It's not hard for me to be disappointed with the majority of the 18 Democrats and Republicans running for President right now. Democrats are hardly paying attention to some of their more thoughtful contenders (Joe Biden); Barack Obama's rhetorical gift is wasted, much as Churchill's would have been if it hadn't been paired with his clear-eyed understanding of the world and history, something Obama obviously lacks. On the right side of the aisle, I'm hard-pressed to be enthused about anyone - especially since many (the majority?) eschew science in favor of creationism - though for what it's worth that does align them with the majority of Americans.
But of everyone running, there is no one I despise as much as John Edwards. He's a smarmy shill, made rich off of frivolous lawsuits, boldly hypocritical and regularly espousing dangerous and/or stupid policies. No wonder the Left fawns all over him.
Let's begin with the hypocritical. For a man whose spent years harping on his ridiculous "Two Americas" theme, he's certainly done a fine job of exemplifying it. He is the anti-poverty crusader who famously paid $400 for a haircut and owns the largest house in Wake County, North Carolina. He is the anti-corporate activist who spent time working for a hedge fund; his excuse of "research" is as pathetic as they come. Why Leftists continue to willingly overlook all of these follies is confounding, until you look at his policies.
His platform kowtows to environmentalists and to the Democratic strawman of a struggling middle class, among other things. Though he's understandably vague, one cannot read his policies without suspecting that his economic program would be simple: raise taxes. But it's on our national struggle against Islamo-fascism that his rhetoric becomes truly dangerous.
Edwards recently dismissed the War on Terror as a mere "bumper sticker," showing that he is either naively unaware - or willfully ignorant - of the nature of our enemy. His recently released plan for fighting terrorism comprises six major planks:
- Rebalance our force structure for the challenges of the new century
- Ensure our intelligence strategy adheres to proven and effective methods
- Hold regular meetings with top military leadership
- Create a "Marshall Corps" to stabilize weak and failing states
- Rebuild equipment
- Create a National Security Budget
The first of these is the usual Democratic argument that our troops are returning to Iraq with insufficient time home, and presumably that we're ill-equipped for our current mission. Never mind, of course, that our soldiers in World War II rarely got off the line at all, let alone a year home. And if our army is not the force we need for counter-insurgency and nation-building, much of the blame for that can be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Clinton Administration. The nature of our War on Terror, which began far before 9/11, should have been clear to them; they failed, however, to respond accordingly.
His second is, if possible, even more extreme, ridiculously claiming that we cannot do anything that might "give terrorists, or even other nations, an excuse to abandon international law." Johnny Boy, any foe we face in this struggle doesn't give a damn for international law. And as for us, we should comply only so far as it corresponds to our national interest. He also promises to close Gitmo, restore habeas corpus, and ban terror, though he fails to say what will happen to current Gitmo detainees, that habeas isn't really dead, and that American personnel do not torture (unless of course you use the most absurd definitions of torture, as Democrats and the Left do so often); I suppose this means that in the "ticking bomb" scenario, we'll be left to sweet-talk any suspect into cooperating.
As to meeting with military officials: what nonsense. He claims that civil-military relations are strained and retired officers are speaking out as a result, thus necessitating this empty gesture. That the majority of officers remain aligned with the President's policies - with varying degrees of criticism - reduces this to mere rhetoric (not that the rest is anything else).
A "Marshall Corps"? Excuse me? We're effectively creating an Anti-Terror Peace Corps. I suppose we might be able to find 10,000 out of work idealistic ex-hippies to send to foreign countries, but it won't do any good. Such a suggestion suggests a basic misunderstanding of our struggle.
Equipment repair? Filler. Of course things are being used outside of their peacetime usage - this is a war. I have no problem stockpiling additional armored vehicles, helicopters, etc. However, such weapons seem at least partially antithetical to his warm, fuzzy approach to the issue - it's boots on the ground, face to face, not behind inches of steel armor, that will win people over.
A national security budget? Among other things, this means declassifying the Pentagon budget, which should be reason enough to discard it.
Is it clear I despise this man? Is it equally clear that he is utterly incapable of acknowledging the nature of our enemy, and that his plan is uniquely unsuited to face them? Thankfully, if the polls have even a kernel of truth, he has no chance of winning.
