John Edwards falls off deep end

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Jul 14 

John Edwards has fallen in the polls, and whatever the cause (perhaps too much blow dryer in the ear or maybe a scissor nick to the brain), the former senator seems to be losing his mind as well. Edwards, however, still seems conscious of problems in the world, and has come up with some unbelievable ways to address them.

Edwards stumbles over his own logic in claiming that the Sunni leadership in Iraq is weak, while calling on the cooperation of Iran and Syria to stabilize the region. Edwards is clearly the only candidate who has forgotten that Iran and Syria are radical states with large Shiite populations, who don’t necessarily wish power or stability on any Sunni. Or did Edwards mean something else? Perhaps by stating that, “We need to engage [Iran and Syria] directly into helping to stabilize Iraq,” he meant we should “engage” them in war, which perversely, could actually move many jihadists out of Iraq and into Iran and Syria, cleverly stabilizing Iraq. Brilliant!

But getting back to reality, and I use the term loosely when referring to Edwards’ fantastic musings, the presidential hopeful further informed a group of fellow Democrats that everyone in the US should perform volunteer work. Edwards much desired change would certainly be accomplished when the economy suddenly ground to a halt after everyone skipped out on their jobs and responsibilities to report for volunteer duty. But no need to worry just yet, Edwards hasn’t yet decided if universal volunteering would be mandatory. Yes, you read that correctly: mandatory volunteering is a possibility! Picture, under President Edwards, a draft for the Peace Corps rather than the military, where “volunteers” would be sent to replace military personnel overseas, where they would be shot at just the same, but without the training or equipment to defend themselves. Edwards’ strategy makes so little sense, Iraq’s stability looks much more likely than Edwards’ own mental stability.

Comments

  • Pingback: PoliticalDerby.com: Home of the Original 2008 White House Power Rankings

  • Jim Dempsey

    Before you criticize any strategy which involves dialogue (and potential cooperation) with Iran and Syria, you may want to get the facts straight. Part of the reason direct talks between America, and Iran and Syria is that — historically — they have major differences. For instance, Syria is not a “radical Shi’ite state”. In fact, Syria is about 80% Sunni. Furthermore it is a secular regime controlled by Baathists, much like that of Saddam’s Iraq.

    Those who advocate American conversation with these two rogue regimes do not do so in hopes of agreement between all players. However, most believe that differences between Iran and Syria could be exploited to America’s benefit. This “divide and conquer” strategy is similar to that employed by Kissinger and Nixon in dealing with China and the Soviet Union.