I didn't know progressive meant no sense of humor.

I also didn't know progressive meant, John Edwards was a PIMP. Guess there are several definitions of the word progressive.

"Piece" ___ You see, words can mean different things. __ Knot.

No YOUMEWEUS. I was sorry I replied to it. There were several like comments on other John Edwards articles here lately, people sayng they would never vote for him because of his stand on the drug issue.

I have my opinons on the issue of legalizing mind altering drugs. I have seen so much very serious trouble with our country since such drugs became widely used by so many. We have always had alcahol, and legal drugs. The Puritans for example landed at Plymouth Rock instead of sailing further south, because they were out of beer. The had to make port and brew some. They didn't know the water in America wasn't polluted yet. __ Europeans didn't drink water there, it caused diseases.

Cocaine, crack, angel dust, heroin and all of the many others, weren't commonly used in America 50 to 60 years ago, (like they are now) and we didn't have kids murdering their classmates and teachers. We didn't have major drug problems in our grade, middle and high schools. We didn't have IBM plants shutting down in a large city, because so many of the employees were seeking treatment in drug rehab facilities.

We didn't need drug rehab facilities 50 or 60 years ago. __ We do now. Leglaize it and we very well may need a hell of a lot more of them. We do need education on the subject and a sensible plan to stop insuring using mind altering drugs is harmless. We need to have a truly effective drug war, or give up and legalize it. Then we can tell our kids to wait until they are 21 before it is safe and legal for them to use it. Then we can tell our commercial drivers, pilots, everyone, "it's legal, space out, no testing necessary." __ I stand by my opinions and you may stand by yours. I'm voting for Edwards too, I'm not a one issue person.

Google mind altering drugs and read what nero surgeons have to say about it. See what scientific evidence has been proven about using even marijuana for many, especially for those under the age of 18, up to the age of 27.

Why Kucinich threw it all to Obama:

All you had to do was watch the debates. Kucinich was openly seething at Edwards to the point that he could barely contain it. It was transparently obvious and my own conclusion was it was due to Edwards overheard appeal to Clinton to limit certain candidates from participating in the debates (the mikes were still on and the exchange was recorded). Kucinich was understandably beside himself and most likely felt betrayed by Edwards. And Edwards does have a superficial, self-interested ambition, like a slick unethical lawyer. But, it proves Kucinich in some ways as naive, constitutionally unprepared and painfully subject to the same dark forces of vindictive pettiness that his rhetoric would expect him to rise above. It is politics after all. Now he backs the empty suit who claims to be above all the dirty jockeying--the irony is undeniable.

Who are you trying to convince Kem? Do you really think Edwards is going to win by what people say on this forum?

All that aside, you are definately entertaining.

Now Edwards will withdraw the troops. And tommorow Edwards will back the drive to impeach if he thinks it will get him a last minute bump. Without a muscular shadow government, this same Obillawerds crap will be going on long after we are all dead and buried.

Don't be a prick yourself…
This isn't the first time you try to use the pretence of humor to cover your derogatory statements.

I don't need you framing my posts in a negative way.
If you want to make comments like that change your name to peanut gallery.
Apology accepted.
Good night.

I Don't think so Kem,
Where is the humor in …"You're easy to astound huh?"?
There is none… it's not funny, it's derogatory.
But nice spin, fox news would be proud.
Besides I have seen you erupt in fits of name calling for less derogatory responses.

As for the rest of your response…your condescension would go off better if it made any sense.

As for the drug thing…
If you were sorry you responded to it why didn't you say so? Instead you said, "I'm sorry someone mentioned drugs because it's off subject for this thread."
And why do you continue to respond if your sorry?

As for addressing your points (something you don't do)
I haven't seen any evidence indicating that any of the rampant school/church/mall shooting had anything to do with illegal drugs.

Crack cocaine was a governmental program that was pushed into the inner cities to provide funds for clandestine operations.

You also link the countries problems to rampant drug use, do you read any of these articles or just post.

Last you suggest a more effective drug war? What? I bet blackwater would be happy to have that responsibility contracted to them… would you?

The Iraq War has been an obvious mistake from the very beginning. March 2003 was a long time ago. And John Edwards is NOW coming out against the war.

What more evidence is needed that this is a man who will say anything, be anything, do anything that he thinks will get him elected.

He has no convictions, no passions. That is scary.

Sorry, Mr. Edwards but Ron Paul had this one first. He has it passionately, appropriately, and consistently.

Better late than never, but one has to wonder.

News Flash: Obama wins Iowa. I guess that will take the wind out of the sheeple ship now sailing into the dust bin of history.

Well that changes things. I may vote for Edwards after all.

That said, i really dont think he stands a snowballs chance in hell to win the nomination. And i will NEVER vote for Clinton or Obama in the election if either of them win.

Yes, Obama ran a good campaign there. It's round one, he got near 37% of the vote, that means 63% didn't favor him. Hillary and Edwards split the others. We'll see how he does in the next rounds.

John Edwards came out against the war when he and every other senator learned the truth about the false NIE report. He said in 2004 that he had erred in that vote, it isn't a recent observation. You say he will say anthng to get elected , guve us a lie he has told? You should wonder.

MeYouWeUs, according to the acrchives, this is your first posts here. You seem to know a lot about me. You never addressed any points I made. Just attacked. What other names have you used here? Take off troll, change your name.

Did Edwards, perhaps, look at the success of the unabashedly antiwar Ron Paul and get an inspiration from it?

Running third in the polls, Edwards makes his last-minute move to distinguish himself, promising Iowa Democrats a complete pullout from Iraq. If elected, would he deliver? Who can say?

If he even wins the nomination, will the oily lawyer find a way to wriggle out of that commitment before he has to face the general election and blasts from the Right to the effect that he is promising to act irresponsibly and throwing away any hope that the sacrifices of the troops will have accomplished something? What do you think a man of Edwards's slippery capabilities will find a way to do?

Don't get me wrong, I fought against the invasion of Iraq from a year before it started, and I'm all for getting out, but I know that Obama or even Clinton will do that, and I don't trust Edwards empty playing to the jury.

Please, let's remember that Edwards voted for the war in the first place, when there was a real decision to be made. Obama was not in Congress then, but he opposed the war at that time.

The real question is not who's putting on the whitest dove coat today. The real question is who can win this election, and what he or she will do when faced with real decisions once in office.

Like Dennis Kucinch, who knows both men personally, I trust Barack Obama much more than I trust the trial lawyer and centrist senator from Carolina.

Doesn't really matter where he got the inspiration. It very well could have come from actually listening to the concerns of caucus members or voters. I'm just glad he got off the fence. It would be good if Obama did the same. This move makes me want to take another look at Edwards. His views are getting closer to mine as this campaign goes on. We'll see.

I'm still confused by Kucinich backing Obama over Edwards. What's that about?

Senator Edwards is listening. That's key to winning this election. Of course the Democratic Party (the old guard) won't see that and could ruin it for everybody, the way they have done for the last few elections, and will finally be put to rest, if they do.

Interesting to see that the Clintons are now trying to appeal to the Republicans by speaking favorably of the old Bush, and showing their true colors. Unfortunately for them, the Demo old guard should note, the dyed in the wool Republican voters are just as sick of the Bush dynasty as the rest of us. Republican voters have not been asleep as the saga of the worst president this country has ever seen has unfolded, and it is their tax money and future that has been compromised by this president's spending sprees, as well.

I should think that the putrid result from the last mid-term election should remind us that what somebody says BEFORE they get elected doesn't mean a damn thing.
It's what they DO afterward that matters.
Is there any indication that any candidate anywhere actually kept his/her word about anything at any time??

Liberty & Justice.

SJ

www.spartacusjones.com

Edwards will not get my vote unless he changes his position on the War on Drugs. It does nobody any good when Edwards wants to trade one war for another. But hey people, if he's your guy, have at it! I'll stick to Gravel.

Nope.

Obama is an empty vessel playing the role, but not a particularly impressive record or even promise of an energized future.

Edwards does have that hunger--Obama is inappropriately laid back and his efforts to appear enthusiastic are unconvincing. He is a totally manufactured candidate--really out of step, and at times shirking with present day realities. These are not the times to seek common ground with NeoCons or the Religious Right. His message is tone deaf. Division is essential in these times.

IT'S ABOUT TIME THAT SOMEONE SHOWED INITIATIVE AND ADVOCATED SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST CONTINUE EVERYTHING "AS IS" UP TO THIS POINT NONE OF THE LEADING CANDIDATES HAS GIVEN US ANYTHING THAN WHAT BUSH HAS DONE. NO ONE ELSE HAS SHOWN ANY LEADERSHIP QUALITIES, AND THE IDIOTS THINK THEY HAVE PRESIDENTIAL ABILITIES.

FOREXTRADER. I agree with this, the so called war on drugs is the flop of the eons. The initial idea may have had merit, but it's turned into a political ploy and a way for some big business and some politicians, or crooked law enforcement to make tons of money. There is a flip side to the coin, ___ as there always is.

Edwards does not want to legalize any mind altering drugs. I can certainly see why. Let us assume for a moment marijuana use was legal. Legal for whom, what age limit if any? I have seen a few people who use that drug and they don't appear to have a problem. I have seen a LOT of people who use that drug and they are constantly spaced out and become very billigerant when they are due for another hit. It has a very bad effect on many, especialy younger people.

So if legal, who is it legal for? Your bus driver, your lawyer, your doctor, your teachers, your judge, your police, firemen, aircraft pilots, train conductors, your military, your city council person, your cab driver, the people driving in your traffic lanes when your are on your way to work, your co-workers, your boss? Who is legal and what is the age limit, or is there no age limit?

I would assune there would be an age limit, say 18, or perhaps left up to the states, maybe 21 in some. Okay, now we adults can legaly use marijuana and have to purchase it from drug stores or liquor stores, maybe any store, Wal-Mart etc, __ it's legal. Of course it willl be taxed, just like cigarettes and beer, wine and liquor. The illegal drug dealers would be out of business. __Think so?
The drug dealers would not be taxed for starters, so it's less expenssive to buy from them. And they 'might' ignore carding kids.

Kids? Now it'legal, the kids all want to use it for it mellows people out. Your 15 year old daughter or son know you use it and it's legal and they want to use it also. It won't harm them it's legal and moreimportantly it's acceptable. They'll use it like never dreamed of and if it doesn't do what they thought, doesn't mellow them out as advertised,___ "well, try this kid, this stuff will give you a kick." When it's legal, the kids, millions more than now, will be trying everything, crack, heroin, etc, whatever is popular. So will the adults. "Drugs won't hurt you, __ it's legal for the weed isn't it". I can see lots of very serious problems.

What we need is to enforce education, and forget the mind altering drugs. We already have a major drug problem here and it isn't because marijuana exists, it's the other ones. I do believe marijuana should be legal for medicinal purposes. And yes, I know liquor is legal and it's worse than the weed. It is what making marijuana legal can and will lead to, we will just make a bad situation worse. We do need a war on drugs, but one that would be effective, not this sham we have now. I support Edwards, and am not a one issue person.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

We've got another 5 million or so steps, we need to hear about.

¿ EDWARDS, can you get moving (please) ?

Edwards had been reading your posts REBEL FARMER, I told you you had the power.

Would those who believe John Edwards is a damn liar, please give a few honest examples of his lies? And are ALL trial lawyers scumbags? There are hundreds of good people who love what John Edwards has done for them in the courts, fighting the establishment and big business. He is one damn good laywer and dhe isn't going ot be fooled by the DC lawyers and hundreds of our congress who are lawyers. He'll select fair Supreme Court judges also.

By fair judges, I mean fair minded.

Is that for me Nspire? I thought I was speaking about Edwards, and defending him from those who offer how bad he is because of whatever?

So Edwards is changing his mind about the war in Iraq?

That can be a good thing, assuming he's changing his mind because he now believes the war to be pointless and wrong, which it clearly is. Of course he could also be changing his mind because he simply wants to get elected, and wanting to get elected is how politicians work. However, neither Hillary nor Obama are changing their minds about the war and, since they're also politicians, they must want to get elected too. Either way, Edwards is promising to end the war, or at least to try to, which is a good thing, regardless of his motives. Do we know if he'll keep his promise or not? Of course we don't. But at least he's said he will, which neither Hillary nor Obama have done.

At least it looks like Edwards is responding to the polls, most of which indicate that the majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq within a year. And what a politician is supposed to do is what the people want, regardless as to what he or she wants, so that's a good thing. We've just had eight years of a President who has done exactly what he wanted, without changing his mind or compromising, and look what that got us.

Kem Patrick- that is by far the dumbest, most ignorant post I have ever seen from you. Funny you didn't mention prescription drugs which are entirely more mind-numbing than any weed. Just a piece of advise- stick to what you know, this is not a topic you should be discussing.

Ever wonder why it took him so long to change his mind?

Answer: It's just a political ploy.

We keep hearing about Edwards and populism. We keep hearing about his bold, anti-corporate stand. I will not presume to know what's inside Edwards' head and inside his heart.

It seems to me, however, that to speak against corporate tyranny must go much deeper than just rhetoric; three specific policy areas must be addressed.

The first is the defense budget. The US should have all the defense it needs; spending excessively on defense, however, WEAKENS the country and deprives critically needed programs of the funding they require. To truly earn the anti-corporate vote, calls to make deep, very deep, cuts in defense spending are the price of admission.

The second is the dissassembling of America's global empire. The wars we fight and the countries we occupy with foreign military bases (730+) do nothing to protect the US. These are nothing but corporate-welfare mechanisms that enable parasitic multi-national corporations to feed on their US host.

And the third is the restoration of our democracy by kicking the big money boys out of the halls of the people's government. No more paid corporate lobbyists. No more private meetings between elected representatives and corporate employees. If corporations have something to say, let them say it publically in open hearings on the House or Senate floor. And, of course, no private money to political candidates.

I'm glad to see Mr. Edwards starting to talk the talk. To win my vote will take far more than that. Shut down America's foreign bases and bring all US troops back home. Kick paid corporate lobbyists out of Washington. Slash the defense budget in half. Put some muscle behind the words and then we'll talk about political support. Talk is cheap; time is short.

Okay REALITY, see you must think legalizing drugs is okay, I don't. I posted that because I agree with John Edwards on that issue and gave some of my reasons. I've seen several young kids lives ruined by using drugs, some relatives, they started with the 'harmless' weed. Ever wonder if maybe your posts are dumb or ignorant? I never have said so, it wouldn't be fair or nice.

I don't think this is as major a turnaround for Edwards as some here think. It's really more a matter of the media picking up on what Edwards has pledged for some time: to withdraw 40,000 troops immediately, and a phased withdrawal of all combat troops in a year. He has also pledged against permanent bases in Iraq (a *huge* deal, in my opinion). I think his approach has been reasonable and consistent. He also talks about the risks of genocide, and how we need to bring in the international community to help reduce that threat, so he's thinking about what might happen in Iraq as we leave. It's just people are paying more attention, now that the HillObama media frenzy/freak show hasn't pushed Edwards out of contention in Iowa.

Unfortunately, none of the Democratic candidates will be able to act on 100% of the public's concerns. I will vote for any Democrat in the general election but my preference is a little different.

I want a deliberate, self-assessing candiadate that's not perfect, acknowledges his flaws and comes around to understanding what is actually going on in the country. I want someone who does not accept the current financing of elections and recognizes the threat from corporate America as well as willing to fight it. I want someone who understands timing and message. I want an ethical individual that has an obviously supportive spouse (who would be a great candidate as well) and partnership that has spanned over three decades. I want someone who is skilled enough to make something of himself and understand how poverty and healthcare are big issues for many working class Amercians. I want a candidate that just may pick up Kucinich's crucible and DELIVER as a top tier candidate that hasn't sold out to megaopolies. I want someone who recognizes the occupation is not worth continuing as recognizes the true threats to democracy. I want a candidate to try to be the next FDR or JFK. I want John Edwards.

You wonder why politics is dirty: take a look at what these people do to the non-franchised. I recant my post above. Edwards is, was, and will always remain nothing more than a shill.

Edwards and censorship: shades of GWB. Edwards can kiss my native ass...

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/story/750356.html

Thanks for voting for the Iraq war that continues to kill millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans John! What a hypocrite.

"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?" - Barack Obama

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM Required For Majority: 1/2 Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114 Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23 Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

Fortress Investment Group

#2 Contributor to Edwards Campaign

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

"The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277_pf.html

Intersting statement:

"Thanks for voting for the Iraq war that continues to kill millions of Iraqis and thousands of Americans John! What a hypocrite."

Just a hypothetical question: what happens if Edwards lose the nomination to Clinton - would it then be "hypocritical" to vote on her behalf in the general election?

I don't trust anyone who changes their mind on the eve of an important milestone event, unless there is a demonstrable period of several months of "reconsideration". Sorry, Edwards reeks of typical political B.O.

@Kem Patrick
Your screed against marijuana was atypically poorly thought-through. I know hundreds of marijuana smokers, and they are all very normal people. I know many, many more who have tried it, and prefer tobacco and/or alcohol as their drug of choice. Despite the Govt's best propaganda programs, marijuana is not the life-wrecker that we are told. Yes, there are exceptions, but they constitute a very small minority. There are ALWAYS outliers in any distribution.

And as for "harder" drugs, why not take the line that many progressive nations are now following, and treating drug-use not as a crime, but a disease and treating it as such? De-criminalize all drug-use, and instead offer programs and incentives for addicts to give-up. We do it for alcohol and tobacco addiction, why not cocaine, heroin, etc?

Nader2000: You wrote, "Running third in the polls, Edwards makes his last-minute move to distinguish himself, promising Iowa Democrats a complete pullout from Iraq. If elected, would he deliver? Who can say?"

This was NOT a last-minute move. Have you been paying attention only to the Hillary/Obama "fight"? Edwards has held this position, including no permanent bases in Iraq, for a long time.

It's amusing that the REAL Ralph Nader endorsed Edwards a couple of days ago, while you invoke the magic Nader name to urge people to believe Edwards is a faker of some kind.

I will never vote for anyone who supported this war in 2002. Edwards or Clinton. Which is why Kucinich's endorsement of Obama makes sense to me.

John Edwards was the right candidate in 2004 and he's still the right candidate in 2008. No, he's far from perfect--but he's the best of the bunch we have in front of us.

Yes, withdraw American troops, and proceed with the following:

1. Publicly admit its crime of violating the UN Charter, which prohibits aggression against sovereign states. (Tip: forget about 'winning')

2. Ask the UN, without any US participation, to assemble a peacekeeping force to replace US troops within Iraq to assist toward a political solution to the problems caused by the invasion, and to be fully funded by the US.

3. Ask the UN, again without US participation, to assess war reparations against the US for the illegal invasion of Iraq. (Remember: forget about 'winning')

4. Make a commitment to acquiesce to an international task force charged with eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, and conducting regular inspections to ensure ongoing compliance from all nations.

There - that would be a good first few steps toward restoring the kind of values the US claims to hold.

The problem with the US forcing Canada to focus on their war on pot is that it takes them away from fighting more dangerous drugs such as cocaine and crystal meth.

About Marc Emery prosecution of Pot:

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=713

The Fifth Estate on Crystal Meth:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/darkcrystal/index.html

My guess is that Eli Lilly considers Crystal Meth as a lesser threat to their profits. In fact, many of those who survive their bout with crystal meth are apt to need Eli Lilly's products for a good portion of their lives just to function!

Re: - like a slick unethical lawyer

Edwards had to have been clever and cunning to win his cases - but I have never heard of him acting in an unethical or unprofessional manner or of him taking on cases where he would be expected to behave in such a manner.

Are you saying that Joe Comartin and Thomas Mulcair are unethical just because they are good lawyers?

I dare you to name 5 Canadian Prime Ministers who were not lawyers!

Edwards should take it one step further and promise an end to America's imperialism; close ALL bases abroad, slash the Marine Corps and generously fund the Peace Corps, dismantle our nuclear arsenal (only in conjunction with everyone else of course!), join and respect the World Court, pay our UN bills, cancel this ridiculous Missile Defence Program, dissolve the C.I.A. and pass the exaggerated terrorism problem to the police (rather than the Pentagon) where it belongs.

"I will never vote for anyone who supported this war in 2002. Edwards or Clinton. Which is why Kucinich's endorsement of Obama makes sense to me."

Thank you for your honesty and more importantly, your consistancy. While i admire Obama's statement against going to war in Iraq: his current plan calls only for a draw down and NOT the end of occupation. He had it right to begin with but now caves to the status quo position which asserts occupation forces will remain in Iraq for decades. Strikes me as hypocritical of obama.

Auspiciousbunny,
You made an assertion which is not true.Edwards does NOT take corporate money, that's the thing! He has raised all his money from individual contributions and from the public funds that go to a candidate (which are quite limited). I think that's exactly why he does not get as much attention as the others. This is a big part of his campaign, that he doesn't accept corporate money. Check out Michael Moore's article today. I quote him: "[Edwards] is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded."

sdf

Edwards wants to pull out of Iraq because we're wasting our money and troops on propping up their bad behavior?

Come on, folks. The chutzpah involved in invading a country, killing a million people, destroying their infrastructure, terrorizing their citizens, supporting prison camps, ethnic cleansing and death squads, trying to steal their oil, and then complaining that they are not worth your effort is beyond belief.

Besides, pulling the troops out is not going to happen. Who would man the giant bases the US is building?

Edwards was the first of the M$M's "big three" to detail his cuts he'd make in the military budget.

I'd still rather Gravel or Kucinich, but I'll gladly vote for Edwards.

rmax January 2nd, 2008 3:18 pm

"I don't think this is as major a turnaround for Edwards as some here think."

You obviously missed Edwards's in the Democratic debate where along with Hillary and Obama refused to promise to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of his first term in office in 2013.

Lobo Gris

The forces that want an indefinite U.S. occupation of Iraq are considerable and relentless. An analogy for this is the recent hiring of Bloody Bill Kristol by the New Jerk Times. If Edwards becomes president, how long before he suffers the same fate as Benazir Bhutto? Empires that are in the heat of decay, as this one most definitely is, will stop at absolutely nothing. They are like the terminal patient lying in his hospital bed assuring his family in a barely audible voice that he's in tip-top shape.