The following is is a transcript of an interview by Michael Gordon of The New York Times with John Edwards, conducted Sunday on the Edwards campaign bus as it drove between campaign stops in western Iowa. Some of the questions have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Question: When you wrote the Washington Post op-ed article in November 2005 in which you recanted your 2002 vote authorizing military action you also stressed the importance of ending the mission honorably, which you defined as leaving an Iraq behind that was relatively stable. You had a three-pronged plan to steer reconstruction work to the Iraqis, begin a gradual process of withdrawal and establish a more efficient program of training the Iraqi forces. Why did you believe at that point in time that this was the best course of action?
John Edwards: You have to understand the construct in which I think about this in a bigger picture. I think the responsibility of the president as the commander in chief is to think about this incredibly important issue of Iraq and what do to in Iraq, but to think about it in the context of what it means for America's leadership in the world. I think it is a critical component of how we reestablish ourselves as the kind of moral leader in the world that is essential for there to be stability of the world. Because we are the preeminent power, when America is not leading there is a huge vacuum of leadership and Iraq plays a significant role, but not the only part in how we reestablish that moral leadership. So, number one, that is the bigger context in which I think about the entire Iraq question. It was two years ago, and I believed at the time that there were a number of things we needed to be doing, including those things that you just described. I have not read the op-ed for a long period of time, but I would be willing to bet that I proposed taking out eight to ten brigades. Entire article at link.
No comments:
Post a Comment