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