.
January 2nd, 2008
04:09 PM ET

Time to leave Iraq?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

John Edwards says that as president there would be no more than 5,000 U.S. troops left in Iraq within 10 months.

Edwards told The New York Times the withdrawal would include forces who are training the Iraqi army and police. He says that extending the American training effort into the next presidency would require the deployment of tens of thousands of troops, which he calls "a continuation of the occupation of Iraq."

Edwards' plan calls for the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops... and within 9 to 10 months, the rest of them except the 35-hundred to 5-thousand troops who would remain to protect the U.S. Embassy and possibly do humanitarian work.

Edwards suggested he would allow for the training of some Iraqi forces outside of Iraq. But he says he decided on an almost total withdrawal because of the political failure of the Iraqi government.

His plan is at odds with the strategy of military commanders, who say the situation in Iraq is still too fragile to set a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. Edwards wants a more rapid and complete troop withdrawal than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who have suggested they're open to keeping U.S. trainers and counterterrorism units in Iraq.

Here’s my question to you:

John Edwards wants no more than 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq within 10 months. Is that a good idea?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Iraq • John Edwards
December 19th, 2007
02:13 PM ET

Approving Iraq $?

ALT TEXT

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the Los Angeles Times rightly sums it up, the Democrats' "Yearlong campaign to bring the war in Iraq to an end concluded with a whimper yesterday as the Senate failed again to pass a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from the conflict."

The House still has to approve this revised spending bill, with unrestricted war funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, but it seems likely to pass there with strong Republican support.

No, it's not your imagination. As recently as last month, House and Senate Democrats vowed not to give President Bush any more money for the war in Iraq without withdrawal timelines. But the president threatened to veto the massive spending bill needed to keep the government running unless he got the war money. And the Democrats, lacking any backbone whatsoever, of course immediately surrendered. These people make the French look courageous.

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold offered the failed amendment that would have required the withdrawal of most U.S. troops within 9 months. He remained defiant, saying that nothing is more important to him or his constituents than "ending this disastrous war."

But Republicans insisted that they were doing the right thing for the troops, and that Washington can't ignore the military progress in Iraq.

Here’s my question to you: Should Congress have refused to pass funding for the war in Iraq without some timeline for troop withdrawals?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Congress • Iraq
December 6th, 2007
01:35 PM ET

Cheney upbeat on Iraq?

Vice President Dick Cheney

NEW YORK (CNN) - Vice President Cheney is out with another upbeat assessment on the war in Iraq.

In an interview with “The Politico”, Cheney predicts that when he and President Bush leave office in January 2009, it will be clear that:

“We have in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that’s capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, a nation that will be a positive force in influencing the world around it in the future.”

Before you start picking out a home site in Baghdad remember this is coming from the same man who before the war started said the U.S. Would be “greeted as liberators” and the fight would possibly last “weeks rather than months” . And then in June of 2005 said the insurgency in Iraq was “in the last throes”.

In the Politico interview, Cheney also says he’s been surprised by the weakness of the Democratic Congress, particularly senior leaders like Congressmen John Dingell and John Murtha. He says they “march to the tune of (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi” to an extreme degree. When asked if these men had lost their spines, Cheney said quote “they are not carrying the big sticks I would have expected.”

Pelosi dismissed the comments and called on the White House to spend its time compromising with Congress.

Here’s my question to you: Is Vice President Cheney right to predict that when he and President Bush leave office a self-governing democracy will be firmly established in Iraq?

We are no longer accepting comments on this post.


Filed under: Cheney • Iraq
newer posts »