Edwards: The Political Chameleon

Political posturing in the guise of moral superiority is an unsightly display of intellectual insecurity, and presidential hopeful John Edwards' speech yesterday at the Council on Foreign Relations was a text book example. Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to President Bush and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives, savages his speech and lends credibility to the notion that denial is a hallmark of modern liberalism.

Edwards attacks the president for his use of the phrase 'global war on terror,' because, in his view, it has "damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world."  We'll let Mr. Wehner eviscerate Edwards' argument, which he effortlessly does, but we must ask what the trial lawyer means when he insists that we must "move beyond the idea of a war on terror."

'Terrorism' is a necessarily broad term which includes a variety of militant groups, but it's one that was clearly used as a euphemism after 9/11 and it's further proof--as though more were needed--that the motivation to avoid offending people, in this case Muslims, is as misguided as it is unhelpful.  Not unlike the left's summary dismissal of racial profiling, the political correctness that informs the Bush Administration's lack of candor is only something that will be exploited by those intent upon our destruction.

Which leads us to question whether Mr. Edwards' underlying point is that we're not, in fact, at war at all.  That we're only abetting the anger of rational Islamists who are merely defending themselves, whether it's in Iraq or any other front in this 'war.'

A familiar assertion that is so commonly repeated by liberals that we've become numb to its charge is that America has lost its "moral leadership," which for them is code for their belief that we should be in virtual lockstep with Western Europe's wholly misinformed approach to foreign affairs.  For some curious reason, inaction, dilatory tactics, and interminable talks are the recipe du jour for those whose moral sensibilities are injured by talk of military intervention.

If you listened to Mr. Edwards' speech you heard unstinting criticisms of the Bush Administration but very little in the way of alternative options that have the ring of truth.  Indeed, whether it's Edwards or Senators Biden, Durbin, or Schumer, try as you may, all you hear is the echo of the word "withdraw," without any acknowledgment of the pandemonium that would inevitably follow.

These aren't serious people and it would be a sign of political maturity if the American people rejected their adolescent ideas as unfit for a Republic of our stature.  As you read the quote from Edwards' October 10, 2002 speech at the end of Mr. Wehner's piece--which provided a full-throated endorsement for our invasion of Iraq--you might ponder the nature of political chameleons, the famed cousin of the political opportunist.