Edwards challenges Republic Party on terrorism

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Edwards continues to stand tall and speak his mind, regardless of what the political consquences of doing so are.

Edwards Confronts GOP on War on Terror
Ari Melber

==On Wednesday, John Edwards continued his frontal assault on President Bush's Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), telling a Portland audience that he opposes the policy and the "Bush language" that justifies Iraq, torture and Guantanamo. Edwards is not only trying to distinguish himself from the Democratic frontrunners, who said they "believe there is a war on terror" in response to a simplistic question at last week's debate. The Edwards campaign is also taking the battle directly to Republican candidates, pressing MSNBC to ask a similar question at tonight's GOP debate: "Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"

Instead of waiting for the inevitable Republican attacks on national security - which will come with equal ferocity whether Democratic leaders back Bush's doctrine or not - Edwards is pushing Republicans to answer for their President's failed policy.==

==That strategy was on display yesterday, as Edwards emphasized his case against GWOT in an interview with Time: "This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do <...> It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans<...> I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

That argument concisely nails three faults of Bush's policy that experts have been assailing for years: targeting a tactic instead of an enemy; making endless war as the premise for U.S. foreign policy; and secretly violating the Constitution and federal law in the name of security. ==

This is a good article/ http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=191993

[waiting for hope]

1. I think the first sentence is misleading:

"Edwards continues to stand tall and speak his mind, regardless of what the political consequences of doing so are."

The political consequences will be that he is sworn in as out next President. He's speaking out for what has been in our hearts and minds for the last few years.

Go Edwards! :bounce:

[Triana]

2. I agree with you Waiting....

...that first sentence sounds just like a stilted, defiant child and is inaccurate.

Every day I read something else Edwards has done or said that just NAILS it - in a way other candidates are not doing.
He's STILL My President. I might change my mind but thus far, all I've found is more reasons to SUPPORT him, than reasons not to.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. I intended it to be a compliment. I am an Edwards supporter

The first sentence is not from the article but is a comment from me. I intended it to be praise of him. He is simply saying what he believes and is letting the political chips fall where they may. Right now it is working for him but it may not in the end. There is a reason the robotic poll-tested, focus-grouped, consultant-puppeteered candidates do not this. Elections should be about ideas, visions, and values--not playing not to lose with generic and vague poll-tested rhetoric. I wish there were more candidates who believed they should earn election on merit, not on biography and image.

[Gloria]

4. Does Harry Reid approve????

:sarcasm: