Edwards Is A Dangerous Man

How disastrous would a John Edwards presidency be for the US? Take a look. His plan for winning the war on terror? Simple, just be nice to them. Bet: as John Edwards says, so the other Dem contenders would do. They just don't have the nerve or stupidity to admit it.

Edwards aide David Ginsberg confirmed that the former North Carolina senator had not raised his hand in response to Brian Williams' question,"Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

He also noted that Edwards elaborated later in the debate.

"I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly, but we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy, and we need one, and I will provide one."

Comments

[Zifnab]

"And America needs to use the tools that are available to them so that these people who are sitting on the fence, who terrorists are trying to recruit, the next generation, get pushed to our side, not to the other side."

Quick! Stop him! He's trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the people!
I can totally see how Dan would oppose this strategy, what with it sounding remarkably --similiar-- exactly the same to the Republican plan (before they started bombing and torturing innocent civilians). Wouldn't it be horrible if Democrats succeeded where Republicans fell flat on their faces? I can definitely see why an Edwards Presidency makes Dan pee himself at night.

[Fred Beloit]

Using irony again Zif? Doesn't work. It is fun to write but is not persuasive. Instead, why don't you tell us what "tools" Bridal Cake Boy has in mind? Would he use immigration laws to keep Islamists out of the country, for example?

[Zifnab]

Listen, Fred. If you honestly think the only way to deal with a foreign country is with an explosive device dropped out of an airplane, then I can't help you. I can only point you towards the clusterfuck in the Middle East and explain that this wasn't here six years ago, before Bush decided to wage war on everyone wearing a turbin. And that all the bombs we've dropped so far haven't done a single thing to prevent terror attacks in Madrid, Spain or London, England or the Netherlands or France or Somalia or Palestine/Isreal.

I can point you towards the UN weapons inspectors who found no weapons before we went in and who we discovered after-the-fact clearly had been doing a fantastic job of keeping Saddam's WMD program under control. This inspectors program, plus the Afganistan invasion in '02, could have been used as an excellent middle-ground to get people into Iran without threatening nuclear strikes. With pressure from China and Japan, they could have been used in N.Korea to confirm Jong-Il was obeying his promise to halt nuke productions (rather than Bush's pathetic attempt at hardball that simply encouraged Little Kim to create a handful of bombs from the program Clinton had him shut down a few years before). All this without a single shot fired, without a single American casualty, without a massive economic pricetag, without torture, without murder, without "collateral damage".

This could have been the result of an Edwards Presidency. Peace through strength and wisdom, rather than war through fear-mongering and incompetence.

[templar knight]

Zifnab the racist has spoken.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks for the oft repeated BS. Now how about an answer to my question please.

[jong]

You should ask Dan what's so scary in his speech - he's the one that calling Edward's dangerous. What exactly is dangerous in his speech? What Edwards said is common-sense - you've got to fight terrorism in other ways then trying to kill them.

[Fred Beloit]

"...you've got to fight terrorism in other ways then (sic) trying to kill them." Well if that isn't just so special. I'm tempted to attack this idea, but, hell, just let it stand the way it is. A monument to the Liberal brain.

[Zifnab]

"Now how about an answer to my question please."

Listen, Fred. If you honestly think the only way to deal with a foreign country is with an explosive device dropped out of an airplane, then I can't help you. I can only point you towards the clusterfuck in the Middle East and explain that this wasn't here six years ago, before Bush decided to wage war on everyone wearing a turbin. And that all the bombs we've dropped so far haven't done a single thing to prevent terror attacks in Madrid, Spain or London, England or the Netherlands or France or Somalia or Palestine/Isreal.

I can point you towards the UN weapons inspectors who found no weapons before we went in and who we discovered after-the-fact clearly had been doing a fantastic job of keeping Saddam's WMD program under control. This inspectors program, plus the Afganistan invasion in '02, could have been used as an excellent middle-ground to get people into Iran without threatening nuclear strikes. With pressure from China and Japan, they could have been used in N.Korea to confirm Jong-Il was obeying his promise to halt nuke productions (rather than Bush's pathetic attempt at hardball that simply encouraged Little Kim to create a handful of bombs from the program Clinton had him shut down a few years before). All this without a single shot fired, without a single American casualty, without a massive economic pricetag, without torture, without murder, without "collateral damage".

This could have been the result of an Edwards Presidency. Peace through strength and wisdom, rather than war through fear-mongering and incompetence.

[jong]

Okay, how about we get Saudi Arabia to close some of the Wahhabi madrassas - you know - where Al Qaeda originated and teaches much of their poison.

Or is that not violent enough for you?

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks for the oft repeated, twice repeated BS. How about telling us what exactly we should do about the fact that the Islamists won't rest until non-Islamists become Islamists or their subjects. Any chance for specifics?

[Jong]

Fred - are you for or against closing the Wahhabi Madrassas?

[Fred Beloit]

Well, Erica, I'd be for it if I knew how we could do it. I don't see a way. Any ideas?

[Phoenix]

Bridal Cake Boy?

Thanks, Fred. I'm all full of outrage to answer our resident racist and his 'rapist wit', but you had to go ruin it. hahaha...

Sorry, but Bridal Cake Boy thinks like a lawyer. That means he thinks talking and debating will work to solve anything. Oh, and get him some money. He's toast anyway.

Yeah, Fred...about those Saudi madrassas? How about a nice B52 drop of pork chops at recess?

[Phoenix]

Precious Fred...

I just gave you the solution. Ain't I smart? :)

[Fred Beloit]

Phoenix, you just scared hell out of the royal family, not the Anglican one, the other one. But you do have a solution, and a non-violent one. But I'm afraid Ziffy and gang would call it social violence or religious violence. They love to couple adjectives that don't fit with the word violence. I think it was the Rev. Jackson who first made the charge of financial violence against our society. But the gang in Iraq uses the real thing.

[charles]

'rapist wit'

tee hee

[Jong]

Maybe we can get our Suadi friends to help. Since I'm sure you know, that's where Wahabbism was found and the roots of Al Qaeda and 9/11 lead.

[charles]

the roots of al qaeda lead to afganistan

the saudis and pakistanis are doing more now than they ever had in the past to fight terrorism

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=654782007

but they still suck

[Phoenix]

Musharraf has my vote. What that man has had to go through to be our 'friend'. Unlike the Royals in Saudi. But, I daresay if given a choice of not being our friends or being our friends, they'd choose the latter real quick.

Nothing like a little homegrown terrorism to bring about some reality-based thinking. "Oh, indeed..we do like the United States of America. They buy our oil and they have big guns."

Come to think of it - what Tony Blair has had to endure to be our 'friend'. As if Britain itself is not our ally, he's been made the symbol of anything that has gone wrong. What a stupid country England has turned into. Too bad we're beginning to walk their way.

Too bad we don't give Italy and Poland and Australia their due as our friends.

This is beginning to sound like a couple of bullies fighting on a playground over the sandbox, so I will stop now. :)

[Fred Beloit]

Erica, I would think/hope that the issue has been brought up with the Saudis. But they don't seem to be interested. At least I haven't read any reports about them taking action. Perhaps, now that this movement seems to be turning against them, they will.

[Phoenix]

"Erica"?

stop it right now. that's twict you made me pee my pants....

[Zifnab]

"I don't see a way"

That would be part of the problem. When your only answer is "lets bomb them" and bombing isn't an option in Saudi Arabia, it appears the Republican-Terror-Fighter's answer is "let's ignore them and hope they don't attack us again".

Perhaps we could put economic or political pressure on the Saudis? Ally with France, England, and Germany in diplomatic efforts and peace talks? We could support moderate political parties in the region. We could send over good-will ambassadors and try and woo them with charm. We could send in CIA operatives to infiltrate them - perhaps operatives we won't out when they give us news we don't want to hear. We could ally with moderate muslims in the region and work towards their own economic and philosophical prosperity to drown out the Al-Qaida Madrassas like we drowned out the communists in western europe after WWII with the Marshal Plan.

Our options are many and varied. Of course, none of them involve explosives being dropped out of airplanes, so I can see why you may have overlooked them all.

[charles]

what makes you think none of the above listed actions are being taken?

when have we dropped explosives out of airplanes on the saudi kingdom?

how many politicians of both parties are on the saudis payroll?

[TomB]

"Ally with France, England, and Germany in diplomatic efforts and peace talks?"

BWHAAAHAAAhAhAHAHAAAA!!!

Good one Z.

I mean, considering the leaders of France and Germany were getting millions of dollars in OFF kickbacks from Saddam in order to oppose the Iraqi invasion, I'm SURE they'd be great assets in "diplomatic efforts" with the deep-pockets of the House of Saud.

And here's a hint: "peace talks" with militant islamists don't work. Ask the Israelis.

[Zifnab]

"what makes you think none of the above listed actions are being taken?"

Um... everything from George Tenet's latest book to George Bush's long and distinguished track record of not negotiating with "terrorists" (read: anybody).

"when have we dropped explosives out of airplanes on the saudi kingdom?"

Never, to date. And that's sort of the problem. We can't bomb them because they're our "allies" so Bush just throws up his hands and says we can't do anything about it.

"how many politicians of both parties are on the saudis payroll?"

This is yet another problem it would have been wonderful if someone tried to tackle. But the Oilman-in-Chief was no one's first pick to solve it and efforts to fight corruption have historically been so one-sided - with the latest fallout from the Gonzo Inquiry more now than ever before - that its a problem only the American press and the American public can solve through investigation and intelligent voting. Ferret out the guys getting kickbacks and vote them out of office. That's the only solution a Democracy has ever truly provided.

"I mean, considering the leaders of France and Germany were getting millions of dollars in OFF kickbacks from Saddam in order to oppose the Iraqi invasion, I'm SURE they'd be great assets in "diplomatic efforts" with the deep-pockets of the House of Saud."

Again, a problem best solved through diplomacy. Not EVERYONE in Europe is benefiting from Saudi kickbacks. The key is to make the House of Saud an issue at home and abroad. Turn relationships with Saudi Royalty into the political poison it should be.

Or we could go the extra mile and cut our bonds to foreign oil. Pull government funding out of oil subsidies and put it into wind and solar power generation. Heavily subsidize hybrid cars. Invest in safe nuclear technology.

All excellent ideas that have been generally ignored or directly opposed by this administration. Many of these ideas are championed by the Democratic Party in general and John Edwards in particular.

[templar knight]

Don't burst Zifracist's bubble, TomB. And cut our bonds to foreign oil, because the Ziffys of the world just know it would take only a week or two to do this, yet Clinton spent 8 years in the WH and did nothing to solve the problem. It's amazing to me how these liberals think that all you have to do to solve the energy problem is enact legislation, ignoring the fact that it has taken 100 years and trillions of dollars in infrastructure to create the energy system we have in place. What a fucking idiot.

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Ziffy; Envioning you, I just have this image of a college freshman, hippy chick kinda kid.... I hope you're right, really I do. Had you some life experience behind you, perhaps gotten your vast knowledge from somewhere other than "The View", you might think differently. Everything you and the Breck girl call ideas really has been tried. See GWB did not start this crap six years ago as you assert. It's been going on since the crusades but really since Israel was created. Those of us who go back anywhere near that far remember the bombings, hijackings, an old man in a wheel chair, shoved over the rail of an ocean liner...by some peaceful muslim. As folks used to say, been there, did that, got a tee shirt. We've paid, placated, pleaded and finally dropped a bomb or two. So vote for the breck girl, the one who is trying to force a poor working class slob off his land right now, and let's see how high we can raise my taxes to pay tribute to these people. After all, the Koran says infidels shall be converted, taxed, enslaved or killed. I dont wanna die, be a slave and have my own religion. Taxes/Tribute???? Well fortunately, I no longer have to pay them so go right ahead.

[Phoenix]

Hey, thumbs up to Zif. We're always nagging him to back up what he says, and then when he does, he's mocked. Give him credit here - his ideas might not work, but as Peas points out, all of us thought that way once. No sense in making fun of him. Besides - he's one of the few libs here who doesn't call people names or act arrogant.

Also, I think we all occasionally engage in wishful thinking of this sort of end to all this violence. It's wearing everyone out.

Do pork chops explode when they hit the ground?

[imaginewhirledpeas]

Gee Phoenix, I feel spanked and in the corner. You're right though, Ziffy does not call names and at least attempts to back up his points with thought.I apologize for mocking and admit to my own wishful thinking about solutions. It's probably true that none will appear when both sides are intractable.

[TomB]

"Again, a problem best solved through diplomacy."

How, specifically?

"Not EVERYONE in Europe is benefiting from Saudi kickbacks."

Uh, no. Just the politicians who are responisible for the "diplomacy".

"The key is to make the House of Saud an issue at home and abroad. Turn relationships with Saudi Royalty into the political poison it should be."

Amazing. You throw one of the largest power brokers in the Middle East under the bus in the SAME PARAGRAPH where you demand more "diplomacy".

So after we ditch the Saudis, who do we negotiate with in that country to shut down the Wahabist madrassass?

"Or we could go the extra mile and cut our bonds to foreign oil. Pull government funding out of oil subsidies and put it into wind and solar power generation."

Sorry, but I'm not driving a car with a windmill OR a sail.

"Invest in safe nuclear technology."

Sorry, but there are plenty of people already investing in companies who would be more than happy to build "safe" nuclear power plants (the technology is already here), it is the environmentalists and their Democrat (and some Republican) cronies in government who throw up so many roadblocks and red tape so as to make building a nuke a very expensive affair.

However, the good news is that there is a large increase in applications for new nuclear power plant, with at least 20 expected to be constructed in the next decade (God willing).

"All excellent ideas that have been generally ignored or directly opposed by this administration. "

Which specific ideas were you referring to here?

[Jamie]

Oh yeah. That John Edwards is one dangerous guy. He will destroy our credibility in the world, destroy our military, help the terrorists recruit, drive us deeper into debt our kids will have to pay off, isolate us from our traditional allies....oh wait, that's Bush's legacy.