When A Distinction Is Not A Difference

John Edwards Last Night:

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq, and when I'm on a stage with the Republican nominee come the fall of 2008, I'm going to make it clear that I'm for ending the war.

Edwards on September 7:

Even though the presence of U.S. troops has served as an attractive target for terrorists, our eventual withdrawal will not remove the threat. As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.

That's exactly what Clinton proposes, unless Edwards means that his Quick Reaction Forces would NEVER set foot in Iraq again... which begs the question as to how they'd prevent a genocide if they were encamped in the mountains of Kurdistan or the sands of Saudi Arabia.

Update: Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz sends along this response:

"Senator Clinton keeps combat troops in Iraq. That means she continues the war. John Edwards will end the war. Being just a little bit better than the Republicans is not a good enough reason to be President of the United States

Comments

Can we get some corroborating evidence that this is "exactly what Clinton proposes"?

Posted by Will | September 27, 2007 12:11 PM

Is Marc trying to spin it for Hillary? John Edwards is very clear, "I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions.."

Note the word "outside of Iraq". While Hillary wants to keep troops in combat mission inside Iraq, Edwards clearly does not want it. Its very clear that Edwards and Obama will pull out troops faster than Hillary.

Posted by brad | September 27, 2007 12:18 PM

I think Marc is spinning it big time for Hillary. Hillary voted for the first step to go to war with Iran. Need I say more. Needless to say Hillary will keep combat troops in Iraq to fight Iran. I don't think JRE wants the same thing, so this could be a big difference in my opinion. I suppose the people who support Hillary are supporting a war with Iran too.

Posted by rssrai | September 27, 2007 1:01 PM

I think the trouble with saying "The Clinton proposal is the same as the Edwards proposal" is that no one has any firm statement of what the Clinton proposal is. There are reports of conversations with generals where she thinks they might keep a 60,000 troop force in Iraq; there are debates where she says her goal is to bring all troops home in four years. Maybe there is something in between. But she insists on giving the vaguest possible statement at all times.

Posted by Nicholas Birm eaudrot | September 27, 2007 2:31 PM

Nope Marc, Obama also uses the same language as Edwards, and correctly; Obama has always advocated counterterrorism operations while advocating drawing down all combat troops - and that's not a contradiction. It is Hillary who has it wrong by lumping in special forces and counterterrorism operations with the term combat troops, which is misleading in the context of the current fullscale ground occupation in Iraq; it is nothing more than an obfuscation to try to continue the war. Your analysis is 100% backwards; I believe the fault lies in interpreting the term combat troops too literally, when in fact "combat troops" refers to brigades of soldiers on the ground currently occupying and engaging in an endless string of daily battles in Iraq, not any US serviceman in Iraq that might potentially see conflict in a small scale, individual operation.

Posted by Shadow | September 27, 2007 7:48 PM

What do you think, he's going to redeploy these Quick Reaction Forces to Georgia? He has to keep them relatively close to the Middle East. They're not coming home, that's for sure. And seeing as not one of the neighboring countries (Turkey included) wanted to help us go into Iraq, I don't see how you're going to keep them nearby.

Posted by james | September 27, 2007 9:08 PM

Only Richardson gets it on Iraq. He doesn't attempt as the other Dems are trying to have it both ways - bash Bush, call for an end to the war but then keep troops in Iraq for years to come, not then put conditions on any departure from Iraq and not bring the occupation to an end so as to appeal to the D.C. insiders that got us in the war to start with.

Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war. Our troops have become the targets in a civil war. The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide. Richardson notes: "The Iraqis won't take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good."

None of the other major Dem candidates have any foreign policy experience or the confidence in their own judgment to stand up to the military and political establishment and unambiguously call for a complete and prompt withdrawal from Iraq. Obama, Edwards and Clinton can't even promise all of our troops will be out of Iraq by 2013.

In the end if HRC is the nominee, what difference will there be between her and the Republican nominee on Iraq? Both will say we need to change course and bring the war to end - but "prudently and cautiously." The Democrats will lose the advantage they have on the most critical issue of the election. And America will lose because we will continue to be stuck in Iraq for years to come regardless of who wins.

Posted by Stephen Cassidy | September 28, 2007 1:57 AM