Edwards on permanent military bases in Iraq: Administration "has completely lost touch with reality"

[JohnLocke]

Edwards Statement on Bush Administration Plans for Permanent Military Bases in Iraq
John Edwards for President
Saturday, June 2, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement about today's report that the Bush Administration is planning to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

"Today's report that the Bush Administration is planning to establish permanent military bases in Iraq on the basis of an utterly misguided analogy to the Korean Peninsula is more evidence that the Administration has completely lost touch with reality on the ground.

"The situation in Iraq couldn't be more different - in Korea, American troops are helping to preserve peace and stability; in Iraq, they are targets in a civil war. How on earth could the Administration entertain the fantasy that American troops could remain in Iraq for 54 years?

"The disconnect between Washington and the American people could not be more clear. America wants a withdrawal from Iraq, and the president is busy setting up permanent military installations. The idea that the president is considering permanent military bases in Iraq lays all too bare the consequences of backing down to him or offering non-binding resolutions.

"Congress has the power to put an end to this - it should correct its mistake and use its constitutional funding power to force an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

"America's troops will continue to play an important role in the region after withdrawal, but the strategy should not involve permanent bases. After withdrawal, the U.S. should retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven."

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070602-permanent-bases-iraq/

[pocoloco]

1. The dumd fucks in congress

could have voted against the war to begin with.

Now Edwards is claiming he didn't know this was the plan from the beginning?

[MissWaverly]

2. I happen to agree, if we don't leave we will be pushed out

there will never be a permanent US presence there.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Guess what? Hillary wants to keep permanent bases in Iraq as well.

Some Democratic candidates are complicit in the plan to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2009. Hillary and Obama have spoken about keeping a US military footprint beyond 2009. Here is what Hillary has said on the subject:

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda. It is right in the heart of the oil region. It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.

-- Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, March 15, 2007 by the New York Times

If Elected... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain

by Michael R. Gordon and Patrick Healy

WASHINGTON — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.

In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.

In outlining how she would handle Iraq as commander in chief, Mrs. Clinton articulated a more nuanced position than the one she has provided at her campaign events, where she has backed the goal of “bringing the troops home.”

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0315-02.htm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. IG, why do you think HRC and Obama are "getting away" with advocating continuing the war?

It is amazing how the anti-war wing of the party has not really held these two accountable for their Iraq positions. This is especially the case regarding Obama, who has the same position as HRC on Iraq. He, unlike HRC, is popular among progressives yet progressives dare not even ask the same questions they asked of HRC about his plan. Are some too occupied with worshiping on the altar of the 2002 IWR to notice or even care that Obama has exactly the same position that HRC does on Iraq?

[JohnLocke]

4. Kick (nt).

[JohnLocke]

5. Kick (nt).

[dogman]

6. So what happened to nothing is off the table with Iran?

So the nuclear option is more likely?