neo-commie

I have to ask how Senator Edwards can say with such certainty that he will have all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term. Ditto for military bases in Iraq. I really, really, want to believe that a candidate can do that, but given the unrest in Pakistan, failure to capture Bin Laden, failure to reach a political solution in Iraq (up to this point) how can he be so sure?

John that is why you are going to lose.

Note to John:

Tone it down.  You and Hillary are saming many of the same things.  Calling her 'out' is beginning to sound like a broken record.

Hi I'am Mr. Negative, because my campaign is going down the tubes.

"I have to ask how Senator Edwards can say with such certainty that he will have all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term."

Dot, Illinois (Sent Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:06 PM)

I agree. I understand what he is trying to do here. I know he wants to be the candidate who will bring our troops home, but he is putting himself in a corner here. Even if he begins the withdrawal on his first day in office, he simply cannot safely have the troops out and the bases dismantled in one year. Just wait for another campaign (probably Biden) to refute this with some former military commander with testimony corroborating this. I give it until the end of the day tomorrow.

Here is Edwards' answer to the logical fourth question in his scenario:  What will the US do when Iraq reverts to full blown civil war and mass genocide after the US leaves?  Nothing.

The fifth question:  What does the US do when al queda takes refuge in a lawless Iraq to recruit and train terrorists to target more Western cities?  Nothing.

Look, unilaterally pulling our military out of Iraq is not a plan that addresses the current Iraqi threat to world peace and security.  The US needs to bring stability to Iraq while simultaneously downsizing its military presence there.  The only way to achieve a moderate degree of stability in Iraq is by brokering a political solution that is acceptable to the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Sixth question:  Who is the only candidate who has put forth a political solution to promote stability in Iraq?  Answer:  Senator Joe Biden.

I'm sure that even Sen. Clinton could ask and answer questions if she posed them to herself.  Nice try though Fmr. Sen. Edwards.

Jonnnyyy is pandering, just like he says Hillary is pandering..like Obama and all the other repub candidates are pandering. Welcome to politics 101.

Didn't he say during debate that he cannot commit of having troops out of irak by end of his 1st term. Let me ask a fourth question.
John Edward said he will some special operation unit outside irak in kuwait to fight al qaeda. In case they go in, how do we call that intervention?

John if you can do that I will vote for you in a heartbeat. Tell me how and give us a plan and I will work for you to becme President!!
Kucunich will IMPEACH and you will bring the TROOPS home !!  A win, win in my book!
EDWARDS/Kucinich 08

I don’t think Mr. Edwards is being very responsible in making such statements. As HC has stated many times that it is unclear what the landscape will look like once GWB is out of office. Having said that I don’t know how anyone can say with any amount of certainty what they as president will or will not do in a foreign land a year from now. It simply makes no sense and seems at best he is trying to pander to an uninformed electorate. And it goes without saying that he is trying desperately to distinguish himself from Senator Clinton’s very responsible measured approach.

So, Mr. Edwards proposes that we surrender.

Any candidate that thinks they can give definitive responses to these questions is not fit to be President.  The Edwards and Obama campaigns are just pathetic at this point.  

if john wants his questions answered have him go to biden for president.com where the only comprehensive approach has been located. he can ditto that for a briefing on pakistan since he nor anyone else in the debate saw that coming either.like was repeated in the debate i agree with joe.i guess you'all on the top teir need to go to the lower tier for answers, why is that?

John talks like he's running for president of the democratic party, not the country.


Van

Edwards has consistently said two things: one, that there will be troops left in Iraq to guard the embassy and humanitarian workers--but NO combat troops, none. And, two, that in conjunction with his first drawdown of troops, he will begin an all-fronts political & diplomatic initiative to get to a workable situation in Iraq. (I do not say solution, because I do not think there is one.) He is NOT going to simply get all the combat forces out, and do nothing to fill the void. He's going to do what this administration should have done long ago, should be doing now.

Thank God for John Edwards!  We need a president that tells the TRUTH!!

D Elliott - Hillary's "measured" approach is measured by the fact she is receiving the MOST contributions from the DEFENSE INDUSTRY!  more than any other candidate in either party.
The Defense Industry knows who'll keep the war going and the war profiteers happy.

John Doe - you're referring to a media soundbite about Edwards - not the FACTS.

John if you can do that I will vote for you in a heartbeat. Tell me how and give us a plan and I will work for you to become President!!
Kucunich will IMPEACH and you will bring the TROOPS home !!  A win, win in my book!
EDWARDS/Kucinich 08
HP Boston (Sent Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:21 PM)
-------------------------------
Vote for Edwards!!

Hillary Clinton has never run anything, not even her household.
How can we even suppose she can run the country, seems like we would have another Bill Clinton doing the legwork...not another 4 years please...
Wake up people.

Margaret, NYC - The connection you are trying to make is that because HC received the most money from defense contractors that she will sacrifice the lives of American men and women. That really is what you are saying and quite frankly it is so cynical and disgusting it makes me sad for you. To be so cynical and think such evil thoughts....my goodness...Any relation to Dick Cheney by chance?

Margaret, just vote democratic on election day. ANY democrat.

"Any candidate that thinks they can give definitive responses to these questions is not fit to be President.  The Edwards and Obama campaigns are just pathetic at this point."

csh, IL (Sent Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:27 PM)

I don't understand how Edwards coming up with these questions makes Obama pathetic. Did I miss his endorsement of Edwards' idea?

Hypocrites! This is a nation of hypocrites! You say you want honest, direct politicans...then when a candidate like John Edwards spells out a firm position, makes clear his intentions, a position in line with the 60% public opinion that invading another country to procure oil was a mistake...and you critize him! Call him a commie! Hypocrites! Enjoy your Clinton Presidency, people. You don't deserve an honest leader.

Dot:

I am with you on that one.  These sorts of pledges make me very nervous.  Yes, I think it is important to have clear goals in mind with both foreign and domestic policy, but I also think it is important to be realistc in acknowledging that they cannot guarantee anything over a year removed from the new president taking office.

Margaret
Remember the debate in NH??? And during his interview on MEET the Press, hesaid he will keep special operation in Kuwait to fight al qaeda. Checks your fact too.
And again my question, if Al qaeda is attacking US embassy in Bagdhad? What happened or those special unit went in to defend our embassy, how do we call those intervention?

Can it be accomplished in one year? YES! You redeploy the troops to a specific area and mount a transit station. It will allow for gradual removal of the troops while keeping the area secured. Can it be done in an orderly fashion? Ask the troops to do it and they will.

These questions present false choices.

It is time for the media to stop touting the prowess of the Clinton political machine and focus on the defining issue of the 2008 Presidential campaign: the path out of Iraq for the U.S. Otherwise, Iraq may be the defining issue of the 2012 campaign.

Whom should the public trust to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq? Candidate A or B.

Candidate A pledges to end the war but has no plan to do so. Instead, Candidate A intends to ask military and diplomatic advisers to study the issue and develop a plan after taking office.

For advice on presently, Candidate A relies upon persons that believe the war has gone wrong because of poor leadership by the Bush Administration but that the decision to invade was correct. Many of these same advisers have supported the surge and see the U.S. intervention in Iraq continuing for at least another decade. When directly questioned, Candidate A refuses to commit to bringing all U.S. troops home by 2013.

Candidate B says as long as U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq the hard work of reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Candidate B has called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq now, pledges to bring all U.S. troops (both combat and non-combat) home promptly upon taking office and has offered a plan to achieve this.

Candidate B is being advised by military and diplomatic experts that have been highly critical of the U.S. intervention in the Iraq and strongly advocate an immediate exit from Iraq.

Candidate A is Hillary Clinton; candidate B is Bill Richardson.

What is Clinton's actual plan for leaving Iraq? In the time honored tradition of politicians that recognize an issue must be addressed but lack any understanding to how to do so, Clinton calls for a study. As explained on her campaign website:

"As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration."

Clinton doesn't say the U.S. will begin withdrawing from Iraq in 60 days. Instead, Clinton simply asks the military and other advisers to give her a plan within two months.

This begs the question: what if Clinton's advisers repeat the mantra of the D.C. political and military establishment that Iraq is too unstable and a withdrawal of our forces will threaten U.S. interests in the region?

What is clear is that Clinton lacks confidence in her own judgment. Instead, Clinton relies upon the architects of the Iraq morass and those that have deemed the surge successful to advise her of the course of action to take in Iraq. We can expect her advisers plan for Iraq will be a hawkish plan.

How can I make this charge? Look at whom is advising Clinton today on Iraq and military affairs. Among her military advisers, as reported earlier this year in the Washington Post, are Gen. John ("Jack") Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff; Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff for intelligence; retired Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who served as President Clinton's deputy national security adviser; retired Col. Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow.

These are the persons that will form her inner circle of advisers should she become President. Let's examine each of these persons.

Jack Keane was "Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army during Iraq war planning" and at one time an outspoken in supporter of Rumsfeld. In July 2003, Keane praised Tommy Franks' war plan for the Iraq campaign as "bold and brilliant."

There never was a comprehensive plan in place to secure and rebuild the country. Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded our forces in Iraq, recently stated that our war plan was "catastrophically flawed [and] unrealistically optimistic."

In July 2004, Keane admitted in testimony that: "We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be."

Fast forward to December 2006, whom is meeting with President Bush and advocating an escalation of the war in what became known as the "surge"? Yes, the answer is Keane. He along with Frederick Kagan developed the strategy of the surge.

Recently Bill Sammon, a Washington Examiner correspondent and author of a new book titled "The Evangelical President," reported that President Bush has been sending messages to Clinton to urge her to "maintain some political wiggle room in your campaign rhetoric about Iraq." One wonders if Keane is the person serving as Bush's liaison to Clinton on Iraq.

Claudia Kennedy, another supporter of the war, was "absolutely" certain Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In April 2003, when asked why no WMD had been discovered, she responded:

"If absolutely nothing was found after months of thorough searching, my question would be -- where was it shipped? If such weapons are not in the country, they must have been shipped out because we absolutely know they were there."

Kennedy believes that it is not our invasion of Iraq that has caused so much difficulty for the U.S. Rather, the war has been botched by President Bush. Kennedy recently made national headlines when she stated:

"I don't oppose the war. I think it's being very badly led by the civilian leadership. I have not ever heard (Clinton) say, 'I oppose the war.'"

Donald Kerrick wrote an essay last year entitled "Iraq Not Lost Yet". While calling for a review of our strategy in Iraq, Kerrick opposed those he labeled as advocating the U.S. cut and run. Such a course would lose Iraq to the extremists.

Andrew Krepinevich believes a sustained U.S. presence is crucial to the future of Iraq. The U.S. has no choice in Iraq because if we leave Iraq will descend into civil war.

In October 2005, Krepinevich published an essay criticizing the U.S. intervention in Iraq as lacking a coherent strategy which resulted in the failure of U.S. forces to defeat the insurgency or improve security.

Krepinevich believed a winning strategy for Iraq could still be developed, one that focused on providing security to Iraqis rather than hunting down insurgents. However, "victory" in Iraq will come at a steep price according to Krepinevich:

"Even if successful, this strategy will require at least a decade of commitment and hundreds of billions of dollars and will result in longer U.S. casualty rolls. But this is the price that the United States must pay if it is to achieve its worthy goals in Iraq."

This year, Krepinevich sees the surge, if successful, resulting in American forces staying "in Iraq for decades -- much as we have in Korea, for example, to ensure the security of that part of the world, we will have to have 30,000, 40,000 soldiers in Iraq, I think indefinitely."

Michael O'Hanlon is another supporter of President Bush's surge. In an Op Ed entitled "A War We Just Might Win" published in the New York Times in July 2007, O'Hanlon argued, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms."

After the debate at Dartmouth College where Clinton, Edwards and Obama each refused to commit to withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq by 2013, O'Hanlon praised them for their "flexibility" on Iraq. "I think the Democratic position allows all three of the top people to move in the Republican direction if things move around in the next twelve months," O'Hanlon stated.

Clinton is not demonstrating the qualities of leadership we need in our next President to end the war in Iraq. She talks like a dove in Iowa and votes as a hawk in Washington, D.C. We should expect U.S. troops fighting and dying in Iraq for years to come under a Clinton Presidency.

With Richardson, we have a candidate that will end the U.S. intervention in Iraq and set U.S. foreign policy on a new path that embraces the world and addresses the pressing issues of climate change, global poverty and energy use facing our planet. And unlike Edwards, who would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in Iraq, Richardson has the expertise and experience in foreign affairs to wage the diplomatic offensive that will need to coincide with the withdrawal of our forces.

Amy, I am a Clinton supporter and would also gladly vote for Edward, Obama, Richardson or Biden if they get the nomination. Just vote democratic. Democrats, lets not vote ourselves out of another election please!!!!!!! Repubs also cheat of course.

'...EDWARDS/Kucinich 08
HP Boston...'

How about Clinton/Romney '08
She flips, he flops...
Tehn she flops, and he flips...


The way to get American troops out of Iraq is to 'get them out'.
Now, why didn't you think of that HP ?
Hillary wants to win the Bush/Clinton war
NO DICE !!
Let the Iraqis have their own oil

Get the troops out !!
Edwards is ANTI-WAR
Clinton is PRO-WAR

It's that simple.....


PS Why did Hillary earlier call for George Bush to withdraw all troops BEFORE HE LEAVES OFFICE ?

Do you remember that, Carrie ?
Why is it Hillary wanted George Bush to withdraw all the troops, 4 years before she says she CAN'T WITHDRAW TROOPS ?

Is she FLIP-FLOPPING, Carrie ?
(or is she is 'general election mode' ?

Kato: '...Here is Edwards' answer to the logical fourth question in his scenario:  What will the US do when Iraq reverts to full blown civil war and mass genocide after the US leaves?  Nothing...'

So, Kato...
Should we intervene in a CIVIL WAR ?
Sounds like fun !!
Who's side are we going to be on ?


'...The fifth question:  What does the US do when al queda takes refuge in a lawless Iraq to recruit and train terrorists to target more Western cities?  Nothing...'

Maybe we attack them from a base in Kuwait ?
What do you think KAto ?
How long do we stay to make sure al-Queda doesn't come back ?
4 years ? eight years ? the entire JEb Bush Presidency ? the entire Chelsea Clinton Presidency ? the entire Zeppo Clinton presidency ?

'...Look, unilaterally pulling our military out of Iraq is not a plan that addresses the current Iraqi threat to world peace and security.  The US needs to bring stability to Iraq while simultaneously downsizing its military presence there.  The only way to achieve a moderate degree of stability in Iraq is by brokering a political solution that is acceptable to the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds...'

DUH !!
If it doesn't work in the first year, it may not work
Are we gonna stay there 4 years negotiating ?

'...Sixth question:  Who is the only candidate who has put forth a political solution to promote stability in Iraq?  Answer:  Senator Joe Biden...'

That's GREAT, Kato
Now if we can get those DUMB IRAQIS to split up their country for our convienience....

It's lucky First Read has sooooooo many tough minded politico - military 'experts'.
They'll come in handy when we 'solve' this Iraq mess.....
Now, when do we invade Iran ????

NSMSNBC: '...I'm sure that even Sen. Clinton could ask and answer questions if she posed them to herself.  Nice try though Fmr. Sen. Edwards...'

But, she'd lie, just out of habit, NSMSNBC
Then, she'd flip-flop and say she DIDN'T SAY THAT
Then, Bill would complain about her being 'Swiftboated' !!

What a dust up
I hope she doesn't ask herself

John Edwards has got my vote!  Bring 'em home!

you just load the deuce and a halfs, point them south to Kuwait and that big boat home. Aint a big thing. You just have to think outside the box. There are no life or death issues in Iraq for outsiders. There is no need for the US to be anywhere in the Middle East. They can sort out their own problems. They dont need meddlers which is already evident by the number of US dead. Out NOW!

Ted: Nice try.  We'll leave eventually buddy so you might want to start getting used to it.  We started it, we can end it.  That's not surrender, it's called finishing the job and leaving.

Van:  After W., this sounds fine with me.  Why can't Democrats have a President of their own now, since you neo-con freaks have had one for 8 years?

Sounds like we have quite a few Clinton supporters worried about their candidate which is why they are here attacking Edwards. Nice try guys but everyone sees through such tactics.

I think Edwards is doing a great job in the campaign. For a guy who just started running ads in Iowa he has still managed to stay in a three-way tie in Iowa despite the fact that Hilliary & Obama have spent millions in Iowa. Hilliary and Obama have also had the benefit of a media narrative that talks about them all of the time. In view of this you Clinton supporters are smart to be scared of Edwards.

I like his clarity. The only way to get out of Iraq, is to get out. Difficult as it is, we have to accept the fact that our presence in Iraq is the problem; we've drawn Al Qaeda like flies, we've split the country into factions, we've destroyed their infrastructure. If we go, they will have no more excuses. They will have to take control or be eaten up. It's not our business, it was never our business. We are not so smart that we can go around the world telling other countries what they need to do. As for Hillary, I think she's a good person, but she always knuckles under to the corporate powers. Edwards won't be like that and they know it: he's already gone to court countless times and whupped 'em fair and square!

John, whatever troops you leave in Iraq will be involved in combat, whether you call them combat troops or baseball players.  Your word play is the worst case of calling the kettle black.  You are a phony.

john's campaign is the lamest, most pathetic of all dems.  the party didn't want you in 04, still don't in 08.  as such, you've resulted to pandering for votes.  say what you will about hillary's flips and flops, but at leat she understands that the issues aren't black and white.  being president requires seeing all sides of an issue and then, and only then, making decisions.  not only is it unrealistic to say you'll have all troops out nearly 15 months before being able to actually attempt it, it's irresponsible.  GO HILL!

It is painfully obvious from the comments attacking Mr. Edwards' position on Iraq that the majority of the respondents are poorly educated and have no idea why the US is in Iraq.  Folks, do some reading and research before you comment on things you know absolutely nothing about - emotional commentary can never replace educated positions.

  John we are winning the war as a result of our strong military presence in Iraq. U.S. forces have nearly eliminated the threat of Al Quada and have quelled much of the sectarian violence. There is no substitute for victory. Victory is our exit strategy. Vote Republican 08!

Here are the answers to your three questions Mr. Edwards.
1. Yes, if it is necessary to protect the Iraqi people and their young and fragile Constitutional Democracy from the indiscriminate mass murdering tactics of al-Qaeda, the hardcore Saddamist, and the Iranian proxie thugs.
2. Yes, if it necessary to protect the Iraqi people and their young and fragile Constitutional Democracy from the mass murdering tactics of al-Qaeda, the hardcore Saddamist, and the Iranian proxie thugs.
3. ABSOLUETLY YES, if the Iraqi government invites us to do so. To do otherwise would be visionless, shortsighted, and very very stupid.  

Hey, why is Dan Abrams more interested in hearing is own voice than allowing someone to answer the question he puts to them!

Yes - Dazed and Confused - you are dazed and confused.
As long as there are combat troops in Iraq, our gas prices will increase.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with pulling troops out of Iraq, all Americans certainly should agree that the Bush administration has made a huge mess for someone to have to clean up.  

John Edwards has my vote for sure.

Anyone who still thinks staying in iraq is an honor thing for america need to pack themselves and their kids and head for iraq...its not good enough to say you support this policy ..we need to see some chickenhwak blood spilled...take edwards and the rest of the lying flip floppers with you

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):