John Edwards on Meet the Press

The big issue on the John Edwards segment of Meet the Press was leaving residual troops in Iraq.

Bill Richardson says he won't leave any. John Edwards says he'll leave non-combat troops there to protect the embassy workers and he'll put combat troops in Kuwait in case they're needed to fight al- Qaeda.

Edwards says Hillary will leave combat-ready troops inside Iraq while he'll leave them across the Kuwait border.

I don't know Obama's position since there were no Obama questions during the interview.

Personally, I tend to think Richardson's position is best, just get out and get out now.

< Another GOP Coverup? Novak Says GOP Knew About Craig's "Weird Conduct" | Tonight: Inside Our Prisons with Koppel on Discovery Channel >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You favor leaving the embassy undefended? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 10:58:00 AM EST

    What If (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    The Iraqis don't want diplomatic relations with the US?

    Then (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:14:09 AM EST
    we won't need an embassy.

    My point is Richardson's statement is just unrealistic fluff.

    There is no difference between the candidates on this issue. This is a campaign gimmick.


    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    If we are asked to leave we will just have to 'liberate' the Iraqis again. It does not matter what the Iraqis want, that should be clear by now.

    but, (none / 0) (#14)
    by ding7777 on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 07:25:46 AM EST
    the Edwards supporters refuse to see the gimmick

    Fake choice; embassies have idiosyncratic security (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Ellie on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    It's like demanding whether he favors all US personnel be kept out of Iraq OR occupation. Even friendly nations have uniformed or plainclothes security at their diplomatic buildings.

    The issue is whether the "security" element exceeds the diplomatic and administrative function of the facility or is a functioning aspect of that.

    The Baghdad complex looks more like an overt and excessive military control center though, virtually devoid of the expected cultural elements in its design that one usually sees at embassies and consulates.


    I'm opposed to (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:04:10 AM EST
    a 21 building compound in Iraq for an embassy cosing more than $700 million.  A smaller embassy would need less security and could be handled by police rather than military, no? Who guards our other embassies around the world? (I have no idea.)

    My point though was on the residual combat troops -- not non-combat troops.

    That is a different point (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:13:16 AM EST
    And I agree with that.

    So is Richardson advocating abandoning the current embassy structure?


    I doubt it and I agree (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:37:27 AM EST
    that unfortunately, Richardson's plan sounds more a play than reality.  

    US Marines (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    In some cases there may be some paramilitary CIA types.

    marine guards (none / 0) (#16)
    by Satya1 on Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 12:31:43 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure the Marine Corps guards most if not all embassies. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm

    Helen Thomas on... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 12:13:36 PM EST
    The Democrats Who Enable Bush
    Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

    Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

    Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

    When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting."

    Obama dodged, too: "I think it would be irresponsible" to say what he would do as president.

    Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: "I cannot make that commitment."
    So what are the leading Democratic White House hopefuls offering? It seems nothing but more war. So where do the voters go who are sick of the Iraqi debacle?

    Ron Paul also says GET OUT NOW (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MSS on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 03:23:19 PM EST
    I would like to see the candidates say: GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW.

    Richardson says it. Kucinich says it. GOP Libertarian Ron Paul says it. They are all right.

    When asked: What if there is a bloodbath? The answer is: There is NOW a bloodbath.

    When asked: What if there is a civil war? The answer is: There is NOW a civil war.

    U.S. and Blackwater's presence in Iraq has major imipacts on the region -- all negative:

    *random deaths and absence of services, all attributable to U.S. presence
    *no control over Blackwater violence, no oversight, no removal of mercenaries who kill people for no reason
    *increase in the number of "al qeida" and "insurgent" forces -- people who were previously neutral are now forced to take sides with the insurgency to protect their own lives and their families
    *horrific death tolls that impact every family in Iraq
    *mass exile, particularly of the upper and middle class -- who would stay in Iraq if they had another choice; many who can't afford another choice live in squalid refugee camps

    Every day the U.S. remains in Iraq, we breed more terrorists, more death, more angry and wounded families.


    Our politicians need to be brave enough to demand an immediate exit.

    Pelosi Praying (none / 0) (#3)
    by nellieh on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    Via TPM and Huffington Post is an article about Pelosi Praying President Bush does the right thing. Isn't Congress' responsibility to MAKE SURE he does? I suggested she get off her fanny and stop praying and DO SOMETHING.What happens if her praying gets her the same answers as Bush. I would rather she think for herself and if she can't abdicate and give the job to someone who can. We are supposed to be a secular government and there should be no room for "divine" intervention. What is that anyway? She erred at the beginning taking impeachment off the table and not sending bills the President doesn't like to him repeatedly to veto. Where is the oversight? The ethics Committee? The House isn't like the Senate. They can take the gloves off and get in the gutter if need be but we seem to have no street fighters. They are just compliant to the administration. I expected the troops to be withdrawing from Iraq by now and a possible 'surge' in Afghanistan where the job could have been concluded by now if we had stayed in force. Also impeachment proceedings could have been well on their way.

    If that's the best a sitting Dem leader can do (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ellie on Sun Oct 07, 2007 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    I'll substitute prayer for voting on election day that she'll hold onto her seat so I can quit praying so much that she'll gets up off her ass today and respect the constitution.

    Don't Ignore Good News (none / 0) (#13)
    by john horse on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 05:48:00 AM EST
    Does the number of troops left behind matter?  Once the US is not involved in the occupation of Iraq there will be no reason for any of the insurgent groups to attack our troops.

    All the Democratic party candidates want to end our occupation of Iraq.  The number of troops left behind is less important than the fact that whoever the Democratic Party candidate is, this time,  major combat operations will finally be over.  That is good news and a major difference between the Democratic Party and the Republicans.