Edwards' final grade for terrorism plan: F.

[calteacherguy]

Mr. Edwards, the word "Iran" appears nowhere in your "major policy" speech addressing terrorism. You simply cannot pass this course without addressing Iran, for that is the country with whom we are presently headed on a path to war under the misguided policies you claim to oppose. Furthermore, I am concerned about your history of belligerent, militaristic statements toward Iran. The rest of your speech, even the good ideas (and I remind you of our plagiarism policy here), falls short. Final Grade: F.

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

Note: You are welcome to rewrite the paper, but I cannot in good conscience recommend you for the position to which you aspire.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calteacherguy]

2. Respond. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calteacherguy]

6. Pathetic response. nt

[saltpoint]

8. Yet accurate.

[calteacherguy]

9. Are you capable of elaborating on your thoughts?

You have lamely attempted to defend Edwards not by defending him, but attack me. Defend your chosen candidate from my allegations. Are you disputing the fact that the word "Iran" did not appear in the speech?

[saltpoint]

10. You Inglitch teechrs outta run the spelcheck unce in a wal. It'd hep.

[calteacherguy]

12. I did.

And, yet another post from you failing to defend Edwards' speech.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calteacherguy]

15. Well, I think you've demonstrated the limit of your ability to question the grade.

I guess you can go ahead and say "plant" again if it makes you happy....but it won't help your candidate get out of this one.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Calling folks names here on DU is against the rules......

And I'm surprised that a Mod hasn't gotten rid of these ridiculous one word repeated name calling posts.

[saltpoint]

23. Thanks for weighing in, FC. Wouldn't be a true Edwards bashing thread

without your participation.

[FrenchieCat]

25. But like you, I didn't say shit about the subject matter....rather your

childish reaction to it.

So I'm not bashing John Edwards in this thread, I'm bashing the one who is bashing the OP. That would be you.

I'm not sure why you would think that your bashing is more acceptable than that others. At least bashing (since that is what you choose to call it) a political figure is allowed here at DU. Bashing one because you don't like what they say about some public figure that you like is not the same thing. In other words, you are the one making it personal.

[saltpoint]

26. You sure are good at what you do.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Keep it up with getting personal.......

since that is your forte, apparently! :eyes:

[saltpoint]

33. Just sayin'. You're mighty good.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Maybe so, but it ain't easy.....following DU rules, that allows for the debate on

the candidates running without posters going round insulting each other.....as though they were children on the school yard.

[saltpoint]

35. And you are damn good at it. No kidding. The best there is.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I'm good at what?......discussions with facts on the candidates?

True! :)

[saltpoint]

37. You're the best there is, and you're sweet as pie to the general public.

[calteacherguy]

27. Your close-mindedness is absolutely amazing.

You refuse to accept legitimate criticism of a Democrat as anything but bashing. Thank goodness there are some more thoughtful minds in our Party.

[saltpoint]

28. Which party would that be?

[Yukari Yakumo]

42. This is one reason why postcounts do not matter at all.

Seriously... OC, just how many posts you intend to make just to say absolutely nothing at all?

[2rth2pwr]

56. as a low poster, I will second that. nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

4. Hey ctg.

:hi: MKJ

on edit: predictability isn't the worst thing, I guess.

[Zensea]

5. What is plagerism?

It helps if the one grading a paper knows how to spell.

[saltpoint]

7. It helps also if the one grading the paper is himself a teacher.

Can't water a plant without a pitcher.

[Clintonista2]

48. The state of education in America these days..

Maybe it's not the students that we should be blaming.

[calteacherguy]

60. Cheap shot for one typo. Pretty pathetic of you. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

11. For someone so proud of being an educator, your spelling sucks

It's only a small button; hit it once in a while.

Sloppy spelling and grammar just makes your opinion less credible to others, and if the pomposity of this rejoinder irks you, it's no more than a response in kind; you've lectured us with a fairly regular spew of pedantry and should be able to bear this correction.

We are aware that you intensely dislike the man, but if you think that his policies are more hostile toward Iran than Clinton's or Obama's, I'd like to hear a quick point-by-point summary.

Perhaps you can have a chat with your T.A. and get an unbiased second opinion...

[BlueStater]

14. I haven't seen this guy post positive comments about anyone

His main purpose on these forums seems to be attacking Edwards.

[saltpoint]

18. You're not the only one who's picked up on that trendline.

And you're right.

[calteacherguy]

19. That's because I'm extremely concerned about the direction this Party is headed.

Obama has some potential, and I respect him. However, I'm very concerned about the upcoming war.

[rucky]

20. You're not allowed to be concerned on the DU anymore.

it means your -er- a troll or something.

nope. only unconcerned people allowed.

[Sapphire Blue]

43. ...

His purpose here is very evident.

[calteacherguy]

46. Hmmm...that's a very vague and ambiguous comment.

I guess then you have nothing significant to say regarding the OP.

[calteacherguy]

17. There was one misspelling in the OP. And does that matter as much as war? nt

[madrchsod]

21. did`t know iran was sponsoring terrorist acts against the usa.

i`m have`t read any verifiable evidence that iran or it`s minions have any intention to attack the united states here or anywhere else. we are headed on a path to war with iran? interesting idea but the chances of a war with iran is nil. the economic,social,and political repercussions of a military attack on iran would be worldwide. i doubt even bush would do something that rash after all it would be bad for business and bad for his legacy.

[calteacherguy]

24. Please capitalize properly and resubmit.

Thank you.

[madrchsod]

41. why?

[Clintonista2]

50. Frankly, I wouldn't trust you to edit anything I submit

I am praying that you don't teach english...

[calteacherguy]

64. You are being childish. I do have a degree with honors in English, by the way.

University of California

[LSK]

51. Please learn debate 101

Obviously you missed it.

[calteacherguy]

65. Yet another failure of an Edwards' supporter to address his failures. nt

[Auntie Bush]

29. Don't be so sure of yourself.

I wouldn't put it past him. He's psycho enough to do anything! I don't trust him as far as I could throw him and I'm a weakling.
He's building up an enemy...just like he did Sadam and you can't trust a crazy demented desperate human(?) being under the thumb of Cheney.

[saltpoint]

30. You know who's been really good on foreign policy?

Gary Hart.

He doesn't get the respect he deserves.

Tough, clear, long-seeing.

Not a bad combo.

I hate to be caught praising a Democrat in this thread, but darn it, that's how I feel.

[calteacherguy]

38. Gary Hart, like Clark, "gets it."

He understands the big picture and the historical moment of opportunity which the neocons have squandered.

Principled Engagement:
America's Role in the 21st-Century World
Gary Hart

We are now more than a decade beyond the Cold War and as yet our political leadership has failed to provide a comprehensive sense of America's role in the post-Cold War, early 21st-century world. For almost half a century our central organizing principle, upon which both a foreign policy and defense policy were built, was "containment of communism". The world in which we now live defies the simplicity and predictability such a doctrine offered. And even containment of communism left unanswered the question of how to achieve that goal, a question that often divided our country deeply, not least between those advocating the use of power to promote our interests and those advocating adherence to human rights as defining of our values.

http://www.garyhartnews.com/hart/writings/speeches/sf_02_10_2003.php

The Stanford Review
Strategy and Legitimacy: Exclusive Interview with Wesley Clark

"When we won the cold war, what happened to the United States was we lost our adversary and we lost our strategy, our purpose, our reason for organizing our society and living in a certain way. All the mechanics were still there, but there was no purpose in it. We lost our purpose in the world.”

<snip>

As a result of Iraq, Clark said, “There’s been tremendous damage done to the United States.”
The former general spent much of the rest of his talk arguing for how the United States might rebuild its legitimacy.

“We alone among the great powers of the 19th and 20th centuries derived our consent from the governed,” he observed. “We universalized our political values through the United Nations. We try to do the right thing.”

Arguing that we’ve lost our moral way in Iraq, General Clark nevertheless remained optimistic that America could retake its place as a different kind of nation, one not motivated entirely by national interest.

Clark, perhaps drawing on his experience with international organizations such as NATO, also said, “We’ve got to develop international institutions to focus on problems beyond any one nation’s ability to solve. Problems like climate change, the spread of nuclear weapons. To support the right to protect. The United States can only do all this with allies, and it will only have allies if it regains its legitimacy.”

http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVIII/Issue_7/News/news2.shtml

[madrchsod]

40. yes he is

one of the more rational thinkers on the problems we face today.

[tkmorris]

31. You add nothing to the debate here

You would attack Edwards no matter what he did or said.

Bark away my friend.

[calteacherguy]

39. I disagree. Do you feel Iran is not related to terrorism? nt

[LSK]

49. are you referring to their support of Palestinians?

:shrug:

[calteacherguy]

68. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism and a rallying point.

We can't make the situation there better without engaging with Iran. It's incomprehensible that Edwards doesn't address the larger picture. It's probably because he wants to maintain a tough-guy image, and not appear weak re: Iran.

[LSK]

71. Remind me again how Iran is hindering the Iraq situation more than we are?

Are they the ones who invaded Iraq?

Are they the ones who brought in all the contractors to take Iraqi jobs away?

Are they the ones who issued the de-bathification orders?

Are they the ones who disbanded the Iraqi army?

Are they the ones who are responsible for over 40% of all foreign attacks (hint: that would be our "allies")?

Are they the ones who continue to be seen as occupiers who do nothing?

Are they the ones who want Oil Companies to steal Iraq's oil?

Are they the ones who cant even get the fucking electricity running 4 years after the war?

[Clintonista2]

52. Y'know, I'm not a big fan of Edwards, but I have to agree with you here

The OP does nothing but attack Edwards, it's not credible discussion. Why should I take the OP seriously when I already know that he won't agree with Edwards, regardless of what Edwards does?

[Sapphire Blue]

44. As usual, attacking a Democrat.

[calteacherguy]

45. Are Democrats to be immune from criticism? The issue is war. nt

[Clintonista2]

55. What you do is not criticism.

Regardless of what Edwards does, you are going to attack him. Ann Coulter, for example, is never going to say anything constructive about Edwards, even if she may agree with him on something he says. Not to compare you to Coulter, but you are the same way. That's politics- but don't try to dress it up and act like it's contructive criticism.

[calteacherguy]

58. The important issue isn't me, it's Edwards' failure. nt

[Clintonista2]

75. "Failure" is your perception

We will never see a Calteacherguy post related to Edwards about anything other than his "failures." Nothing Edwards does will ever be good enough for Calteacherguy, so why should we take anything you say seriousley? Your posts come off more as partisan ramblings rather than constructive criticism.

[LSK]

47. What the hell are you talking about?????

You mean the terrorism that the CIA is conducting against Iran????

[calteacherguy]

61. What I'm talking about is Edwards' failure to address the terrorism challenge in an effective way.

There can be no success against terrorism without engagement of Iran, Syria, etc.

[LSK]

63. where does it say he would not engage them?????

And isn't Al Queda a Sunni group? Why would he engage a Shiite nation about a Sunni group?

Or are you talking about some other terrorism issue?

You do realize that terrorism is a TACTIC TO ACHIEVE A GOAL right???

:shrug:

[calteacherguy]

66. Where does he say the most important thing we can do is engage Iran?

He has his priorities messed up in his macho, tough-guy act against Bin Laden. He doesn't get the big picture. Terrorism is being fed by our presence in Iraq, and unless we engage Iran it will only get worse.

[LSK]

69. I guess you missed the reports stating that Iran is responsible for 1.5% of attacks in Iraq

:shrug:

[calteacherguy]

70. Like Edwards, you don't see the forest from the trees.

I'm not talking about the percentage of attacks Iran is responsible for in Iraq. I'm talking about Iraq being a breeding ground for terrorism. The only way to stop it from being a bigger breeding ground for terrorism and leaving the whole ME in chaos is to engage with Iran.

[LSK]

72. what do you want Iran to do?

Please tell me because I guess being on DU for nearly 4 years daily has left me woefully uneducated. I guess I shouldn't watch as much CSPAN either because obviously I am a complete fucking idiot.

Also reading that damn Iraq Study Group report and Fiasco has done me no good either.

[Nutmegger]

53. Surprise, surprise.

[BootinUp]

54. Its amazing

how in the piece Edwards starts out attacking Bush for his lack of vision ain't it, and obsession on Iraq? The man has no sense of shame.

[jillan]

57. He actually got alot of praise in the MSM today for his speech.

Personally - I am glad to see him discuss this.
Edwards has been talking like he is a President on the campaign trail.
He is not just talking about two Americas anymore, and I for one have been
very interested in what he has to say.

Tonite I caught him in Iowa on C-Span - he was talking about who he would pick for a VP. He said it would have to be
someone who thought alot like him, because if something was to happen to him, the voters would still get the type of leader they voted for.
Then he went on to say, that when it came to picking his cabinet members, he would pick people that were experts in their field and ones that would challenge him. He said he would want them to come to him and say "I don't agree with you" so they could discuss it and come to the best solution.
Bravo John!! Bravo!

I'm becoming more and more impressed.

[Nutmegger]

59. Same with me.

I'm still shopping around. Every time I hear Edwards speak, I become more impressed with his platform.

And the Edwards haters have caused me to take another look at him too.

[calteacherguy]

62. Well, what can you expect from the MSM these days? nt

[Catchawave]

80. Obviously, more honesty than the OP n/t

[LSK]

67. quotes from his speech:

"And as everyone here knows, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Six years ago, President Bush declared that he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive." This is his starkest failure. Apparently, bin Laden plans to address America on the anniversary of 9/11. But I don't need to wait and hear what this murderer has to say. My position is clear. I can make you this solemn promise: as president, I will never rest until we have hunted bin Laden down and served him justice."

snip

"Tragically for America and the world, George Bush's "war on terror" approach walked directly into the trap the terrorists set for us. Islamic extremists wanted to frame the conflict with the U.S. as a war of civilizations, and the Bush Administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied."

snip

"We need a counterterrorism policy that will actually counter terrorism. That matches 21st century threats with 21st century tactics. That replaces Cold War thinking designed to defeat a single, implacable enemy with new world thinking that can defeat a multi-national, diverse, and often hidden foe—not just now, but for the long-term. That's strong, fast, and hard enough to stop terrorists cold, but also smart, honest, and prescient enough to draw people away from terrorism in the first place."

snip

"Instead of Cold War institutions designed to win traditional wars and protect traditional borders, we need new institutions designed to share intelligence, cooperate across borders, and take out small, hostile groups.

Instead of a foreign policy of convenience that readily does business with whoever is available and regularly turns a blind eye when our allies behave wrongly or fail to cooperate, we need a new foreign policy of conviction that requires cooperation in exchange for our support, whether it's arms sales, trade, or foreign aid.

Instead of an exclusively short-term focus on the enemy we know, we need a long-term strategy to win the minds of those who are not yet our enemies, by offering education, democracy, and opportunity in place of radicalism, hatred and fear.

Most of all, instead of a reckless, solo pursuit of an ideological agenda that abandons our moral authority and disregards our allies, we need to reengage with the world and reassert our moral leadership."

snip

"We need a bold new approach—one that is smart, tough, and targeted. This will require us to look beyond the structures of World War II and the Cold War to new tools that will allow us to target terrorism more precisely. It will require sustained U.S. leadership—but the kind that leverages the power of partnerships, rather than going it alone. It will mean raising the level of cooperation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies—while preserving civil liberties and the rule of law."

snip

"The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world. "

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism

THIS IS AN F?!?!!?

[calteacherguy]

73. Yes, it is an F.

Granted, some of those ideas, original or not, are good ideas. That's not the point.

The point is none of those ideas will matter if we fail to engage with Iran, Syria, etc. Iraq is the rallying point for terrorists today, and we cannot prevent it from becoming worse without a strategy of engagement in the entire ME. What Edwards is proposing is not all bad, but without the proper focus (a focus he never even acknowledges) it's nothing more than using a bandaids to try and stop a massive hemmorage.

The greatest threat to the national security of the U.S. is not Bin Laden; it's the probable upcoming war with Iran.

He does not address the root of the problem and greatest potential for increasesd terrorism; therefore, he earns an F.

[Forkboy]

74. Final Grade on your post: Y

[Clintonista2]

77. Give it a Z due to spelling errors

[calteacherguy]

78. What errors? nt

[Bluebear]

76. Well, you're as subtle as a heart attack, aren't you now?

:hi:

[Catchawave]

79. As Edwards would say:

"They're look for something to criticize about. It's what comes with running for president. If you're not ready to be criticized, you shouldn't run for president," Edwards said. "I mean, I know who I am. I know I haven't changed at all. I'm the same person I've always been."

:patriot: