Edwards: Congress Should Demand Withdrawal

Presidential Hopeful Says Troop Withdrawal Would Put Emphasis On Iraqis To Find Political Compromise

(CBS/AP)  Congress should continue to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."

The former North Carolina senator started the last day of his four-day bus tour of New Hampshire outside Manchester's City Hall, where he told several hundred people that they should ask themselves two key questions when the report is released. First, has Iraq made progress toward a political solution? And second, how long will troops be deployed if there is no progress?

Edwards has said if he were president, he would remove about 50,000 American troops immediately, with the rest redeployed over about nine months. A troop withdrawal would show the Iraqi government that it needs to find a political compromise to end the conflict, he said.

"There has to be some compromise between Maliki and the Shia-led government and the Sunni leadership," Edwards said. "Otherwise there'll never be stability and security in Iraq. And Maliki, who has been, clearly, a weak leader, needs to be focused on that job."

Meanwhile, Sunday, Iraq's beleaguered prime minister lashed out at Democrats who have called for his ouster.

"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses," al-Maliki said.

Al-Maliki struck back in the final days before the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus is due in Washington for his September progress report.

The Shiite prime minister said a negative report by Petraeus would not cause him to change course, although he said he expected Petraeus would "be supportive of the government and will disappoint the politicians who are relying on it" to be negative.

Edwards said the prime minister is focusing on the wrong issue.

"I think that Maliki should quit worrying about Democrats and the presidential campaign in America and start worrying about what he needs to do in his own country," Edwards said.

"I mean, everyone knows that at the end of the day, as the Iraq Study Group has said and most of us have said at this point, there can be no military solution in Iraq. There has to be a political solution," he said.

Edwards stopped short of saying al-Maliki should resign.

"I think that's something for them to decide, not for us to decide," Edwards told Schieffer.

The former Senator from North Carolina said that there was no way of predicting what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its troops from Iraq.

"The truth is there are no good choices and no one can predict with any kind of accuracy exactly what's going to happen in Iraq," Edwards said. "We're going to maximize the chances of success, we're going to do this in an orderly and responsible way, but there's no way to know with certainty what will happen."

[radiob-2009]

"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn''t have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."


You really want to end the war? You are asking them again to "vote" when all they have to do is prevent any "vote" on funding.

[iceman_1960]

Which Democrats voted against going to war ? They should be mentioned from time to time.

Note: only one Republican Senator had the b*alls to vote "No" to the war.

Also, the Democrats who voted FOR the war are complicit in this debacle. Whereas those who voted AGAINST the war, were, of course, "just playing politics as usual..." If any had abstained, it would have been chalked up to cowardice.

Isn''t that the way right wing brains process this data ?

In the Senate, 21 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted against this war. The list includes some of the Right''s all time favorites:

Ted Kennedy (Iraq is Bush''s Chappaquiddick, not his)
*** Durbin
Barbara Boxer (who calls it the best vote of her life. Boxer wanted U.S. military intervention in Darfur, not Iraq.)
Carl Levin
Robert Byrd (even that old KKK member gets one right once in a while)
Paul Sarbanes
Russ Feingold
Patrick Leahy
Barbara Mikulski
Jon Corzine
... and others.

Full list at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

Barack Obama was not in Congress at the time, but he has never flipflopped in his eloquent opposition to this war from the beginning.

[skyk-2009]

It would seem that the vast majority of American''s, the vast majority of their elected Representatives and MOST intelligent people see the need for a time table and withdrawal from this horrible policy mistake. The only one''s who still seem to be oblivious to reality is the two IDIOTS, one calling himself President and the other the Puppet master of a Vice President.

[skyk-2009]

Barack Obama was not in Congress at the time, but he has never flipflopped in his eloquent opposition to this war from the beginning.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 04:35 PM : Aug 26, 2007
+ report abuse

Enough of this... a LOT of people were fooled by the lies and deception when this mess started. It does us no good to blame those who were lied to and decieved and it DOES NOTHING toward Uniting this nation again. There are ONLY two elected official''s responsible for this mess and it''s time THEY were held responsible. I''d hate to think our Congress, Democrat or Republican, would withhold giving our President the option of attacking a nation that THEY said had weapons intended to blow up our cities and were harboring people who had attacked the nation. Striking out at EVERYONE isn''t the solution to this mess... Congress authorized the use of force if necessary NOT approved the actions of this Administration. Combat Veteran, USMC, RVN, 1968-69

[donnie900]

"Barack Obama was not in Congress at the time, but he has never flipflopped in his eloquent opposition to this war from the beginning."

Nope. He''s the only guy ''round here with a slam dunk, iceman.

[donnie900]

The only thing I don''t like about obama is all them chicks on you tube shake''n their boottties. Thats what they did to Clinton! Peace and prosperity and.. "oh-oh.. looks like there''s sommore self-absorbed romance writers ''round."

[nmsuip]

"...regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month..."

Any guesses as to what that progress report will say?:

-Progress on some objectives.
-No progress on other objectives.
-Need more time to improve the security situation on the ground.
-No conclusion in the foreseeable future.

[donnie900]

Whenever ya gotta stud prez? The popporazzi follows.. So long as there''s a geeky blue suit in office, all them hyenas are in hollywood, where they belong.

[donnie900]

Sexxxx this, sexxxx that. As if a country could ever be run like that? They''ze shoulda never gave women the right to vote, if yaz azzzzz me. Cuz all they look at is guy''s buttts and peckkkers.

[iceman_1960]

"I''d hate to think our Congress, Democrat or Republican, would withhold giving our President the option of attacking a nation that THEY said had weapons intended to blow up our cities and were harboring people who had attacked the nation."
- Posted by skyk at 04:53 PM : Aug 26, 2007

Emergency action is the President''s prerogative.

For a conflict that will last for any length of time, for months or years, the U.S. Constitution requires that the President seek a formal declaration of war, because only Congress can declare war.

That authorization to use force, back in October 2002 (?), was no more a Constitutional declaration of war, than two people shacking up together is a legal marriage.

I don''t care what sloppy things were done like this in the 20th century. That''s a big part of the reason we''re in this mess now.

If the Constitution was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it''s good enough for us.

[donnie900]

Bill Clinton was a monk! Nuts de size''a peanuts! Ain''t no way he coulda ******* anyone.. It was all made up.

[donnie900]

Blond chick after blond chick.. what were there? 10 of''em? I''m 52 years old and ain''t been laid but once! That ain''t no normal *** life.. All them there chicks just wanted to be famous. And the dumb media gave it to''em. Now look at de predicaments we''re in.. As if there was anything that light hearted about being prez? Huh?

Yup.. All them chicks on you tube scare de **** outta me.

[pastdue1]

We are where we are in this war. Now, quit the business of saying, "I did or did not vote for it or I was or I was not for it" That kind of rhetoric is a waste of time and breath, and does not make anyone appear any smarter or more astute anymore, because even the ones who say it are currently doing nothing substantial to change the status quo. Anyone can talk the talk, but let''s see who can walk the walk. It is now better for all the legislators and all the candidates to say, "I am not voting to stay the course," Lord only knows, they will try to shame them all by saying they do not support the troops. They will try to spin it all over again as they are doing with their $15 million campaign to get legislators on board. They will again play the fear card about fighting them there so we don''t have to fight them at home. All this in the effort to "stay the course" From here on out, measure the worth of your legislator and/or candidate, not whether they can talk the talk, measure them if the show they can walk the walk.

[iceman_1960]

Sunday August 26, 2007

"WASHINGTON [AP] - GOP Sen. John Warner, who wants U.S. troops to start coming home from Iraq by Christmas, said Sunday he may support Democratic legislation ordering withdrawals if President Bush refuses to set a return timetable soon.

"I''m going to have to evaluate it," Warner said. "I don''t say that as a threat, but I say that is an option we all have to consider."

Warner, a former Navy Secretary and one-time chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is seen as someone who could influence the debate among senators who have grown increasingly uneasy about the unpopular war."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070826/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

[prinzowhales]

First its "time tables", then its Petraeus''s September report, now the Democrats are taking us for a walk down short-term memory lane with "time tables" once again. If Edwards doesn''t get his "time table" he recommends that Congress do what it should have done when he was taking up space in the Senate--cut funding and vamoos the ''ell out of Iraq.

But Edwards goes on, he wants 50,000--not 50,001--removed immediately...he must think in terms of bags of plastic soldiers rather than an actual military deployment...Basra is in turmoil, the Brits are ''re-deploying''...as much as I hate this war...there are proper ways to carry out a withdrawal and there is a vulgar saying that is most appropriate in this case--S**T OR GET OFF THE POT!-- Withdraw or Stay but don''t leave our troops in limbo because you lack the courage to make the decision...notice there''s not a word about the mission changes that will have to take place with this kind of ''re-deployment''. The thought that these people hold the lives of our soldiers in their hands leaves me cold....

[donnie900]

I''d rather be in a war than have another beejay scandal again.

[donnie900]

Thats why I say we should overturn roe verses wade. It''ll chase wade back to hollywood, see.. And all them chicks''ll stop think''n presidential politics is about their botox. And that its really about people''s lives, see.. Presidents effect people''s lives! So no! Oprah.. It don''t matter about yer god damned book! It don''t matter about no god damned ******! It matters about stuff more serious than that! See..

[donnie900]

How many you tube chicks are gonna come out after obama gits elected? Huh? How many you tube chicks after Hillary gits elected? Huh? How about Edwards? How about Dodd! Flies don''t hang ''round nuth''n vagggina juice free, see! This is serious stuff we''re talk''n ''bout here.. So we''ze gotta tink de mutter thru.

[donnie900]

I tink cbs should shut down dis here board till the wars over..

[likeitis5050]

Where has he been? Congress had tried demanding withdrawl...setting time tables, etc. Things are pretty much running according to Bush''s time table...thanks to some pretty schrewd work on his part while approval ratings were riding high. He''s not going anywhere and unless the entire government rebels, neither is this war. It will run its course until Bush is out. We still have a few remnents who believe he''s at the top of his game and will go down with him...which is just a phrase. Bush has made sure NO ONE in his administration pays for their actions during his reign. This is what Bush has been busy doing while everyone else got caught up in the ''if you ain''t with Bush then you''re anti-American'' smear campaign. It worked like it was supposed to...gave him time to rewrite the Constitution to suit him.

[donbl1]

Why is Edwards still running?

He is not going to win the nomination and he is not going to be selected for VP again so he should go home and take care of his wife.

This is an ego trip for him and not really about what he could do for America. It is starting to smell. Do the honorable thing and go home and take care of your wife.

[rafterman1]

===We are where we are in this war. Now, quit the business of saying, "I did or did not vote for it or I was or I was not for it"===

I agree. If someone voted for the war, I can forgive a mistake. I can forgive Bush for launching it. But if someone is still for the war, despite everything we know now, I cannot forgive continued ignorance. If Bush continues to insist on this war despite logic telling everyone it is a disaster, I cannot forgive Bush for that.

[donbl1]

An out of the box thought......

What if the US withdrew from the Green Zone......?

Withdrew to bases in and around Baghdad.

The idea to force the Iraqi government to take action.

What happens?

[downtowner97]

A filibuster? We, the American people, have no right to ask that much of our newly elected Democratic congress. It would just be too much of a sacrifice.

[xzavierbrown]

Posted by donbl1 at 06:12 PM : Aug 26, 2007
+ report abuse
***
then the second most dominant force is Iraq will take over..and that would be the radical islamic johadists. Iraq will fall in a year.. the Iraqi military is no match compared to the insurgency. We pull out of the region. In a few months we would see a more emboldened insurgency..Israel will be at war by the end of 2008. The SAudi Royals will be assasinated..we loose control of the oil production..oil prices goes up. Joe cant afford gas to go to work..no work no money..Joe cannot buy goods and services..demand for goods and services goes down..economy would tank by 2011..

[middleman8]

The Divided States (U S ) is not the solution in Iraq. They are the problem.

[iceman_1960]

"The Divided States (U S ) is not the solution in Iraq. They are the problem."
- Posted by middleman8 at 06:55 PM : Aug 26, 2007

That''s the nature of a modern democratic republic with an educated population: fierce and lively debates on public issues.

America''s disagreements have served her better than North Korea''s grim public unity, where everybody dresses alike and thinks alike.

[speakinup]

Anybody ever notice how Edwards has that deer-in-headlights look?

[standlee5]

I think that Maliki should quit worrying about Democrats and the presidential campaign in America and start worrying about what he needs to do in his own country," Edwards said.


Well said, John Edwards.

[donnie900]

The lady thats interviewing him is wear''n a miniskirt.

[donnie900]

Yup.. I don''t know about Iraq. It started out a good cause, but then politics got too much involved in it. Bush and his cronies just wanted to look good.. He keeps say''n that he doesn''t tell the generals what to do. But he does. He fires''em. And then that weird Christian Coalition crack democratic government team they sent in.. holy smokes. That was weird.

[donnie900]

Best thing to do is just get out before the election does more damage. Leave that stuff up to the people that live there.. Otherwise Dean''ll peckkker bait Bush and his team into doing something else stupid.. Most likely Iran is gonna invade, and then Turkey, and the Jordan and Syria. And nobody''ll see noth''n of that little piddley country ever again..

Job well done, browney.

[feelfree1]

I see that Edwards has joined the impotent and craven Democrats who are attempting to place the blame for the Made-in-USA catastrophe in Iraq, on the pseudo-puppet Iraqi governmnet officials, and on the Iraqi victims.

I have news for Mr. Edwards: there has been a movement to end the illegal and disgraceful U.S. invasion of Iraq since day one. The fact that is he only taking a strong position now is clear evidence that he is not qualified to lead our country.

While sane voices were calling for an end to the debacle in 2004, he and his pro-war runningmate offered only to escallate the illegal U.S. presence in Iraq by 40,000 troops.

Edwards should apologize, resign from politics, and "pray" that he does not find himself seated next to the members of the Bush regime, when they appear before a war crimes tribunal.

[lorinkundert]

Congress can demand until they are all blue in the face and it will never change the fact that any demands Congress makes are not law and will be likely ignored.

Congress can however go public and have the Supreme Court rule that the resolution to go into Iraq was unconstitutional due to there not being a declaration of war, since the Constitution only allows US troops to be deployed overseas after a declaration of war.

[donnie900]

Congress ain''t gonna be around very much longer. I can''t elect another peckkkkertrack.. I just can''t.

[feelfree1]

lorinkundert,

Re: "Congress can however go public and have the Supreme Court rule that the resolution to go into Iraq was unconstitutional"

Good suggestion.

[speakinup]

"Edwards should apologize, resign from politics, and "pray" that he does not find himself seated next to the members of the Bush regime, when they appear before a war crimes tribunal." FeelFree1

Yeah - I think SeeBS should be real proud. Look at the likes of people they attract to their ''comments''. Freefeel is obviously off in his own little world, dreaming about things that have no meanings. Just take a look how many days in a row this idiot posts.

Get a life. Or, better yet - drop dead.

[iceman_1960]

"Anybody ever notice how Edwards has that deer-in-headlights look?"
- Posted by speakinup at 07:25 PM : Aug 26, 2007

No. And he would not have had the great success he enjoyed as a trial lawyer if he did. Reason it out.

Here''s somebody with a real dumb expression:

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/ajtaylor/2004/12/17/george_bush.jpg

[realpatriot1]

Al-Maliki needs to wake up and realize that Iraq is one of our villages so long as our national guard has to run it. If he wants sovereignty he needs to do his job and take charge. The fact that he hasn''t already done so is reason enough to desire his replacement. The sacrifice of our soldier''s lives and limbs gives us the right to speak out.

If he wants us to leave he should tell his buddy George. If he wants us to stay he should do as Edwards says and concentrate on doing his duty. That''s the least he owes to our troops.

[feelfree1]

realpatriot1,

Re: "If he wants sovereignty he needs to do his job and take charge."

This appears to be an acknowledgement that the Iraqi "government" lacks any sovereignty or legitimacy, which has been my argument all along.

The installed "goverment" of Iraq an the U.S.-crafted "Iraqi constitution" are a cruel joke, and blaming the people of Iraq for the misery that we have delivered to them, is not a respectable position, in my opinion.

We owe the people of Iraq a sincere apology, and a tremendous debt.

www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow

[donnie900]

Not enough chick backhand''n go''in on, if yaz azzz me. Reversing roe verses wade will put dem back in der place.

[jeepmanjr]

Away with you numb-nuts!!

I''m glad to see this nincompoop is running for office along with Mr. Clinton and homeskillet Obama...it assures that the Republicans will rein!!

What a maroon!!

[realpatriot1]

Feelfree1,

You''re partly right and partly wrong in my opinion. You''re correct that they lack sovereignty because they''re still dependent upon us for their security.

You''re wrong to say that they lack legitimacy because they were freely elected by the Iraqi people in internationally supervised elections.
I''m not naive enough to think that we didn''t hand pick the ticket but the Iraqi people did vote for them. We don''t have the right to call for his ouster but we do have the right to criticise his lack of committment to leading the effort to take control of his country.

[realpatriot1]

Let me clarify an apparent inconsistency in my 2 posts. I think we have the right to express a desire for different leadership in Iraq, but it isn''t our place to try to effect it; that''s up to the Iraqis.

I don''t think most Iraqis want an apology from us because we have done good along with the bad. They''re grateful to be free of Sadaam but now want to be free of us; they don''t need an apology, they just need the occupation to end and their sovereignty to begin. That''s where both Al-Maliki and Bush come in, Bush needs to demand that Iraq stand on its own feet and Al-Maliki needs to get serious about doing so.

How long does is the training of their troops supposed to take? That should be the first question for Petraeus.

[feelfree1]

realpatriot1,

Re: "Let me clarify an apparent inconsistency in my 2 posts. I think we have the right to express a desire for different leadership in Iraq"

I disagree. We have a "right" and an obligation to bring those responsible for this undeclared and illegal war of aggression, Republicans and Democrats alike, before a war crimes tribunal, or to a tar-and-feathering center, as we see fit. Until we accomplish this, we have no "right" to point fingers at anyone.

Re: "I don%u2019t think most Iraqis want an apology from us because we have done good along with the bad."

I think that you are fooling yourself. The illegal invasion has resulted in the excess violent deaths of around 1 million Iraqis, according to the best available estimate, the internal displacement of 2 million, another 2 million forced to flee the country, and 8 million facing eminent starvation.

We have destroyed their infrastructure, crippled their economy, supported death squads, divided Shiites and Sunnis, unemployment has skyrocketed, and basic services are well below what they were under Saddam.

There are no statistics of how many Iraqis have been humiliated, maimed, wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, raped, and/or soddomized, by U.S. military members, agents, and puppet officials, but the number is no doubt horrific.

[radiob-2009]

Alot of people continue to worship at the "golden donkey" and "golden elephant" .
Neither party is representing America only the corporations of America. Who try to pass the amnesty bill for illegals (Bush and the democrats) who started the free trade agreements and the tax breaks for corporations to move overseas? Wake up America before we become a third world nation, thanks to the corporations, the two party system , the UN and the apathy of the US voters.

[feelfree1]

realpatriot1,

Re: "How long does is the training of their troops supposed to take? That should be the first question for Petraeus."

It looks like it will take forever, as the legitimate resistance groups see these %u201Ctroops%u201D as collaborators with the illegal invaders of their country, and since legitimate resistance groups have always heavily infiltrated their ranks. They are bound to be eliminated sooner or later.

Re: "You%u2019re wrong to say that they lack legitimacy because they were freely elected by the Iraqi people in internationally supervised elections."

The Iraqi "government" was installed under the boot of an illegal and brutal invasion. Almost no names of candidates appeared on the ballot; only 100+ newly created political parties.

The "election" was rubber-stamped by "international observers" because they are cowards, and did not wish to be blamed for the failure of the illegal invasion. The "new" Iraqi constitution is equally suspect, and just as much of a cruel joke.

Again, we owe the people of Iraq a HUGE debt, and the people of the planet a sincere apology for what we have allowed our government to do in Iraq.

[radiob-2009]

These are the chumps we selected and according to our own intel.

"Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively," the 10-page document, a declassified summary of a more detailed National Intelligence Estimate, concludes.

Iraq is in multiple civil wars Sunni on Sunni, Shiite on Shiite, Sunni on Shiite and Al Queda has its own war being waged against all. They in last two weeks have virtually committed Genocide against the Yaziks. Iraq is further disentagrating into multiple "communities" now longer a possible three state or a one state scenario. This is the essence of the Chathman House report.

Exact casualities in Iraq of the civilian population is "vague" at best with estimates from 150,000 to half a million. Neighboring Arab states are contributing by funding, supplying weaponary and training to the turmoil. A quagmire and the worst foreign policy of the US ever. Iraq is a war of choice not of self defense and both political partys supported the invasion and the subsequent troop surge by voting.

[realpatriot1]

Feelfree,

I didin''t mean that we haven''t done anything in Iraq that we need to apologise for; I would put Abu Ghrab and the abuse of civilians by members of our military at the top of the list of things that we will be having to live down for a long long time.

I have no doubt that the International Court of Justice in the Hague will eventually be looking for some American war criminals and the best way that we can make amends to the Iraqis is to not oppose extradition for those issuing illegal orders when that time comes.

I think you''re getting a little carried away when you accuse the U.S. of supporting death squads(that would be primarily Iran), driving Shiites & Sunnis apart(that would be primarily due to Al Quaeda''s bombing of both Shiite & Sunni Temples with the express purpose of trapping us in a civil war), or blaming us entirely for the mayhem and displacement created by all the different factions fighting there(we should get most of the blame for going in and refusing to leave but others have contributed to the violence too).

An apology won''t stop the killing but redeployment, a greater Iraqi presence, and possibly an All-Muslim peacekeeping force eventually will. The sooner the better.

The blame can come later.

[radiob-2009]

realpatriot1

It is not a civil war, it is multiple civil wars ongoing in Iraq. No matter how opposed to the war itself, no matter how incompetent the Iraqi government is, no matter how incompetent ours is, there is a question that must be asked, from a "moral" stand point what do we owe the people of Iraq? And how can anyone bring about some restoration of unity in Iraq at this point with Iraq continuing to disentgrate into multiple "sectors" with as little bloodshed as possible?