John Edwards was critical Wednesday of Sen. Hillary Clinton's approach to handling the Iraq war.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - White House hopeful John Edwards continued to draw distinctions between his stance on Iraq and that of rival Hillary Clinton, claiming Wednesday the New York Democrat does not intend to end the war.
"A week ago Sunday, Hillary Clinton said that she would continue to conduct combat missions in Iraq," Edwards said during a forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. "If you're not ending combat operations, you're not ending the war."
"The debate I expect to have next fall with Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani or whoever’s the Republican nominee is whether or not to end this war," Edwards continued. "But the debate Sen. Clinton would be in is how big a war you’re going to have."
Clinton said she supports a phased redeployment of troops from Iraq but would leave a small number in the country to carry out combat missions against Al-Qaeda members.
– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney
Wow, is this comment thread infested with trolls, or what?
Funny, nobody actually engages with what Edwards said. I guess we all agree it's accurate. Good to know.
James (the real one):
I've been thinking about your Clinton-Bin Ladin airstrike analogy.
Osama Bin Ladin is a non-state actor. I may be wrong about this but I don't think it's actually possible for a state to issue a formal declaration of war against a non-state. It's at the very least unnecessary to make such a declaration before initiating a military strike against such an entity when it poses a military threat.
However, (to the extent that presidents heed such things) President Bush does need authorization before initiating hostilities against another state on that state's territory. This is true regardless of whether the initiating state has designated part of the other state's forces as "terrorist."
Kyl-Lieberman contains no such authorization. Therefore, your analogy is inapt.
Edward's money must have come from his family. It's obvious he could not have earned it himself.
You wrote, "If President Clinton didn't need congressional approval to go after Bin Ladin, then, by extension, Bush doesn't need congressional "support," making Kyl-Lieberman irrelevant."
Why would Bush pursue the Kyl-Lieberman resolution? Honestly – what do you think the outcry would be if Bush (without attemping any consultation of Congress) went after Iran's military (strikes against training camps in Iran)?
Like Iraq – Bush brought information to congress to get their "buy-in". Did he need to? Based on the constitution, no. Does he need to get congress's blessing to go after Iran's forces? No. Does it provide much better political cover? Yes! Does it send a FIRM message to Iran we're serious? Hell Yes.