Edwards Links Clinton to Bush on Iraq, Iran

The following piece is published on Iowa Independent as well as HuffPost's OffTheBus.

n a speech billed as a "major foreign policy address," John Edwards offered as much criticism for Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as he did for the Bush Administration.

"Hillary is voting like a hawk in Washington, D.C. and talking like a dove in Iowa," Edwards told a crowd of 200 on the University of Iowa campus, continuing the aggressive critique of the Democratic frontrunner that he launched at last week's debate. Lines from the debate, such as mocking the concept "general election mode" with "we only need one mode, tell the truth mode," appeared again.

"Senator Clinton once again sided with Bush and the neocons" on the recent vote branding Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, Edwards said. Winning some of the 20 minute speech's first applause for again saying his vote for the Iraq War was wrong, the former senator said "Senator Clinton and I learned very different lessons from the run-up to the Iraq war."

"We have seen this movie before and it doesn't end well," he said, noting the Bush Administration's repeated references to weapons of mass destruction, this time in Iran. "In Iraq, it doesn't end at all."

In addition to the "compare and contrast" with Clinton, the policy meat of the speech (handily outlined in advance) was a five-point Iran plan complete with bullet points:

# End the preventive war doctrine.
# Tough but targeted sanctions. "The Bush-Cheney sanctions Senator Clinton supports are the most belligerent sanctions possible."
# Incentives for Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
# Re-engage diplomacy with Iran. "Communication is not a concession - we talked to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War."
# Re-engage with other powers like China and Russia.

But before all that, Edwards said to applause, "we have to begin by ending this mess of a war in Iraq." He noted that the Democratic Congress has had a year to move on ending the war but has not acted and pledged "no combat troops, no combat missions, no combat period" by the end of 2009. In contrast, "Senator Clinton has not had specific answers to specific questions," he said, mocking her pledge to meet with military leaders within two months of taking office. "She will extend the war, I will end the war."

Edwards seemed so focused on Clinton that he paused for a moment when I asked him, in a brief press availability after the speech, to compare his stands on the war with other rivals such as Barack Obama. Edwards noted that Obama had missed the Iran vote "I think he has said he would have voted no, and if that's accurate, if he would have voted no, that's the correct position. We have had some differences about how aggressive Congress should be to bring this war to an end, with Senator Obama, but the big differences are between Senator Clinton and myself."

The tone was serious as Edwards stuck close to the script, which lay abandoned on the podium as he talked to the press. 26 pages for the 20 minute address, double spaced, about a 14 point font. In a rare omission, the speech did not begin with his customary "Elizabeth's fine" reference. After the speech, a little rally hoopla returned, as the volume was turned up on Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising" and Edwards struck the quintessential candidate pose with a baby.

The focus on Clinton was also on the mind of Edwards advisor Joe Trippi, who was lurking near the press table at the back of the hall. "We're here to keep making the clear differences between us and Hillary Clinton," he told me before the speech. "On Iraq, she wants to continue combat missions, we want to end it. In Iran she's bought into the terminology of the Bush administration of the `global war on terror,' and Bush is already using that. Her vote to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization was a mistake. We wouldn't have done that, Biden didn't, Dodd didn't."

Are Obama and Edwards canceling each other out in the race to be the Not Hillary candidate? "Obama's been out there for 10 months, and he hasn't really taken hold," Trippi says. "In a lot of ways, he's had his shot to make his case, and we're just beginning to make ours," he said, citing the recent debut of Edwards's first major TV buy in Iowa. "People saw Edwards make his case in the debate and saw the differences with Hillary Clinton."

Edwards is focusing a lot of attention on Johnson County, where the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is very influential. SEIU represents University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics nurses, and purple SEIU shirts were much in evidence at the event. Local Edwards supporter Tom Carsner, a former county party chair, reported on a campaign commercial shoot last night at City High in Iowa City that featured an even larger flag than the one at the rally, which measured about 10 by 15 feet.

"I didn't disagree with anything he said," commented local activist Peter Fisher, who says his choice of candidates has narrowed to "a short list of six. Not Hillary. (pause) And not Kucinich."

"Gravel?!?" I ask incredulously.

"Gore," says Fisher firmly. Edwards must not be worried about a late entry by the Nobel laureate, as he said "Al Gore got it right about the preventive war doctrine" during the speech both to underscore a point and drop a name that's popular with the Democratic base.

Edwards returns to Johnson County again Sunday for a local fundraiser for two of his supporters, County Supervisor Terrence Neuzil and recent Edwards endorser Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek, both up for re-election next year.

Comments

[itsnotmyfault]

Edwards has already demonstrated his capacities on the national stage in his run as VP candidate. He is in part responsible for where the country is today by his inability to effectively delineate the differences offered by the Democratic ticket in 2004.
He has no chance of coming out of the primaries as the selected Democratic standard bearer yet is doing all that he can to undermine the successful run of another democrat... any democrat in the national election. And he is doing this with Rovian qualities of bad behavior, mischaracterising the positions of the competing Dems. He should be pillaried for his duplicitous behavior.
John.....Run your campaign on your record and your ideas and don't set up the Republicans for 4 or 8 more years at the helm. It will destroy our country which is already on the edge.

[Macready]

Edwards is so right about mz hillary . . .

[Boadicea]

Will someone please point out to me where on her website or in her speeches or debate answers Hillary said that she wants to continue the war in Iraq? She wants to have personnel in Iraq tracking al Qaeda. That's not combat. And I see it as a good thing, as do most Americans. Al Qaeda is now a major terrorist training site.

Edwards is falsifying Hillary's position.

He is trying to paint HIllary as The War Candidate, which is false. He's doing this because his own complicity in the Iraq Invasion was even deeper than Hillary's, and he's doing the old Republican thing of attacking your opponent where you yourself are weak.

Edwards showed the worst possible judgment at the only meaningful moment in his political career. He's never shown even once that he has any political leadership qualities at all, let alone good judgment. He talks well. That's it. But accomplishments in a political forum? Nada.

I'm not a fan of Clinton's approach to foreign policy; she's surrounded herself with backward thinking imperialists. But this lying on the part of Edwards about Hillary's Iraq position is shameful.

[feelfree]

Better a hawk than a chicken hawk in the White House. And better a hawk than a dove in 2009 with the current situation in the ME.

[Plowboy]

Is is about time people started to speak up about the duplicity of Hillary Clinton. She is one Republican I will not vote for. I also hope that others are noting the rush Neocons are making to their new party, the "Democratic" Party of HRC. That should tell us something. They can switch faster than elections can remove their used up toadies. So Murdock loves Hillary now. And a lot of other "Democrats" as well.

[leftLibertarian]

Dr John,
As a former Democrat who left the party after their feeble response to Bush and Cheney, you are correct.

Hillary Clinton is Bush with a bra.

Ron Paul for president!

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Edwards has now defined his campaign as in the desparate last throes when he has nothing to lose by going negative. This counter productive move unfortunately is being communicated to voters, and will further marginalize him with the front runner. After this, how can he come to the stage on the last night of the convention in a show of party unity? Indeed, this must be his swan song in the political arena all together!

[NABNYC]

The headline should read "Hillary's position on Iraq and Iran same as Bush's. Edwards points that out."

Hillary voted for the war on Iraq, a war of aggression by the U.S. Kind of like Japan attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Unprovoked against a country that had not attacked us, not threatened to attack us, had not done anything to us. Unprecedented embrace of illegal conduct in violation of international war crimes laws. Hillary voted for that.

She has never changed her mind. Her only criticism of Bush is that should would have done a better job waging that war. She would have apparently killed even more people, destroyed more homes, sent in more troops, been more efficient at torture. But she's never withdrawn her support for that war. And she votes to fund it again and again, and vows to continue it for an indefinite term.

Hillary supports war against Iran, just like Bush. In fact, she goes him one better because she has also pledged to start a war against Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hillary is a Republican, a Bush Republican. She is supported by all the major corporate right-wing sponsors in the U.S., including Rupert Murdoch. She supports sending more U.S. jobs out of this country and bringing in millions more immigrants to further drive down the wages and working conditions of Americans.

Don't vote her.

[DontSpin]

Do people ask themselves "what is truly the difference between Clinton's and Bush's positions on Iraq" They both want to bring troops home "responsibly" and neither one thinks troops should all necessarily be all home by 2013. It is okay if you are in support of this position, but don't vote for Hillary thinking you're going to get something radically different.

[Average]

Edwards is DESPERATELY SEEKING ANYTHING to try to APPEAR like he has an idea and a clue. Does not work.

[alkamm]

The key to Edwards' comments about Hillary is that we can see how he could attack the Republican candidates once he's nominated. He'll clearly, and logically insist we look at their contradictions and misrepresentations.
Edwards is here to save us from another disastrous Democratic blunder. Hillary hype is beginning to wane, but so many people in high places have vested interests in her being the candidate that she is likely to survive until actual voters swing their support for Edwards in order to fight back against corporate and big business foolishness.

[LordMoon]

Hillary Clinton, is Bush's hand picked successor. She's the "Default", choice who will continue to globalize the economy, in the event a Republican cannot overcome Bush's disastrous legacy.

The Iraq and Iran war are a part of Globalization, to control resources for the Corporate Crooks who control our country.

Yes, they will allow her some "tiny" changes if she's elected, health care reform, increased parental leave. But, the substance of her administration will continue to further their globalization agenda. That's her deal.
That's why they'll let her win.