John Edwards is ready to unleash Liberalism’s answer to ending terrorism, and he needs vounteers. He’s been preparing America for it by softening up the population with speeches undermining confidence in our government and our military. After supporting the invasion of Iraq as a senator, he now believes the war is a false choice forced on us by a rapacious war monger:

“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.”

What’s been discredited, senator? Have we been attacked since September of 2001? What ideological purposes do you suspect drove George Bush to go to war - the same ones that drove him to blow up the twin towers?

But the one term senator won’t get into the details, he’ll just lecture us about how he has a better way to deal with terrorists: 10,000 peace corp members - or as they’ll be known to terrorists: hostages! The senator is willing to sacrifice Americans because as he sees it - poverty causes terrorism. Originally he called his Islamic economic plan “Economic Growth through Ransom Realization,” but advisors cautioned against using the word “growth” after the latest beauty salon scandal.

The plan Mr. Edwards presented yesterday — which he dubbed “A Strategy to Shut Down Terrorists and Stop Terrorism Before It Starts” — calls for a 10,000-person “Marshall Corps” to deal with issues ranging from worldwide poverty and economic development to clean drinking water and micro-lending. He said investing in those areas would shore up weak nations and help ensure that terrorism does not take root there. That, he said, would allow the country to stop potential terrorists before they even join the ranks.

There are “thousands committed to violence” today, he said, and America needs to use all of its tools to go after them. But he said millions more people are “sitting on the fence” about whether to join those ranks. “We have to offer them a hand to our side instead of a shove to the other side of that fence,” he said.

I support the multi-millionaire trial lawyer on his novel approach - let me count the ways. First, enticing a suicide bomber promised eternity in heaven with 72 virgins - by offering him clean drinking water - is intriguing. Second, I imagine it would take a special kind of person to face terrorists with nothing but a government check in their hand, so the intimation that we ship Cindy Sheehan and all of her supporters to Iraq to stimulate economic development (yes, we will send communists to do what capitalists excel in) is promising. Lastly, and most importantly - there’s the real chance that many of those 10,000 Birkenstock wearing, hashish imbibing “war is not the answer” hippies will be scooped up by terrorist organizations and held for ransom, meaning real economic progress for the Middle East.

How? Edwards’ brilliant strategy doesn’t begin to pay off until several weeks into the massive relocation of ‘peace corp’ hostages into underground bunkers throughout the Middle East. Could any jihadi survive countless months with Cindy Sheehan’s voice creeping through the walls? Weeks on end changing the diapers of Code Pink seniors? What happens when the Pachouli oil deodorant runs out? The toe fungus spreads? Even worse: what happens when they all start going through detox?

That’s when Hamas, Al Qaeda and all the rest of that uncivilized brood of irhabbists in the Middle East will be begging America to come back and take home the peace corp! You see - Liberalism wins again!

Reality check: John Edwards is a fool, and I’m finding even the irony that greets his every outburst a melancholy exercise. Before he vouches for the civility of an enemy who is devoutly depraved, he ought to spend his time searching for, and listening to those who have met the terror he cannot name: Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, 25, of Lawrence, Mass., Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, 19, of Waterford, Mich., Margaret Hassan and William Douglas, would be a good place to start. They deserve our diligence and our prayers - not this morbid frivolity.

Political Vindication

Via Ace, Dr Helen asks,

When I look at my husband with affection, am I leering?

Well, let’s look at the Dictionary

verb (used without object)
1. to look with a sideways or oblique glance, esp. suggestive of lascivious interest or sly and malicious intention: I can’t concentrate with you leering at me.
noun
2. a lascivious or sly look.

And for those of you not familiar with the word lascivious,

adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.

So let’s take a look at the picture:

Fred’s sexy.
She’s attractive.
They’re married to each other.

Leer away, Mr and Mrs Thompson.

Now excuse me while I go leer at The Husband for a moment.

cross-posted at Fausta’s blog

Back from leering
While I have your attention, Mamacita of Scheiss Weekly talks about education, parenting and role models in my next Blog Talk Radio program. Siggy co-hosts.

Please join us at noon Eastern Time on Monday, June 11. And no, we won’t leer at each other since
a. We’ve never met
and b. We’re all taken.