Support NeoGAF

[Learn2read]

Awesomesauce.

NEW YORK (AP) - 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.

Anticipating the speech, the Republican National Committee sent out a research document titled "Edwards' Troop Profiteering," noting that his campaign routinely solicits donations to help Edwards pursue his anti-war efforts.

"One can't help but wonder how John Edwards is comfortable beefing up his campaign coffers at the expense of our troops," RNC spokeswoman Summer Johnson said. "Edward's profiteering isn't only in poor taste but it also illustrates his hunger for the White House trumps his sensitivity toward those serving America."

Apart from the 30% deadenders, Bush's dumbed down phony tough-guy BS rhetoric sounds pretty much like the adults on the old Peanuts cartoons (bwah-wah-bwah). Not sure if this is because people have finally wizened up and are ready (eager even) for the more intelligent and nuanced approach that is truly required or if it's just a rejection of Bush himself.

McCain and especially Guliani are obviously counting on the same basic fear of terrorists to still resonate with the electorate and hope to push the same buttons that Bush used to push - would Edwards trying to make them look foolish for using the same tired rhetoric work?

 

[HomShaBom]

Bush lol Edwards lol

 

[Father_Brain]

Damn f***ing right.

 

[quaere]

Intelligent and nuanced sounds good, but the Democrats plan to withdrawl and do nothing else is not that.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

 

[bumpkin]

Damn f***ing right.

.

 

[Jonm1010]

Intelligent and nuanced sounds good, but the Democrats plan to withdrawl and do nothing else is not that.

Not a single democrat plan(even Edwards whose is the most extreme) calls for the withdrawel of ALL troops immediatlly and just cutting off any support. In fact Edwards, if i remember correctlly, intends to keep around 60,000 for training and protection purposes while bumping up diplomatic efforts, and shifting the the money that was used for the rest of the troops toward political and social help.

 

[Jacobi]

I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours.

That's dumb

 

[demon]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

9/11 was planned for several years. And why don't you tell me how many other foreign terrorist attacks on US soil there were before 9/11? Yeah, didn't think so. The fact that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since then doesn't mean jack shit. Terrorism in the world has gone UP since we've gone to war.

 

[Jonm1010]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

But this idea suggests that all that encomposes our "WAR ON TERROR" is a giant monolithic movement that plans and strikes in unison. When in reality it is not. Terrorists or terrorist groups are still just as likely to decide to attack us on our soil whether we are over there or not.

 

[maynerd]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

Us being Iraq does not prevent them from coming over here to do things to us.

 

[Learn2read]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

Using Intelligence/Law-enforcement/Special Forces/Soft Power/Winning Hearts and Minds just might be a better strategy than invading random Muslim countries for the heck of it.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

What is their soil? Iraq? There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003. It's a Neocon fallacy of the highest order to suggest that we're fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them "here".

 

[Allen]

Wow. Strong words from a candidate I’ve never taken seriously (full disclosure: Richardson supporter).

 

[Allen]

What is their soil? Iraq? There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before 2003. It's a Neocon fallacy of the highest order to suggest that we're fighting them "over there" so we don't have to fight them "here".

I’d love to hear a definition of what “over there” is in reference to. Saudi Arabia?

 

[quaere]

Not a single democrat plan(even Edwards whose is the most extreme) calls for the withdrawel of ALL troops immediatlly and just cutting off any support. In fact Edwards, if i remember correctlly, intends to keep around 60,000 for training and protection purposes while bumping up diplomatic efforts, and shifting the the money that was used for the rest of the troops toward political and social help.

If that is the case there is no sign of it on his web site. There he still calls for withdrawl of all troops within a year and a half, and a bunch of other bullshit about political and diplomatic solutions.

Look, Bush doesn't care about killing terrorists. It's obvious from his lack of persuit of Osama. At this point all he wants is his legacy - to have turned Iraq into a stable country to lead the Middle East (failing miserably so far). If Bush thought there was a political or diplomatic solution to the hellhole that is Iraq he would be the first one on the bandwagon. But the reality is taking the troops away will lead to civil war and eventual dictatorship as bad as Iran or worse. That's the Democrats intelligent outcome?

 

[Jonm1010]

Wow. Strong words from a candidate I’ve never taken seriously (full disclosure: Richardson supporter).

Not sure if this is what your saying but people seem to have this idea that Edwards is sort of a fluff canidate. But really Edwards has the most in depth policy explainations and some of the strongest stances with supporting evidience to document the hows and whys for his reasoning.

 

[Allen]

Not sure if this is what your saying but people seem to have this idea that Edwards is sort of a fluff canidate. But really Edwards has the most in depth policy explainations and some of the strongest stances with supporting evidience to document the hows and whys for his reasoning.

I’ve never paid close attention to him. Thanks for the tip.

 

[Shig]

But the reality is taking the troops away will lead to civil war and eventual dictatorship as bad as Iran or worse. That's the Democrats intelligent outcome?

There's already a civil war going on there.

 

[maynerd]

But the reality is taking the troops away will lead to civil war and eventual dictatorship as bad as Iran or worse. That's the Democrats intelligent outcome?

There is already a civil war going on. How do you know that a dictatorship as bad as Iran or worse will occur? Who told you this?

 

[White Man]

I could deal with an Edwards presidential nomination. I'd actually vote for him.

 

[scorcho]

I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours.

if we're talking about traditional state warfare this would make sense. in the context of radicalism that hinges on socio-economic status and ideology it's meaningless. terrorism is a liquid term that doesn't have absolute metrics - taking the battle to whom? are we striking every terrorist at once? are we purposefully creating a honey pot to lure terrorists to their doom?

it's silly and antiquated.

 

[MassiveAttack]

If that is the case there is no sign of it on his web site. There he still calls for withdrawl of all troops within a year and a half, and a bunch of other bullshit about political and diplomatic solutions.

Look, Bush doesn't care about killing terrorists. It's obvious from his lack of persuit of Osama. At this point all he wants is his legacy - to have turned Iraq into a stable country to lead the Middle East (failing miserably so far). If Bush thought there was a political or diplomatic solution to the hellhole that is Iraq he would be the first one on the bandwagon. But the reality is taking the troops away will lead to civil war and eventual dictatorship as bad as Iran or worse. That's the Democrats intelligent outcome?

His legacy is to turn Iraq into a stable country? His administration can't even rebuild New Orleans. Think about it.

 

[Chichikov]

I was a huge fan of Edwards during the 04 campaign, but I've been mightily impressed of him as of late.

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

Even if we ignore moral issues, the lost in human life and the huge monetary cost of the war and look it through the proverbial sights of a gun, this administration foreign policy and the Iraq cluster**** in particular had seriously hurt the struggle against global terrorism.
you have to blind to not see it.

 

[davepoobond]

thank you President Edwards

 

[bionic77]

Am I the only one that thinks the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated?

Seems to me that you are more likely to be murdered in a mugging than be killed in a terrorist attack on American soil.

 

[MassiveAttack]

Am I the only one that thinks the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated?

Seems to me that you are more likely to be murdered in a mugging than be killed in a terrorist attack on American soil.

Don't worry. 70% of the country agrees with you.

 

[itsinmyveins]

Am I the only one that thinks the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated?

Seems to me that you are more likely to be murdered in a mugging than be killed in a terrorist attack on American soil.

Yes, you're more likely to be robbed. Hell, you're probably more likely to be hit by lightning than being a victim in a terrorist act within USA.

 

[mckmas8808]

His legacy is to turn Iraq into a stable country? His administration can't even rebuild New Orleans. Think about it.

:lol

Yeah I know right. I like what Edwards said. I might start taking him serious now. (full disclosure: I'm a Barack supporter).

 

[Chichikov]

Am I the only one that thinks the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated?

Seems to me that you are more likely to be murdered in a mugging than be killed in a terrorist attack on American soil.

In the grand scheme of thing, the current threat is.
but that's the way terror works, it instills irrational fear into civilian population,

The thing is, future terrorism, if god forbid they ever go non conventional may be a different story all together.

 

[JayDubya]

I could deal with an Edwards presidential nomination. I'd actually vote for him.

You do know he's the most populist candidate out there, right? And that populism (at least his brand) is like, the opposite of libertarianism, right?

This is the "two americas, tax the shit out of people, spend like crazy on entitlements, who cares about the national debt" guy.

Saying one thing right about terrorism does not negate bad, no, terrible policy stances elsewhere.

 

[kammy]

Edwards was badass last time.

Suprised he took the backseat to that chump Kerry.

 

[White Man]

You do know he's the most populist candidate out there, right? And that populism (at least his brand) is like, the opposite of libertarianism, right?

This is the "two americas, tax the shit out of people, spend like crazy on entitlements, who cares about the national debt" guy.

Saying one thing right about terrorism does not negate bad, no, terrible policy stances elsewhere.

1. There will never be a libertarian president.
2. Personal politics need to be put aside when it comes to trying to remedy the here and now, immediate problems of the country, the now and immediate problems being godawful foreign policy and warmongering.

 

[JayDubya]

2. Personal politics need to be put aside when it comes to trying to remedy the here and now, immediate problems of the country, the now and immediate problems being godawful foreign policy and warmongering.

Bush currently has the power of our collective purse, and the only person I see on the list that could somehow find it in himself (or herself) to actually be worse with that power is Edwards. This isn't about personal politics - there are plenty of anti-war, anti-bad foreign policy candidates. If that's your only guiding standard, then Edwards is the worst among those that fit your criteria.

 

[Powerslave]

Before 9/11 it might have been. After 9/11, it's become pretty obvious that terror will come for us whether we fight it or not. I know it's cliched, but I honestly would rather fight them on their soil than ours. We're either doing at least something right or we've been really lucky not to have been attacked since 9/11. We know they're trying.

Spoken like a true patriot. I'm proud of you, son.

 

[Learn2read]

Bush currently has the power of our collective purse, and the only person I see on the list that could somehow find it in himself (or herself) to actually be worse with that power is Edwards. This isn't about personal politics - there are plenty of anti-war, anti-bad foreign policy candidates. If that's your only guiding standard, then Edwards is the worst among those that fit your criteria.

Economic policy is going to always ebb and flow, there's much more pressing matters at hand at the moment. If Edwards is willing to cut through the Gordian shit-knot that is the Wur on Terrar when everybody else is either wants to tighten it (Giuliani) or futily re-tie it (Clinton and yes, even Obama), I don't see why a libertarian should have any reservations about voting for him - most reasonable people would conceed that damage done to liberty under the guise of the "War on Terror" exceeds that caused by a few new social programs.

 

[Xdrive05]

Economic policy is going to always ebb and flow, there's much more pressing matters at hand at the moment. If Edwards is willing to cut through the Gordian shit-knot that is the Wur on Terrar when everybody else is either wants to tighten it (Giuliani) or futily re-tie it (Clinton and yes, even Obama), I don't see why a libertarian should have any reservations about voting for him - most reasonable people would conceed that damage done to liberty under the guise of the "War on Terror" exceeds that caused by a few new social programs.

I'm falling into this camp more and more the closer we get to '08. I can hang with the rest of libertarians (and Libertarians) any time of the day, but the social political climate is such that preserving liberty may require voting for a very un-libertarian candidate if it means they have a ****ing chance.

Baby steps are better than getting nowhere after all.

 

[Armitage]

I want a bumper sticker that says "War on Terror is a bumper sticker slogan.".

 

[APF]

 

[Mandark]

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.

Good on him. I want to see some debate on the big ideas here; ending the war in Iraq is important, but so is setting the foreign policy tone for the next few decades.

Anticipating the speech, the Republican National Committee sent out a research document titled "Edwards' Troop Profiteering," noting that his campaign routinely solicits donations to help Edwards pursue his anti-war efforts.

And here it is. It's quite the thing.

 

[Ikael]

"War on terror" is probably one of the most purpousely misguiding rethoric that I have seen. Let's break it into pieces:

"War" : So, this is a war? Really? like, if we invade the capital of terroristland terrorism will be defeated, a la Germany and nazism? Not to mention that I have yet to see the terrorist air forces or the Al Qaeda's panzer legion. By labelling this as a "war", you are in for a strategic cluster****, which was exactly what happened on Iraq. The belief that militar force can end with this conflict singlehandedly is not only oversimplistic, but also dangerous.

"On terror": How the hell do you fight a feeling? "Terror"? This war "on terror" have had the exactly ooposite effect. Media is everyday trying to shitscare populaltion, goverment as well, and using this fear. And by declaring this a war on "terror"; they have created an eternal war: you can eliminate a terrorist cell, but you simply cannot eliminate a feeling. The war on terror is simply a war that noone can ever win. When will america "feel" "non terrorized"? When Saddam is out of power? once Bin Laden is killed (and automatically replaced by another one)? when Iran is bombed? When will exactly America stop to feel terror?

 

[Rorschach]

Am I the only one that thinks the current threat of terrorism is vastly overstated?

Seems to me that you are more likely to be murdered in a mugging than be killed in a terrorist attack on American soil.

I don't know how people have bought into it, but a lot of them have become scared shitless due to the propaganda. There are people sitting in bum**** Montana thinking that they could be attacked. It's one of the greatest sells and scare tactics I've ever seen. They even have a handy color coordinated chart to show you how scared you need to be at any given moment.

http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6962

Excellent!

 

[knitoe]

Is it me our or do they all pretty much says the same thing about a sitting President in conflict? Didn't Clinton say similar things about Bush I, and then, he go us involve in stupid military conflicts. Same with Bush II on Clinton. I wouldn't mind having a Democrat being President this time and see what will happen when another terrorist attack happen. My guess is nothing will change much.

 

[Mandark]

I don't think Clinton criticized the older Bush much for Gulf War 1. That was a really popular war.

 

[MrSardonic]

Damn f***ing right.

.

 

[TemplaerDude]

edwards would know a lot about bumper stickers, mr. i dream of two americas.

 

[Learn2read]

edwards would know a lot about bumper stickers, mr. i dream of two americas.

Yes, Edwards dreams that someday there will be two completely seperate America's:

DIVIDE AND CONQUER!!!

 

[BlackMage]

whoa, I didn't realize there were so many Edwards haters on GAF. (Full Disclosure: Satan supporter)

 

[siamesedreamer]

Bush currently has the power of our collective purse, and the only person I see on the list that could somehow find it in himself (or herself) to actually be worse with that power is Edwards.

Especially with a fully DEM congress.

I'd take two terms of Hillary before I'd let Edwards get his hands on the budget.