I keep hearing a lot in the MSM about how Clinton has the most experience among the Democrats, and that people see her as most qualified to be commander-in-chief among the Democrats. I don't know if they have just crowned her by default, but I fail to see the shining credentials she displays to make anyone think she could be a better commander-in-chief than John Edwards.
I don't come across this opinion lightly, and would like to take a few minutes to explain why I feel that way. I leaned Edwards before the first debate. At that debate I saw all I needed to see to decide that Edwards has the most balanced view of the world, and would be a far more responsible commander of our armed forces than any candidate on either side.
When the candidates where asked to show their hands if they believed we are fighting a "Global War on Terror", although Clinton and Obama both raised their hands, thankfully Edwards stayed down. I couldn't believe that question was even asked, but I was so glad that it was. The fact that Edwards didn't raise his hand proved that he is of the same mind as me. He confirmed this belief, and went further in this video:
I have long believed that this "Global War on Terror" was a propoganda ploy used to silence people such as me, and you who were trying to point out the serious flaws in our Iraq policy, and the fact that we shouldn't be there to begin with. To me, it was a turning point in the way I saw the candidates. If Clinton and Obama cannot embrace the simple fact that this "War on Terror" is propoganda, how could I ever trust them to run foreign policy? How will they ever change our status in the world, if they too stubbornly cling to a failed, flawed agenda?
But Edwards didn't stop there. Instead of clinging to a failed vision of a "War on Terror", he came out with a bold new plan to combat terrorism without just watering down the administration's propoganda. This plan had six main proposals:
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
If you haven't seen all of this reality based, excellent plan that shows John Edwards stellar credentials to lead, please see it here before deciding to support someone else. This issue is too important for us to nominate someone that doesn't believe how we do. Can we afford 4-8 more years fighting George W. Bush's "War on Terror"? Do we even want to? See the plan here:
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
Here is a video where Edwards details his plan to fight terrorism:
Not only that, Edwards has demonstrated that he knows the pressures put on our military by this failed policy and has presented bold, original ideas to rebuild our military after the disasterous neo-con years of the Bush Administration, take two. He did this with two proposals, first providing a sacred contract with our veterans. It had five main points:
Fully funding veterans' health care.
Ordering a review of military hospitals to ensure that our service members are getting the excellent care they deserve and rejecting the Bush Administration's ideological drive to outsource federal jobs.
Requiring that all service members returning to the U.S. or leaving the military be provided with a new "Plan for Coming Home" including thorough post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screenings, benefits information and seamless transfer of medical records.
Increasing the research and treatment of traumatic brain injuries, the "signature wound of this war," and the conditions that follow from them.
Creating a new national "Chain of Care" to ensure that no veteran again falls through the cracks. The chain will coordinate treatment and benefits in outreach centers and clinics in every county where a veteran resides, both within and outside the VA network. Edwards will also improve training for health personnel to recognize and treat PTSD, and establish uniform standards for mental health care.
See this plan here:
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
He followed that up with a plan to build our Military in the New Century. This may be his most impressive plans and shows why he is head and shoulders above the top-tier in the Democratic Party when it comes to giving our military the resources, and leadership they need in the Brave New World of the Twenty-First century. Its fine points included:
Moving Beyond the "War on Terror"
Uniting Strength and Moral Leadership
Rebuilding a Strong Military for a New Century
For the last point, he gave seven specific proposals to achieve this:
Build the military we need to meet the mission we have defined -- no more, no less -- basing future troop levels on a careful assessment of the post-Iraq threat environment.
Double the budget for recruiting and raise the standards for the recruiting pool.
Invest in maintenance of our equipment for the safety of our troops.
Create a "Marshall Corps" of up to 10,000 professionals, modeled on the Reserves systems, who will work on stabilization and humanitarian missions.
Provide both our soldiers and civilians with improved language skills and cultural understanding for their work overseas.
Implement new training for future military leadership and create a new undersecretary of defense for stabilization efforts and a new senior stabilization position within the Joint Staff.
Modernize our forces, so we do not keep spending money on systems that only meet the needs of today—not tomorrow. "Greening the military" to increase innovation, save millions of dollars, reduce reliance on vulnerable supply lines.
See this whole plan here:
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
To confirm my belief that John Edwards is a lot more responsible, and understands the lessons of recent history much better than Senator Clinton, one needs only look at the recent vote on Iran, where she cast a vote for President Bush and gave him what he needed to start the drumbeat for war on Iran. Did Senator Clinton not learn like the rest of us that George W. Bush cannot be trusted with any new power to wage war? Edwards learned from his bad vote for George W. Bush to go into Iraq, but obviously Sen. Clinton didn't. Or maybe she believes as Bush does.
http://www.latimes.com/...
Either way, I would like to know what Sen. Clinton's thoughts on pre-emptive strike are. Does she support it? If so, should any Democrat support her? To make all this worse, she turns around and flip-flops on negotiating with Iran, after ripping Barack Obama a few weeks ago about saying the same thing. Edwards had this to say about the flip-flopping:
"Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans—but on everything from Iran to Iraq to Social Security, it seems she's trying to have it both ways. In July, she criticized those who said they would meet with the leaders of Iran for negotiations without preconditions, calling them 'irresponsible' and 'naïve.' But yesterday, she told New Hampshire voters she'd do just that—negotiate with Iran 'with no conditions.' Now, her spokesman suggests that's not what she meant. But you can't have it both ways—on this or any other issue.
"It is very disappointing that Senator Clinton seems determined to hedge her responses on the issues that matter most to the American people. After six years of the Bush Administration's disastrous foreign policy, the stakes in this election are too high. The American people deserve a president who will tell them the truth and offer straight answers, not flip-flops and political double-speak."
http://www.johnedwards.com/...
All of this shows a pattern of misunderstanding and making wrong decisions. The same pattern that got our country into this mess to begin with. John Edwards has said that we can't replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats and I think their stands on global issues, including our military and the "War on Terror" show why he is right.
We need a leader to take us in a new direction on the world stage, and quit justifying the failed policies of this administration. John Edwards has shown that not only does he have the better judgement, but that he has the plans and vision to lead our military and our country in the New Century. His ideas on truly fighting terrorism and restoring our military and our image in the world are second to none in this primary. He deserves our support as a true leader who doesn't back away from our beliefs. He is by far the best candidate on either side to be commander-in-chief.