Edwards speaks to Detroit Democrats and calls for U.S. to leave Iraq

Edwards speaks to Detroit Democrats and calls for U.S. to leave Iraq
By Charlie Cain--Detroit News
Sunday, April 22, 2007
----
DETROIT--Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told Michigan Democrats Saturday night that the United States must quickly get out of Iraq, which he called a "bleeding sore."
"America needs to be leaving Iraq, this is very, very simple," said Edwards, a 53-year-old former U.S. senator from North Carolina, making his second bid for the White House.
Edwards was the keynote speaker at the Michigan Democratic Party's annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. More than 2,000 Democrats packed a ballroom at Detroit's Cobo Center. They each paid $150. The proceeds go to the state party.
Edwards said that the war has already cost this country more than $500 billion. He also said President Bush's plan to increase troop levels won't work.
"We have had multiple surges, none of them worked," he said.
(...)
During a 38-minute speech, Edwards said it was shameful that in the richest country on the planet, 46 million people have no health care coverage. He said as president he would push his plan for universal health care for Americans, paying for some of the cost by ending Bush's tax breaks for individuals making more than $200,000 annually.
He also said that Detroit and Michigan could be a hub to develop environmentally friendly fuels to power the automobiles of the future.
"I don't want to see the fuel efficient cars in the world built someplace else," he said. "They ought to be built right here in Detroit and the United States of America by UAW workers."
Edwards said he would oppose trade agreements that would harm U.S. workers and said he opposes the pending trade agreement between the U.S. and South Korea.
----
Read the rest here.

"I don't want to see the fuel efficient cars in the world built someplace else," he said. "They ought to be built right here in Detroit and the United States of America by UAW workers." --John Edwards

http://cmsimg.detnews.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C3&Date=20070421&Category=UPDATE&ArtNo=704210447&Ref=V2&Profile=1020Q=100&MaxW=500
Edwards with Gov. Granholm

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070214-iraq-plan/

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards today laid out a comprehensive proposal for Congress to implement his plan to stop President Bush’s escalation of the war in Iraq and begin an immediate withdrawal by capping funding for troops at 100,000, and requiring withdrawal of all combat troops over the next 12-18 months.

Tricky little distinctions, these things. Combat troops comprise only about half the troops in theater. And what about those permanent bases?

U.S. in Iraq
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards told Michigan Democrats Saturday night that the United States must quickly get out of Iraq, which he called a "bleeding sore."
"America needs to be leaving Iraq, this is very, very simple," said Edwards, a 53-year-old former U.S. senator from North Carolina, making his second bid for the White House.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070421/UPDATE/704210447/1020/NATION

Military bases in Iraq
"wants to begin bringing the troops home quickly and he is steadfastly opposed to the construction of permanent bases."
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=151739

Chris Matthews: “Are you in favor of permanent US military bases in Iraq?”
Sen. Edwards: “Absolutely not.”
http://www.yesh.com/blog/2007/01/14/edwards-and-permanent-military-bases-in-iraq

I'm not saying that he didn't say it. But, if you're concerned with "little distinctions" it would help to know exactly what HE said.

Where Edwards has called for a complete withdrawal of ALL troops?

He has not. He has carefully, like Obama, called for the withdrawal ONLY of combat troops.

Second, on the issue of permanent bases.

Edwards has said he does not favor them. But a permanent base is a base that stays indefinitely. Has he called for an end to all US bases in Iraq?

I don't believe he has. These distinctions are important. Edwards, like Obama, is leaving himself wiggle room to continue the war.

Do you understand my point? You cited something that isn't a quote and then said these "little distinctions" matter.

I think the burden here is on you to prove what you're claiming.

My claim is FIRST, that Edwards has not called for all troops to leave Iraq, and SECOND, he has not called for existing bases to be dismantled.

The evidence for these claims is taken off JohnEdwards.com and is therefore a fair summary of his position as far as I know:

"Edwards’ plan for Iraq calls for Congress to: * Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq."

Therefore the headline is misleading as the DETAILS of what Edwards is calling for fall far short of the US leaving Iraq.

If Edwards became president, the US could leave behind all 14 bases in Iraq and 100,000 troops, nominally for support of these bases. None of this would contradict what he has said. On the other hand, he could also withdraw completely. But his statement does not constrain him to leaving Iraq completely.

I am not saying in this post that this is good or bad. But we should be clear about what the candidates are saying. Edwards is carefully, as I said, giving himself wiggle room to continue the conflict.

He would withdraw all troops except for those to guard the embassy (all embassies in the world are guarded) and foreign aid workers, such as the Red Cross.

From the campaign:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/11/143313/553

First, Edwards is calling for the pullout of COMBAT TROOPS only.

When we say complete withdrawal we mean it. No more war. No combat troops in the country.

You are incorrect to say that Edwards is calling for the withdrawal of all troops except those to guard embassies. He is calling for the withdrawal of troops deployed to combat brigades only. As the following link shows, this is less than half of all troops.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/world/middleeast/10troops.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=7357040a4fbd7140&ex=1323406800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Pulling Out Combat Troops Would Still Leave Most Forces in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 — Frontline combat troops in the 15 brigades carrying out the American fight in Iraq — which the Iraq Study Group says could be largely withdrawn in just over a year — represent about 23 percent of the 140,000 military personnel committed to the overall war effort there.

On any given day, according to military officers in Baghdad, only about 11 percent of the Army and Marine Corps personnel in Iraq are carrying out purely offensive operations. Even counting others, whose main job is defensive or who perform security missions to stabilize the country for economic reconstruction and political development, only half of the American force might be considered combat troops.

Furthermore, the American Embassy in Iraq is the largest in the world. The Iraqi people did not invite the United States to invade and turn the entire center of Baghdad into an embassy. Edwards seems to be in favor of maintaining this "embassy".

Edwards' statement seems to endorse the idea of maintaining US bases, even if he doesn't say permanent bases are a good idea. Think about it - are US bases in Germany or Korea permanent? Who's to say? But he hasn't ruled out the US staying for the next 100 years.

I stand by my statement that Edwards is carefully choosing his statements to allow an indefinite occupation - like Hillary and Obama.

Compare to Bill Richardson's far stronger statement:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/11/143313/553

If I were President today, I would withdraw American troops by the end of this calendar year. I would have no residual force whatsoever.

Until Edwards makes a statement as strong as this, we must be honest and say that he has not come out in favor of ending the occupation of Iraq.

I already showed you what he said. He is not like Hillary and Obama. It seems like you are determined to think otherwise. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Edwards intends on leaving 75% of the troops there. In fact, he has stated flatly that he won't.

and other U.S. interests. Is that what you're concerned about?

Michigan Dems really liked what they heard, though I'm not surprised.

Julie