Edwards: All Troops Out In 10 Months

New York Times:

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.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[OhPlease2007]

Here is a story that would have been SPLASHED all over HuffPosts front page 'if' Obama had made this statement about getting troops out. Let the Obama supporters spin all they want, but Edwards isn't continuing to fund the Iraq war; Obama is. If you were truly against the war from the beginning, you don't continue to fund it; it's called HYPOCRISY.

Edwards '08!

[kevinabt]

Hasn't he continuously supported the war since the very begining with every action he took in the senate? Authorizing, funding, refunding, funding again, and expanding again into authorization to strike Iran. If i'm wrong about that please correct me, but I seem to remember that that is what Edwards has done.

[Steamboater]

This is slightly confusing because according to the article I read in the New York Times, it's not clear whether Edwards would leave a residual force of several thousand soldiers in Iraq or put them in Kuwait. If he leaves them Iraq, they have to defend themselves. He refused to answer though if he would send soldiers back to Iraq if they were in harm's way. His refusal to answer pops a red flag for me. He is the only one of the top three candidates who says he'd get the troops out and now way before 2013, so he's got my vote if he can make it as far as California.

[NicoleAnonymous]

He is the only candidate who is willing to take on powerful companies and change the way corporations rob stockholders while a tiny elite group great rich.

[Tankan]

Using the service personel in Iraq as a political football to win votes is lacking in principle, a cheap and nasty ploy which speaks volumes about John Edwards character and demonstrates his unsuitability as President.

This is not strong leadership!

[RedRooster]

As an American citizen, are you emotional vested in staying in Iraq, because you believe any of the following statements?

- we have already paid a heavy price,
- we have to finish what we started,
- we are already there...

It's okay to believe any of those statements, but you should ask yourself if you are psychologically "entrapped" by them?

"Iraq and the Danger of Psychological Entrapment"

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, December 4, 2006; Page A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120300932.html

[moonjumper]

How do you say...desperation?

One day before the Iowa caucus - ONE DAY - and he comes out with this? If he actually believed what he's saying now, don't you think he would have said something earlier? If this isn't transparent, I don't know what is. He must think Iowans are fools.

Mr. Edwards, why not just promise everyone $10,000 or a new car?

[faith]

No. All troops out in three to five months. PERIOD !

[RusStyles]

The more Mr. Ed talks, the more he reveals his con artist fangs. "Out in 10 months..." He clearly either has no clue of what it takes in terms of planning, time and resources to redeploy that many troops and equipment. He's completely ignored the repercussions of a quick pullout. If somehow he conned his way into the WH, I'd put my life on it that the all our troops will not be home in 10 months. Ridiculous. Pathetic pandering...

[Nyla785]

Edwards is right. We've got to get out of there. We're just acting as Iraq's army and police force--to the loss of our own military's strength and lives.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Hillary all showed very poor judgment in giving a pathological liar authority to wage war.

I will be supporting a candidate who got it right on the issue of life and death and war and peace, the first time.

Personally I do not accept Edwards"s continuous apology for giving Bush authorization to go to war.

I prefer to support Obama who has no need to apologize.

Edwards failed to help the democratic ticket in 2004 and did not carry 1 red state not even his own state NC.

Edwards chose to become an Ambulance chaser and made millions; Barack chose to work for civil rights when he could have signed up with any law firm in the country especially since he was the first black student to become president of the Harvard Law Review.

Edwards lives in a palatial mansion and I do not think his drive to acquire a personal fortune will abate if he becomes president.

I am ready to roll the dice on a Harvard intellectual who reminds me of JFK and in fact is now 5 years older than Kennedy was when he won the white house.

Obama has plenty of worldly and street-smart experience and I believe he is eminently qualified for the job.

[tomsfork]

Deja poo all over again - I heard this shit before!

The Vietnamese War is by no means a perfect analogue for Iraq, but there are many similarities. Now we reach another.

In 1968, a former senator and vice president named Nixon, in order to win the election, promised to have us out of Viet Nam in six months. Any president who has had four years and could not get us out of Viet Nam does not deserve reelection, he said, and ran as the peace candidate. A secret plan to end the war, he claimed to have.

Yet, until then, Nixon had been hawkish on Viet Nam. And yes, it worked: Running as the peace candidate, he was indeed elected president. And had no secret plan, and did not get us out in six months, nor could he get us out in four years. Instead, he expanded the war into Laos and Cambodia.

Now someone, previously hawkish on Iraq, wants to run as the peace candidate, and says he will have us out in ten months.

Deja poo, I have already heard this shit. I will believe it when I see it, Mr. Edwards. Will a vote for you mean another five years of this? Will we expand the war into Syria and Iran? You're not just saying this to get elected, are you?

[gonnuts]

Know this: it doesn't matter who you support or vote for.

96% of the votes cast are done so on corruptible E-voting machines that count the votes in secret. Who will be POTUS will be whomever the powers that be want in - period.

Our only resemblance to a democratic/republic is the phony dog & pony show put on to give us the illusion we have a say in who represents us - nothing could be further from the truth!

Until we fix the corrupted voting system you're wasting your time doing anything else.

If voting could change things - they'd make it illegal.

[Nonamnesiac]

If Edwards keeps it up, he actually may end up opposing this war in word AND in deed.

Edwards should take a solid "get out of Iraq" position -- the Richardson position or what used to be Kucinich's position until he started supporting warmongerer Obama -- and earn the anti-war vote.

[JohnFromCensornati]

That's what I want to hear. It's a reason to vote FOR somebody.