Edwards First Major Candidate Calling for All Troops Out, Breaks with Establishment Consensus on Iraq

One day before the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards has become the first major presidential candidate to favor withdrawing all American troops, including advisers, from Iraq, doing so in response to queries from a leading military correspondent, the New York Times' Michael Gordon.

The positions taken by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while favoring de-escalation, would leave tens of thousands of American advisers, special forces and substantial back-up troops in Iraq for five years, at least until 2013. The mainstream media also has promoted the view that there is "no way out" of Iraq, according to a comprehensive survey by Peter Hart in Extra! [Nov.-Dec. 2007]. If these views prevail, the US government will be funding, arming, training and defending a repressive sectarian state in Baghdad for years. Already, for example, there are over 50,000 Iraqi prisoners held in detention by the US and Baghdad authorities, the vast majority of them on no charges. Evidence of torture and ethnic cleansing by the Baghdad regime has been accumulated in numerous official reports as well.

In the frontpage Times' interview, the traditionally-hawkish Gordon questioned Edwards' whether his proposal would "pull the rug out" from the Iraqi security forces, and pointed out several times that Edwards' position is at odds with "senior American military commanders." However, Gordon failed to note that one such military leader, Gen. James Jones, while supporting more training of the Iraqi security forces, has reported that those forces are sectarian and dysfunctional and even called for "scrapping" the national police force now conducting counterinsurgency under Gen. Davis Petraeus' command.

Edwards' thinking seems to flow from his populist orientation: "I honestly believe this in my soul, we are propping up their bad behavior", he told Gordon, "I mean really, how many American lives and how much American taxpayer money are we going to continue to expend waiting for these [Iraqi] political leaders to do something?"

The political impact of Edwards' statement is unpredictable. It may sway some Bill Richardson or Dennis Kucinich voters to caucus instead for Edwards Thursday night. It may cause a few defections from Clinton or Obama. It may play out in New Hampshire and later primaries, if Edwards is deemed "viable" by the media after Iowa. And to the extent that Edwards' campaign continues to be a force in the national election, his Iraq position could become a rallying point in the Democratic platform debate.

Comments

[RedRooster]

The stated purpose of the "surge" was to allow the Iragi government time to put its house in order and to provide stability. Now, after a year of INCREASED carnage, it should be rather obvious, that yes, "we are propping up their bad behavior".

America out of Iraq NOW!

[Tellmethetruth]

Edwards has supported Biden's Resolution to End the War in Iraq passed by both houses of Congress in October of 2007 (Senate 75 to 23) and House in December of 2007 by 75%. www.planforiraq.com

Biden thinks he can get the troups out by 2010 (1 year - possibly a bit more if we take all our tanks, etc. back).

Edwards was not the first, Biden was. www.joebiden.com and do some research.

Again, a media myth that only 3 candidates are running for President on the Democratic side.

However, Obama and Clinton both have no plan to get us out of Iraq. Clinton voted for the Biden Resolution in October of 2007, but Obama was one of two Senators who didn't show up.

Obama said in the December 14 debate that he would go to the generals and ask them to draft a plan to get us out of Iraq which he would support - meaning he has no plan and no idea on how to get us out of Iraq.

To my horror, Clinton said the same thing today on C-Span, that she would go to the generals and ask them to draft a plan to get us out of Iraq - meaning she has no plan and no idea on how to end the war in Iraq.

The only competent person in this discussion on how to end the war in Iraq is Joe Biden. He is the only with a plan, had it approved by the UN, most of the major countries in the Middle East, the iraq government (Sadr - wouldn't agree) and by both houses of Congress. The plan is sitting on Bush's Desk waiting for a President to implement the plan.

Give credit where credit is due. Joe Biden is once again right, if you want the war in Iraq to end, vote for Joe Biden.

[godsbreath64]

Luckily for Michigan voters, we don't need to decide whether or not Edwards' last-minute 180 on Iraq was sincere or not.

He cared so much about Michigan's vote that he pulled his name off the Michigan ballot, as did Obama, Richardson, and Biden.

Fortunately, the other party has an anti-war candidate whose position on occupying and/or meddling in foreign countries is beyond debate.

[outnow]

Tom Hayden,

Thanks for your continuing efforts to bring peace to this planet.

Many people doubt that John Edwards can change. The sign of a good intellect is to see the evidence and change your mind. This is the foundation of the scientific method. Edwards has changed dramatically in the right direction and I believe it is genuine.

John Edwards has also seen the evidence as to NAFTA accumulating - manufacturing jobs are going overseas, real wages for the rank-and-file worker are going down, as adjusted for inflation for four years in a row.

The falling dollar has not increased exports because we do not manufacture mush to export anymore and the price of oil is up.

But as to Mr. Edwards stance of the war, it may be a rallying point for the anti-war movement. It may usher in a new approach to our entire foreign policy. Much of out strategy is gun-boat diplomacy. Our NSC documents mention that we are militarizing space for commercial purposes - if they sell McDonald's burgers on Mars we will blast them with laser cannons! Honest!

Mr. Edwards will stop the madness with the MIC. If we want schools, hospitals, highways, sewers, research and development, mitigation efforts for global warming, renewable energy, we must elect a man like Edwards.

Obama was talking about going into Northwestern Pakistan just prior to Bhutto's assassination. This drew a rebuke from Hillary, and rightly so.
I see Edwards as a more seasoned man than Obama and considerably more progressive and upfront. The campaign donations often buy a person's loyalty to corporate sponsors.

[chadshue]

Tom,

I read this today and thought, well it's one thing for the commercial media to play this as Headline News, but totally another for folks close to the peace movement to buy into it.

Are you now amongst the folks who have given in to the meme that there are only three Democratic candidates in the race? Richardson has been running hard on an "All Out Now! platform since the begining. Generals who have stood on the battlefield have said his plan is not only do-able but desireable as well.

While Clinton, ("One Year Wonder") Obama, and Edwards continue to TALK about plans and hopes, Richardson is the only candidate with the agenda AND the credentials to produce results.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue

[peaceandfreedom]

Ah, another blog with the obligatory pop-up advertisement posts, each touting their man as the answer...

Tom--Remember Berkeley? Remember Santa Rita? Remember "The People?" As in, "Power to the...?"

Even today the scent of tear gas makes me teary eyed, but in a good way. We had leaders then. And those of us who marched, pamphleted, sat-in, taught-in, or were part of the movement in the streets followed you and the others because you came from us. WE stopped a war. We put our hands on the levers and made the government grind to a halt under the weight and brought justice out of chaos. The people. You. David. Abbie. Jerry. Together we made change.

Isn't it time that WE did again? Isn't it time for the voice of the people to be heard? Isn't it time for Power to the People to take its place with "WE The People" in the national dialogue, and let the so called candidates take their orders from us? Isn't it time for each and every one of us to stop looking for answers from the machine, and start providing solutions of our own? Isn't it time, Tom?

[research]

Who are the top three candidates?

We don't really know.

Kucinich trounced everyone in the two largest polls for far: the DFA and the independents polls. 40% of Iowa voters are independent.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=249126
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/29506
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/08/5255_kucinich_wins_d.html

Great link on problems with modern phone polling.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phones_and_political_surv.php

[kencamp]

With all due respect Senator Hayden, you're wrong about John Edwards. John Edwards is anti-war in rhetoric only. His actions do not match his rhetoric.

This past year, here is everything John Edwards has said about the war:

1. I'm sorry, my vote was a mistake.
2. Withdraw 40,000 troops (first debate)
3. Withdraw all troops except those necessary to defend aid workers and the U.S. Embassy. (Daily Kos forum)
4. Withdraw combat troops only (Washington Post)
5. Won't Pledge to withdraw all troops by 2013 (Dartmouth Debate on September 26, 2007)
6. Withdraw all but one Brigade (Mantra for awhile)
7. Withdraw Combat troops (Came back to that for a day)
8. Withdraw troops within 10 Months.

Yes, John Edwards is against the war,as are all of the Democrats, but the positions Edwards has taken don't exude the leadership necessary to be President of the United States. He's following the political winds whereever they may blow on any given day.

With the National Priorities Project estimating that the U.S. is spending $275 million daily, how does John Edwards intend to fund his healthcare plan? He won't have the money if he doesn't end the wr immediately and bring the troops home.

There is only on candidate who has been serious about ending the war immediately from the beginning of this campaign and that's Governor Bill Richardson. He'll bring all of the troops home within the first year of his Presidency. With Richardson, we're certain what he will do. With Edwards, it's anybody's guess.

Senator Hayden, you and I worked together on the Spring at University High School in Los Angeles, and I've always admired your political opinions over the years, but by backing John Edwards on this issue, I've got to question your judgement.

[Dansden]

Could it be-
just a stab in the dark,
just a curious inquiry,
just a wondering thought-
THAT THE PEOPLE EDWARDS IS TALKING TO IN IOWA ARE TELLING HIM-
if you want my vote
GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF THAT HELL HOLE NOW!

Did that occur to anyone as a viable consideration in this caucusing process, duh,
THE PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Isn't that how things have been happening since the Dems WON THE LAST ELECTION....:
1. Repubs have the 'VETO PROOF' Senate so
'impeachment is off the table'.....
AND LO, AND BEHOLD, THE PEOPLE-180,000+-
go online and DEMAND THAT CHENEY BE
IMPEACHED because the PEOPLE ARE DEMANDING
IT!
2. The Repubs trying to FORCE an IMMUNITY
for their fascist corporate cronies in
their complicity of SPYING ON AMERICANS
UNTIL Statesman Chris Dodd comes off the
Caucus cacaphony and begins to FILIBUSTER
because he HAS HEARD WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE
DEMANDING FOR JUSTICE, CONSTITUTIONAL ETHICS
and THE RIGHT THING TO DO....

[taikan]

In light of the fact that Bill Richardson has been saying for months that he would remove all American troops from Iraq, it appears that Hayden has sold out and joined the Establishment by parroting the DLC/MSM line that only those Democrats with lots of money are "major" candidates.

[maryinbelltown]

Tom - Edwards has been saying this all along - in printed material, speeches, debates, and answers to questions at meetings. The NYT writer has an agenda so he spun this well-known position of Edwards as something late and risky [50,000 troops out asap, draw down over the year, no combat troops left behind, only embassy troops with guard duty] See? I could give the speech that he has made so many times. Question: Why aren't you better informed?

[GuiltyByStander]

Now that Bill Richardson has had an update on the practical issues of troop withdrawal thanks to Joe Biden, there isn't a democratic candidate who wants to keep troops in Iraq any longer than is needed to clear them out safely. Edwards is not distinct on this question.

Where he fails -- and where every Democratic candidate except Biden also fails -- is that he and they have no idea what to do next. Even arm-chair strategists like you and me have no trouble imagining a plausible case in which a US troop withdrawal is suddenly a local disaster. Take any one of a dozen unpredictable factors in Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Syria ... and see how complicated it gets.

The US has real, moral obligations to moderate Iraqis, Iraqis who have worked for us and supported political change there, to the Afghan government that we have pushed into place, to the secular middle class of Pakistan -- a population larger than Russia, to Iranians who are looking for a way out from under their own government -- a government we have strengthened with our rhetoric. Not only is just walking away from this akin to a hit-and-run, it's also extremely dangerous.

This stuff is all second-hand and confusing for Obama and Edwards. (Clinton seems to have a copy of the Administration's script.) But it's the biggest problem we have and nothing else is going to be resolved before it.

Biden has led the national conversation on these issues and is the only candidate who knows what to do. Why don't we just get the junior Senators out of the way and get this done?

[moonjumper]

And Edwards announces this a day before the Iowa caucus? Why not promise everyone $10,000 or a new car? If he actually believes what he's saying, don't you think he would have said something earlier?

This reeks of desperation.

[Freedomfinder]

Thomas Thomas Thomas
Did you write this piece last week?
Are you sure your same person that penned The Port Huron Statement?
I worked hard for you in a blue collar area in 76 when you ran for the Senate and that was hard work!

[godsbreath64]

To see David Bonier heading Edwards' national campaign may be the best indigna of the latter's potential/work; his ability to make a decision actually worthwhile to us/america. None of them can explain why the people are denied inpeachment proceedings.

Now if only the Supreme Count will choose him this time. In about a week, they of all people, are going to take up and dictate the future policy of their Bush v Gore masterpeice: voter fraud. The lap media is sleeping it off.

In a Newsweek piece from editions in the postal system on 911 entitled "The Accidental President", a Russian Justice participating in a post wall fall project to study our system, remarked how it was that someone else besides the electorate decided who ran the government(the kind of thing that gave Communism a bad name)"in our country we wouldn't let the judges pick the president." Judges were in the pocket of the executive officials in some nations, he acknowledged, just not supposed to here.

Oh, what a new mallenium will bring.

So will John impress the Supreme Count enough? What we want, entitle to, or deserve is meaningless in the context of the perfect permanent majority.