Edwards: No Permanent Bases — And The Pols In Washington Are To Blame
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.
Comments (7)
Keith wrote on November 27, 2007 6:40 PM:Would have been nice if you guys had made the same point (that he was on the record opposing permanent bases) for Obama this morning.
DTM wrote on November 27, 2007 7:07 PM:In addition to what Keith noted, I will note without comment that the words "permanent bases" actually appear nowhere in that quote from Edwards.
anon wrote on November 27, 2007 11:18 PM:At least Edwards is making it clear that we need to get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possible. Obama wants to get out, but is hamstrung because he tows the centrist, equivocating rhetoric in terms of how long, and Clinton remains for all intents and purposes pro-war with her refusal to commit to any clear proposal to withdraw from Iraq quickly. But that isn't too surprising given that she still thinks that voting to authorize this stinking war was not a mistake. God help us if she wins.
vdomeras wrote on November 27, 2007 11:36 PM:Permanent bases (or a Korea style occupation -- John, we don't occupy Korea, though we definitely help enforce the border) are a practical reality. Diplomatic efforts to get the parties in Iraq to agree to cooperate are as complex and unpredictable as the Israeli/Palestinian problem. The solution will take a lot of time. Given that we caused the instability in Iraq, and given that there is evidence that our people are finding some success at separating the warring parties and establishing a semblance of order, an honest effort to allow the parties to achieve a stable country seems to be consistent with our image of ourselves as honest brokers and peacekeepers.
By this, I don't mean to suggest that we should have invaded in the first place.
anony wrote on November 28, 2007 3:06 AM:Bush himself has said more than once publicly that he envisions a "Korea style" presence for the United States in Iraq. That's where Edwards gets that particular term. The occupation refers to Iraq since we are occupiers. The best thing the US can do to secure peace in Iraq is get the hell out of there as soon as possible. There is no American solution: we are the problem!
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 28, 2007 7:13 AM:Good on Edwards. He was dissing long-term (unending) Iraqi involvement months ago . . .
Sideline Converstation:
It would be good to see an innovative news outlet check the non-front runners web posting and press releases before rushing to post/print/publish/air the Main-line Corporate Media's darings droppings. Where could we find such a paragon of jouralistic integrity? Inquiring minds wanta know . . .
votenic wrote on November 28, 2007 10:36 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
