Long before it was “popular”, John Edwards was calling for a New Strategy for Iran (and the War on Terror in general)

Long before the NIE Report, threw water on the GOP's fiery rhetoric about the looming dangers of Iran, Edwards was saying we must learn the lessons of the Iraq War — NOT Repeat them in Iran!

Long before the cynical Rumsfeld Memos were leaked (proving Edwards right), John Edwards was busy “reframing” the Global War on Terror, calling it “a 'bumper sticker' slogan Bush had used to justify everything …”

Did Edwards get Media Attention and fanfare for his insightful and stateman-like leadership — NO, but he DID help to change the national conversation!

So Much so, that insiders in NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), seem to have taken his advice that: “We've got to stand up to Bush and Cheney and the Neocons …”

Bill Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident.  He has served as a Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and is in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide re-election victory in November 2006.  

Here are five of many reasons why I believe Richardson possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President:

1.  A Bright Vision for America
2.  An Ironclad Promise to Promptly End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq
3.  A Bold Agenda To Address The Pressing Challenges Facing Our Nation and Planet
4.  The White House and A Landslide Victory for Democrats Nationwide in 2008
5.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform In Accordance With the Values Upon Which Our Country Was Founded

I love how the Edwards campaign is getting so bold and so…well…I guess it could be described as snarky. As others have said before me, the truth can never be an attack, but the truth can sure hurt. Here’s another example.

Now John Edwards has asked Senator Clinton to answer 5 simple yes or no questions on Iraq. Should be easy, right? It also should be something a presidential candidate should be ready to do. Will she do it?

Welcome to the Edwards Evening News RoundUp!   Tonight's features are:  

I.  Iraq, Iran & Pakistan: Diplomatic Politcal Solutions

 II. American Heroes Week III. Edwards' Statement on the WGA Strike

III. Edwards' Statement of Support of the WGA Strike

There's been quite a bit of press this week about attacking other candidates and negative campaigning, including a number of comments on my statements at the debate calling on the other candidates to lay off the personal attacks on Senator Clinton.

But I was surprised that what many people “took away” from my statements was that I must support Senator Clinton's positions because I thought some of the attacks were out of line.

So, let me set the record straight.

I deeply disagree with Senator Clinton on many issues, just as I do with the other candidates.  For starters, Senator Clinton thinks we can fix No Child Left Behind; I believe we need to scrap it.  I believe we must create a New Energy Revolution whereas Senator Clinton's positions are simply not bold enough on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and moving to alternative energy sources.

Senator Clinton seems to believe there are nations out there too “bad” for us to talk to — I disagree and believe we should talk to both our enemies and our friends.

Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that authorized aggressive action against factions in Iran.  I think that is a huge mistake and find it shocking that she hasn't yet learned the most important lesson any American could learn about George Bush: he can't be trusted.  This vote may end up being a vote for a war in Iran. 

Most importantly, I disagree with Senator Clinton's belief that we cannot end the war now and get our troops out.  I do not understand why she, and others who claim to be against the war, continue to vote for additional funding so the war can continue and still don't stand up to Bush on getting our troops out so we can begin reconciliation.  I don't believe we are helpless against Bush and the Republicans.  I believe Congress was elected to end this war, that they have the power to act, and yet don't.

I profoundly disagree with Senator Clinton that it is unreasonable to commit to getting troops out of Iraq by 2013.

But these are disagreements on policy – not on personality.  Personal attacks are an easy way out when candidates aren't able to make real contrasts with opponents on real policy positions.

Frankly, I don't need to resort to personal attacks because I have so many disagreements with the other candidates – including Hillary Clinton — on the issues.

Don't get me wrong – I believe in highlighting differences when I see them, and exposing misinformation when I hear it, and I've never been one to shy away from a fight.  But I also believe to my core that we need to bring this country together, not split ourselves even further apart.  And before we all start to accept ubiquitous personal attacks, even against fellow Democrats, as simply the state of modern politics, we should strongly consider where attacks like these are coming from.

None of the attacks I've heard lately deal with the issue at the heart of this campaign, and the issue that will win or lose us the White House: ending the war in Iraq.  When closely examined, Senator Obama's position is not much different from Senator Clinton's on key points.  They may disagree on exactly how many troops to leave behind, and the mission, but they both would leave troops in Iraq for years after taking office.  And Senator Edwards talks about removing combat troops but what about the tens of thousands non-combat troops?

And who can forget that at the MSNBC Dartmouth Debate each and every one of them refused to commit to getting the troops out of Iraq by 2013 – SIX YEARS FROM NOW.

That position is just unacceptable.

We need to get our troops out now.  We need to stop the war with Iran before it starts.  And we need to have a debate where we focus on the real issues, and the real differences between candidates on important policy positions — not just on who is attacking whom for what.

If we as a party don't focus on the issues that really matter, and instead waste our time calling each other names, we are opening ourselves up to real Republican attacks next fall.  We should keep talking contrasts on issues and differences on world view, but let's save labels like “dishonest” for those who really deserve them.

You can find out more about where I stand on Iraq at www.GetOurTroopsOut.com and at www.richardsonforpresident.com.

Hillary Clinton's plan for ending the war is weak and imprecise.  She refuses to commit to bring all of our troops home by the end of her first term in office. Clinton's military and diplomatic advisers believe our invasion of Iraq was justified and a military solution exits for resolving the war. Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq.

What I want to do is explain what Dennis Kucinich is offering our country right now when he talks about “Strength through Peace”; to get a better understanding of what he means by peace and how it will make our country stronger as a whole. We need to understand that creating peace is not simply some idealistic hope for ending wars, but rather a very pragmatic plan that builds relationships based upon fairness and justice and which, predictably, reduces the likelihood of hostilities that lead to crimes, violence and wars. I want people to start seeing peace as a balance, not only in our foreign relationships, but here at home as well; a balance in the economy, a balance in healthcare, in education and government. And I want others to understand peace as paying us a dividend, that peace is a practical investment in our future. But, I want to begin by looking at where we are. Where is America right now?

Today, Chase Martyn of the Iowa Independent reviewed a major policy speech by Bill Richardson earlier this week on how to improve the welfare of the human race and our environment.  Martyn is no supporter of Richardson, noting “I expected would be ridden with gaffes, pie-in-the-sky policy proposals, and poll-tested mumbo jumbo. Having not seen Richardson stump in person for a period of two months, I had no idea what I was in for.”

Martyn came away highly impressed.  Martyn described Richardson's speech as “bold and informative.  . . . I dare say he sounded presidential.”

In his speech, Richardson set forth  a global agenda to address the welfare of the human race, linking climate change, poverty, international disease and war.  Richardson stated:  “A hungry world will also hunger for scapegoats. A thirsty world will thirst for revenge. A world in crisis will be a world of anger and violence and terrorism.”

It's Time to Make a Choice in Iraq

By Governor Bill Richardson

Yesterday,twelve former Army captains wrote that short of reinstating the draft, “our best option is to leave Iraq immediately.” In an extraordinary editorial in the Washington Post, these captains–all of whom served in Iraq–made it clear that we need to end this war and we need to end it now. They wrote that a ” scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.”

I strongly urge every American to read this important report from those who served in the failed conflict in Iraq. Army captains are the staff officers who plan operations against insurgent strongholds. They are the company commanders who lead our soldiers through the streets of Baghdad. And they are the soldiers who will direct our withdrawal from Iraq.

These men and women know the score. They know that we must leave Iraq. As they put it, “It's time to make a choice.” Americans are fed up with the President's stalling and Congressional failure to act. Frankly, it is well past time we make a choice. And the only responsible choice left to us is to get all of our troops out of Iraq, with no residual forces left behind–no combat forces, no non-combat forces. As President, I will do it. I will get all of our troops out within a year after I take office – sooner if we can get it done safely.

The other major candidates in this race have said–again and again–that they will not. Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton have all refused to commit to getting all of our troops out of Iraq by 2013. None of them are willing to be clear about removing all troops – combat and non-combat. It's unbelievable. Are they looking at the same war the rest of us are? Furthermore, they are all advocating precisely the sort of scaled withdrawal that these  twelve captains are warning against. It doesn't make any sense. Real leadership  is about making the tough choices, and knowing when it is time to make bold  moves. Now is the time for action, not hesitation. Ending this war requires  real change, not more incrementalism.

Ending this war is the most important issue of our time. And it is the fundamental  difference between me and Senators Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. I will end  the war; they will not. I will get all of our troops out; they will leave  troops behind indefinitely. I will order a safe and rapid withdrawal and have  our troops out within a year. They have proposed a long, protracted withdrawal  that will only increase the danger to our fighting men and women and drag  out the war.

2013 is six years from now – six years. In six years, will  we have lost 6,000 men and women in Iraq? 10,000? More? In six years will  this be a $2 trillion mistake? Or $3 trillion? The war has been going on for  four and half years already. Six years from now, we will have been there for  more than a decade. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

The choice in Iraq is clear. We need to get all our troops out quickly. We  need to end this war for real. Go to getourtroopsout.com  to join Americans across the country in calling for a quick, clear, responsible  end to the war in Iraq.

I'm a Democrat and I am worried.  In the beginning of the year I couldn't wait for 2008.  I couldn't wait for a Democrat to take office and turn this nation around.  I knew it wasn't a matter of if, but when.  Unfortunately, the tides have turned.  American citizens are sick and tired of the partisan bickering in Washington.  They are tired of waffling politicians who promise one thing, but don't deliver.  It is evident in the polls.  Only 11% of Americans approve of the job the Congress had done.  Only 10 months into a Democratic lead Congress and the nation already wants us gone.  If we are going to win the White House, we need to clean ourselves up and stand at attention.  We need to get our people to do their jobs and serve the American public.  The biggest challenge we face is partisanship.  Though it may be the Bush Administration’s fault America and our leaders are so divided, it is our job, as Democrats, to fix the problem.  There was a time, not long ago, that Republicans and Democrats worked together, ate together, discussed issues together.  We need to return that era of respect and goodwill and leave the partisan stabs behind.  The only way we are going to move this nation forward before 2008 is by getting Republicans to vote for Democratic bills.  The only way to do that is to show respect and integrity.

As voters in a democracy, we have a voice and we must stand up and use that voice.  If we are going to end the division in Washington, we need to show our leaders that we are willing to work with Republicans.  We shouldn't criticize a fellow Democrat when he or she reaches their hand across the aisle and asks for a Republican's support.  Just yesterday, Joe Biden, a liberal Democrat, and Sam Brownback, a conservative Republican, came together and held a town hall meeting to share a plan to end the war in Iraq.  Though the two Presidential candidates share nearly no political opinions, they do share one, and that is how to get out of Iraq.  Because they came together and showed unity, they were shunned by the bases.  Democrats have called Joe Biden “too conservative” and Republicans have criticized Brownback for working with a “liberal”.  This however, baffles me.  When you build a bipartisan consensus things can actually get done.  We need to stop questioning Joe Biden and all other Democrats when they try to build bipartisanship.  Just recently, Joe Biden enticed 26 Republicans to vote for his federalist solution for Iraq.  He called it the “first ray of hope” while a fellow blogger, desmoinesdem, criticized Biden saying it “annoyed ” him and that Joe Biden was out of line because he “threw Senate Republicans a life raft”.  The only thing Joe Biden did was be the first person to be able to convince Republicans to publicly rebuke George W. Bush and his policies in Iraq.  Besides, the only people who need a life raft are the Democrats.  I hate to say it, but it's true.  We have been too dead set against compromise to end this war.  If we are going to win the General Election in 2008 we are going to have to 1.) Begin to end the war by adopting the only political solution with the ability of overriding a Presidential veto and that would be Joe Biden’s and 2.) We need to nominate a Democrat with a history of bringing people together.  That is Joe Biden. 

As Democrats, we must remember, in General Elections we rely on the independent vote.  Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, who is currently leading in all of the early states, does not appeal to independents.  During the 1990s, when Clinton gave her began effort to achieve Universal Healthcare, $100 million was spent on the Harry and Louise campaign alone.  This idea of Universal Healthcare is still called HillaryCare by many Republicans and the term was used in the latest Republican debate, not to mention the fact that Clinton's name alone was brought up six times.  Candidates like Clinton are much too partisan to win in a general election.  She will energize Republicans and alienate independents.  Nominate Clinton and we will lose.  Nominate Joe Biden, a man with a solid record going back 35 years, and we Democrats will take back the White House!

Five years ago was critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq.  While the Senate was debating the war, Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October  7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq.  

At the time, Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk.  He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.  

Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq.  Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today.  He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.

Welcome to your lucky Saturday night Edwards Evening News! Tonight’s major headline: Elizabeth Edwards finds four leaf clover in Iowa!  I guess it wouldn’t be any fun if the other campaigns just packed up and went home right now, but that pretty much seals the deal. John Edwards wins in ’08, thanks to unusual Iowa flora!

Please follow below the fold for more news.

Bill Richardson gave an extremely thoughtful speech yesterday at Georgetown University on the responsible path out of Iraq. Richardson also outlined a new foreign policy for the U.S., discussed our relations with Iran and explained need to restructure our armed forces.  

On Iraq, Richardson stated, “If you haven't seen enough to know that we need to get all the troops out then you aren't watching the same war that I and the rest of America are seeing. I don't think just changing the mission is enough — we need to end the war.”

Everyone should watch Richardson's speech and hear the compelling case he makes for ALL U.S. troops to leave Iraq now.  The video clip follows.

John Edwards was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, and he called for an end to the outsourcing of military work to contractors like Blackwater.

The answer to this is to get American troops out of Iraq, which is why I'm committed to getting our combat troops out of Iraq, stopping combat missions, doing it the right way. But these things that are going on with Blackwater, they worry all Americans. I hear it everywhere I go. You know, people wonder, first of all, why a company whose executives gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Bush and to Republicans are getting these no bid contracts with hundreds of millions of dollars. There's something wrong with this picture.

Last night's debate brought the issue of residual forces in Iraq to the front and center Democratic presidential campaign. The candidates presented their differing views on whether or not they would have all us troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term in office — 2013 — six years from now.

Sadly, there was little difference between the “top tier” candidates, as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all said they will not have ended our involvement in Iraq by 2013.

Six years from now.

Blogger Jeffrey Feldman writes:

The top-tier candidates all agreed last night that the Iraq war is only half over–that if elected President, each will continue the U.S. occupation and U.S. combat operations inside Iraq until at 2013.   This means that the official Democratic position is now that the Iraq war will be a ten-year war.

Now, I strongly disagree with Feldman that waiting until 2013 is the “official Democratic position.” It is only the consensus position held by the three front-running candidates.

It is not Chris Dodd's official position. Nor is it the position of millions of Democrats and anti-war activists who are fighting to end the war today.

Dodd made his stance crystal clear in this exchange with moderator Tim Russert:

Tim Russert: I want to put you on the record. Will you pledge as Commander in Chief that you have all troops out of Iraq by January of 2013?

Chris Dodd: I will get that done.

Tim Russert: You'll get it done?

Chris Dodd: Yes, I will, sir.

That's where Dodd is. And yet, the consensus among the Clinton-Obama-Edwards trio, the three largest recipients of time in last night's Democratic debate, was that they would not end the war in Iraq by 2013.

Last night's debate made it abundantly clear that while there exists a consensus among the “top tier” of Democratic presidential that they won't be committed to end the war by 2013, there is an alternative: Chris Dodd. Dodd is the only candidate who's fighting to pass legislation to cut off funding for the war now while committing to get our troops out of Iraq in his first term in office if he can't succeed legislatively before then.

If you want to end the war in Iraq and if you have been a supporter of Barack Obama, John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton, I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you to join the Dodd Squad. You'll have a candidate who stands with you in your desire about ending the war and you will never, ever have to apologize for him pledging to keep US troops in Iraq for six more years.

We've waited “Long Enough” for an answer on how many residual troops the other
  Democratic Presidential Candidates will leave behind in Iraq. That's why the
  name of our campaigns' new TV ad is entitled "Long Enough."

Bill Richardson is changing the debate with his clear, bold, plan to end the
  war and bring all the troops home. This war will drag on as long as our troops
  are in Iraq.

Add your voice to end the war now!

I proudly work with Bill Richardson, the only candidate committed to leaving
  no troops behind.

  Joaquin H. Guerra

  Richardson for President

David Shuster, filling in for Tucker Carlson, humiliated Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on MSNBC today. She knew all the GOP talking points against Moveon.org, but she didn't know the name of the last soldier from her own district to be killed in Iraq:

Kagro X at Daily Kos picks up the story from Crooks and Liars:

http://www.crooksand…

http://www.dailykos….

Here's part of the transcript: 

Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”

Blackburn:”The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh – from my district I – I do not know his name -”

Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”

Blackburn: “I – I, you know, I – I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]

Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org.” [Snip]

Shuster: “But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”

Plenty more commentary in the thread below this diary:

http://www.dailykos….

Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred.  Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.

Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq.  Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.”  Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out.  Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.

Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:  

Zero troops! . . .  Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out.  We need to end this war now.

This diary is part of the candidate series for Bill Richardson on MyDD.  I am not part of his campaign.

Congressman, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and in his second term as Governor of New Mexico after a landslide victory in November 2006, Governor Bill Richardson is running for President to heal America and restore our place in the world. He possesses the experience, vision and leadership skills to be a great President.

Richardson is goal-oriented, assertive and confident. He has the ability to quickly evaluate a situation but is not rigid in his thinking and will modify policy when necessary. He takes a practical approach to governing, focusing on solutions to problems rather than ideology.

Later tonight President Bush will address the nation on the subject of Iraq. It will be the eighth time he's done so since the Iraq war started in 2003.

Senator Dodd issued the following statement on Bush's anticipated announcement that the 30,000+ troops deployed to Iraq during the “surge” will be brought home early next summer (as has always been the plan).

“Moving us in 10 months to where we were 10 months ago is not progress. It is the very definition of status quo.

“Not only is the President not offering us anything new; he's insulting our intelligence.

“Despite the fact that his top General is unable to say that the war is making us safer, all the President offers today is quite literally more of the same. More loss of life, more strain on our military readiness, and more degradation of our national security and our standing in the world. It is time for Congress to say 'no more.'

“What was clear to me before, and what should be abundantly clear to my colleagues after today, is that this President is not going to change course unless we force him to. There is only one way to do that – we must set a clear, hard and fast deadline for redeployment and, in order to enforce it, that deadline must be tied to funding.”

Last week BarbinMD asked this on DailyKos:

Atrios runs an occasional series of “Simple answers to simple questions” at his blog Eschaton.

Opening the opinion section of the Des Moines Register on Sunday, I found a piece by Richard Doak under the headline Still resisting deadlines, does Bush even want to end war?

No.

By Bobby Muller, Veterans for America

I have a fundamental question for you two – a really simple basic question. One that every American should be asking themselves right now as you – and the rest of our Senators – get ready to return from your month-long break.

When the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that our troops were at their breaking point, when the Department of Defense reported that our current deployment policies are compounding the wounds of war, causing mental health problems among our troops to skyrocket, and that one of the primary causes was our current policy of deploying troops back to Iraq and Afghanistan without adequate dwell time at home, why didn’t you do something about it?

Today, Governor Richardson reiterated his belief that the so-called “surge”in U.S. forces in Iraq has been a failure, and responded to Senator Clinton’s change of heart regarding the lack of progress in the war.

“I am pleased that Senator Clinton, today, recognizes that the surgehas produced no progress of any long term significance to the Iraq debacle.That is different from what she said yesterday to the Veterans of ForeignWars. But, it is that audience, who has sacrificed more than any of us, whodeserves to hear a clear statement that our sons and daughters and mothersand fathers are not going to be sacrificed because of an irrational commitmentto a failed strategy.

…  The only way out of the Iraq mess is to remove all U.S. troops, and to usethat leverage to get the warring parties to resolve their differences, andsurrounding Muslim nations to help stabilize the countr Any residual U.S. force reduces the chances for success, and exposes our troops as targets.  Our brave troops, and the American people, deserve better.”

Go to No Troops Left Behind to learn more.

The Washington Post has a story about the decline of support in rural areas of the Iraq War. The story looks at Tipton, Iowa that has had 2 soldiers die in combat in Iraq and has quotes from Rep. Bruce Braley.

It is “the intensity and passion” of the desire for an end to the war that strike Braley as new.

“There's more unity in the opposition now,” said Braley, whose district adjoins Tipton. “It was always easier to find optimists about the chances of success in Iraq two years ago. You don't now find people talking that way, even the most ardent supporters of the president's policy.”

Originally posted at Century of the Common Iowan.

As many in the progressive blogosphere are already  aware, the Senate has been debating the National Defense Authorization Act,  which will set military policy for the coming fiscal year.  My Democratic  colleagues and I – as well as a few but growing number of Republicans – are  determined to take this opportunity to demand fairer treatment of our troops and  force President Bush to listen to the will of the American people and change  course in the war in Iraq.

Yesterday, the first amendment to the defense bill was  authored by Senator Jim Webb of Virginia.  Senator Webb’s troop-protection  amendment would have required that active-duty troops receive as much time at  home – recuperating and retraining – as they spend in combat, while giving the  president the authority to waive these requirements if additional troops are  needed in an emergency.

I was proud to co-sponsor Senator Webb’s legislation  because I felt that it was time to bring the systematic abuse of our  re-deploying troops to an end. It is simply unacceptable that our troops are  being deprived of the time that they need to recover from combat, complete  additional training, and spend precious time with their families. Senator Webb’s  bill would have gone a long way toward restoring our military’s readiness by  giving our brave and courageous service men and women an established amount of  time between deployments to protect their mental and physical well-being while  providing some stability and predictability for their families.

UPDATE: I just assumed that with only a 50% success rate in the benchmark report that maybe the Administration’s report was slightly accurate or truthful.  Bad decision.

According to the National Security Network, at least 6 of the 8 “satisfactory” ratings were basically bullshit and inflated facts.  Check out their report here.

– – – – – –

Back in elementary school, the Des Moines Public Schools used to grade us on an odd scale compared to other kids my age (or so I thought).  It was on sort of a pass/fail system, but they called it ‘Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.’  Basically, you were graded with an S or N.  When reading through the administration’s final report on Iraqi benchmarks, it became clear to me that they have no idea what the fuck they’re doing.

President Bush held a press conference today and called the report’s results “a cause for optimism.”  Bullshit.

There were 18 specified benchmarks.  According to the report, only 8 were considered “satisfactory” and 8 were “unsatisfactory” with 2 that were a mixed bag.  If we’re going to judge simply on a pass fail mechanism it seems pretty clear to me that the Iraqis have failed to meet benchmarks (and even the ones they did meet they had to do largely with our help).

If I came home with a report card like this–after repeatedly failing for 4 previous years–my parents would be pissed and would look to change something.

Evidently Bush and Co. didn’t learn that lesson.  God help us.

Last week was a significant one in Bill Richardson's campaign for President, with a major address in Washington, D.C. on climate change and how to end the bloodshed in Iraq, along with a visit to Iowa. 

It was also a significant week for peace and stability in Korea and Asia – which highlights Richardson's expertise in foreign affairs and his diplomatic skills. With Richardson as President we get two for the price of one – a can-do leader on domestic issues and an experienced diplomat that knows how to bring people and nations together.

I wanted to pull out and highlight this clip from Senator Dodd speaking in Portsmouth, NH. In this segment, he talks about last week's Iraq supplemental vote and the need for leadership that will do what is right.

My transcription:

People have been very generous throughout today and yesterday in expressing their gratitude for being one of fourteen votes that was cast on Thursday on this issue, saying it was courageous for you to do what you did. To be candid, there was nothing courageous about it. To me, that was the right thing to do — what's courageous about doing what's right?

What's right is redeploying our troops out of Iraq and getting out of that civil war. That's what we ought to be doing here.

I'm determined to stick with this. We'll be back at this issue very quickly. We have a defense authorization bill, a defense appropriations bill, this supplemental will run out around the middle of September, first of October, so we'll be back at this issue very quickly.

And I'd be less than honest if I didn't tell you I was disappointed that more people either didn't make a decision early enough or be clear enough about it or that not enough people ultimately did what I think was the only right thing to do here.

And it's not only about how wrong this is as a policy, but I frame it in the context of our national security. No one is going to be elected president of the United States in 2008 if they don't make the country feel conscious about the security of our country. And what the policy in Iraq is doing, among other things, is making us far less secure. We're far more vulnerable, we're far more isolated, we're far less secure today as a result of this policy. And every hour that the policy goes on we're in greater and greater and greater danger. So this is about the national security of our nation in my view — and the wrong decision to get us involved and sustain a policy that is isolating us and reducing our moral leadership in the world.

So I'm going to stick with this – I want you to know that. I've got a bad habit about being dogged about things that I care about. On this one, I'm not moving. I want a policy that's going to end up some time this summer or this fall that says we're going to time-certain, we're going to be moving our military out of that civil conflict.

And then we're going to start using a robust diplomacy and politics and economics, engage and talk to the Iranians, deal with the Syrians, start doing what a great nation ought to be doing. And that is acting like a nation that understands how important diplomacy and politics can be to advance good interests and good causes.

I think that's what America wants. It's the kind of leadership we ought to have in the 21st century. And as your president, I'll do it – you have my word on that.

You can view the entirety of Senator Dodd's talk in Portsmouth here.

It's Memorial Day weekend.  It is dreary and raining and I can't get out and work on the pond like I wanted to.  So, I'm catching up on my reading.

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall recently published a letter from a reader that, I think sums up very well the feelings and opinions of the small number of Americans who either still support the war outright or support it in concept.  TPM reader JDG writes:

Yes, our war in Iraq is very much like the one in Viet Nam, but not the way its opponents mean the comparison. What's similar is this: Both of these war efforts by the United States have been sabotaged, probably on purpose, and we will probably lose this one as we lost Viet Nam, by the media's practice of showing us the daily body count in color on the nightly news every single day, again and again and again and again!

It is simply impossible for a democratic country to pursue any war, no matter how justified, to a successful conclusion under those conditions.

No matter what you think of the merits of the present war, it's obvious that two choices lie before America: either we go back to our pre-1950 policy (which most countries in the world still follow) of wartime censorship — not just of information that would help enemy commanders, but also of information that would undermine our own public's morale — or we may as well pack it in and invite China to rule our country, since we can never possibly win another war.

As I said, I think it is important to confront this idea head on.  It is, among a class of mostly male mostly conservative individuals a very popular and persuasive notion and it goes like this:  The media prevents us from winning because the American people cannot stand to see their boys and girls bleeding and dying on a daily basis.  It undercuts morale over the long haul and makes victory impossible by undermining the support for the war at home.

More after the jump.

Ed. Note: Cross-posted Political Forecast.

In a day of big news on the 2008 trail (new Dodd ad, memo about Clinton campaign pondering skipping Iowa, Edwards giving a big foreign policy speech, etc), here is something worth recognizing as a standout point: Sen. Christopher Dodd is going to vote against the new Iraq supplemental funding bill, the one without a timeline for withdrawal. The video of his reasoning is below:

And here is the full release from the campaign is below:

“This war has gone on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. Yet we are less secure and more isolated than before. We have lost 3,400 patriotic Americans and shattered our standing in the world. We are spending $2 billion a week – $8 billion a month – and are now caught in the middle of a civil war. Still, this President wants more of the same and this bill would give him his wish.

I cannot and will not simply give this President another blank check.

Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq. If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this President’s failed policy now – with clarity and conviction.

As the debate on the war continues, I will continue to fight for a firm deadline that is tied to funding which will allow for a responsible redeployment of U.S. combat troops in Iraq – because that’s the only way to responsibly bring this war to a conclusion.

I hope my colleagues would do the same.”

This comes after a new ad was released this morning by his campaign, where he called out Senators Clinton and Obama — the presumed front-runners — for finally coming to his position and voting in favor of the Feingold-Reid-Dodd Amendment in the Senate. It was a big time move, and I think a good way to gain traction here in Iowa.

Both Clinton and Obama are strong in Iowa, behind the powerhouse that is John Edwards. Right behind those three is Bill Richardson, who has gained traction with his message calling on Congress to de-authorize the war in Iraq and his new ads. In the latest Iowa Poll, Dodd wasn’t gaining traction. With the ads and the strong movement against the war in Iraq and the calls for troop withdrawals by March of 2008, Dodd is putting himself firmly in the anti-Iraq war camp with Richardson and Edwards. While Obama has consistently been against the war, he can’t put himself in this camp because he’s not coming out strong for withdrawal, deauthorization, or any other kind of leadership position on the issue. Clinton is Clinton on Iraq (I’m glad she’s calling on the Pentagon to do more to prepare for withdrawal scenarios, but toeing the line just doesn’t mesh with me).

Sen. Dodd is a strong voice to end this war, particularly in the Senate. Sens. Clinton and Obama have started following his lead, but beyond Sen. Russ Feingold, he’s the only other one pushing strongly in the Senate for an end to this debacle. And he deserves credit for bring that debate into the Senate, as well as bringing it to the race by forcing Clinton and Obama to clearly take a stand. And now, as the closing part of the release shows, he’s making an issue of how Clinton and Obama are going to vote on the supplemental. And they should vote against it. Make this a Republican bill — make them own it. They’re the ones continuing this mess.

I’m staying neutral for a while, but if a candidate wants to keep convincing me they’re worthy of being the next President, then they need to start leading the charge to put an end to the Iraq war. It is that simple.

Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd is in Des Moines today to hold in a statewide discussion on how to end the war in Iraq and strengthen America. The forum will take place on Friday at 12PM CST at Drake University. It will also be broadcast via live web video to a gathering in Iowa City, as well as having smaller kitchen-table style groups that are listening to the forum in Decatur City, Sioux City, Charles City, and Burlington. The same web video feed that Iowans in Iowa City will used to see the forum will also be transmitted live around the web via UStream.tv embedded video players. Get more information at http://chrisdodd.com/iowatownhall.

Watch below from noon to 1PM. While you wait for the broadcast to start, read Lynda Waddington's article on the Dodd campaign's use of UStream.

p>

Later this morning the Senate will vote to overcome a Republican filibuster that is preventing the Feingold-Reid-Dodd amendment from being considered as an addition to the Water Resources Development Act reauthorization.

To discuss the importance of the amendment and what it means for American security, as well as why Senator Dodd has taken a firm position on ending the war through Feingold-Reid-Dodd, we're holding a live web chat via UStream.tv. Chris Dodd for President Policy Director Amos Hochstein and Deputy Communications Director Hari Sevugan will answer your questions about where Dodd stands and what is happening today in the Senate.

You can ask your questions here in the comment thread. We'll do our best to respond in real time on UStream.

The web chat will start at 10 AM EST and is scheduled for thirty minutes.

Hey there Bleeding Heartland,

My name is Matt Browner-Hamlin and I’ve just joined the Dodd campaign’s internet team as a traveling blogger and netroots outreach guy. I’m going to be spending a lot of time in Iowa with Senator Dodd – including a trip late this week. I’m  looking forward to traveling around the Hawkeye State and getting to know the Democratic activists who are going to shape the outcome of the caucus.  I want to be sure that members of the Bleeding Heartland community know what’s going on with Senator Dodd’s campaign and that I am available to you if you have questions. If you’re able to attend any of Senator Dodd’s events this week, I’d love to meet you in person for a bite to eat or a coffee — just give me a shout [email].

Now, on to the important stuff.

Check out Senator Dodd’s first TV commercial of the 2008 election. The ad is up in Iowa, New Hampshire, and on national cable.

Here’s the transcript of the ad:

Dave Loebsack spoke over lunch at the DFA training in Cedar Rapids today.  Loebsack was very well recieved and thanked the group of activists that helped him get elected in the 2nd district.  Loebsack talked a lot about the Iraq War and the funding bill that was passed yesterday in the US House.

My initial reaction to hearing about this blog was, “Ah, the inevitable, exploitative follow-up to the tragedy-of-the moment.  Some soldier trying to buy himself an easy ticket out or a good job afterwards.”

But that changes as soon as one reads along a bit.  This is the real, compelling and heart-wrenching, self-help of a soldier caught in bureaucratic purgatory.

If you oppose the war, if you support the war, you must read Walter Reed.

I don’t think it gets any more clearer than this from Iowa’s former Governor Tom Vilsack:

“It’s time for Congress to step up, and cut off funding for the status quo. I think it is time for us to end this war. I think it is very clear from the intelligence reports and from the American public … that this is a civil war and our kids are in the middle of it.

It is time for Congress to step up. They have constitutional and a moral responsibility to cut the funding and say to the President in very clear terms: we are listening to the American people …”

He makes it clear that Congress needs to send a message to President Bush, echoing the thoughts and opinions of the American people, and end this war.  And he says it in a persuasive way.

Sen. John Edwards says that silence is betrayal when it comes to Iraq and he is absolutely right.  Today he said a non-binding resolution against the President’s plan was essentially worthless.  Sens. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold agreed.  I think that judging from Gov. Vilsack’s statements, he is in the same boat.

Kevin Thurman, Vilsack’s Deputy Internet Director for his campaign, posted just a few minutes ago over on Daily Kos highlighting Vilsack’s interview with Norah O’Donnell where he made the comments above.  As Kevin wrote:

“We can’t wait for things to happen two years from now when we win in 2008. It’s time to match our values with action. Time to match our hope with vision.”

Some candidates are taking the time to seriously lead on Iraq as an issue in this race.  Others are just backpedaling from earlier comments or simply treading water.  Vilsack and Edwards have taken strong and clear positions.  Dodd could even be categorized in the same boat.

Vilsack also has taken the lead in rejecting the idea of capping the amount of troops in Iraq, simply based on the logic of his position.  It clearly doesn’t make sense to support ending the war in Iraq and opposing escalation, while at the same time saying, “Well, if you’re going to keep up the war anyway, you can only X amount of soldiers.”  Instead, he’s advocating a position of actually fighting to end the war and bring troops home.

Vilsack’s right, and Democrats should unite behind the same message and in similar form: “It is time for us to end this war!”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biggest challenge in Iowa may be the Iraq War and her reputation as a hawk. She tries to dodge the single most important issue in the 2008 race; she knows it is her Achilles heel. When asked at the IDP Central Committee meeting this morning, she almost apologized for her 2002 vote authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq. Almost. She said she takes “responsibility” for the vote and said she would not have voted that way had she’d known what she does now. But she added that there are no “do-overs” in life, and we need to discuss what to do now.

It was just dumb luck that I got to have a personal, 5-minute conversation with Hillary. I just happened to be by the coffee machine as she was exiting the building, and I struck up a conversation over her hawkish reputation as she shook my hand. To tell you the truth, I was surprised at how personable she is in conversation, unhurried and very at ease (I think JoDee Winterhof is not yet confident enough with Hillary to pull her away from worthless conversations with party activists like me).