On Monday John Edwards said he supports Congressman Jack Murtha's plan to try to end the war in Iraq. With his support for Murtha and his repeated calls for Congress to defund the war, Edwards has claimed the strongest antiwar position of any serious contender for the White House.
Edwards's plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq has much in common with the Murtha approach, so his support for Murtha was no surprise, but he had never stated it so clearly.
Brian Lehrer: And what if you were in the house? This Murtha plan...
John Edwards: I'm for it.
BL: ... to starve the war by requiring shorter stays for American troops, longer intervals between tours, some other things...you're for it?
JE: I'm for it.
BL: You'd vote for it.
JE: I'm for it.
BL: Alright then, do one other thing on this before we leave Iraq to distinguish yourself from the other presidential c...
JE: Can I interrupt you for just a minute?
BL: Sure
JE: You did that very quickly. The Murtha plan that I know about is one that requires American troops not to be sent back for another deployment in Iraq, some of them 3rd and 4th deployments without adequate training, without adequate equipment - is that what you're talking about?
BL: Yes.
JE: OK. Yes, I'm for that.
BL: Which is just an indirect way to stop the troop surge, true?
JE: Yeah, yeah - it certainly affects the number of troops in Iraq.
There are dozens of Democratic approaches for trying to end the war, and sometimes it's difficult to discern who supports what, much less the merits of each approach. But it's clear that some Democratic politicians are unwilling to go far enough because they fear the GOP's tired, bogus, and malicious "not-supporting-the-troops" charge. Edwards, Murtha, and the American people understand that the strongest--and most obviously constitutional--way for Congress to try to stop the war is through the appropriations process.
It seems, in fact, that Edwards is willing to go even farther than Murtha. Of the serious contenders for the White House, only he supports outright defunding.
Bob Schieffer: ...[Schwarzenegger] says look, the Congress should either cut the funding on Iraq or let the president do what he wants to do."
Edwards: I think we should do the former. I think the Congress should use its authority, its funding authority, to bring down the troop levels, an initial 40 to 50 thousand out of Iraq, and continue to use that authority to redeploy troops out of Iraq over the next year or so.
I'm increasingly inclined to support Edwards in '08, but I can't get too excited about his strong stand, not unless it has an impact. (What are political points next to dead bodies?) That's why I hope other notable candidates--like Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and especially Barack Obama--take similarly stands. (Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are lost causes, I'm afraid.) It's simply not enough to present a plan for withdrawal. If you're serious about ending the war, you must try to force Bush, through the appropriations process, to end the war.
As Congressbacks away from a bold stand on the war, it's essential that people speak out, especially those who have the media's ear. THIS BATTLE IS NOT OVER, and pressure from both the grassroots and presidential candidates could influence the debate in Congress. Obama had the wisdom to oppose the war at the outset. Now, will he join Edwards? Will he stay strong in the face of the GOP's storm of lies and call on Congress to defund the war?