|
 Edwards has been criticizing Clinton for her plan to continue combat missions against al-Qaida in Iraq. His campaign says that would be a continuation of what it calls the "U.S. occupation" that he will end if elected president.
Edwards says that doesn't mean he'll stop fighting against terrorists in Iraq. The difference, he told The Boston Globe in an article published Thursday, is that his counterterrorism missions would be based in Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East and conduct quick "expeditions" into Iraq.
Clinton's campaign says either way, sending troops to fight would be a combat mission in Iraq.
"It's unfortunate that Senator Edwards is so frustrated with his campaign that he' manufacturing false attacks against Senator Clinton," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. "Before Senator Edwards goes after others on an issue, he ought to get his own position straight and explain why he tells voters he'll end combat missions in Iraq if his actual position is that he'd continue them."
Edwards' campaign said whether the combat troops are in the country or not is an important distinction. Troops on bases in Iraq would become targets for insurgents, symbolize continuing U.S. occupation, inevitably get drawn into other missions and prevent Iraqis from moving toward sovereignty, the campaign said.
Edwards spokesman Chris Kofinis also accused Clinton of failing to respond directly to questions Edwards has posed to her asking for details about her plan to end the war.
"While John Edwards has clearly stated that he will end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, Senator Clinton says she will continue the occupation, keeping combat troops stationed in Iraq for combat missions," Kofinis said in a statement.
[to top of second column] |
 "Not only has Senator Clinton refused to commit to a timeline for troop withdrawal, she has also stated repeatedly she will continue to use combat troops stationed in Iraq for counterterrorism missions, to fight Iran, protect the Kurds and protect our oil interests."
Edwards' campaign says he envisions two types of quick reaction forces that could be deployed into Iraq. One would be a lighter, more mobile force of about 1,000 special forces, airborne, helicopter and other troops probably led by a general, which could perform missions in a matter of hours or days.
The other would be a heavier, more armored quick reaction force of 3,500-5,000 troops led by a general
-- similar to the size of a brigade of Marines or Army -- that could support the lighter missions and augment security in a matter of days or weeks.
Advisers to Barack Obama, another Democratic presidential candidate, said he would also have quick reaction forces to fight terrorism in Iraq, but he hasn't determined whether they would be based inside or outside the country. Obama has said outside might be preferable, but it's a decision he would make with military commanders.
[Associated
Press; By NEDRA PICKLER]
Copyright 2007 The Associated
Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
