John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove
virtually all American forces within 10 months.
Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.
"To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq," he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
This just proves that John Edwards is unfit to be President. However you feel about our use of force in Iraq not even leaving anyone behind to train police would be a complete disaster. Just more proof the John Edwards is capable of being President of the United States
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 30
Personally, I think anybody who doesn't have a plan to end the occupation of Iraq is unfit to be President of the United States.
Oh wait, he's all three...........
MDP The one thing Edwards says that is right and you say he's wrong?
Iraq forces have been trained now for FOUR years or more. Our troops get 16 weeks. After all this time Iraq can train their own troops and police they don't need us babysitting them.
This, from someone who's in love with, of all people, Fred freaking Thompson, for Christ's sake.
If you'd take the time to actually read the article, you'd perhaps note that he never advocated leaving Iraq entirely on its own. He advocates AMERICAN TROOPS leaving Iraq. Pay attention.
Edwards has repeatedly called for Americans who are training the Iraqi police and army to be pulled from Iraq when the troops leave. He doesn't want training, he doesn't want troops, he doesn't want the wrappers from MRE's remaining in Iraq when we withdraw.
Then his wife Elizabeth jumped up at the end of his little diatribe to correct her husband, saying that we'd be happy to train Iraqi troops and police outside Iraq.............then added that such training would have limited benefits.
What? Then why do it?
This backwoods yokel is just another pretender.
Did I not just say this? Yes, in fact, I did. You should learn how to comprehend English sometime.
What is it with you people that convinces you that if/when we leave, there will be nobody in the world who can step in to finish what we cannot? Guess what? The world community, and in particular, the middle eastern region of the world, is FAR better suited to stabilize and re-build Iraq than we could EVER be. We have no business being there, and the entire world knows it, except for you delusional wingnuts. Get a clue.
Which is pretty much what the NYT article says:
"During the 10 months or so while American troops were being withdrawn, Mr. Edwards added, he would also mount an intensive effort to encourage Iraq's leaders to engage in political reconciliation and solicit the cooperation of Iran and Syria, who he argued might be more willing to help once they understood that American troops were on their way out."
Sounds a lot like the same ideas put forward in, among others, the McGovern/Polk plan for withdrawal. Which as I remember, involved the US withdrawing it's troops, then footing the bill for an "international stabilization force", which I think makes sense.
"What is it with you people that convinces you that if/when we leave, there will be nobody in the world who can step in to finish what we cannot? Guess what? The world community, and in particular, the middle eastern region of the world, is FAR better suited to stabilize and re-build Iraq than we could EVER be. We have no business being there, and the entire world knows it, except for you delusional wingnuts. Get a clue."
The only countries in the Middle East that want to "help out" once we're gone are Iran and Syria. That's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. If that happens, we should keep a few bases in-country just as an insurance policy. How is it that you have a problem seeing this?
The president alone did not make the decision to go to Iraq, in fact he sounded fake when he talked about it. The next president will not be able to remove americans from arm's way immediately, this promises are not realistic and he alone will not make that decision.
Unless we dismantle the money power machine behind the government, we will always be at war somewhere because it makes money.
The first thing to do to regain our republic for the people and our freedom is to take back the Federal reserve system and get rid of the world bank as such.
Congress gave it away and congress should take it back.
The only real power in this country is in the monetary system, in the hands of few well chosen elite.
Jefferson said the same, those who are in charge of the money will run the government.
Below is a comment from a friend of mine:
"The Federal Reserve Bank (and world banks) serve the interests of those policy makers in power at the expense of Americans. It's appalling. Imagine devaluing the dollar as the Euro and other major currencies are rising--and the real inflation rate is 3 to 4 times higher than the "official" CPI. Talk about pulling a fast one that benefits the super rich and steals from the average saver and player! And then the FED has the nerve to claim it is doing Americans a favor by lowering interest rates so money lenders at the top can do better--and corporate interests can be shored up as if everything is just grand. Illusion and delusion."
One question for any candidate, will you take back the federal reserve for the american people and change the present system?
At this point I am not voting with a computerized system and nobody should.
More baseless speculation. Do you EVER have an opinion that is based upon anything besides your own personal, weak, baseless opinion, and nothing factual?
The entire middle east, and the world in general, all have a vested interest in a stable, secure, peaceful Iraq. NOBODY benefits from chaos and killing except the war and oil profiteers. Get it? There is simply no benefit to be derived from Iraq being a cauldron for violence and corruption. It will only continue to draw the entire region into conflict, as we've seen over the past year or so, with Turkey and Pakistan deteriorating, and Saudi Arabia funding Sunni insurgents and "al Qaeda."
Just ONCE, try to form an opinion that's based in fact.
"More baseless speculation. Do you EVER have an opinion that is based upon anything besides your own personal, weak, baseless opinion, and nothing factual? "
Don't be a Leftist naybob. Of course Iran and Syria want to "help out" in Iraq. After a disastrous 8 year war with the Iraqis in the 80's, don't you think Iran would love to control them? Think, for once in your life. The answer is obvious.
And Syria, with its own similar Ba'ath party, would love to get its hands on those Iraqi oil fields, as well as politically influence Iraq, the same way as it tries to politically influence its western neighbor, Lebanon.
These are no-brainers, Clark.............which work even for you.
At least Conservative realities are based on this planet. Left Wing ideology seems to be based on unicorns, world peace, and free money.
If you're on the Left, you're the problem - not the solution. Are you on the Left, Kevin?
Didn't we reject Socialism already?
How is it making a comeback after almost universal failure?
If believing in Democracy is part of the problem, then there are a lot us who are part of the problem. If we want to stop this kind of thing from happenning again then we must stop letting it be profitable. Democracy over Capitalism. Power to the People not the Pocketbook.