Edwards would redploy troops to Kuwait, Jordan, Persian Gulf. No "residual force" in Iraq

[draft_mario_cuomo]

There were some questions as to where exactly Edwards would put the troops when he, if elected, ends the war. The most specific answer came on Face the Nation yesterday (he has spoken of Kuwait and the region before). Kuwait, the Persian Gulf, and Jordan if the Jordanian government agreed. No residual forces in Iraq for an unspecified length of time. Richardson and Edwards are exactly right on this. As long as we stay in Iraq, even if it is with "only" 30,000 or 75,000 troops, the problems caused by our presence there will remain. If you accept the notion that our presence is fueling part of the violence there then the logical action is to take all the troops out of Iraq.

The transcript is in PDF form. Scroll down to page 5 for the answer http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_082607.pdf

[Nite Owl]

1. I don't understand the

whole residual forces thing. It would seem that with less troops that they would be in greater danger. They need to leave, all of them.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Triangulation, war-style

They want to be able to appeal to both sides of the Iraq debate--and thus far have gotten away with it. I am glad Richardson has started to question Clobama on this and I hope Edwards follows suit.

[jsamuel]

2. Yeah, Richardson has been confusing people constantly saying he is then "only" one when he isn't.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Can't open this PDF........although I tried.......

However, In June, Edwards was telling a different story on this.

"We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future—including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe."
http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr /

"We need to avoid throwing numbers around for political benefit and instead take a broader view. As president, I will carefully assess the post-Iraq threat environment and consult with military commanders to determine the exact number of troops we need and where."



It's hard to tell based on what he said in June, and what you have selected out of a PDF that I cannot open as to what he is saying in August. :eyes:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

8. You either can't read or don't understand what you posted.

>> "No residual forces in Iraq for an unspecified length of time."

This does NOT mean no residual forces will be left in Iraq.

Now the question you should be asking is what is the specific length of time forces will remain in Iraq, because he clearly intends to leave forces in.

Your spin is strong but my kung fu is stronger.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Hate to break it to you, but all three top Dems propose residual forces.