Edwards Pulls a Trump Card

[ProSense]

Edwards Pulls a Trump Card

by BooMan
Wed Jan 2nd, 2008 at 09:55:44 AM EST

John Edwards pulls a stunt on the eve of the Iowa caucuses that he should have pulled a year ago.

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.

His wife clarified:

Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.

Do you think the media will give Edwards credit for telling difficult truths to the American people? Perhaps he doesn't really deserve it, since he waited until the day before the caucuses to make his case explicit. But, he's right. We shouldn't abandon all training but we should do it out of country and we shouldn't expect much benefit from it.

more

As the interview drew to a close, Mrs. Edwards politely chided this reporter for failing to ask about Mr. Edwards’s plan to train some Iraqi forces outside Iraq, which she emphasized was an important feature of the plan. “It’s the one thing you forgot,” she said.

Mr. Edwards continued the thought. “Of course, it is limited,” he said, referring to the training. “You can do some. You can do some.”

link

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

JOHN F. KERRY

[MalloyLiberal]

1. Nope..he's been saying he'll end combat missions for some time now

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[endarkenment]

3. Edwards has been saying "all troops" for some time now.

For example, last month in New Hampshire.

[Flabbergasted]

4. Go job ProSense. nt

[karynnj]

5. So, he's only about 3 years behind Kerry on training out of country

In January 2005, when he traveled to the middle east and Europe returned with promises from Jordan, Egypt, France and Germany that they would train people out of Iraq. He spoke of this at the confirmation hearings of Dr Rice. The Bush people completely ignored the offers. They also had no interest in getting insight from Kerry, a skilled diplomat with over 20 years on the SFRC. In more recent comments, Kerry points out it is not the lack of trianing, but a lack of motivation and political will.

He didn't support Kerry/Feingold either - though none of the Presidential candidates did.

[Milo_Bloom]

6. And we can believe ANYTHING he says because...?

[Two Americas]

7. Democratic party candidate

We are talking about a Democratic party candidate, not Bush or Cheney. Or do you think the two cases are more or less the same?

I don't support Senator Clinton, but I would never say that about her nor about any of the candidates.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. I say it because he has proven himself unreliable in the past.

Having a D next to your name doesn't make you immune to being dishonest.

[Two Americas]

11. perspective and proportion

Regardless of which way this argument is used, or whom it is used against, it is not very useful or informative. There is hardly a Democrat that it could not be applied to - and I have seen it applied to just about all of them - and there is hardly a Democrat that it describes completely or honestly.

So, either you think that most Democrats are liars - do you? - or you think that Edwards is so much worse than the rest that he is not to be considered. Or else, this is merely the latest attack strategy.

The irony here is that there is nothing that Edwards has done that is quite as cleverly deceptive and dishonest as these recent attacks on him are. That tells us that for too many, lying is sometimes a bad thing, and sometimes not - depending on the cause.

Anyone who has lived through the Bush administration, or remembers the Nixon administration, will not for one second give any credit to your implied insinuation and innuendo that Edwards is in that company. He must be, in your view. What else would justify such vicious attacks on fellow Democrats?

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Yes, he is one of the worst of them.

"So, either you think that most Democrats are liars - do you? - or you think that Edwards is so much worse than the rest that he is not to be considered. Or else, this is merely the latest attack strategy."

I think some democrats are liars and John Edwards is one of the worst offenders.

It is evident in his long history of political cowardice and even his recent plans which do not match his rhetoric.

One look at his tax plan, which does little for the working poor, as it continues to favor CAPITAL GAINS over EARNED INCOME and a look at his health insurance plan which winds up being nothing but a gift to the insurance companies proves the point.

[Two Americas]

13. ok

Thanks for clarifying.

[Auntie Bush]

8. With Edwards so tied up in fighting off all those corporations and

Obama busy trying to make nice and work with the other side...I doubt if either of them will do much of anything regarding investigating bush. That's why Pelosi won't go after him...yet! I personally care more about getting our progressive issues passed,(like health care etc.)than exposing or investigating bush whom we already know is a lying, evil killer and crook. Let the Hague take care of him and his cronies and let us work on domestic issues we want passed. If we go after bush and his evil deeds...that would be all consuming for the next 8 years. Then maybe the public would be sick and tired of all the investigations and lack of progress and vote Democrats out of office. As sweat as it would be to go after bush... I'm not sure it would be best for our country or you and me.

[ProSense]

9. Kick! n/t

[Egnever]

14. Trump card?

Sounds sorta foolish to me. His wife however might be on to a good thing. Maybe we can elect her instead?

[Froward69]

15. I like Elizabeth better Too.

why not elect her instead??