John Edwards’ Warped Mind

by Ryan on May 23, 2007

in Election 2008,War on Terror

John Edwards is an ass.  Or is he an ostrich?  As a Democrat, he’s naturally prone to believe that the “War on Terror” is a bumper-sticker slogan and not a strategy.  Only She Who Must Not Be Named had possibly sounded more ridiculous–of course after the shock of finding out about Bill’s trysts… in 1998!  What’s amazing is that while all (I guess now, “most”) of the Democrat frontrunners believe that there is War on Terror, many Democrats running for President aren’t sure.  Rudy responded to Edward’s ridiculous statement by simply stating that whether or not the Dems believe there’s a war on terror or not, the enemy seems to think so and is actually fighting it against us.  The ol’ 2004 Ostrich Brigade is back!

What kind of party doesn’t seem to think we’re at war with a clandestine group of international terrorists bent on our demise?  The same party whose philosophy all but ignored terrorism for eight years under Bill Clinton!  Terrorism was just a crime to them with high-profile individuals to hunt down, not large, transnational groups to break up and destroy.  What I hear from Democrats like Edwards is the same ol’ 1990s dribble: a hidebound look at a world where we felt innocent and ignored the obvious signs in retrospect, all the while danger was lurking.  We can’t afford Edward’s thinking at the top eschelons of government.

{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }

BillT May 23, 2007 at 4:02 pm

“What kind of party doesn’t seem to think we’re at war with a clandestine group of international terrorists bent on our demise? The same party whose philosophy all but ignored terrorism for eight years under Bill Clinton!”

In fairness, it is sort of hard to get worked up about a terror threat when you’re safely secluded on your multi thousand acre plantation, removed from the real world.


Ryan May 23, 2007 at 4:38 pm

I agree. Edwards is pretty far away from any sense of real America. He went down to Nawlins for a photo op a while ago to promote his “street cred” on the issue of poverty and to take a few jabs at Bush in the rubble of Katrina. Perhaps his two Americas consist: those of us with feet planted squarely on the ground, and those that watch us from their ivory towers. Don’t go slumming on our behalf, Mr. Edwards, we wouldn’t want to mess with your hair.


Noonan May 23, 2007 at 5:20 pm

One Edwards haircut is nearly half the monthly salary of a minimum wage worker.


matt May 24, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Just stumbled upon your blog through Bill T. Looks good. Just wanted to make a comment here.

I generally disagree with the Democrats on most issues, but Edwards did have a point. If you look at the entirety of what he said, he said that declaring a war on terror you have played into their hands.

They declared war on us but we essentially ignored them in the beginning. It is a little tougher to recruit and raise funds when your enemy ignores you (not many people come to a boxing match with only one boxer). The only reasoning Osama had for jihad was an Airforce base on Saudi sand and US support for Israel. Red meat issues, but hardly the stuff worth dieing for.

Declaring war created the pretext for a societal clash. A call to arms which would (according to Osama) create a Muslim front with the ability to rise up and fight the west. A declared war on a political tool is never ending, therefore creating a never ending stream of resources for Osama.

In the end it is simply a semantical argument that Edwards has a small point about. Declaring war on Iraq did much more for Jihad than declaring war on terror. The reality is that he said it to appease lefties who don’t think there are people out there who hate us and want to kill Americans. Their solution is to foster mutual understanding which will kill mutual hatred; which is crazy.

The real problem is that he, nor any other liberal, has any plan to combat terrorism past bashing Bush.


Mike May 24, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Thanks for the comment Matt.

I think there is something to the concept that recruitment can be easier but I don’t think that’s what he was saying. Even if that was what he said I still think he’s way off base.

Recruitment is easier for them now that we declared war. Fundraising however is another story. Part of the war strategy was to kill terror network members, isolate and/or eliminate regimes supporting them and freezing their assets. Prior to our war on terror, the Al Qaeda network has no trouble organizing and financing spectacular attacks. It’s alot tougher for them to do that now. Many of their members are dead. Their network has fragmented. One of their state sponsors is no longer bankrolling them.

Al Qaeda had no trouble before the war on terror. We haven’t been attacked in the U.S. since then. Recruitment may be up for the enemy but financing and organization are more difficult.

All that is probably academic though. Edwards is trying to cater to the cesspool of his base who don’t think there is a war on terror. When this statement is coupled with his courting of moonbats like Marcotte, I don’t think labeling was his problem. If it was, he wouldn’t have used the term himself in 2001.

There is something to the recruitment angle though but I think that’s unfortunately the price we have to pay to make their job alot more difficult.


matt May 25, 2007 at 10:54 am

I think you may have misunderstood what i said (or maybe it wasn’t said clearly enough). Actually fighting a war on terrorist is fine. The problem is actually declaring a war. We can go after financial networks and bust cells without having some sort of declaration. As Edwards said (and Fred Barnes agreed) it is just for bumper stickers. It is a political one liner that has no positive effect, besides scoring political points, but does have a possible downside in the actual war on terrorism.

As I said in my previous post the possible downside is assisting terror groups in mobilizing through the threat of war on Muslim culture. Has it done that? I’m not sure. Invading their countries does more to unite radicals more than anything but the point still stands that there was a potential downside to declaring war.


Mike May 25, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I still don’t think that was what Edwars was saying though. Your point about the act of declaring war is still well-taken; however, I think it is necessary to the extent that the American people need to know something is being done in the aftermath of 9-11.
Some liberals won’t believe that slogan or not when a Republican is President but most people know something is being done even if some details are secret for as long as the NY Times doesn’t know about them. Part of the terror strategy is to instill fear. Declaring war doesn’t eliminate that fear but it does ease it to some degree.
I agree with your assessment of the downside but I think it’s necessary because fighting a war makes no sense if it isn’t declared. It’s probably unconstitutional too.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: