Gregory again suggested inconsistency in Dem candidates' statements on Iraq withdrawal

On the September 30 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert noted that, during a recent MSNBC-sponsored debate at Dartmouth College, the three leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), and former Sen. John Edwards (NC), would not commit "by January of 2013, to have all American troops out of Iraq." NBC White House correspondent David Gregory described this as "a really measured position" and asserted, "Edwards particularly, who was embracing the left wing of the party's view that you have to end the war now, and the others even voting for cutting off funding." He added, "I think it's a realization ... that they're going to take a more centrist position and say to the left wing of their party, 'We've got to be pragmatic about this.' " But Gregory's suggestion that Clinton's and Obama's current positions are inconsistent with their having "even vot[ed] for cutting off funding" -- an assertion that is itself misleading -- is false. And Gregory offered no evidence that Edwards has shifted position either.

In fact, both Clinton and Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) mandating that funding for the U.S. mission in Iraq be terminated and combat forces be redeployed by June 30, 2008, but providing, as Media Matters for America noted, continued funding for "limited" military operations there indefinitely.

Additionally, earlier this year, the Senate, with Clinton and Obama's support, passed an emergency supplemental funding bill that would have required the "Secretary [of Defense] ... [to] commence such redeployment no later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing that redeployment within 180 days," but that also included a provision stipulating that a residual U.S. troop presence remain in Iraq:

Prohibit[] the Secretary, after the appropriate redeployment period, from deploying or maintaining members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than: (1) protecting American diplomatic facilities, American citizens, and other U.S. forces; (2) serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions; (3) engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations; and (4) training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, Clinton and Obama have both introduced legislation providing for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but also a continuing military presence there.

Edwards has also previously stated that he would not withdraw all troops from Iraq as president. In a May 23 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards asserted that he would preserve "some presence in Baghdad" in order to "protect the American Embassy and other personnel." From the speech:

EDWARDS: My plan calls on Congress to use its funding power to stop the surge and force an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops from Iraq, followed by an orderly and complete withdrawal of all combat troops in about a year.

[...]

EDWARDS: I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future -- including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe.

During the debate, Edwards said that "in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops" would be needed to remain in Iraq because the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and humanitarian workers in Iraq would "have to be protected":

RUSSERT (debate moderator): 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 [David] Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40 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.

In response to the same question, Obama said, "What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office ... I will drastically reduce our presence [in Iraq] to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there." Clinton said, "I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated," and later added, "[T]here may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at Al Qaeda 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."

From the September 30 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: Let me ask you about Iraq, because it was interesting, I thought in this debate. The first question I asked of the three front-runners, and all the candidates, will you pledge, by the end of your first term, January of 2013, all American troops will be out of Iraq? Clinton, Obama, Edwards all said, "I won't make that commitment."

GREGORY: Right, they said you never know what we're going to find, a really measured position for three candidates. Edwards, Edwards particularly, who was embracing the left wing of the party's view that you have to end the war now, and the others even voting for cutting off funding. I think it's a realization, though, that they're going to take a more centrist position and say to the left wing of their party, "We've got to be pragmatic about this. We can't lose a general election because of your feelings about the war."