John Edwards: No More Chances for Bush! (Daily Kos)

[Catchawave]

by TomP
Thu May 10, 2007 at 02:11:21 PM EDT
John Edwards spoke for many of us today when he told George Bush that he gets "no more chances" on Iraq. It's over. End this war now!

Come with me over the fold to read what John Edwards said.

TomP's diary :: ::
"The president today asked for yet another chance. We can no longer afford to bet American troops on a chance.

In fact, even members of the president's own party are running out of patience with the relentless pursuit of his failed Iraq policy. Why on earth would Congress make a concession to Bush when support to end the war may be climbing? Congress should stand firm.

The only real power it has to end this war is to cut off funds. They passed a plan to support our troops and bring them home, and they should do it again. Nothing else will work. And if the president vetoes it, then it is his willful behavior alone that is standing in the way of what our troops need."
NO MORE CHANCES!

No more blood for Bush!

Please sign the Petition:

We need massive public pressure right now calling on Congress to stand up to George Bush and end this war. Help us hit our goal of gathering 100,000 voices this week.

Will Congress revert to symbolic gestures and more endless extensions? Or will they use real funding power to send back a binding plan to end the war? The answer is up to you.

Petition Text:

As your constituent, I'm asking you to stand up to President Bush and not write another blank check for endless war in Iraq. The president has vetoed funding for the troops, and he's the only one responsible for blocking the resources they need. Please stand firm—support the troops with a plan to end the war and the funding they need to do it.
Tell Congress to Stand Up to Bush
Stand up to Bush

Joe Trippi laid it on the line in an interview at TPMCafe:

Cont'd.....http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/10/135853/193

[calimary]

1. DONE!

K&R!

Sign the petition. Then call your reps.

MAN THE PHONES:

1 (800) 828 - 0498

1 (800) 459 - 1887

1 (800) 614 - 2803

1 (866) 340 - 9281

1 (866) 338 - 1015

1 (877) 851 - 6437

TOLL FREE to the Capitol Hill switchboard.

NOW!

WHAT MORE DO THEY NEED that constitutes IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES??????????

Forcryingoutloud, WHAT MORE DO THEY NEED????

[waiting for hope]

2. K&R!!!

Can I sign more than once? ;)

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :hi:

[Auggie]

3. Geez -- I'm warming up to this guy. He's been showing backbone.

[Morgana LaFey]

5. Just remember

it's REAL easy to quarterback from where he's sitting. You can have a lot more clarity, a lot less fog, when you're outside the beltway, and he gets a lot more interaction with real people who are filling his ears daily with their frustrations about the war.

When he was on the inside -- IN the Senate -- he didn't do as well as some of the others.

Just sayin' -- .

[JNelson6563]

10. Just as important to remember

If you think it's easy to "quarterback" from where he's sitting, let us be honest about how it is infinitely easier to "quarterback" from where we're sitting. On our butts at home behind anonymous screen names.

Just sayin'

Julie

[Morgana LaFey]

17. That's a good point

But is it your opinion that it invalidates mine?

[JNelson6563]

21. Depends

Are you "in the game"? I am.

Julie

[calteacherguy]

9. How does this show "backbone?"

Not an attack...just asking. What has he to fear by slamming Senate Dems?

For the record, I think our Democratic senators are serving us well without John Edwards.

[bonito]

4. No link for the petition n/t

[waiting for hope]

6. That's easy...

www.johnedwards.com
It's right there - big and bold.

[bonito]

7. Thanks n/t

[zulchzulu]

8. So the co-sponsor of the IWR who was on Senate Intelligence Committee wants to end the war?

There's a sucker born every minute.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. It is 2007. Some candidates want to end the war, others want to continue financing it

We need to look at the position each candidate has going forward. It does not make sense to decide to vote based on what position candidates had on Iraq five years ago.

[Catchawave]

13. Well stated, also, some Dems weren't in Congress

way back then, who knows how they would have voted :)

There's Edwards News Roundups on Daily Kos every night around 9ish. Here's tonight's:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/11/192525/779

[abburdlen]

14. I'm curious

if it doesn't make sense for us to look at a candidates positions years ago then should people point out the flip-flopping of candidates on the other side of the aisle? Romney and Rudy's change of heart on abortion are highlighted all the time by the netroots and I think it's reasonable to do so. I guessing thought you don't think comparing what a candidate says today to what they said a year or two ago is helpful.

I'm glad Edwards has seen the light on Iraq but it's going to take more than an apology and a vague explanation to get me to trust his judgment.

Frankly, this 'You're with us or against us' on the Iraq funding is worrisome coming from a Democrat especially after hearing that attitude from the current administration.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Iraq is an evolving situation

The facts surrounding Iraq are constantly changing. This is not the case with things like abortion and guns. Even on such issues it is reasonable for a candidate to change his viewpoint. The argument against Romney is that he suddenly lurched right on several issues and in a short period of time and that these "conversions" coincided with his preparations to run for president. If he did this over a decade or did so on one or two issues he would have more credibility. Giuliani's problem is that his position on abortion is not pro-choice or pro-life. He is multiple choice on abortion. He is all over the map on the issues in order to appeal to every imaginable view on the issue. If he had a consistent new position on abortion he would not be receiving as much criticism for his stance on abortion.

The Iraq situation's volatility is kind of like a football game. As the game wears on changing realities require adaptations. You could have the greatest game plan ever entering the game but if it is no longer a winning plan in light of the situation the game is in in the second quarter it will be meaningless unless the coach adapts to the new realities. Edwards had a bad position at the beginning of the war; today he has a good plan to win the game. Some have been consistently wrong on Iraq. Others were right at the beginning but have not adequately adapted to the new realities. Kucinich is the only one who has been consistently right over the past five years. If people are going to vote based on their position in 2002 they should vote for Kucinich. He was against the war then, he is against it now. He has not voted to finance Bush's war and continues to favor de-funding the war.

As far as the funding issue goes, I believe that you cannot be "opposed" to something you are helping finance. Voting to finance Bush's war when you claim to oppose it is like financing your cousin's drug habit while claiming you are opposed to it.

[abburdlen]

16. thank-you

for the well thought and detailed reply.

Still, given the reality the Democrats do not have the numbers to override a veto I'm still not sure Edwards plan solves anything in Iraq.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. No problem

If Democrats refuse to finance the war Bush will be forced to cave. He will be forced to either end the war immediately or have to accept funding with strings attached. This will require unanimous Democratic support, though, and gaining one Republican in the case of the Senate. This is unlikely because some Dems are willing to "compromise."

[abburdlen]

19. it will take more

than getting one Republican

To override the veto in the Senate Democrats need what another 16 votes right? Edwards calling out Democrats who take about any sort of compromise might work to help keep the 51 votes we already have but I don't see how it helps bring more to our side.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Yes, but it will take 51 to deny funding for the war

If there is no funding bill for the war, the veto is irrelevant. The veto only comes into play if Congress is willing to finance the war and then Bush has a choice of whether to accept the bill. If 51 Senators stand up and say they will no longer vote to fund the war we can end this war. This is unlikely but now is a time for leadership. The war is a disaster. Let's stop financing it. Democrats won last year to end the war. Let's fulfill that mandate.

[w4rma]

11. Most electable! Most well-spoken! Most Progressive! Edwards for President! (nt)