John Edwards' campaign advisers
July 14, 2007
The
Democratic presidential candidates are trying to outdo each other in
putting forth their assessments that they are anti-Iraq war. However,
their words are so imbecillic they make the Three Stooges look like
intellectuals.
Born-again
peace advocate John Edwards has many preposterous ideas to calm the
Iraqi beast. First, let’s look at Edwards’ words in the time preceding
the illegal March 2003 invasion. On October 9, 2002, in a television
interview, he stated:
My
position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to
eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass
destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is
presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is
a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical
and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that
he’s doing everything he can to build more. Each day he gets closer to
his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Today,
Edwards tries feebly to put his past words into the "delete" section of
history. But, looking at them, he was quite sure of himself. He never
used the word "alleged." All his words indicated an assurance that he
was correct.
Now, Edwards is blaming everyone for the debacle in Iraq and he has opinions of actions that could quickly
eradicate the violence in Iraq.
An Associated Press article of July 14, 2007 (Edwards Seeks Help From Iran, Syria in Stabilizing Iraq) written
by Amy Lotentzen outlines some of Edwards’ current thinking on Iraq:
Democratic presidential candidate John edwards said Saturday the U.S. needs help from Syria and Iran in stabilizing
Iraq and he called the Iraqi prime minister a weak leader …
… "The Iraqis are going to have to take responsibility, and hey haven’t," he told about 200 people
at a town hall-style meeting in eastern Iowa …
… Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, told reporters that the U.S. "should be making our own evaluation
about the circumstances in Iraq" and that al-Malaki has not proved effective in stopping violence.
Edwards’ assessments have changed little in five years. All suffer from lack of reality as well as illogic.
He
touches on a theme that is currently in vogue in the U.S. in both major
political parties: the Iraqis are not capable of running their own
country and they should be grateful for the U.S. for destroying their
country because the Americans brought "freedom" to Iraq. The same logic
can be used in a murder scenario where the killer of an individual sues
the family of the deceased for the cost of the bullets used in the
shooting.
Edwards’
statement about Malaki being a weak leader and a contributor to the
violence in Iraq is laughable at best. In 2002, he condemned Saddam
Hussein for various reasons. Today, he criticizes Iraq’s "leader" for
being too weak. If you remember, in 2002 the U.S. lambasted Saddam for
being too strong a leader.
The
outcome shows that Saddam was not lying about the weapons of mass
destruction. Under his leadership, Iraq was a safe country will little
violence. As Saddam was being hanged, I wonder if Edwards said, "Sorry,
Saddam. We got it wrong."
I
don’t care if Edwards apologizes a hundred times a day for his errant
vote to authorize war in 2002. He still has not come clean about
reality, and, his vote contributed to the placement of the current
so-called government in Iraq. He is to blame as much as George Bush for
today’s chaotic and deadly Iraq.
As
far as Syria and Iran being consulted in the process of bringing
normality to Iraq, forget it. Iran is a major reason the country is in
shambles today and Syria is handcuffed by the U.S. The Syrians are a
much larger bulls-eye on a target for future U.S. military intervention
than Iran. Edwards should read a few newspapers on the subject of Iraq
before he sticks his foot further down his throat.
Moe, Larry. Cheese!
| 
