Edwards Response: NO PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ- LINK

[Blackhatjack]

Edwards hits at the heart of the issue the Bush Administration is attempting to protect --permanent occupation requires permanent bases. Abandon permanent bases and bring the combat troops home will END THIS WAR, and force the Iraqis, the regional powers and the UN to step in and create a political solution.


http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_no_permanent_bases_and_the_pols_in_washington_are_enabling_it.php

Edwards: No Permanent Bases — And The Pols In Washington Are To Blame

By Eric Kleefeld - November 27, 2007, 6:36PM

John Edwards has responded to TPM's report that the Bush Administration is planning to have permanent American military bases in Iraq:

"President Bush's announcement of new 'principles' for an agreement with the Maliki government in Iraq is further proof that despite talking about a withdrawal, Bush is planning to pursue a 'Korea-style' American occupation of Iraq for 10 years or more. Our goal in Iraq should be to get the Sunni and Shia to come to their own political solution with a diplomatic offensive, not keep propping them up with American combat troops that are already stretched too thin. We need an immediate withdrawal of 40-50,000 troops and a complete withdrawal within 9-10 months. By failing to stand up to George Bush and by proposing Iraq plans that would leave combat troops to fight missions based in Iraq, the politicians in Washington are enabling George Bush to sustain the occupation of Iraq."

Edwards was previously on the record opposing permanent bases.

[provis99]

1. yeah, but parse what Edwards is really saying

You have to be careful with what these politicians are saying. Edwards claims he wants to withdraw all "combat" troops, not all troops. There's a difference. Also, he doesn't define what a "permanent" base is. He doesn't say there won't be American bases in Iraq (he could define them as "temporary"), and "temporary" could mean anything less than infinity. Anyways, the troops he's proposed pulling out of Iraq would not be brought back to the States, but only "repositioned" to other Gulf states.

Sorry John, wish I could trust ya. But I have to be skeptical of all politicians these days who don't give straight, unambiguous answers.

[Blackhatjack]

3. Actually Edwards is the one YOU CAN TRUST ....

I've followed his career for over 20 years and you will have a hard time finding anyone who will state that Edwards has ever lied about anything(especially among opposing counsel when he was a trial lawyer).

Edwards has been consistent about what troops he would bring home, who would be repositioned into a ready reaction force, and which troops would be retained to guard Embassies.

Edwards has never referred to any kind of 'temporary military bases.'

Edwards has always promised to continue maintaining a presence in the Middle East Region (which has been the policy of every President since Carter).

There is nothing ambiguous about the answers Edwards has given.

[provis99]

6. well, I hope you're right

Edwards is one of my favorites in the primaries, but after 8 years of "triangulating" by Bill Clinton, 7 years of moronic confusion of Bush, and the unsatisfying behavior of the 2006 elected Democratic Congressional leadership, I've become more careful of all politicians. Such is the state of the system today.

[deacon]

2. k + r

[Nutmegger]

4. This is extremely important.

Getting our troops out will be useless if they don't get rid of the permanent bases there too.

I heard a so-called "analyst" on the M$M saying that the US will be in Iraq for another decade, sort of like a South Korea situation.

That has to be avoided at all costs.

Edwards 2008!

[Reno.Muse]

5. He's truthful about this. He made this same statement in Reno NV 2 weeks ago