This article is the latest in an endless chutzpah from the Left whereby the thoughts in their head and reality on the ground DO NOT match. Yet again, is it any surprise that the Left, represented by the Mainstream Media, anti-war fringe groups, and Democratic Congressmen, are completely out of touch with reality?
Nice try though.
Here, author Michael McCord touts Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards “idealistic approach to
Note the following:
“During his appearance Wednesday at the Seacoast Media Group forum on Iraq, Edwards put himself forward as precisely the candidate who can end the war, deal best with unforeseen consequences and revitalize American foreign policy for years to come — including the "out there" notion of stopping U.S. nuclear weapon development while leading the way toward eliminating those weapons globally.”
Yes, tout yourself as the president who ended the war, thus guaranteeing a victory for evil and providing an important ideological and recruiting advantage for jihadists. Furthermore, the notion that Edwards, or any other Democratic presidential candidate would stop “U.S. nuclear development” is absolutely obscene. What about the rogue regimes that could potentially supply terrorists with WMD?
Where is the mention of that? Well it’s not there. According to Left, it’s the United States that is the true proliferators of terror.
“Edwards’ policy-laden answer, much of which must have gone over the head of the young girl, boiled down to this: It’s up to the Iraqis, who happen to be on the verge of a major civil war.”
WHAT? According to whom, leftist scholars, diplomats, MoveOn and Daily Kos puppetmasters? As violence (civilian deaths, military casualties, etc.) drops, how are we supposed to believe the twisted view from the Left that the “war is lost?”
Edwards shares idealistic approach to Iraq
By Michael Mccord
October 04, 2007 6:00 AM
PORTSMOUTH — The Iraq war may be, said Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, President "George Bush’s mess." But if this diagnosis is correct, as most Democrats and a growing number of Republicans believe, recovering from this historical quagmire will require a unique combination of political skill, vision and significant international cooperation.
During his appearance Wednesday at the Seacoast Media Group forum on Iraq, Edwards put himself forward as precisely the candidate who can end the war, deal best with unforeseen consequences and revitalize American foreign policy for years to come — including the "out there" notion of stopping U.S. nuclear weapon development while leading the way toward eliminating those weapons globally.
The former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee is, if nothing else, ambitious and idealistic in his notions about the potential power of American leadership in gaining international cooperation to help deal with a wide range of crisis-level issues, which he sees as interconnected. He sees a need for help to stabilize Iraq and sway younger generations of Muslims in the Middle East, to leading the global climate agenda and providing primary education to hundreds of millions in Africa and elsewhere.
One of the more revealing moments in the forum — and one instructive about the stark choices facing the country and the next president — came when a young girl asked Edwards how we could help the children in Iraq, many of whom live in constant danger.
Edwards’ policy-laden answer, much of which must have gone over the head of the young girl, boiled down to this: It’s up to the Iraqis, who happen to be on the verge of a major civil war.
It’s unknown how fast even Edwards — like all of the Democratic candidates advocating various levels of withdrawal — can disengage from Iraq or deal bluntly with issues such as the massive privatization of our foreign policy infrastructure.
"Bad things can happen, no matter what," Edwards said about the need to get American troops out and deal with potential consequences later. "No one can predict the future."
Edwards explained again at the forum that he "was wrong" to vote for the war in 2002 and has learned from those painful lessons of deferring to presidential persuasion. He has criticized Democratic rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the inconsistency of the Iraq war policies and votes in the Senate, but it remains to be seen whether being wrong in 2002 and learning a lasting lesson will matter to Democratic primary voters.
crossposted at The Twin Cities Conservative
Edwards is just another pandering loser talking out of both sides of his mouth. If there’s 100,000 troops in Iraq when he takes office, he’s gonna pull out half. Sounds great, but the other half of his mouth (in the same exact comment from him) is willing to keep the war going until at least 2013, and even though he wants to cut troop levels immediate (recall the infamous New Direction in Iraq promise that Dems made last fall and never kept), he also wants to make sure that there’s enough forces to:
protect the embassy
protect embassy staff
protect aid workers
protect the US forces training the ISF
protect the US forces supporting the ISF
continue training the ISF
and
continue fighting AQI
RING
RING
RING
.
RING
RING
RING
Senator Edwards, it’s the clue phone, and it’s for you. Seems the post surge troop levels (that 100k you mentioned) is the troop level that’s needed to accomplish the missions you just described-missions actually described by President Bush in 2003. Get a clue.
RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at the end of
your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq?
EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. But I — well, I can
tell you what i would do as president. When I’m sworn into office, come January of 2009, if there are, in fact, as General Petraeus suggests, 100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will immediately draw down 40,000 to 50,000 troops; and over the course of the next several months, continue to bring our combat out of Iraq until all of our combat are, in fact, out of Iraq.
EDWARDS: I think the problem is — and it’s what you just heard discussed — is we will maintain an embassy in Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those humanitarian workers have to be protected. [ie, the Bush plan]
I think somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops will be necessary to accomplish that, 3,500 to 5,000 troops. [LOL! Yeah, right! It took more than a brigade in Kosovo to do that, and he thinks a brigade can do it in Iraq?! 7 mission objectives=roughly 500 troops per mission. What? Is the Euphrates suddenly gonna turn to chocolate while the palms turn into gumdrop trees, Saddam’s palaces turn to gingerbread houses, and the insurgents into Oompa Loompas?]
But I do say, I want to add to things you just heard. I think it is true that everyone up here wants to take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq. There are, however, differences between us, and those differences need to be made aware. Good people have differences about this issue.
For example, I heard Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that’s a continuation of the war. I do not think we should continue combat missions in Iraq. [Soooo, Al Queda in Iraq will not be fought in Iraq by US forces under President Edwards? No wonder every Islamic holy warrior from San Fran to Indonesia wants people to vote for Democrats. 60 AQI killed in Iraq last weekend by US forces, but that won’t happen on Pres Edwards’ watch. List of 500 AQI and the $100mill used to pay them to fight in Iraq found this week, but that won’t happen on Pres. Edwards’ watch.]
And when I’m on a stage with the Republican nominee, come the fall of 2008, I’m going to make it clear that I’m for ending the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who wants to bring the war to an end, get all American combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants to continue the war.
Transcript of Dartmouth Debate
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
http://ipol-2008.blogspot.com/2007/09/transcript-of-dartmouth-debate.html
Edwards is a purebread panderer, an empty hat. He sold his soul to MoveOn, and that’s that.