If Edwards is serious about promoting the immediate withdrawl of 50,000 troops, he'll have to do a

[Clarkie1]

better job of explaining how he arrived at that figure, and what other steps he advocates in order for the immediate withdrawl of 50,000 troops to contribute to the goals of stabilizing Iraq and the region to whatever extent possible, dealing with Syria and especially Iran, and ensuring that the remaining troops are not put in greater danger.

If he expects to be taken seriously by the Congress or anyone else he needs to back up his figures with more than just a number. There are a lot of questions that will be asked, such as why 50,000 and not 20,000 or 100,000 or all? And, is proposing a specific number of troops to be withdrawn the best way to influence the policy, or should Democratic leaders be looking at the bigger picture and the foundation of the entire neo-con agenda? Is it really realistic to think that the administration will respond positively to Edwards' proposal, or that the Congress is capable of implementing it even if they agreed? Is is realistic for a Presidential candidate to attempt to micromanage a war by proposing a specific number of troops to be withdrawn immediately with no further reasoning behind the number? What happens a month from now, six months from now, a year from now, two years from now. Is it realistic to think that the best solution to advocate now will be the best solution to advocate in the future, given that the situation is constanly evolving?

By an overzealous, easy focus on troop numbers in Iraq, are Democrats being led to ignore larger developing and interrelated issues with Syria and especially Iran? Are we discussing the number of deck chairs on the Titanic, and not giving enough thought to how to steer around the iceberg ahead? Do we even see the iceberg from the chairs? Is it just too hard to talk about the iceberg? Do we want to pretend it's not there because it's easier to keep talking about the number of chairs and how to rearrange them?

When Democrats debate, will the winner be determined by who outdoes the other by proposing a greater number of troops to be withdrawn immediately, or who has the shorter timetable for complete withdrawl, or will Democrats address the larger strategic policy issues without being drawn into an ineffective tactical sideshow where we argue with each other over the best tactics in Iraq when the underlying bigger issue is a global policy none of us support?

[ProSense]

1. Go with addressing

overall policy without fear mongering and with knowledge of the region and experience in foreign policy.

[Clarkie1]

2. I agree Kerry, like Clark, is speaking to the larger concerns at least to some extent.

As far as I can tell, Edwards is merely playing politics. His focus is on the best soundbite for himself, not effective foreign policy.

He doesn't have a serious way forward out of this (and by "this" I do not simply mean Iraq), and I have serious doubts he understands the complexity of where we are at now.

[Clarkie1]

3. This thread is over 4 hours old....and still no Edwards supporter has come to his defense.

What can I say...I think that speaks louder than words.

[JI7]

4. did you block them ?

you said you were blocked, did you do it in return ? that would prevent responses.

maybe they have you on ignore.

[Clarkie1]

5. I did not block them. It is possible I suppose Edwards supporters have me on ignore.

Why I do not know, I am simply asking questions. I want to know why exactly Edwards thinks 50,000 will be the most effective amount to withdraw now...if the goal is out of Iraq as soon as possible, why not withdraw them all now? If the goal is to withdraw at a certain rate without destabilizing the situation, how did he arrive at this particular figure to withdraw now?

I want to understand his reasoning, whether or not I agree with it...assuming, as I said, he didn't just pick a number.

[DaveinMD]

6. I think

it speaks of people having no interest in the flame wars that some are trying to start.

[Clarkie1]

7. I think it speaks of some people not having an interest in a discussion of facts. nt

[DaveinMD]

9. nope

You don't know were Edwards came up with that number, nor does anyone here not directly involved in the campaign's discussion. Its pure flamebait right now.

[Divernan]

10. I haven't seen any link that Edwards ever actually put out that number.

On another thread a DUer said they thought Edwards had said that - but no link.

[JI7]

11. how is it flamebait to ask how he got that number ?

i haven't read all the OPs threads, but i don't see how asking about where he got that number in itself is flamebait ?

[DaveinMD]

12. the tone is accusatory

as the opening poster has accused Edwards of just playing politics. Its clearly flamebait.

[Divernan]

15. Because he has no factual cite that Edwards ever even cited that number.

Clarkie is just dashing around DU tonight starting multiple threads "calling out" Edwards' supporters.

[Clarkie1]

18. Edwards has said to withdraw 50,000 troops now.

Both Edwards supporters and myself agree on that. That's not my question.

[Divernan]

8. You're attacking Edwards w/out factual link he ever said that.

I'm not an Edwards supporter - or detractor, but I can't help but have noticed that you never seem to pass up an opportunity to attack him. In this case, you're going after him on the basis of what one of his supporters said they thought Edwards had said. It's hearsay. Until you can come up with a direct quote to attribute to Edwards, you are simply attacking one of his supporters. I think you lose your impact and credibility by taking this negative, unsubstantiated position. It's certainly legitimate to ask an Edwards' supporter, or any poster on DU, if they can provide a direct link to a published quote. If they can't, they can't. End of story.

Why not start a thread telling DU how Clark proposes to withdraw American forces from Iraq, if in fact he has gone on the record about it? I would be interested in learning what he proposes on that issue.

On edit: I just read the two preceding posts. Proves my point - you are perceived as starting flame wars. Then you respond that others aren't interested in discussing facts, but you have not linked to any factual cite as to what Edwards ever said.

[Clarkie1]

14. I have in fact, asked Edwards this question directly.

via a "voice cast." I hope he answers the question on his next podcast.

All I know as to what Edwards said is withdraw 50,000 troops now. I just want to know how he came up with the number, that's all. It's not my problem to come up with factual links showing Edwards said what his supporters say he said...that's THEIR job, because they made the claim!

[Divernan]

17. So where's your link that Edwards ever said that number?

It's the most basic request anyone could make of you. I absolutely doubt that Wes Clark shoots like from the hip like you do with unsubstantiated accusations based on hearsay. Your behavior doesn't reflect well on your candidate.

[Clarkie1]

21. Fine, here's your link...happy now?

Why is this my job to provide you this information and not the job of Edwards supporters who tout this?

"While in the Senate in 2002, Edwards voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. But based on conversations with the liberal interest groups which constitute the recently formed anti-escalation coalition, he seems to have repaired his relations with anti-war activists by authoring a 2005 Washington Post op-ed which began with the words "I was wrong," by calling for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops, and by urging Congress to flex the power of the purse."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/01/echoing_mlk_on_.html

[ultraist]

13. Rush Limbaugh style

Has it occured to you and a couple of your Clarkie friends that oftentimes we do not respond to posts that are sleazy Rush Limbaugh style attacks because they don't deserve a response?

It's apparent that a couple of Clarkies are absolutely freaking out here tonight because John Edwards is not only polling very well but is getting a lot of very positive coverage for his speech at Riverside Church yesterday.

The immature and hostile reaction does not help to build up support for your candidate. If you think you've won over a single Clark supporter through your tactics, you are deluding yourselves.

I'm now putting you on ignore as I noted in your other thread that you started to call out DUers, which violates the rules of DU.

[Clarkie1]

16. Are you going to provide me to any links showing Edwards reasoning?

Or just whine and name-call?

[paulk]

25. I don't find it a "sleazy Rush Limbaugh style attack"

and I don't support either Clark or Edwards.

It seems a pretty legitimate question. I would be interested in seeing what Edwards policy toward the entire region is - something along the lines of what Clark, Kerry, or Biden has put out. If Edwards is to be credible on foreign policy, he needs to provide more substance than he has, at least in my opinion.

[welshTerrier2]

19. "determined by who outdoes the other by proposing a greater number of troops withdrawn"

i hope so ... and by 2008, it better be a bigger number than 50,000 ...

as for Edwards picking his 50,000 troops out of mid-air, let me say this ... if one supports "immediate withdrawal" of all troops as i do, i am NOT predisposed to challenge 50,000 as a starting point ... i do not think it is necessary to justify one number versus another based on some form of military strategy ... the strategy is to get the hell out of there ...

if 50,000 is put on the table, i think it makes a powerful statement that we are leaving and this is our "down payment" to prove it ... i'd prefer to think of American troops as human lives rather than seeing them as "deck chairs being rearranged" ... i see our occupation of Iraq as disruptive; not constructive ...

nor do i think it's reasonable to assume that calling for the withdrawal of 50,000 troops precludes diplomacy with Syria and Iran and the broader Middle East ... certainly, the two can occur simulaneously ... also, no greater burden should accrue to those making a case to withdraw the 50,000 than should accrue to those who argue the 50,000 should NOT be withdrawn ... two sides of the same coin ...

in the interest of honest disclosure, i am not now nor have i ever been an Edwards supporter ... if the premise is that we need diplomacy and a political solution and that we need to talk to Syria and Iran and fully understand the context of the broader Middle East, count me in! but if the premise is that we are stuck in Iraq at current troop levels until some form of political or diplomatic progress occurs, i.e. a "pre-condition" for withdrawal, count me out!!! make that OUT NOW!!!

[Clarkie1]

20. The point is, Welsh, we can't bring peace to the region just by adding or taking away troops.

I am really concerned that people are equating peace with withdrawing all the troops, immediately. It's not that simple.

To the degree any kind of peace is possible in the region will require a lot more than that...which you in fact acknowledge.

[Clarkie1]

22. Kick. I want answers. nt

[JNelson6563]

23. I have looked

but I haven't seen any explanation given. I did see where he suggested that but cannot find where he gives his reasons. With that said I would think Edwards has enough of a clue to have an explanation for this plan. Surely he's got military advisors.

I'll be interested to know his thoughts on this as I am interested in any plan that begins serious draw down of our troops.

I looked everywhere and could find nothing. I doubt the Edwards supporters here can actually know his mind and provide his reasoning to you either. You'll have to wait and see I think, like the rest of us.

Julie

[CarolNYC]

24. Thanks Julie....

for at least trying to answer the question, which I think is a legitimate one to ask.

This thread just emphasizes the difference between Edwards and Clark supporters, though. When Clark is questioned, criticized, attacked, etc, Clark supporters respond to the attacks or concerns.

When John Edwards is attacked, questioned, criticized, etc, his supporters attack Clark supporters. It is extremely rare for any concerns to actually be addressed by his supporters. Curious.

:shrug:

(And I do understand full well that there are some Clark supporters that can be really antagonistic toward Edwards.)