner in 92
Georgie was there in 2000 lookin for something to do
Mama Clinton is the designated hitter this time
All others will rest with the litter in line
The Pubs are making quite the show
But the lobby is laughing at the way they go
All rigamortis has set in for the race
The winner is just dancin along in first place
The Christians will put on an act to pull support
But the truth is the weakening of their leader of sorts
The rest of the story is for the media bunch
Hillary Billary are going for the crunch.

Posted by: WILLIAMJCLEMONS | October 4, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

They say that ignorance is bliss. Every US Embassy around the world is protected by the US Marines. The number of Marines in each case varies in direct proportion with the size of the Embassy, which underlies the US interests in a given country. If US were to pull out its entire troop from Iraq, it means there will be no contingent of them protecting the US Embassy and personnel; in other words, it is equivalent to breaking diplomatic ties with Iraq.

Pulling out all US combat troops from Iraq means the end of war and US occupation of that country. It is silly and idiocy for any reasonable person to argue in favor of complete withdrawal all US troops from Iraq. It is commonsensical that a full-fledged civil war in Iraqi will lead to regional instability or wars. If that were to happen, it means that the price of a gallon of oil will climb between $10-$20. That will lead to global economic depression and collapse of world financial market system. There will be failed states and unrests in many countries around the world. That is severely against the national security interests of US no reasonable citizen would acquiesce to. That is why the invasion of Iraq will remain as symbol of worst American foreign policy fiasco to date.

Posted by: jckckc | October 4, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is the only sane choice! The Dems would be crazy to allow Billary to get the nomination. A white, male, Southern Demo is the ONLY way the Democrats can regain the White House. Since JFK, only Carter and Clinton have been able to do the trick.
I am not a sexist (nor a racist, re Obama);
I am, however, a REALIST. Vote Edwards '08
or allow the GOP to again steal yet another
Presidential election, and have more war...

Posted by: OakRaidFan1 | October 4, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

You go John!
Hillary is one of the most polarizing politicians ever. Her commanding lead this primary season means nothing if she can't seal the deal in the General. Edwards leads all the Repubs and my the largest margin. Clinton will be decimated my a Karl Rove led GOP gunning for her, and they have tons of ammo. Barack has proven to be way too milquetoast to take the fight to the GOP, he can't even seem to muster up taking on Clinton, the Repubs will destroy him. Edwards is the one they fear the most as they (the GOP) knows he has cross over appeal like none of the others. This upcoming election is way to important to take risks. Believe me even the Repubs are pushing Hillary's electablity inevitability, hmmm, somethings just major league fishy here...

Posted by: asher13 | October 3, 2007 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Hillary voted for the war. She supports the war. She believes in the war and has from the beginning. I cannot vote for any candidate that voted for the war. I compromised this belief with Kerry because getting rid of bush was too big a need but I will never support any politician that went along with the lies that started this war because they were too attached to their own power. Hillary is a pretender she will go in what ever direction she thinks the political wind is blowing and the last thing we need is another president that has compromised morals and ethics. Hillary is now and will always be bought and paid for by the drug industry, the energy industry, the defense contracting industry, and the financial industry. She is the democratic equivalent of George Bush. If the choice is Hillary I will vote Green or not at all.

Posted by: nibaizi | October 3, 2007 11:26 PM | Report abuse

More of the same trash talk. The truth is, the top three candidates don't totally know what this knucklehead has gotten us into and how in the hell we are going to get out of it.

The year 2013 ring any bells? I do believe the last debate showed the three of them unwilling to say we would all be out by that time frame. Saying you would begin withdrawl is all fine and good (which she said), but what do you call it when a base or convoy is under attack and all of your troups have not withdrawn? I do believe that is a combat mission also.


The majority of Americans were wanting blood after 9/11 and right or wrong, we are there. Now we need a strong leader to get us out and bring the United States back into the limelight of being the one nation everyone respects. Hillary is the one person that has already garnered respect around the world . . . I don't see any of the other women having a voice in this election standing up in China for women's rights.

While I am a true supporter of Hillary Clinton for the next President of the United States of America, I for one will back any of the fine Democratic candidates that win the nomination. We need to bring my nation, your nation, back into a respected entity in this world.

Posted by: mel | October 3, 2007 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company