John Edwards Major Policy Speech: "Bold and smart"

Today I was able to make Senator John Edwards' policy speech on fighting terrorism at Pace University. This is my first time hearing Edwards in person and I will say I liked him. Again, I remain undecided among Edwards, Richardson and Obama, and remain happy with all the Dem candidates. But hearing Edwards today did boost my estimation of him.

Edwards' speech started just a tad flat and unconvincing. A few lines of it made me think he needed new speech writers. However, he rapidly moved into some real solid material. The first part struck two main themes: BOLD and smart.

BOLD as in a bold, new strategy to fight terrorism, breaking away from the out-dated, failed flailing of Bush.

Bold was the most repeated theme, with smart coming in second. As a combination it is a powerful shift from the current Bush failures which are neither bold, merely bullying, and about as far from smart as anyone can get.

The speech ended with a Kennedy-esque call to service, an "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" moment calling on the young students of Pace to join in and face the challenges that the 21st century have thrown at us.

Here is my analysis of Edwards' speech and the policies he presents.

He began with a reference to 9/11, an introductory theme that was introduced by a 9/11 widow who introduced Edwards to the crowd. To me the key point, damning of Bush and the do-nothing Republicans, is this:

In August of 2001, while George Bush was in Crawford ignoring memos about the threat from al-Qaeda, I authored an op-ed in which I named terrorism as the most vital national security challenge our country would face in the coming years. I still believe that today.

John Edwards had seen before 9/11/2001 that terrorism was the number one challenge of the 21st century. Of course he wasn't alone. This was something that many Democrats realized during the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were so focused on stopping al-Qaeda that the Republicans called them "obsessed with al-Qaeda." They meant it as an insult. Of course we now know that Clinton, Gore and Edwards were all dead on right in their assessment. Pity that Bush and the Republicans weren't equally "obsessed" with stopping terrorists. Instead they were focused on cutting taxes for the rich and enriching Halliburton.

President Bush, like the Republicans following him today and even some Democrats, was stuck in the past, and he still is...he failed to offer a vision to keep us safe in a world that has changed...

George Bush literally gave us his father's war--but without his father's allies or his father's sense of decency. What's more and what's worse, the so-called "war on terror" he used as his excuse for war in Iraq became his excuse for trampling our Constitution and, most perversely, for ignoring the demands of the actual struggle against terrorism...

This is key. Right wing nuts deride Edwards for denying that there is a "war on terror." But Edwards is right. The very concept of a "war on terror" is ludicrous. We should and must conduct a war against TERRORISTS, not against "terror." Of course if we really had a war against terror, Bush and Cheney, terror-mongers extraordinaire, would have to be major targets.

Six years later, the devastating consequences of the Bush "war on terror" doctrine are so clear that his own Administration has had to admit them.

A recent National Intelligence Estimate found that al-Qaeda is now as strong as it was before 9/11. In a recent survey of America's most respected foreign policy experts, the vast majority said the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States. The State Department recently released a study showing that terrorism has increased worldwide 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.

And as everyone here knows, Osama bin Laden is still at large. Six years ago...Bush declared 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.

Bush has since declared that he doesn't really care about bin Laden. THIS IS BUSH'S STARKEST FAILURE. The terrorists who attacked us are as strong as ever! THIS IS BUSH'S STARKEST FAILRE.

Bush's own State Department agrees that terrorism has gotten worse. The "war on terror" has failed because the war we need to be fighting is the war against the terrorists who attacked us.

Edwards is promising he will not rest until bin Laden is hunted down. Bush, of course, has gone on vacation more than any previous president while bin Laden rebuilds his terror network and we have opened the doors to Iraq for him.

THIS IS BUSH'S STARKEST FAILURE and I am glad Edwards is proclaiming it so clearly.

And here is, for me, the key statement of this part of Edwards' speech:

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 US as a war of civilizations, and the Bush Administration, stuck in a Cold War mentality, happily complied.

Bush and the terrorists BOTH want a conflict of Christian Crusade against Islamic Jihad. This is precisely the mistake I feel Bush is ALSO making with Iran. Letting religious extremists frame the conflict into their own terms. Bush shares this religious extremist view of the world with the terrorists and so terrorism is fed by Bush's ludicrous "war on terror."

So the first part of the speech explicitly faced up to the complete and utter failure of Bush and the Republicans to face up to the struggle against terrorists in their rush to invade Iraq and create some kind of silly "war on terror." And he calls for a rejection of the outdated Republican way of thinking and the development of a new strategy:

We've got to throw away the failed George Bush policies of the past and move in a bold new direction.

And he derides the Republicans for seeking to remain mired in te old, failed thinking:

Some politicians, like Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, have responded to the shortcomings and backfires of the [Bush] Administration's approach by essentially doubling-down. They have closed their eyes to the facts and asked us to accept, on faith, more of the Bush approach. Some running for the Democratic nomination have even argued that the Bush-Cheney [and don't forget McCain!] approach has made us safer. It has not.

Again, even Bush's State Department agrees that we are NOT safer under the Bush/McCain/Lieberman "surge." And, with all due respect to Hillary Clinton, Edwards is right here. We have to face up to the complete and utter failure of every foreign policy decision Bush has made since he shifted focus off of al-Qaeda and on to Iraq and Iran. Hillary is wrong to suggest that Bush has made us in any measure safer. He has not.

I do believe Hillary would do a vastly better job of fighting terrorism than Bush...or any of the Republican "stay the quagmire" candidates. But I think Edwards is hitting on a key difference between himself and Hillary Clinton: Hillary, like Bush, still seems to be thinking with a Cold War mentality. Edwards (and Richardson, I will add) is moving beyond that and trying to formulate a new strategy better suited to the new situation we face. Hillary would use the old, Cold War tools MUCH better, and that could even make them successful. But they are still old tools. Edwards wants new tools for a new century.

The next part of his speech discussed in detail his "bold new direction," his bolder, smarter strategy. In other words, he starts to define what these new tools should look like.

Many will not be clear on what Edwards is doing, even though he says it straight out. Edwards' new strategy is not fully formed. In fact it sometimes seemed a little amorphous. But, the truth is, when you are developing new tools, you have to work out the details as you go along. That is what Edwards is doing: trying to work out what the strategy for the 21st century will be.

Keep in mind, it took time to work out the strategy for dealing with 20th century problems. In this sense, WW I was something of a practice run for WW II which was the real defining event of the 20th century. It took two world wars for America to formulate its successful 20th century strategy that won WW II, dominated and survived the Cold War, and made us, by the end of the century, the ONLY superpower on earth.

Edwards is doing what he can to formulate as intelligently and quickly as possible a strategy for America in the 21st century.

First and foremost, Edwards is proposing a new international treaty organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO). Somewhat ironically, this new organization has an acronym that sounds the same as a Cold War, Vietnam era treaty organization SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organization). But, other than the fact that they are pronounced the same, CITO has nothing to do with SEATO.

Here is Edwards' vision for CITO, one of his key proposals for the next century:

CITO will create connections [among] a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections 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 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 be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who will cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

Okay there is a lot here and I predict most of this will be lost on most people covering Edwards' proposal.

First of all, what is Edwards doing here? He is pointing out one failure of the Bush administration: the failure to emphasize cooperation in Bush's rush to unilateral war.

Edwards is also calling out nations who claim to be our allies but play both sides, particularly Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. He does this explicitly later in his speech:

In Pakistan, the recent National Intelligence Estimate found that al-Qaeda has established a safe haven in the northwest tribal areas. We have given the Musharraf
government billions of dollars of aid in the last several years, yet they have done far too little to get control over these areas. As president I will condition future American aid on progress by Pakistan, including strengthening te reach of police forces and working more effectively with tribal leaders and their members to ensure their acceptance of their government. But I want to be clear about one thing: if we have actionable intelligence about imminent terrorist activity and the Pakistan government refuses to act, we will.

Two points here. Pakistan is the nation that put the Taliban in place and was one of very few governments that ever recognized the Taliban as a legit government. This means there is an inherent mistrust we must have about Pakistan's role in this war, even though at times they have been an adequate ally.

Second, Obama took crap for saying he would take out al-Qaeda in Pakistan if Pakistan failed to act. Now Edwards is saying the same thing. Personally, I feel this is reasonable. We invaded Afghanistan because they were sheltering al-Qaeda. Pakistan has to put up or shut up when it comes to al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And I bet Pakistan will choose to side with the US over al-Qaeda if they have to.

And Saudi Arabia is a country we have given far too much in return for too little. We must require the Saudis to do more to stop the flow of terrorists...As president I will condition future arms packages on Saudi Arabia's actions against terrorists.

Edwards is doing what Bush should have done YEARS ago: Calling out the two nations that recognized the Taliban and have had ties to al-Qaeda: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Both nations have played both sides. Both nations have been unreliable allies and breeding grounds for extremism. Both nations claim they want to be our allies. Let's force them to ACT like allies before we treat them like allies. That's what Edwards is saying and to me it makes perfect sense. These are two nations with far closer ties to al-Qaeda than Iraq or Iran ever had, yet we ignore that. We have to stop ignoring it.

Again, I think it is CRITICAL that we recognize the utter failure of Bush's policies, and further I agree with Obama and Edwards that we need to hold Pakistan and Saudi Arabia accountable for their playing both sides. If they have ANY ties to extremists, they do not deserve to be our allies. Both have been training grounds for extremists. That must stop.

So there are subtleties here in Edwards speech that I am SURE much of the mainstream media will miss. Edwards is moving in the right direction with much of this.

Another thing that right wingers already started coming up with is that Edwards is proposing nothing new. NATO and the UN already exist and should take the same role. I would add Interpol (perhaps because my son loves Castle of Cagliostro where Interpol plays a role!). There is some merit to this. There is considerable overlap between CITO and existing organizations. Do we need a new organization?

Personally I am not sure. CITO focuses things differently than any existing organization, emphasizing intelligence (Bush's weak point in all definitions of "intelligence") over military action. NATO is a predominantly MILITARY organization. The UN is a predominantly DIPLOMATIC organization. There is NO organization that emphasizes sharing, on a voluntary basis, intelligence information. That is done piecemeal among nations. Edwards wants to formalize and emphasize that.

Further points came up in the media question and answer period after the main speech. Edwards was directly asked why NATO and the UN couldn't satisfy the same needs. Edwards answered that both play an important role in the fight against terrorism, but both were tools forged in the Cold War era, not in the current era. NATO is a military organization forged to fight the cold war. It is not designed to fight terrorism. And Edwards points out that though the UN is important, it includes nations that support terrorist organizations, so may not be the best way to fight terrorism. I think these are important distinctions. If anything I would think Interpol would be the best old-style organization to take on the new role, but it does not deal with either military or intelligence matters and is a branch of the UN, so perhaps cannot fulfill that role.

Edwards thinks we need something new, where intelligence sharing is prominent, with police and military functions included, and the Cold War left behind. Of course many right wingers are still fighting the Cold War even though it is long over. But Edwards is smart in wanting to move on to a new era.

CITO is but one, albeit major, aspect of Edwards' strategy. Other aspects he highlights are blocking nuclear proliferation and protecting our chemical plants. As a New Yorker I wish he would follow Congressional Candidate and focus on port security as well. But he nevertheless recognizes major gaps in Bush's strategy.

Any time I hear a Democratic political speech I think of Drew Westen's book "The Political Brain" which analyzes speeches to judge their psychological impact. Did Edwards hit the correct notes to make the right impression on voters?

I think he at times was too analytical. Personally I love that, but most voters don't necessarily agree with me, according to Drew Westen. But I think Edwards also hit some very critical emotional points that WILL appeal well to voters. His harsh condemnation of the utter failure of Bush's policies will resonate well with Americans fed up with Bush's lies and failures. Edwards' call to unity and strength against terrorism (not "terror") will resonate well. And, his best line in the speech, is this:

It's time to be patriotic about something other than war.

America and most Americans, Repub or Dem or independent, right or left, are extremely patriotic. But the vast majority of them are opposed to the Iraq quagmire and want solutions, not more invasions and deaths. It is time to harness America's unity and patriotism for something other than killing and dead American soldiers.

I was in the press section sitting next to people from a certain right wing rag. And, as expected, they were displeased by Edwards' speech. In fact, they were practically squirming with irritation and snorting with derision. Perhaps some of this irritation and snorting was because what Edwards was saying is quite true. Bush's policy HAS failed miserably. We DO need a bolder and MUCH more intelligent policy. We have squandered all the good will we had after 9/11 and have alienated our allies. We need a much more cooperative policy. The right wing must be collectively squirming because their policy failure is so stark and the Democrats are starting to regroup to take the lead again.

The only moment of glee for these right wingers was when Edwards flubbed a word. He mispronounced "fascism" as "faciaism" and these reporters jumped gleefully on it and scribbled furiously. Look for the right to try and turn the whole thing into a derisive rant about "faciaism" and try to ignore the solid facts that Bush has failed and we really DO need a new strategy against terrorism.

Returning again to Drew Westen, he asserts that if we aren't pissing off the right wing media into hysterics, we aren't doing our job. Edwards' speech had the right wing media literally squirming in their seats and foaming at the mouth. That is a good indication that Edwards was doing his job.

In the primary I am still undecided. But one thing I am decided about is this: Edwards could win this thing. Edwards could go toe to toe with any of the Republican fools and come out ahead. And more than ever I am convinced that an Edwards/Richardson team would be unbeatable. Richardson has perhaps the best plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Edwards has a clearly enunciated plan for fighting terrorism. Richardson has impeccable diplomatic experience with even the most difficult of regimes, negotiating the current nuclear agreement with North Korea and having been nominated for a Nobel Peace prize four times. Teaming the two up assuming excellent cooperation between them would take America into the 21st century intelligently and boldly.

Edwards made a great speech today. It clearly defined his stands IN OPPOSITION TO the Republican stands. It clearly defined his stand as being BETTER than the Republican's failed strategies. The Republican candidates for president other than Ron Paul define the Republican Party as nothing more than Bush surged, failure mired in a quagmire. The other Democratic candidates need to formulate THEIR counterterrorism strategies to match Edwards. Richardson may be closest to doing so already. Obama and Hillary Clinton need to seriously work on their Iraq/terrorism policy.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |