Reply #9: Firstly, I like Edwards

[liberalpragmatist]

And I'm undecided between he and Obama (and even flirting with voting for Hillary), so I'm hardly an Obama-partisan.

But if you read the speech, it in no way comes across as a belligerent speech. The overwhelming bulk of the address concerns diplomacy, removal of troops from Iraq, and negotiating with Iran. He does embrace sending a few more combat brigades to Afghanistan, but emphasizes that the solution there isn't military and that there must be greater economic aid and support for a political reconciliation in Afghanistan. Regarding Pakistan, he expressly calls for economic aid, for encouraging Musharraf to hold free and fair elections and give up power, and making continued support to Pakistan contingent on them making a genuine effort to root out extremists in the tribal areas.

Keep in mind that Musharraf initiated a disastrous truce with militant Taliban forces in the lawless border regions, who have set up a virtual state within a state, the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan; the Bush administration made no hay out of the situation, despite the fact that what remains of Al Qaeda's Afghanistan operations have relocated to the region. I don't know any future Democratic president, including John Edwards, who would be as conciliatory to Musharraf as Bush has been; quite frankly, I doubt most of the Republicans would be as conciliatory as Bush has been.

HAD Obama called for an actual invasion of Pakistan, I'd be right here bashing him for the idea as well - it would be beyond disastrous - but he never called for that and it's a gross distortion to claim otherwise.

Overall, claiming this was a militaristic speech is missing the forest for the trees.