Observing from beyond the solar system, a cultural outsider looks in.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Defiance - Now Playing at the Senator
Like all war movies that try for a sense of realism, Defiance is rather horrible and grim, but like all stories where defiant heroes stand up against injustice, it is inspiring at the same time.
Based on a true story, Defiance shows us four Jewish brothers in World War II Poland who escape into the forest after members of their family are murdered by the Nazis. There they encounter other Jews in hiding and build a forest village to help themselves and many others survive and remain free.
The refugees, through necessity, grow into a kind of community. They are led, sometimes unwillingly and not always graciously, by the eldest brother Tuvia Bielski (Daniel Craig). Like all communities, they have their disagreements and their power struggles. They have far more than their share of hardship in order to survive, but share a few joys as well.
Struggling to feed so many, they must raid neighboring farms, always in danger that their raids will be reported to the Nazis. They struggle to find a balance between compassion for the poor farmers within reach of their camp and the danger of leaving witnesses; differing opinions lead to infighting between Tuvia and his brother Zus (Liev Schreiber).
The woodland scenery is often beautiful, sometimes forbidding, but much like the references to the Jewish faith throughout the film, it lends a subtle sense of wonder and the hope that perhaps we are not quite as alone as we often think we are.
The film is rated R for violence, which can hardly be avoided given the circumstances of the story. I dislike films that are excessively violent, and for that reason I hesitated a bit before seeing this film. After reading Director Edward Zwick’s profile on IMDB, I realized that he had also directed Glory (1989), a film about the civil war’s first company of volunteer African American soldiers, which I enjoyed, in spite of its violence, for the theme of struggle for freedom, which Defiance also shares. Some movies require a certain amount of blood to convey the horror of the situation portrayed. Defiance is one of those where the violence is not gratuitous.
Times are hard right now for most Americans, but other humans in other times and places have lived through worse. On the way home from seeing Defiance, I found myself giving thanks for the relative safety of the majority of us. Unlike the men and women in the forest camp, most of us are not besieged, we are not hunted, we are not forced to live in hiding in rudimentary shelters in the cold of an Eastern European winter with very little to eat. For the very poor among us who are on the verge of starving or freezing to death this winter, we need to remember that they are members of our community and need our help.
Movies that portray historical events would be of little value if we could not apply their lessons to our present times. It is timely to recall that the holocaust started because Hitler found a way to use the Jewish people as a scapegoat for the economic distress felt in Germany at that time. Impoverished by the aftermath of World War I and the depression, too many Germans were eager to have someone to blame.
The German people do not have a special monopoly on evil. Their mistake, sadly, is one that we might all be capable of making when hard times and deprivation tempt us to listen to a leader who tells us someone else is causing our problems.
The next time fearmongers try to make us believe we are in mortal danger in order to lead us into another war, we might remember then too that violence is totally unacceptable except in defense of our lives and the lives of others, and even then it is regrettable when an injustice forces our hands to violence. Preemptive violence toward others who have not attacked us, carried out simply because we feel paranoid or deprived of something, is always a sin against humanity.
In the Baltimore area, Defiance is now playing at The Senator Theatre, the historic Art Deco movie palace, which is currently in need of the community’s help to remain a treasured resource for Baltimore. Strong attendance this week would surely help buy more time for the Senator as it makes the desired transition to community-owned nonprofit. Defiance is well worth seeing, and there’s no better place in the Baltimore area to see it.
I Never Saw So Many People Gathered to Watch C-SPAN Before
I just got back from watching the inauguration at the historic Senator Theatre. I never thought I'd see so many people gathered to watch C-SPAN. It truly IS a new day in America when that happens! The 900 seat theatre had standing room only, and a very enthusiastic crowd.
The event was organized as a food drive, so the cost of admission was canned food. It looked like a lot of food was donated, so hopefully this is a big help to the GEDCO/CARES food pantry, which reports that it is seeing a record number of clients. I think their representative at the event said demand has doubled in the past few months.
It was really NICE to see the end of the Bush administration. I loved it when Bush waved to the crowd at the end of the inauguration and people in the audience shouted "BYE!" That was a good feeling. We can all breathe a bit easier now, for sure.
Obama gave a speech that touched on many important points, and I hope he is serious about green energy and job creation, and I certainly wish him the best in turning our country around and getting us out of this grave situation. Good luck, Mr. President, because you are sure going to need it.
I also hope he's serious about really bringing people of different backgrounds together and working toward the day when we can have peace. But I've got news for him. It's a lot closer than we think. Iraq? This is a war of choice. We could lay down our arms there right now, if we wanted to. We hear less about Afghanistan, but that seems to be a similar situation.
I was disappointed to hear him start off his speech by saying we're at war with a network of haters all around the world, because I don't think that's accurate. I think we're in wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think there are a relatively small number of criminals (terrorists) around the world who hate us, but to call our struggle with them a war is an exaggeration that serves only to keep the American people fearful, distract us from more important issues, and inflate the egos of the terrorists, probably encouraging them somewhat.
In other words, if we really want peace, when are we going to make it a priority? Because we could do that. It's a matter of choice. Obama ought to act on Dennis Kucinich's idea of a Department of Peace, as well as end the wars ASAP. And this notion of a global war on terror really is silly, so let's recognize that as well.
I was glad to hear him talk about how we don't have to give up our values and our liberties for security, and I liked his rather pointed criticism of the Bush administration, even if he didn't specify who exactly he was talking about.
So, there was a lot of hope in Obama's speech, but also a disapointing amount of same-old, same-old. Really, as far as I can tell, the terrorists are a bogey man that our leaders like to use to scare us, keep us in line, and distract us. They also use them as an excuse to start wars of choice so war profiteers can make money. I wish Obama would just admit that. But I suspect all leaders like to have an enemy they can blame when times get rough.
Anyway, with cautious optimism I will say it looks like there will be some improvements, and they are certainly needed.
In the spirit of service to the community which Obama mentioned, I don't want to forget to give a plug here for the Senator Theatre, which hosted the event. This is a real old architectural gem of a movie theatre from the 1930s. I just love the old Art Deco theatres. This is one of the few left. It also happens to be in my neighborhood, for which I am lucky.
The Senator has had a lot of trouble over the years remaining open as a historic, single-screen theatre. Right now I know they are looking at turning it into a nonprofit to keep it going. There's a community meeting there at 10:30 AM on Thursday, January 22nd. If you're in Baltimore, I hope you can make it. In the words of the theatre's web site:
Join us this Thursday, January 22nd at 10:30am for a communal call to action and express your support for The Senator remaining in operation as it transitions to become the region's premiere, community owned non-profit Arts & Entertainment Venue.
The mid to long-term prognosis for The Senator Theatre after its transition to non-profit ownership and operation appears promising, even in this economy. The immediate short-term status of the theatre,however, has become very precarious.
Like a nasty flu that sickens the healthy but can kill those who are already weak, the downturn in the economy has placed the operational status of The Senator, and its future, in great jeopardy.
To prevent a devastating shutdown, The Senator's economic viability must be quickly addressed among all those who share a vested interest in the theatre maintaining its near 70 year unbroken chain of day to day operation.
I'll try to keep blogging in this new year about what's happening with the Senator. I'd really like to see it preserved.
I'll just say it: I didn't sleep a wink after watching this movie. It was that disturbing, and without any visible violence. Grace Is Gone is a story about a man who learns that his wife, a soldier serving in Iraq, has been killed. He needs to tell his young daughters, but he just can't face doing that, so he takes them to an amusement park instead. The whole movie is about this poor man trying to find the nerve to tell his daughters their mother is dead.
The man, Stanley, is played by John Cusack, who somehow manages to look not much like himself, although the only obvious differences are nerdy, conservative clothes and glasses. A strict father type at the beginning of the movie, we watch him disintegrate and become very fragile during the course of the film, in an incredible performance.
The story is told with no varnish, no artificial sentiment, and very little background music, all of which makes it seem painfully real. Cusack's performance is heartbreaking, although the presence of his familiar Hollywood face still makes it seem too much like fiction. I found I had to remind myself that this kind of thing is happening to real people all too often, just so I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking "it's just a movie."
Throughout the film, I willed Stanley to tell his daughters what he had to tell them, but at the same time, it was so easy to see why he just could not. The older daughter suspected, the young one, not at all.
Cusack became one of my many progressive heroes earlier this year, after I learned that he had worked hard to bring War, Inc., a satire about war profiteering, before the American public. Through blogs and other media, he’s been actively raising the issues of corporate control of our military and the loss of our constitutional rights. All of that gave me more reason to be fond of an actor I've always liked anyway, and in the past few months, I've rented several of his movies that I had missed.
It was months ago that I added Grace Is Gone to my Netflix queue, but it took me this long to be able to face it, because I knew what the story was about. Funny, because I’ve been looking forward to War, Inc., but I guess it’s easier to deal with tough issues through anger and cynical humor than it is to face the human cost of the individual lives destroyed in this war for oil.
I won't say Grace is Gone is an easy or fun movie to watch, but I think it's important. The movie avoids political preaching in favor of sympathy for the bereaved family, so the question I'm going to raise now is my own: how have we allowed so many to make this sacrifice just for oil and corporate profits? It's such a crime.
Grace Is Gone receives the “Pass the Popcorn” rating in the black cat rating system, indicating that it’s well worth watching, although in this case, you may lose your appetite.
I was thinking about Hillary Clinton and the politics of parsing today, and an old song just popped into my head. The song is called "Undecided." I suggested this song to a few Edwards supporters as a good song to describe Hillary. Yesterday, I had written a diary about Hillary's many positions on Iraq and Iran, so I decided to make this video.
Meanwhile, NCDem heard the song and made a video on Hillary's many positions on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
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?
Is there something that should be hard about answering these 5 questions?
“Senator Clinton has repeatedly said she will ‘end the war.’ Yet she has provided no plan for how she’ll do it. She has only said that she will hold a meeting with her advisors within 60 days of taking office. That’s not a plan. It’s a promise of a planning meeting. On such an important question we need honesty and answers, not double-talk and evasions.
“As president, I will immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops to jump-start the political solution that will end the violence, launch a diplomatic offensive with all local, national, and regional parties, and completely withdraw all combat troops within nine to ten months. If Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the debate with the Republicans will be about how much war we will have in Iraq. If I’m the nominee, the debate will only be about ending the war. We can’t be just a little bit better than the Republicans. We have to win this election and bring our brave men and women home to the heroes’ welcome they deserve.
“And so today, I am calling on Senator Clinton to offer specific answers to five questions of most concern to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and all across America.”
Five Questions on Iraq that Every Candidate Should Have to Answer:
Question #1: Do you have a specific plan to end the war in Iraq?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #2: As president, will you withdraw all combat troops?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #3: Will you withdraw all combat troops within the first nine to ten months of your presidency?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #4: Will you conduct combat missions with troops stationed inside Iraq?
Edwards: NO Senator Clinton: ?
Question #5: Will you leave permanent military bases in Iraq?
Edwards: NO Senator Clinton: ?
And these are questions that really SHOULD be able to be answered with a straight yes or no. But will Senator Clinton do it?
It's all very well, you may say, for John Edwards to ask five direct questions that he has already answered and expect Hillary Clinton to also answer them. The cynical among us may even say that Edwards has asked five questions that make his plan look good. Well, yes, but they also pin him down to a specific answer, something we should demand of all the presidential candidates. But surely Hillary Clinton has already been asked and answered these questions, right? Let's check it out.
Question 1: Do you have a specific plan to end the war in Iraq?
Why, yes. Her plan is right here on her website. Well, OK, reading that, it's not very specific.
Wait. Does she really have a plan at all? Does it count if part of her plan is to come up with a plan?
The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
Question 2: As president, will you withdraw all combat troops?
Russert: Senator Clinton, Democrats all across the country believed in 2006 when the Democrats were elected to the majority in the House and Senate that that was a signal to end the war, and the war would end.
You have said that you will not pledge to have all troops out by the end of your first term, 2013. Why not?
Hillary Rodham Clinton: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting. Now, we do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find.
That was just the beginning of a lengthy answer that really didn't quite answer the question. I think we can paraphrase that answer as "maybe."
Clinton: Number one, when we talk about combat missions in Iraq, my understanding is that we had the same agreement -- most of us on this stage -- that we would bring out combat troops but we would pursue a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq if they remained a threat.
Now, I don't know how you pursue Al Qaida without engaging them in combat. So I think we're having a semantic difference here. I think we should get as many of the combat troops out as quickly as possible.
If we leave any troops in, like special operations, to go after Al Qaida in Iraq, I assume that we don't want them just sitting around and watching them. We want them to engage them. That is a very limited mission. That is what I have said consistently.
Looks like a firm maybe...or no. A maybeno?
Question 3: Will you withdraw all combat troops within the first nine to ten months of your presidency?
See above. A firm maybeno.
Question 4: Will you conduct combat missions with troops stationed inside Iraq?
See above answer to question 2 again, only this time I think it's a firm maybeyes.
But wait...her goal is to bring all troops out by the end of her first term...but...she "would pursue a mission against Al Qaida in Iraq if they remained a threat." I get it. Maybe it won't be a war anymore. Maybe it'll be a police action. Wait. Wasn't Vietnam a "police action?"
Question 5: Will you leave permanent military bases in Iraq?
Anybody? I haven't heard her answer this question, and I'm not even sure I've heard her not answer it, but with her firm maybeyes to continuing combat missions, I have to wonder where she think she's going to house all those combat troops that may or may not be continuing combat missions while she may or may not be bringing troops home.
But will Edwards answer these questions?
See above. He already has, and with clear one-word answers. He has also provided longer, more detailed answers, consistent with the above one word answers, in debates, speeches, and townhalls.
Today in New Hampshire, Edwards is outlining his five-point strategy for dealing with the challenges facing our relationship with Iran.
Edwards outlined his comprehensive five-point strategy to contain Iran and force the country to give up its nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism and insurgent activity:
First and foremost, end the preventive war doctrine.
Second, use tougher and more targeted economic sanctions to force Iran's leaders to understand that they cannot continue to buck the will of the international community without destroying their ability to be a modern, advanced nation.
Third, use incentives to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions and re-join the world community.
Fourth, reengage with Iran using a new multi-level diplomatic approach.
Fifth, reengage with other major nations like Russia and China on the challenges facing Iran.
This follows on the heels of a speech in Iowa where he laid out this plan in detail.
What about Clinton on Iran?
One thing that we know for sure is that she voted for Lieberman-Kyl , which designates the Iranian National Guard as a terrorist organization, something that Senator Jim Webb described as Cheney's fondest pipe dream.
Russert: We're going to get to Social Security in a little bit, but I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton.
As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only member of the stage here who did that.
Senator, Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war.
Why did you vote for that amendment which would -- calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?
Clinton: Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war. I was the first person on this stage and one of the very first in the Congress to go to the floor of the Senate back in February and say George Bush had no authority to take any military action in Iran.
Secondly, I am not in favor of this rush for war, but I'm also not in favor of doing nothing.
Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. And the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism.
So some may want a false choice between rushing to war, which is the way the Republicans sound -- it's not even a question of whether, it's a question of when and what weapons to use -- and doing nothing.
I prefer vigorous diplomacy. And I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We used them with respect to North Korea. We used them with respect to Libya.
And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is not anything other than an expression of support for using economic sanctions with respect to diplomacy.
I'll take that as a firm maybeyesno. Or as Jon Stewart might say, she supportopposes it...or opposupports it...or something.
As for John Edwards, he had this to say in the same debate:
Well, I just listened to what Senator Clinton said and she said she wanted to maximize pressure on the Bush administration. So the way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution that looks like it was written, literally, by the neo-cons.
I mean, has anyone read this thing? I mean, it literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted. It didn't just give them what they wanted. They acted on it.
A few weeks later, they declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and -- this is going to sound very familiar -- remember from Iraq? The prelude to Iraq? -- proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.
The way you put pressure on this administration is you stand up to them; you say no.
The Edwards campaign has, however, backed off their earlier claim that Clinton double-talks and never answers direct questions with a direct answer. I mean, it sure seemed like that after the October 30th debate, so I can understand their mistake.
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?
Is there something that should be hard about answering these 5 questions?
"Senator Clinton has repeatedly said she will `end the war.' Yet she has provided no plan for how she'll do it. She has only said that she will hold a meeting with her advisors within 60 days of taking office. That's not a plan. It's a promise of a planning meeting. On such an important question we need honesty and answers, not double-talk and evasions.
"As president, I will immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops to jump-start the political solution that will end the violence, launch a diplomatic offensive with all local, national, and regional parties, and completely withdraw all combat troops within nine to ten months. If Senator Clinton is the Democratic nominee, the debate with the Republicans will be about how much war we will have in Iraq. If I'm the nominee, the debate will only be about ending the war. We can't be just a little bit better than the Republicans. We have to win this election and bring our brave men and women home to the heroes' welcome they deserve.
"And so today, I am calling on Senator Clinton to offer specific answers to five questions of most concern to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and all across America."
Five Questions on Iraq that Every Candidate Should Have to Answer:
Question #1: Do you have a specific plan to end the war in Iraq?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #2: As president, will you withdraw all combat troops?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #3: Will you withdraw all combat troops within the first nine to ten months of your presidency?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #4: Will you conduct combat missions with troops stationed inside Iraq?
Edwards: NO Senator Clinton: ?
Question #5: Will you leave permanent military bases in Iraq?
Edwards: NO Senator Clinton: ?
And these are questions that really SHOULD be able to be answered with a straight yes or no. But will Senator Clinton do it?
Hillary Clinton likes to claim there is not much difference between the Democratic candidates. She's been seeking to minimize the very real differences so that people will just accept her without question.
CLINTON: The differences among us are minor. The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don't want anybody in America to be confused.
EDWARDS: There are differences between us. And I think Democratic voters deserve to know the differences between us.
There are many differences between Edwards and Clinton. This diary focuses on their differences on Iraq and Iran.
Today is an unfortunate and sad anniversary, and we might as well note it. Five years ago, Congress voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton both voted for the war on that date. John Edwards has since regretted it and apologized rather profusely (and sincerely, in my opinion).
"Five years ago tonight, Congress voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. Unlike Senator Clinton, I have apologized for my vote in support of that bill. This war has become one of the greatest disasters of American foreign policy. In light of the terrible mistruths that permitted this president to guide our nation to war, voters have a right to honest answers and straight talk from those running for president. That is why I have made it clear that I oppose the Iraq war, why I have offered a specific plan on how I will end this war as president, and why I have made my position very clear on Iran.
"Unfortunately, political rhetoric aside, Senator Clinton has no specific plan to end the war in Iraq. Instead, she refuses to commit to a specific timeline for withdrawal and has made it clear that she will continue 'combat missions' in Iraq. The Washington Post reports today that Senator Clinton has described multiple missions that would require us to keep combat troops in Iraq—from protecting the Kurds to countering the Iranians to training Iraqi troops to protecting oil to a vague need to 'protect our interests.' These missions would just be excuses to justify continuing George Bush's failed strategy in Iraq.
"Now, we are again facing another challenge: whether to let the president go to war with yet another country, Iran. Evidently, Senator Clinton and I learned two very different lessons from the Iraq war. I learned that if you give President Bush even an inch of authority, he will use it to sanction a war. As the New Yorker recently reported, the administration is actively preparing plans to attack Iran. Despite this clear evidence, Congress recently passed a bill to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a bill Senator Clinton supported and that takes this nation one step closer to war. While Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran. I believe we must not allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available."
Now let's dig a little deeper into the differences with Clinton that Edwards is noting in his statement.
Although both voted for the war, the differences between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton on their approach to the Iraq war now are very clear. John Edwards would end the war and bring all combat troops out of Iraq within the first nine months or so of his presidency. Hillary Clinton says her goal is to get all our troops out by the end of her first term, but she would leave combat troops in Iraq, with the nebulous mission of fighting terrorism, which isn't really too far from what George Bush has been saying all along. Isn't fighting terrorism supposed to be our original mission there? Hasn’t Al Qaeda been the excuse for the war all along?
It is only when you examine the details--like the fine print in an insurance contract--that you discover that Clinton's pledge to "get out of Iraq" is far from iron-clad. There are numerous conditions attached. She enumerated some of them in the June 19 Democratic debate when pressed by Chris Matthews. Read the full transcript here. Clinton's list of "vital national security interests" in Iraq turns out to be quite lengthy:
"We cannot let Al Qaeda have a staging ground in Iraq." "We have made common cause with some of the Iraqis themselves in Anbar province." "We also have to look at the way the Kurds are being treated." "We also have to pay attention to Iranian influence." "We will have to protect our interests. We'll have an embassy there." "If the Iraqi government does get its act together, we may have a continuing training mission."
Here are a couple more reasons cited by Clinton for a continuing deployment of American troops to prevent Iraq degenerating into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda." They come from an interview she gave to the New York Times back in March.
Iraq "is right in the heart of the oil region." Leaving Iraq altogether would be "directly in opposition to our interests...to Israel's interests."
Somehow that doesn't sound like a firm promise "to get out of Iraq" or, even less, a guarantee to "end our involvement there."
CLINTON: Well, Tim, it is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term. But I agree with Barack; it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting. Now, we do not know, walking into the White House in January of 2009 what we are going to find.
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?
EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I—well, I can tell you what i would do as president. When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until all of our combat troops are, in fact, out of Iraq.
I think the problem is—and it’s what you just heard discussed—is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected.
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops.
But I do say, I want to add to things I just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.
For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq.
And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.
RUSSERT: Governor Richardson...
CLINTON: Well, Tim, could I just clarify that, you know, I said there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaida in Iraq. It may require combat, special operations forces or some other form of that. But the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.
EDWARDS: But, can I just say that my only point is—I don’t have any doubt that Senator Clinton wants to take a responsible course. There is a difference, however, in how we would go about this. And I think Democratic primary voters are entitled to know that difference.
And the difference is really very simple. I would have our combat troops out of Iraq over a period of several months, and I would not continue combat missions in Iraq.
BLITZER: But on the issue -- excuse me for interrupting, Senator. But on the issue of Al Qaida in Iraq, if you were president, would you still retain troops in Iraq to fight Al Qaida there?
CLINTON: Well, I have voted for that. That is one of the remaining missions, Wolf. I have voted for a remaining mission bringing home our -- the bulk of our combat troops, but doing what we can to continue the counterterrorism effort against Al Qaida in Iraq, protecting our embassy and our civilian employees.
If the Iraqis change in accord with some of the recommendations by General Jones and his commission, continuing a training mission, and I have added, doing what we can to protect the Kurds. Those are among the limited missions that I think are really merited, and that I and others have continued to vote for. I voted for most of that just this week, when I voted for Senator Feingold's amendment to try to set a date to begin withdrawing our troops.
So there is no doubt that if we're making progress against Al Qaida in Iraq, we want to continue that. But we don't need 160,000- plus troops to do that, and the mission has to change. And that seems to be what the president really refuses to do.
On Iran, Senator Clinton voted for the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, which declares the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization. This is essentially moving us one step closer to war with Iran, as many people, including Senator Jim Webb, have noted. John Edwards says that he and Senator Clinton learned very different lessons from their votes on the Iraq war.
EDWARDS: Well, let me say, first of all, I think there’s a clear responsible course for America with respect to Iran. And that responsible course is to recognize that Ahmadinejad is unpopular in his own country.
And if we work with our friends in Europe in the European banking system, we can put a clear proposal on the table for the Iranian people; sticks and carrots. Carrots being, we will help you with your economy if, in fact, you give up your nuclear ambitions. The flip side being, there will be severe economic sanctions if you don’t.
But I want to come back to a discussion that took place a few minutes ago to make everyone understands what Senator Gravel was talking and Senator Clinton was talking about. Because there was a very important vote cast in the United States Senate today. And it was, basically, in a resolution calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
I voted for this war in Iraq, and I was wrong to vote for this war. And I accept responsibility for that. Senator Clinton also voted for this war.
We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.
And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can’t even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.
Issue Summary: Edwards would end the war within his first year in office and get all combat troops out of Iraq. Clinton would try to end the war by the end of her first term in office, but would meanwhile continue combat missions. Edwards would use diplomacy and economic sanctions to try to work something out with Iran. Clinton has already voted to declare the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization, taking us one step closer to war with Iran.
"Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."
Grace Is Gone receives the “Pass the Popcorn” rating in the black cat rating system, indicating that it’s well worth watching, although in this case, you may lose your appetite.
