| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Edwards: Move Past 'War on Terror' |
| 2007-05-23 |
| Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists. In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq. "We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam." In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats—including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel—who said they did not believe there was a global war on terror. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that they did. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq but has since become a harsh critic of the conflict. In his speech, he reiterated his call to remove American combat troops from Iraq within a year and vowed to "restore the contract we have with those who proudly wear the uniform to defend our country and make the world a safe and better place." Edwards outlined several steps he said he would pursue as president to strengthen the military, including using force only to pursue essential national security missions, improve civilian-military relations, and root out mismanagement at the Pentagon. He said he would created a "national security budget" to include the activities of several agencies, including the Pentagon, Energy Department, and Homeland Security. He also said he would boost the budget for military recruiting. But Edwards saved his toughest words for the Bush administration, whom he accused of engaging in wrongheaded military adventures while abandoning U.S. "moral leadership" in the world. Because of the administration's poor stewardship, Edwards said troops were exhausted, overworked, and potentially ill-prepared for future threats. "Leading the military out of the wreckage left by the poor civilian leadership of this administration will be the single most important duty of the next commander in chief," Edwards said. The Democratic Party simply does not want to accept reality: that we are at war against a fanatical, totalitarian ideology that is absolutely determined to force us to bow down to their hateful deity. They simply refuse to accept it. May God have mercy upon us if we're stupid enough to elect one of these idiots; because the Muslims sure won't. |
| Posted by:Dave D. |
| #6 Better idea: let's just move past John Edwards. His 15 minutes are long past up. |
| Posted by: Mac 2007-05-23 22:45 |
| #5 Cretin. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-05-23 22:31 |
| #4 Maybe a lot of Democrats don't have a big problem with "fanatical, totalitarian ideologies." Marxism anyone? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2007-05-23 21:10 |
| #3 And what are our enemies thinking when they read stuff like this? They are thinking we got a lot of pussies on the dhimmicrit side and they hope they win. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-23 18:55 |
| #2 My new name for Edwards is "Pretty Po Boy" But I really do hope his campaign takes off becuase he is easiest of the "top tier" candidates to defeat. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-05-23 18:48 |
| #1 How in the hell can we expect democracy to ever work in the Middle East, when it only barely works here? And what are our enemies thinking when they read stuff like this? What do they conclude, about that American "grim resolve" that Admiral Yamamoto once said he feared he'd awakened with the attack on Pearl Harbor? Where are they figuring the resolve of the American "sleeping giant" went, whatever became of it? And most importantly, what are our enemies concluding they can now get away with, after hearing the torrent of defeatist rhetoric coming out of our Democrats? Which of our cities will be the first to be turned into a puddle of radioactive slag by an Iranian or North Korean nuclear weapon? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-05-23 17:44 |