John Edwards calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq

[allemand]

August 5, 2006

MOULTONBORO, N.H. --Former vice presidential candidate John Edwards, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president, said Saturday the United States should start pulling troops out of Iraq immediately.

The former U.S. Sen. from North Carolina told reporters America should "make it clear (to Iraqis) we are leaving, and the best way is to start leaving. We should take 40,000 combat troops out now."

Edwards, who has said he regretted his vote as a U.S. senator authorizing President Bush to declare war in Iraq, said he would ask the country's military leaders for a strategy "to have the (rest of the) troops out in roughly 12 to 18 months."

"There is no chance other countries in the world will help Iraq as long as we are an occupying force," he said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2006/08/05/john_edwards_calls_for_immediate_withdrawal_from_iraq/

[HereSince1628]

1. Getting out of DC puts politician back in touch with his base.

I find that really interesting. Is a wedge developing between Edwards and H. Clinton? Or is it just getting off the high pundit diet fed to those trapped inside the beltway?

[struggle4progress]

14. Edwards started as a complete political neophyte in 1998, and ..

.. junior Senators typically follow the cardinal rule for mainstream politics, namely "Be Thou seen as neither the First nor the Last."

JE made a real effort to make himself available to constituents while he was in DC.

His office was the target of pointed but polite antiwar correspondence, and there was also some "in your face" antiwar stuff at some of his public meetings; given the purply complexion of NC, it's hard to guess exactly how the mailbags and phone logs sorted out in DC.

I'm guessing that he started (as many people often do with issues on which they lack expertise) by "averaging" different views on the war and has come to change his mind as a result of becoming better informed with time, with the facts on the ground continuing to discredit BushLtd.

In particular, I'd bet JE would have arrived at his present position even if he'd stayed inside the Beltway ...

[ChiciB1]

17. I Think You Said It Very Well...

I feel Democrats should take a very close look at him and then think about what he stands for.

[spooky3]

21. well said and I completely agree with your assessment.

[HereSince1628]

60. Yes well he voted for the IRW and he stuck with his support after

Kerry was making noise that things were going badly.

Indeed he might have come to this "if he was in DC" how can we say otherwise? But then how can we ever say being away from the DCDems hasn't also put him more in touch with where the Democratic base is on the occupation of Iraq?

[struggle4progress]

77. Edwards spent the 04 debate with Cheney criticizing the Iraq adventure

EDWARDS: ... And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq .... Republican leaders .. have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse .. because of the incompetence of the administration .... Paul Bremer said yesterday .. they didn't have enough troops to secure the country. They also didn't have a plan to win the peace. They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful ...

Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not. And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best ...

IFILL: ... You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that Saddam Hussein would still be in power?

EDWARDS: ... It means that Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted .. the right way. And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the people who attacked us on September the 11th ....

... We also thought it was wrong to have a $20 billion fund out of which $7.5 billion was going to go to a no-bid contract for Halliburton, the vice president's former company ...

... And .. if we need to, we can take Iraqis out of Iraq to train them .... It's so dangerous on the ground that they can't be trained there. We can take them out of Iraq for purposes of training. We should do whatever has to be done to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process ...

... They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy ...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/05/debate.transcript/

JE was still in the Senate at the time; he was taking a respectable "Pottery Barn" position; and he was saying a lot of the right things then. But political realities and moral consciences limited the speed with which one-time war supporters could reposition themselves to call for immediate withdrawal. The required time for such repositioning was predictable in advance, and it was clear in advance that JE was headed for the position he finally took in November 05:

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a dear price. The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth ... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/12/17191/214

Of course, I tore my hair out and cursed constantly through all of this -- but politics is politics ...

[MeanBone]

83. A very sensible analysis.

Edwards has acknowledged his initial vote was wrong, and he voted to STOP Bush when it came time to vote on funding because Bush had failed to follow through on letting the inspectors do their jobs, and Bush had failed to build a real coalition.

Ultimately, it was George W. Bush who decided to rush into war, and he was going to do so no matter what members of the Democratic minority did or didn't do. Would a President Edwards have made that decision? I seriously doubt it.

[MontanaMaven]

96. Yes, and he's also wicked smart

I'm sure that his ability to take a lot of information and opinion and synthesize it comes from years of experience as a great (not middling) trial lawyer. Couple that intelligence with a true ability to get in someone else's shoes and he sees clearly what is going on in the Middle East. Far too many folks in the current administration have no "theory of mind" i.e. no ability to empathize and we are the much worse for this terrible lack.

[papau]

22. Iraq withdrawal now called redeployment? - or is this pull 40k & stop

until military types say pull more, while you ask military types for a strategy "to have the (rest of the) troops out in roughly 12 to 18 months." a big difference from redeployment ??



From NY Times this week

Unlike Mr. Lieberman, she joined 38 fellow Democrats last month in backing a resolution, defeated by Republicans, that called for American forces to begin exiting Iraq this year, without setting a withdrawal deadline. Last November, Mrs. Clinton voted for a Democratic amendment calling for a “phased redeployment” of United States troops from Iraq. Mr. Lieberman opposed that measure as well.

The former U.S. Sen. from North Carolina told reporters America should "make it clear (to Iraqis) we are leaving, and the best way is to start leaving. We should take 40,000 combat troops out now."

Edwards, who has said he regretted his vote as a U.S. senator authorizing President Bush to declare war in Iraq, said he would ask the country's military leaders for a strategy "to have the (rest of the) troops out in roughly 12 to 18 months."

[Zhade]

30. Link? Google turns up nothing for me.

NT!

[papau]

72. Here is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY POSITION - at least it is as of today!

It remains a pull out/phased redeployment - same as Clinton's position earlier.
Only ranking Armed Ser/Intel members and leadership signed the 7/30 letter

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/July06/IraqPlan.html

UNITED HOUSE AND SENATE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP PUT FORWARD CONCRETE PLAN FOR CHANGE OF COURSE IN IRAQ
Monday, July 31, 2006

Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C.—With violence exploding in Iraq, there is little evidence that the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq. Thousands have been killed in sectarian and insurgent violence in recent months, and now the American people have been told that thousands more U.S. troops will be redeployed into an urban war zone in Baghdad. The President's current approach is not sustainable. Today, the Senate and House Democratic Leaders and ranking members from the key national security committees wrote to the President calling upon him to begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces before the end of the year, to transform the U.S. mission, and to launch a real diplomatic and reconstruction effort to help stabilize Iraq. These concrete recommendations draw upon the Levin/Reed Iraq policy amendment overwhelmingly supported in the Senate. Simply staying the course behind the President's failed policy is not in the interests of our troops, taxpayers or national security.

Quotes from the letter:

"While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy."

"Far from implementing a comprehensive ‘Strategy for Victory’ as you promised months ago, your Administration’s strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat."

"Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions."

"In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained."

"Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit."

"Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction."

The text of the letter follows below:

July 30, 2006

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive “Strategy for Victory” as you promised months ago, your Administration=s strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the “United States Policy in Iraq Act” enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of “significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq.” Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq=s reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee



http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/democrats.iraq.ap/index.html

Key Democrats united on Iraq withdrawal
Letter calls for the start of a 'phased redeployment' by year's end

Monday, July 31, 2006; Posted: 6:43 p.m. EDT (22:43 GMT)

Key congressional Democrats have called for a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Key Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have united to call on President Bush to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, citing an overtaxed military, billions of dollars spent and ongoing sectarian violence.

In a letter to Bush released Monday, the Democrats backed a plan for the "phased redeployment" of troops.

An earlier split
Democrats had previously advocated reducing reduce troops levels in Iraq, but were split on the precise approach. During a recent floor debate in the Senate, Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin proposed legislation that would require troops to be out of Iraq by July 2007.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and other Democrats backed a measure that called for a phased redeployment to begin by December 31, but did not set a deadline for all troops to be home.

The recent letter, dated July 30, is significant because -- signed by every top Democrat on committees with oversight of military, intelligence and international affairs -- it solidifies the Democrats' position and presents a unified front as members head into election season.

The letter also was signed by Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, his House counterpart.<snip>

Prior 6/06 efforts:

Top Democrats united on Iraq exit

The amendment would:

Begin the "phased redeployment" or pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006.

Require the administration to submit a plan by the end of 2006 for continued phased redeployment beyond 2006.

Transform the role of troops left in the country to a "limited mission" of training and logistical support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and targeted counterterrorism operations

Senate Democrats push phased Iraq redeployment By Christina Bellantoni THE WASHINGTON TIMES June 20, 2006

Top Senate Democrats, who last week voted against a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq, yesterday introduced a measure to start a phased troop redeployment by the end of the year.

=======================================================
Feingold's Iraq deadline gets cold shoulder in Senate
Democrats seem to prefer looser alternative
By KATHERINE M. SKIBA
[e-mail]
Posted: June 20, 2006
Washington - The Senate today plans to debate a new proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold to have most U.S. troops out of Iraq by July 1, 2007.

[blm]

2. Dem plans were submitted for withdrawal - Edwards should use his cache

to urge more Dem lawmakers to get behind it.

[mike_c]

if Edwards makes immediate withdrawal from Iraq...

...part of a campaign platform, he'll get my support. I didn't support him last time primarily on this issue.

[Monkeyman]

5. They were getting hurt by swiftboat vets

Edwards hated Iraq but remember who ran the run DNC

[butterfly77]

3. It seems that if one senator or congressmen or woman says..

withdraw the troops they all play follow the leader and wait for the response of constiuents, where are the leaders.

[ChiciB1]

4. Oh, I Just LOVE Him!!

To be sure, I'm probably one of those pacifists and really have been so concerned about this WAR.... from the VERY beginning, but I don't see how we can stay there any longer.

It just seems to get worse each day and many will think he's only doing it to prop up his chances in '08, but I applaud him anyway!

My dream ticket would be Gore/Edwards, but since Gore isn't running I'm sticking with Edwards. And the ONLY reason I would put Gore ahead would be so Edwards could get more exposure and experience and the Repukes wouldn't be able to use those issues against him. I do feel that is what many will say anyway.

Go, JOHNNY, GO!!

[demnan]

6. As much as it might be an effective issue to campaign on

I heartily wish and hope the Iraq war is not an issue in the 2008 election. I know, dream on, dream on.

[ChiciB1]

8. I Happen To Agree With You... There Are Quite A Few Other

issues that need much attention. But it's a start and I for him to lay his cards out in this way and at this time... I think it's courageous and more than many other Democrats have done.

I'm sure he knows he's going to be getting "hit" pretty hard and in a negative way regardless.

[Zhade]

31. Me too - I hope there IS no war by then.

And like you, I know I'm dreaming.

[keta11]

7. Yeah!! Lets hear it from Mr. Vote for the WAR

when it was cool.

[ChiciB1]

9. Do Tell?

How many other so called "front-runners" FOR '08 denounced their "vote for the war" before Edwards did? It was only AFTER Edwards stated he felt he made a mistake that others came forward and said the same thing. And not many did it right away either. And Hillary has YET to say it!!

Of course, I KNEW this would devolve this way... it always does. Big Tent and all, but to each his own.

[Monkeyman]

11. Yep one time Kerry was to be in IN they called us to come

Talking to Edwards he hated the war. But what was happening then with O.Neil the ones running the run said shut up

[mike_c]

12. with all due respect...

...keta's point is a good one. Edwards DID show poor judgement, lack of courage, political triangulation, or something similar when he supported the war against Iraq from 2002-2004. On the other hand, he was one of the first from that lot who came out and recanted, something I have a great deal of respect for. A call of immediate withdrawal shows even more political courage. Edwards DESERVED scorn for his support of the war, just as he deserves recognition now for his turnaround.

[Monkeyman]

23. Your not hearing Edward duing the 2004 run wanted Iraq

To be part of the platform. Kerry's people said no. Kerry and Edwards could not say a thing that would give more ammo to the replugs.They were put on the defence and the message was not being heard.O,Neil and the liars have now put their sights on Murtha. I don't like it but Rove does get the job done devert devert devert

[GreenArrow]

63. Nonsense. Edwards was one of the biggest Democratic cheerleaders

for the war, and was so from the get go...nearly as big a cheerleader as Lieberman. As the war grows increasingly sour, as people awaken to the realization that they were lied to and the country led into a murderous, illegal and thourughly unecessary tar-pit, so Edwards position has changed from whole-hearted support, to his current poll driven pandering.

The time to make the courageous decisions was when the issue was being sold to the American people, and Mr. Edwards helped sell it, and when it came up for a vote, and Mr. Edwards voted for it.

[philgobluemi]

73. Sorry, that's just a rant

Poll-driven pandering? Whole-hearted support?
Edwards has been critical of the war from the beginning. You're just making stuff up.

[GreenArrow]

89. I'm not making anything up

Edwards was in support of IWR from the start, occasional criticisms nothwithstanding. His selection as VP was one of Kerry's crucial campaign errors. There was no reason to have two Senators on the ticket with pro-IWR votes.

[Zhade]

32. A very fair and honest analysis, as always.

I absolutely HATED Edwards, and everyone who voted for that bullshit pack of lies that has caused so much suffering and death - but this is likewise a reason to like him.

He changed his view. That's to be respected.

[philgobluemi]

41. JRE did not support Bush's War

Supporting the IWR (the alternative was a Republican-only IWR) that called on the president to go through the UN Security Council, get final word from international weapons inspectors, and forge a broad alliance, is not the same as supporting Bush's war. As soon at Edwards saw what Bush did with the IWR (did nothing that it called for) and began his war, he voted against the $87 billion war authorization "I Love George's War" bill. So, JRE was against this war from the beginning. Was he for strong, legal, international pressure on Saddam Hussein? Yes, and I still don't see the problem with that position. But to call him pro-war is revisionist history.

[mike_c]

49. you're mistaken-- the IWR called for NONE of those things....

This has been reviewed extensively here-- the IWR was a blank check for war under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, and it's preamble described Congress's wholesale agreement with all the lies the Bush admin used to justify an invasion. See: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mike_c/1

[philgobluemi]

53. No, I am not

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

"obtain ... decisive action by the Security Council...."

I could go through the rest, but I've got to go paint.

Was it an ideal IWR? No!
What it better than the republican-only alternative? Yes.
Were Democrats politically smart not to look soft on Saddam but lay a foundation for future criticism of BushCo if they broke the IWR? Yes.
Can one ecpect a senator from North Carolina who was still considering running for reelection to commit political suicide for something that would change nothing and end in his replacement by a total wingnut? No. Let's be realistic. This is politics? Not a dreamland.

[mike_c]

56. Sec. 2 expresses Congress's support for PREVIOUS diplomacy...

...which of course had failed, but that's not the point. It does not call on the administration to do anything further. Congress supported diplomacy but did not require it. The ONLY actions required of Bush are prefaced with statements like "the President shall...." Section 3 and to a limited extent Sec. 4 are the only parts of the IWR that have any real consequences.

[philgobluemi]

75. Previous, current, and future

But again, you miss the point. An IWR was going to pass the House and Senate. You do understand that right? The questions were:
Were Democrats going to go on record as not supporting a legal president's existing powers to wage war during a time of "war" just a year after 9-11?
Were Democrats going pass the best resolution possible that pressured the President to go to the Security Council (which he promised he would and then renigged), go through inspectors (which he did, then shut them down), and form a coaliton (which he claimed but didn't). These three critiques (along with the incompetent running of the war) have been the mainstay of the non-pacifist opposition to Bush's War.

[mike_c]

76. many democrats did just that-- the honorable ones...

...and NOT one of them has suffered any political consequences for it. In fact, the democrats who are struggling with political fall out are the ones who voted FOR the IWR. That argument about it being political suicide to vote against the president's war powers is utterly specious. What of all the folks who DID?

[philgobluemi]

78. We went 0-5 in Southern Senate races in 2004

or weren't you watching?

Do you know anything about North Carolina?

Exactly which senator is suffering from the political fallout who voted for the IWR? (and don't say Lieberman).

[ChiciB1]

61. THANK YOU!

Would it be possible that we here at DU could agree that maybe BOTH of them are pushing back harder.

I'm sorry, and I could have missed it.... but I just don't recall all that much about Kerry saying very much. Then again, it might just be MSM's fault. I know Murtha got LOTS of attention over and over, many negative reports. I see the posts here, but what I don't understand is why MSM didn't make more "hay" out of what Kerry did or did not do!

Seems to me THEY would have exploited it for it was worth. Anywhoo... I hope the ball keeps rolling!

GORE/EDWARDS! EDWARDS/? Go, Johnny, Go!!!!!

[Skittles]

82. he should have been smart enough to know what that bastard bush would do

WE knew

[GreenArrow]

91. the WHOLE fucking world knew!

He knew what he was voting for and he supported it.

[keta11]

57. I would vote Feingold, Kucinich etal anyday over

mealy-mouthed politicians any day. Dont piss on me and tell me its raining!!!

[ruggerson]

93. And you would keep losing elections

and you ain't dragging me down with you. Kucinich is about as electable as Alan Keyes.

[GreenArrow]

59. most telling line in the article is this:

"...John Edwards, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president..."

You hit the nail squarely and soundly right on the head. His credibility on this issue is nil.

[philgobluemi]

101. Oh, pulleeezzz

So, if the AP wrote "Russ Feingold, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president" or "Wesley Clark, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president" or "Mark Warner, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president" or "John Kerry, who is considering another run for the Democratic nomination for president" or any of the others, they'd have no credibility on this issue? Come on, you've got to do better than that.

[GreenArrow]

104. pulleezz nothin'

Feingold hasn't run before. Voted no on IWR. Voted no on Patriot Act.
Wes Clark didn't cast vote on IWR. Nominally against it.
Mark Warner didn't cast vote on IWR.
John Kerry had his chance.
John Edwards had his chance.

It's time for some new blood in 2008; the taint of a Pro-IWR position just doesn't cut it. Of the names you mention, Feingold is the only one I'd support, but I think Mark Warner is the winner in 2008.

[philgobluemi]

105. Interesting, but not at all

germane to the point

[wisteria]

10. He sounds like Senator Kerry, only Kerry has drawn up actual

plans in the form of an amendment. Edward's should be backing Kerry's plan. Why doesn't he come out and support Kerry's plan?
Oh, and on the cynical side, it is interesting that he does this now when the mention of civil war is brought up and more people are considering an out. On the other hand, Kerry has been out front on this for well over two months and he called for withdraw along with Feingold long before Edwards.

Edward's was OK as a VP candidate, but Kerry is the real deal- I am sticking with him. He takes risks and stands up for what is right even when it isn't the popular thing to do.

[mike_c]

13. kerry has NEVER had the courage to call for immediate withdrawal....

Not that I'm aware of. First he supported the war, now he wants a "timeline" for withdrawal. The arguments against such a timeline have been rehashed repeatedly, but they boil down to "if the war is wrong now, it will be wrong six months or a year from now-- there is no justification for delaying ending it." Anything short of calling for an immediate end is political cowardice, IMO.

[ChiciB1]

15. I KICK For Your Statement....

Edwards is really showing more courage this time around. I waited many years for Kerry to run and I would vote for him over Hillary any day because I do think Kerry really cares. But I would like to see him become MUCH more outspoken and UP FRONT.

Regarding Hillary, I know many think she's acting as she is now to garner Independent votes and will then lead in a different manner. That won't wash with me... stand for what you believe in now.... don't wait til later!!

Flag burning amendment, Geez!!!!

[wisteria]

19. What? Where have you been? Kerry has been out front and in the

for front on this issue for months now. He was the first to apologize and say he regretted the IWR, and he just recently in June, introduced an amendment with Feingold that legally called for an immediate withdraw from Iraq and a call for world talks.
Kerry has been taken heat for months now because he has been so outspoken on Iraq and the war on terror. Edwards just about repeats Kerry's ideas and statements and he is considered outspoken.

Edwards doesn't hold a candle to Kerry on any foreign policy issues.
Frankly, Edwards is parroting Kerry on this.

[wisteria]

16. Sorry, but Kerry has called for immediate withdraw .along with

diplomacy.It actually is a great amendment. This amendment was voted down just recently in the Senate. He took a lot of heat for it. Remember- the old C&R? Edwards is not forging any new ground here. I would like to know where he got that number of troops to be withdrawn from. How did he arrive at 40,000?
When it comes to foreign policy Edwards doesn't even come close to Kerry. Kerry KNOWS his stuff.

[ProSense]

18. Immediate? 12 to 18 months or so? Kerry's plan: out by July 2007!

What's Edwards' plan? Kerry's is smart and realistic! Edwards should have supported Kerry's calls for withdrawal over the past year.

Everybody and their brother is catching up (forced to by reality), even stay-the-course promoters lkie Friedman, Senator Hagel and a Republican Congressman (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2731944&mesg_id=2731944) are jumping on the bandwagon.

Hillary Clinton finally calling for Rummy to resign, but there have been calls for him to be fired for years:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1814715&mesg_id=1814715


Edited for the recent Repub Congressman's call.

[mike_c]

20. I concede the point....

Alas, I only read the OP, not the full article. I should know better. The U.S. could be completely out of Iraq within 3 mos, IMO, maybe faster, and they could stand down completely within 48 hrs. Immediate withdrawal means immediate-- not a year from now, not 18 mos from now. It means now.

[Tom Joad]

25. Tom Joad's plan. Out by week from Thursday.

Okay, maybe 2 months. Just load up those big airplanes full of troops and U.S. weapons, dismantle army bases. It shouldn't take long.

[PATRICK]

26. I don't think it is about plans

it is about DOING something and everyone has been spinning wheels around Fortress Bush fruitlessly. it is trying to shout out and storm the resistance of the media and Congress that is foremost for the Murthas and others who get attacked for these pains.

Plans? We need the desire to even consider the need for plans. There is none, absolutely none at the WH for radical withdrawal. Bush and Cheney fully intend to have permanent troops there until the wells run dry. Whatever number game makes people happy suits them because they neither put enough troops in for any good purpose nor take any out to risk their private "plan".

You should be thinking how they(the Coup) plan to prevent the FULL withdrawal from Iraq. They will not permit this unless you beat this bunch of crooks into the ground in the federal prison yard. That is one plan it might we worth looking about and physically trashing. Bush said he would leave this to future presidents. Not likely. It will always be their presidents and theirs will be in thrall to an old bionic(VP) scoundrel's dessicated will and bankrupt reason. THAT has to be faced directly or this contest among what-iffers will remain a tragic dream.

[ProSense]

36. I know what it's about: withdrawal. A real strategy that

everyone should rally around and demand Bush implement, instead of giving them the opportunity to continue muddling along and fooling people. A real plan for withdrawal, with full Democratic support, and that way the Hagels of the world could be challenged to put up or shut up. This is about reality!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2759782&mesg_id=2759782

[PATRICK]

107. No Crusader Castles

n/t

[Zhade]

33. Agreed.

NT!

[Mass]

47. This is fucking ridiculous. Edwards is proposing what Kerry has proposed

9 months ago and everybody applauds Edwards. This is mere stupidity.

I am happy to see Edwards say that, but Kerry and Clark have said the same thing a very long time ago and both have said how to proceed.

[philgobluemi]

55. So, are you retracting this statement now?

[Mass]

58. No. as I said, people are not applauding what Edwards say. They are

applauding the AP title and did not read the AP article.

I like Kerry and Feingold a lot, but would not call what they offered to the Senate an immediate withdrawal, neither does what Edwards is proposing qualifying for that.

[Zhade]

69. I'm sorry, when did Kerry or Clark call for immediate withdrawal?

I recall plans taking place over a year or more, but not immediate.

Oh, and respectfully - I don't give a FUCK what Clark has to say anymore, after his defense of Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanese civilians. Sorry.

[Mass]

70. When did Edwards? " Immediate withdrawal" is the title form AP, not a

quote from Edwards.

Read the article. Since when is 40000 men now and the rest may be in 12 to 18 months immediate withdrawal?

Tell me how what Edwards proposed is different from what Feingold and Kerry proposed two months ago in the senate?

[Zhade]

74. It appears I was fooled.

My mistake - I'm so busy trying to fight off people offering apologia for Israel's war crimes that I got sloppy.

[Mass]

45. delete

[Tom Joad]

24. What's wrong with all US troops? Why the wait? Why the idiocy?

He is actually saying we should leave over 80,000 troops in Iraq, since we have over 130,000 there now.

[benny05]

27. He is Saying 40,000 Out ASAP

The rest be redeployed over next 12-18 months in order for us to get the Iraqi's trained to defend themselves. Getting the first 1/3 out sends a message that we are leaving and they need to get ready to start the learning process and for their governmental officials to get their act together.

Edwards' bloggers were tipped off this afternoon about this forthcoming announcement when he chatted with them live about these topics at the OAC blog. http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/story/2006/8/5/115040/3981

I'm glad he's going to China. I've thought for a long time he needed to visit there. It's amazing, since he has been out of the Senate, he has been invited to visit/speak in Dubai, Britain, Brussels, India, Russia, and Israel. He also met with Chancellor Merkel about US/Global investments in Germany. His foreign portfolio is growing and will continue to mature as he makes more out of US trips. Being out of the Senate has enabled him to meet people he would not been able to meet, such as high officials in those countries.

He's also free to spend time on looking for solutions to lift up our working poor that are not all government based, not to mention he's thought about the poor abroad. Edwards has said poverty is the root of many world problems.




John Edwards Speaking in Pittsburgh at Wake Up Wal-Mart Tour Rally
August 4, 2006 (photo credit: mbair, OAC)

[Tom Joad]

34. Iraqis *are* defending themselves. They are repelling a foreign occupatio

n. Now the occupation forces need to leave.

[benny05]

38. They Are Fighting Each Other

But yes, our being there is makin' it worse.

[Tom Joad]

64. Edwards foot dragging is also making it worse. Troops out NOW!

[benny05]

65. To agree and disagree

Tom Joad, I like your posts. But remember JRE is currently not in the Senate, but his service gives him the title of Senator for life. He was wise not to try to keep his Senate seat at the same time as being VP candidate, unlike Joe L. JRE decided that and my words only- he would not be a "wuss" and try to keep his seat at the same time. He chose to put his heart and soul (as allowed by the Kerry folks) into the 04 campaign. I believe his team had a chance to win, but there were other mitigating factors, too common to persue here.

Thus, unless we recognize which party is power at present, we cannot get the soldiers back today although I want that too to happen. Let's get real and instead vote out the farts who are war mongers, just as Ned in CT is doing to get their votes.

We can recognize JRE is fighting many fights for many of us.

[ChiciB1]

97. Your VERY Fine Statement Here Is What I Was Referring To When

I said we here at DU should start looking closer and what Edwards IS DOING and HAS DONE since the election! He didn't lay down and roll over. Call it what you will, another bid for Prez at the very least, but he has worked NON-STOP!

And because of this... he gets my FULL-SUPPORT!!! And he has broaden his experience and knowledge.

Oh, lets' see, where had The Idiot gone outside of the US BEFORE he was anointed to the Big House?? I know, should have said WH, just a pun on my part because THE BIG HOUSE is where he belongs!!!!!!

[w4rma]

28. Great! John Edwards is still presidential material. (nt)

[Zhade]

29. Kudos, Edwards.

Between this and the desire to fight to count every vote, maybe you were a better choice than Kerry.

Regardless, WELL-SAID! (Even if it turns out to be politically-motivated, he's right on the money.)

[Mass]

43. Kerry proposed that more than 9 months ago.

Nothing extraordinary there. Even Biden and Obama have proposed something like that, and at least the three have given details.

[philgobluemi]

46. So did Edwards

I remember he has had this position since November 2005. I'm still looking for the citation, but here it is in January (7 months ago).

Edwards calls for troop reduction to show 'we intend to leave' Iraq
By Peter Hecht -- Sacramento Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 10:59 pm PST Monday, January 9, 2006
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/story/14054502p-14885734c.html

"Former presidential candidate John Edwards called Monday for a "substantial" reduction in American troops in Iraq, arguing that the presence of U.S. forces is "feeding the insurgency" and sending the wrong message that the Iraqi people aren't in charge of their own country.

Edwards, who spoke at UC Davis Mondavi Center for the Performing Arts, told reporters beforehand he believes the United States should draw down its forces in Iraq "to send a clear, unmistakable signal to the world that we intend to leave, to permit the Iraqis to govern themselves and provide their own security."

[Mass]

48. Oh, so it is not news. Why is it so great in this case.

(except the fact that AP misled with the title because this is no more immediate withdrawal than Kerry and Feingold).

[philgobluemi]

50. This Has Been JRE's Position Since December 2005

or earlier.

I've now found that he called for 40k otu immediately, followed by reevaluation, training of Iraqi Armed Forces, and near or total withdrawal in 12-18 months in John Edwards Podcast #12, 15 December 2005.

[Mass]

52. OK. This is still not immediate withdrawal. This is basically the

position that people like Kerry, Feingold, and others have been holding for months now (and good if Edwards has too.) and I dont think anybody would call that immediate withdrawal.

I am not saying that Edwards is wrong or anything. I am just saying that many of the reactions in this thread are based on people reading the title of the thread and not the content of the thread.

[philgobluemi]

54. Yes, this position is clearly part of a progressive Democratic

concensus among elected politicians. It is also pretty much in line with the views of the American people according to recent polls.

[machka]

85. The earliest position statement I remember seeing...

From The Nation, 28 Nov. 2005 - "Cornbread and Roses":

In an interview after the UNC speech, Edwards finally utters the words he'd assiduously avoided during the last campaign: "I voted for the resolution," he says. "It was a mistake." So far, so good. But he goes on, "The hard question is, What do you do now? Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn't admit that isn't honest, and that's the truth." So what now? "I myself feel conflicted about it," Edwards replies. "But we have to find ways--and I don't mean just yanking all the troops tomorrow--but we have to find ways to start bringing our troops home. Our presence there is clearly contributing to the problem." So does he agree with Senator Russ Feingold that Washington should set a withdrawal deadline? "No. Even if we're going to say that internally, that we're gonna have our troops out by X date, there's no reason to announce that to the world. I think that's probably a mistake."

Emphasis mine.

[venable]

67. Edwards showed remarkable courage

when, having voted for the War Resolution ('I was wrong', he said. BTW, who else has that courage?), he voted against the first of the re-funding bills, the $87 Billion. And he did this right smack in the middle of the primary season, when he would be most vulnerable.

Imagine what he let himself in for by doing so. His vote leads to soldiers going there, and then he votes to deny funding for the war. Dim minds can easily say he sneds troops and then refuses to support them. In spite of those who think he is triangulating, he is, in fact, doing the very opposite, standing up in spite of the political costs. He didn't care what might be said, as this vote was on opportunity to do what was right - do the only thing left to the Senate to do, deny funds. He made a statement of principle in spite of the dangerous political consequences.

I find that tremendously courageous.

[VegasWolf]

35. That's my man! I may be able to vote democratic this time! nt

[grytpype]

37. EDWARDS / CLARK 08!!!! THE RIGHT CHOICE FOR AMERICA

[Inspired]

90. A most excellent ticket for '08!

A populist and progressive presidential candidate with a smart as a whip VP.

[Clarkie1]

103. Clark will never be Edwards VP.

Talk about an out-of-balance ticket.

[philgobluemi]

39. This has been JRE's position since

at least November (when he said that after the December parliamentary elections we should take 40k out ASAP, that's over 1/4th and evaluate the outcome). Heard it on an OAC podcast and in several other speeches. Will find cite if need be.

[spooky3]

42. welcome to DU, philgobluemi!

[benny05]

66. Hello

Welcome to the DU..:hi:

[blm]

92. That was the plan submitted by Kerry in Oct 05, and to the senate in

early November.

[Catchawave]

110. Hi phigobluemi !!!!

Welcome to DU :hi: :toast: :hi:

[Mass]

40. Immediate withdrawal in 18 months. The title is a little bit misleading.

This does not seem very different from what many other dems have proposed now.

[mom cat]

44. Great! .. Now will he call for a ceasefire in Lebanon and Palestine?

I am not holding my breath.

[benny05]

62. He's Calling for International Troops to be in S. Lebanon

From what I read today.

[mom cat]

68. That is different from calling for a ceasefire. Is he calling for an

international force in Israel to monitor their aggression on their neighbors?

[benny05]

71. That was not clear to me

My sense is that JRE is thinking more international collaboration in general, unlike Bush who went this alone in my instances, until recently.

[usregimechange]

51. kick!

[TayTay]

79. I think the calls for withdrawal as soon as possible will start to

multiply, especially since two Generals with first-hand knowledge of what the situation is like on the ground in Iraq, have said that Iraq is slipping into civil war.

This has to seep in a little bit more. Sen. Feingold, Kerry, Boxer, Durbin and others have been steadily making the case that we cannot win this war. The solutions in Iraq require political solutions that cannot be imposed at the end of US guns. Sen. Hagel made a speech the other day that acknowledged this. Now Sen. Hagel and others have to start voting their worries and start insisting that the Bush Administration face the reality that the US troops are in a non-tenable position.

I think this is just the beginning of the torrents of Dems who will start to fall in line and call for withdrawal as soon as possible. (There are logistical and safety concerns in moving that many troops. It will take a while to move 135,000 people and at least some equipment out of that theater of operation. As soon as possible might be 3-6 months.)

Thank you Senator Edwards. Every voice that is raised for this is most welcome. Thank you for your courage in saying this. I hope to God that Bush and Rumsfeld are listening.

[Zorra]

80. Well, that's great. But Dennis Kucinich, and a few other Dems,

were totally against this war from the beginning.

And DK was against the war for all the right reasons. He called it exactly like it was, and how it would be.

Not putting John Edwards down, I think he's great, but there are a few other Dems, like DK, that have much better judgment and foresight.

[dweller]

81. but Johnny is prettier!

sigh.

:kick: all the same.

kicking for DK, and let John get some accolades in the process.
dp

[NVMojo]

84. Right on, John Edwards!

[UDenver20]

86. POOF !!!!

There went his bid to become President.

Next....

[benny05]

88. Don't Think So

It forces other Dems to pony up though.

[retread]

94. Huh??? n/t

[citizen snips]

109. why?

[Vinca]

87. I've got to check the NH Dem schedule more often.

I really want to meet this guy!

[ChiciB1]

95. If You Ever Get To See Him In Person....

You won't forget it. He can keep an audience captivated AND pumped!!!

[The Stranger]

98. No shit? Where the fuck has he been? Watching what happened to Leibercon?

Well gawwdamn, John. Or is it "Johnny," as in "Johnny-Come-Lately."

We hardly knew ya.

[Inspired]

99. Get out of the wrong side of the bed today?

[philgobluemi]

100. Ugh, read first, then post

See all my posts. This has been JRE's position since November 2005.

[machka]

102. That's just when it was published. ;-)

The Nation's "Cornbread and Roses" came from an interview Edwards gave after the kick-off of the Opportunity Rocks tour at UNC-Chapel Hill - October 17, 2005. It just didn't make it into print until Edwards' WaPo opinion piece - and The Nation's article - were published in November.

[The Stranger]

106. Then why is it LBN?

[benny05]

108. What's Up Here?

This isn't news to many people who have been following JRE's views since he left the Senate. It is news to the MSM and now to you.

Where have you been lately, Stranger?