NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat John Edwards Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan Bush had used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison to the invasion of Iraq.
"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."
In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards was one of four Democrats—including Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel—who said they did not believe there was a global war on terror. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that they did.
Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq but has since become a harsh critic of the conflict. In his speech, he reiterated his call to remove American combat troops from Iraq within a year and vowed to "restore the contract we have with those who proudly wear the uniform to defend our country and make the world a safe and better place."
Edwards outlined several steps he said he would pursue as president to strengthen the military, including using force only to pursue essential national security missions, improve civilian-military relations, and root out mismanagement at the Pentagon.
He said he would created a "national security budget" to include the activities of several agencies, including the Pentagon, Energy Department, and Homeland Security. He also said he would boost the budget for military recruiting.
But Edwards saved his toughest words for the Bush administration, whom he accused of engaging in wrongheaded military adventures while abandoning U.S. "moral leadership" in the world. Because of the administration's poor stewardship, Edwards said troops were exhausted, overworked, and potentially ill-prepared for future threats.
"Leading the military out of the wreckage left by the poor civilian leadership of this administration will be the single most important duty of the next commander in chief," Edwards said.
Anticipating the speech, the Republican National Committee sent out a research document titled "Edwards' Troop Profiteering," noting that his campaign routinely solicits donations to help Edwards pursue his anti-war efforts.
"One can't help but wonder how John Edwards is comfortable beefing up his campaign coffers at the expense of our troops," RNC spokeswoman Summer Johnson said. "Edward's profiteering isn't only in poor taste but it also illustrates his hunger for the White House trumps his sensitivity toward those serving America."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Sounds like Edwards is just trying to distance himself from the leaders.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

Well Rob, this probably isn't going to surprise you, but I actually agree with most of what he says. Though I do think that our inability to take on other threats to the US is not totally Bush's this administrations fault. IMO, the war in Iraq was a mistake, one that we will pay for in more ways than just financial or in human lives.

And I don't feel that there is justification to include Iraq in the war on terror.

Freedom, your right that I am not surprised but at least you did read and did give some thought to this issue. Would you vote for Edwards?

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

That's not what he said in 2001

Democrats, United on Terrorism - John Edwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yvg4utL07o

Edwards 2001: "We will be united with the president throughout this war on terrorism"

HE should have said that he didn't like the way this president is handleing it and that he could do a better job.

To say there is no war on terror is asinine. There is a war against terrorists. ANd it is happening, unless you think Fort Dix was just fantasy.

If this war was going well or had ended in the first year or so he would still be on board with the war.

These politicians BOTH REP AND DEM just go where the wind blows them. The have no true stance on anything and just change on how they think they can benefit the best.

RIGHT or WRONG Bush HAS NOT WAVERED on his stance.

I am sorry we ARE fight a GLOBAL war on terror. If we back down ( I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT IRAQ or invading Iran) and let ourselves become complacent we will be hit again and next time I belive it will be a whole lot worse.

As for Iran let Israel and the UN handle them we have our hands full and it is time the other nations stepped up.

As for Iraq we broke it we need to fix it and in some places it is getting better (Anbar providence anyone).

My dad always said you break it you bought it.
Well we broke it now we have to fix it.

__________________
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp92vkXcC0w

AYFR, you can't expect a politican to remember what he said in the past. He is blowing with the wind and what he thinks will sway people his way.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

One must not forget that he indeed is a lawyer and sells his service to the highest bidder.....no concept of right or wrong......in fact he made his wealth via increasing the cost of health care to all of us...now we are to believe that he has our best interest at heart?....yea...just what we need...an abulance chaser to led this nation...as he would negotiate our freedoms away for personal power gains.....BD

BD, I don't support Edwards, but how can I postively that he doesn't have this nations best intrests at heart? Of course all of us will view an issue through what is best for ourselves at the same time.

__________________
An informed voter scares the Goverment lackeys.

An American first and always a Conservative.

My point was...how can he in any honesty....make any believe that he wants even the basic concept of a national healthcare plan...when he in fact is part of the problem as to why the costs is past the grasp of many working poor...in this country....and if any....within his own party...believe this...they are indeed gullible.......BD

He would do better in stating that, in hind sight, he made a mistake in siding with the decision to go into Iraq. With these words, he is now speaking out of the side of his neck....

Of course there is a War on Terror, and we have been under attack even before Bush took office. Actually, the Jihadists have been giving us all of the signs and symptoms that there was a coming conflict; it was just that we were too busy trying to make everyone love us....

__________________
"A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done."
Fred Allen

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
George Bernard Shaw

"Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable."
John Galbraith

War on Terror in Campaign 08

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campa...ers?pid=191098

Ari Melber

The most significant moment in last week's Democratic presidential candidate debate came during the evening's most simplistic question. Moderator Brian Williams asked for a show of hands on whether the candidates "believe" there is a Global War on Terror, yielding a four-to-four split. It was a silly choice, since Williams was technically asking if the candidates believe that Bush's foreign policy exists, but it could still spark an important discussion. John Edwards was the only one of the "top three" candidates to vote no, which swiftly brought him praise, scorn and ridicule. After saying the U.S. must strongly deal with "dangerous leaders in the world," Edwards emphasized the need to use all the tools of foreign policy, not simply hard military power. His argument was not really a denial of the existence of Bush's Global War on Terrorism, but a nod towards an alternative.

There is really no denying that President Bush has organized U.S. foreign policy around an endless Global War on Terrorism (or "GWOT" in government circles). As he declared in his historic address to a joint session of Congress after 9/11, even if Al-Qaeda is destroyed, Bush envisions a war that "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." He means that literally. It is a war that targets a tactic instead of an enemy; like declaring war on war, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted. Without a defined enemy, of course, it is a war that can creep far from our vital security interests. In 2002, administration officials claimed Bush could invade Iraq without any congressional authorization at all, based on GWOT, and Condi Rice made the same claim about Syria in 2005. The administration invokes the same endless war to justify imprisoning American citizens without trial; suspending habeas corpus; illegally spying on American citizens; and detaining hundreds of people for years without charges in the lawless Gitmo prison. The policy is built on the twin fallacies that the best defense is a reckless offense, and the world wants (and hates) our freedom. In the name of fighting terror, President Bush aims to advance democracy abroad while restricting it at home, treating Congress and the Courts as barriers to national security. The 2005 National Defense Strategy report even argues American "judicial processes" can be a weapon of choice for our enemies.

Yet as everyone knows, GWOT has resulted in a total security failure. A new State Department report shows terrorism is up 29 percent; Bin Laden remains at large; Iraq is in a civil war, draining resources from counterterrorism and Afghanistan; and Gitmo, which has generated no major terrorist convictions, is such a failure that Defense Secretary Robert Gates made shutting it down one of his first priorities in office. Meanwhile, it is only through congressional and judicial oversight, which Bush derides as counterproductive to his endless global war, that the public has learned about critical vulnerabilities exploited by the 9/11 hijackers; false intelligence regarding WMDs; wasteful defense spending; and the failed detention system at Gitmo, to name a few items.

The question is not whether people "believe" these facts. The question is what the U.S. can do to change them.

Any credible presidential aspirant must present a detailed alternative to Bush's Global War on Terrorism. On the merits, it's hard to understand why candidates (in either party) would try to attach themselves to such a discredited policy from a very unpopular president. For too long, the Global War on Terrorism has been presented as little more than a tough slogan that all mainstream figures must support. By daring the candidates to doubt its existence in a show of hands, Brian Williams cracked the door just wide enough for simplistic protest. Now it's up to the candidates to elaborate on their proposed alternatives. And it's up to activists and voters to make sure this consequential issue stays on the agenda.

To that end, some Democratic bloggers are cheering Edwards and pressing other candidates to challenge the GWOT. MyDD's Matt Stoller writes that Edwards' opposition was a welcome "departure from the bipartisan consensus" backing GWOT. Writing on the same blog in 2004, Chris Bowers called on Democrats to abandon the war on terror frame. This argument is not confined to bloggers or liberal critics, either. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, an influential foreign policy adviser to Democrats across the political spectrum, argued in 2005 that while GWOT had "entered the English language" as the "way our highest national priority is described by almost everyone," it was simply "not an accurate description of America's enemy or of what we are engaged in." He called for jettisoning GWOT and adopting a more focused attack on Al Qaeda.

The public should demand leadership and bold policies from these candidates who would be president. So how about a show of hands of voters who believe in this position: Any candidate who cannot outline an effective alternative to Bush's failed Global War on Terrorism does not deserve to be president.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.