If I were president, I would've already been bringing the troops out. If George Bush is still president, then he'll be in the position of either having to sign the legislation, which means he'll have to meet the timetable for withdrawal, or the money will dry up and he'll have to start withdrawing troops out of Iraq. Either way, the Congress has done exactly what the American people asked them to do in November of 2006, which is what they should do.
Cross-posted with permission from TomP's diary on Mydd. Come on around after the fold:
In response to Timmy's question based on the Richardson canard, John Edwards explained his position on Iraq and drew clear distinctions with Senator Clinton:
SEN. EDWARDS: No, of course he's not correct. They will-unless we're going to close the embassy in Baghdad and have the only American embassy in the world that we provide no protection for, there'd have to be some troops in Baghdad for purposes of protecting the embassy. Now, what I've also said that is also ignored in that statement is that we do need to maintain quick reaction forces just outside of Iraq.
Now, there are some real differences between myself and Senator Clinton on this issue. I am not for maintaining troops-combat troops-inside Iraq, for a lot of reasons. I think number one, they'll have a target on their forehead while they're there. Number two, it continues the perception that America is occupying Iraq. What I would do instead is outside of Iraq, probably in Kuwait, maintain a quick reaction force. And that quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of al-Qaeda operations, not terrorism at large. The problem with what I hear with Senator Clinton saying, and I've heard others say is when you talk about maintaining troops, combat troops inside Iraq, based there, and they're focused on anti-terrorism activity within Iraq, that's very similar to what President Bush says. It's very hard to understand what-where that ends, where the limits are.
I do think we need to end this war in Iraq. I'm for getting our combat troops out of Iraq. I'm going to be responsible and protect the embassy like we do everywhere else in the world, but we will maintain a quick reaction force just outside of Iraq in Kuwait, so that if there are al-Qaeda-let me be very specific, not general terrorist activity. I mean, terrorist activity can include any sort of action against civilians and against the state. I'm talking specifically about public enemy number one, al-Qaeda, that's responsible for a small percentage of the insurgent activity in Iraq.
VIDEO OF JOHN EDWARDS ON MEET THE PRESS:
'Meet the Press' transcript for Oct. 7, 2007
Unlike Senator Clinton, John Edwards will not keep combat troops in Iraq:
SEN. EDWARDS: But I want to be really clear about something, Tim. I'm saying something very different than what Senator Clinton's saying. Senator Clinton has said she will maintain troops inside Iraq, and that they will engage in combat operation, combat missions, I think is her term, inside Iraq. I will not do that. To me, that is a continuation of the war, and this war needs to be brought to an end. I do think that America, like we would anywhere else in the world, is focused on al-Qaeda, focused on public enemy number one, and we have to be ready to respond if they're planning attacks inside Iraq, attacks against us or our embassy inside Iraq, or attacks outside of Iraq. We have to be prepared to respond to that, and that's why I'd keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait. But I would not, as Senator Clinton would, keep combat troops inside Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.
I want to be able to say next fall, when I'm the Democratic nominee, and I'm standing with the Republican candidate, that Americans have a very clear choice. They can choose a Republican who wants to continue the war or a Democrat who wants to end the war. We can't just be a little bit better than them. We have to be very clear that voters have choices in this election.
We learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran.
And I think that vote today, which Senator Biden and Senator Dodd voted against, and they were correct to vote against it, is a clear indication of the approach that all of us would take with the situation in Iran because what I learned in my vote on Iraq was you cannot give this president the authority and you can't even give him the first step in that authority because he cannot be trusted.
John Edwards talks about his 2002 Senate vote on the Iraq War and the lessons he learned from his mistake during a stop in Portsmouth, N.H. on October 3, 2007.
"My position on the Iraq war is very clear. For over a year, I have called for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops--to jumpstart the comprehensive political solution that will end the violence in Iraq and will allow a complete withdrawal of all combat troops within 9 to 10 months. But while we need to make sure our next president is committed to actually ending the war in Iraq, our brave troops serving in Iraq shouldn't have to wait till 2009.
"The American people voted for change last November and 11 months later we still have the status quo. Congress must be strong enough to stand up to President Bush and must pass a funding bill with a timetable for withdrawal. If the president vetoes that bill, Congress must send it back, again and again, as many times as it takes for the president to finally get the message that he can't defy the will of the American people. Every member of Congress who believes this war must end has the moral responsibility to use every tool available to them, including a filibuster, to send the president one simple message: No timeline, no funding. No excuses."
Thanks for posting and sharing this.