Abandon With Abandon
Edwards’ Murrow Iraq plan, “Good night and good luck!” NYT:
SIOUX CITY, Iowa — John Edwards says that if elected president he would withdraw the American troops who are training the Iraqi army and police as part of a broader plan to remove virtually all American forces within 10 months.
Mr. Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who is waging a populist campaign for the Democratic nomination, said that extending the American training effort in Iraq into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops to provide logistical support and protect the advisers.
“To me, that is a continuation of the occupation of Iraq,” he said in a 40-minute interview on Sunday aboard his campaign bus as it rumbled through western Iowa.
Don’t worry. This wouldn’t exactly be a Clintonian co-presidency. More of an Edwardsian mommy presidency.
Elizabeth Edwards, his wife and political partner, who listened in on the interview from a seat across the aisle, intervened at the end of the session to underscore that Mr. Edwards did not intend to stop all training and was prepared to train Iraqi forces outside of the country. Mr. Edwards continued the theme while acknowledging that the benefits of such training would be limited.
Mr. Edwards’s plan, like that of many of his Democratic opponents, is at odds with the strategy developed by American military commanders, who have said the situation is still too fragile to set a timetable for such extensive troop withdrawals and a curtailment of the training effort in Iraq.
Article goes on to outline Edwards’ shift from war supporter, to “honorable” and “gradual” abandonment with training for Iraqis, to a soulful belief it is time to pull up stakes, cut and run, to jolt some sense into those darned Iraqis. Wants U.S. troops in Jordan, Kuwait to prevent genocide and terrorism in Iraq.
As the interview drew to a close, Mrs. Edwards politely chided this reporter for failing to ask about Mr. Edwards’s plan to train some Iraqi forces outside Iraq, which she emphasized was an important feature of the plan. “It’s the one thing you forgot,” she said.
Mr. Edwards continued the thought. “Of course, it is limited,” he said, referring to the training. “You can do some. You can do some.”
Abandonment is part of a moral U.S. foreign policy:
Throughout his campaign Mr. Edwards has spoken about the need to restore the United States’ moral standing in the world. He was asked if he believes the United States has a duty to help protect Iraqi civilians, particularly since he had voted to authorize an invasion that had unleashed a sectarian struggle for power.
“That is a very important question for the president of the United States because it is very much a judgment call,” Mr. Edwards said. “Do I believe that we have had a moral responsibility? I do. The question is, How long does that moral responsibility continue and at what juncture is it the right decision to end what we have been doing and shift that responsibility to them?”
Sounds like morality ends at the election’s edge.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:35 am on Wednesday, January 2, 2008
8 Responses to “Abandon With Abandon”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am
What a load. If regime change in Iraq had been a Dem policy for the last 5 years(like they all said it was in 1998), Edwards would be all for it. These people have no morals, they are sustained by opportunism and narrative.
Just watch the first time a Dem administration has to authorize combat (like they did on a huge scale at least 4 times in the last 90 years), the “human shields” and other assorted left wing surrender enthusiasts will make like the woolly mammoth and be long extinct.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Maybe I’m going out on a limb here, but I don’t think we really have anything to worry about from Mr. I’m Too Pretty For My Hair. If he wins the nomination, I don’t think he can win the presidency.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
This is not a Democrat war, a Republican war, or even an American war. Like Viet Nam, it is an investment bankers’ and government contractors’ war. This time, the President and Vice President also happen to be involved.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Sounds nefarious websmith.
I believe it was a German field marshall who admitted they couldn’t beat the American generals: General Electric and General Motors. So if that is what you are talking about, I’m with you. We have only been able to prevail against our enemies because our vibrant and adapatable private sector outperforms central planning and statist control. Yeah, some fat white bald guy who looks like the guy in Monopoly makes a killing on that sometimes. So what?
If you follow the big money in the Iraq War, it was all headed into the UN, France, Russia and Germany, with respect to the Oil for Fraud program. Why do you think those entities were so vehemently against it? There’s your true bogeyman.
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I second V of C’s response to websmith.
I also think that Rebecca is right that we won’t have to worry about Mr. Wonderfully couffed parade follower. I almost hope that he wins. I think it would be ‘68 all over again–a landslide for the Republicans.
The man is the worst second-hander in the spot-light, never having had an original thought in his life.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
I agree with Rebecca - I don’t think he will slip through the Dem nominating process, but if he did, I think he would be toast. What a complete empty suit is Johnny blow dry. It would be good for Republicans if he was the nominee, but it would be terrible fro the country.
January 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“This is not a Democrat war…”
There haven’t been too many wars that we’ve been in that you can say that about.
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
“This is not a Democrat war…”
Funny, that wasn’t their attitude back in 1998, when Bubba signed that regime change legislation.