Edwards is just another pandering loser talking out of both sides of his mouth. If there’s 100,000 troops in Iraq when he takes office, he’s gonna pull out half. Sounds great, but the other half of his mouth (in the same exact comment from him) is willing to keep the war going until at least 2013, and even though he wants to cut troop levels immediate (recall the infamous New Direction in Iraq promise that Dems made last fall and never kept), he also wants to make sure that there’s enough forces to:
protect the embassy
protect embassy staff
protect aid workers
protect the US forces training the ISF
protect the US forces supporting the ISF
continue training the ISF
and
continue fighting AQI

RING
RING
RING
.
RING
RING
RING

Senator Edwards, it’s the clue phone, and it’s for you. Seems the post surge troop levels (that 100k you mentioned) is the troop level that’s needed to accomplish the missions you just described-missions actually described by President Bush in 2003. Get a clue.

RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of
your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?

EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I — well, I can
tell you what i would do as president. When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.

EDWARDS: I think the problem is — and it’s what you just heard discussed — is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. [ie, the Bush plan]

I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops. [LOL! Yeah, right! It took more than a brigade in Kosovo to do that, and he thinks a brigade can do it in Iraq?! 7 mission objectives=roughly 500 troops per mission. What? Is the Euphrates suddenly gonna turn to chocolate while the palms turn into gumdrop trees, Saddam's palaces turn to gingerbread houses, and the insurgents into Oompa Loompas?]

But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.

For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq. [Soooo, Al Queda in Iraq will not be fought in Iraq by US forces under President Edwards? No wonder every Islamic holy warrior from San Fran to Indonesia wants people to vote for Democrats. 60 AQI killed in Iraq last weekend by US forces, but that won't happen on Pres Edwards' watch. List of 500 AQI and the $100mill used to pay them to fight in Iraq found this week, but that won't happen on Pres. Edwards' watch.]

And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.

Transcript of Dartmouth Debate
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
http://ipol-2008.blogspot.com/2007/09/transcript-of-dartmouth-debate.html

Edwards is a purebread panderer, an empty hat. He sold his soul to MoveOn, and that’s that.

Like or Dislike: 0  0