• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Dave Petteys of Roxborough Park writes:

John Edwards’ response to the question “What would you do if the nation were attacked” was quite revealing: He said in effect “I would determine where the intelligence breakdown was, and find where the Homeland Security had failed, and punish those responsible.” Note that it didn’t even cross Mr. Edwards mind to strike back at the enemies: only to find scape goats and crucify them! Very much a lawyer’s response.
Obviously, Mr. Edwards doesn’t understand the nature of the problem. On one hand our Wahabbist enemies together with Iranian sponsored terrorist organizations such as HAMAS are hatching plots of ways to kill us.
On the other hand, they are lobbying with Mr. Edwards’ Democratic Party itself to tie the hands of our defenders by cutting back on the Patriot Act and shutting down the monitoring of terrorist communications in the interests of “Civil Rights". This guarantees that very soon, one of the terrorist plots will go undetected and succeed. And when a plot does succeed, Mr. Edwards is standing by to crucify the valiant men and women who, as we speak, are frantically trying to defend us.
Mr. Edwards doesn’t understand that our defenders have to be right 100% of the time, but our enemies only have to slip through the net once! Mr. Edwards’ approach is reminiscent of congressional meddling and micromanaging during the Civil War: Jacobean hearings would excoriate experienced Officers after each military reversal, placing the blame everywhere except on Congress itself.
In my humble opinion, Mr. Edwards’ legal mind renders him incapable of defending this country, disqualifying him to be a Commander in Chief.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

and dont forget that the terrorist said they would destroy us from with in. watch out for obama as he may have joined a Christian church but was raised a radical muslim buy his step dad in indonesia and enrolled in the Wahabi school in Jakarta . Wahabism is the
radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.

Dave,

Did he actually say the words you have in quotes? Where is the quote from? I ask because you said that he said "in effect" which implies that you put words in his mouth.

Assuming however that he did say what you've quoted, I think you misunderstood him. By saying he would "punish those responsible", he was saying he would "strike back" at the people who attacked us, not the people who didn't stop the attack as you imply.

Try again some other day...

How do you strike back at dead enemies.? Strike the country where they were born, where they grew up, where their mothers grew up?

Dave, keep your opinion humble because it doesn`t even rise to sad.

John Edwards becomeing President is a pretty scary thought. But not a problem we're ever likely to face.

Hmm, lots of Democrat-bashing in this letter and the subsequent comments. I find it funny, because, as Peter Boyles has said regarding the current administration, "Show me someone who would mess things up more." (along those lines). He's right. It's hard to imagine what could be done to make the situation worse than what we have now, which is the result of Republican policies.

So, given that, those wanting to see the Republicans remain in power (or at least the Democrats not take the White House) have come up with all sorts of boogeyman scenarios wherein if and/or when there is another terrorist attack, Democrats will be far too confused to respond. The best boogeyman scenario is the one that Barak Obama is some sort of covert Muslim agent who is going to bring us down from the inside, a theory, admittedly, much more scary than what's happening now, but one that is wildly absurd and likely put forth by rapid viewers of "24."

If it makes anyone feel better, neither party is ever in power for too long. That's because the government is inherently incompetent, and whichever party is in power will eventually be blamed for that incompetence. Hence, after the next 4 to 12 years the Democrats are in power, people will again want to go back to the Republicans, and on and on.

Maybe Edwards can channel Lincoln or Washington or even Reagan. He's an ambulance chaser with a slick haircut and a lawyer's bag of tricks.

"..didn't even cross Mr Edwards' mind to strike back at the enemies."

Well, George Bush is such a great example of "striking back" - last time a bunch of mainly Saudi terrorists attacked us old W lashed back at Iraq. If Mr Edwards follows Bush's example - next time we're attacked by terrorists from, say, Iran, maybe he can "strike back" at Turkey.

I wonder if all Bush's idiotic supporters - like this one who claims John Edwards's "..legal mind renders him incapable of defending this country, disqualifying him to be a Commander in Chief" - realize how inanely ironic their comments are when you look at the dangerously dim bulb we have in the White House now!

KW, the only scary thought on the presidency right now is that there are still 20 months left in Bush's term. The one comforting thought is that if America can survive 8 years of this imbecile, we can probably survive anything!

Petteys is a slanderous liar, and his blather deserves no place even on the web-only letters.

The first sentence of Edward's response during the debate was "Well, the first thing I would do is be certain I knew who was responsible, and I would act swiftly and strongly to hold them responsible for that."

The rest of his answer bore little resemblance to the tripe Petteys manufactured and wrapped in his own manufactured quote marks.

Stupid man, stupid letter. Stupid RMN for publishing this crap.

If Edwards supports a national gun registration we'd better hope he never makes it to the white house.

My cars are all registered and no one has tried to take them from me. KW , I think you should be more scared of your president now, then anyone, anyone on the left.

Hope someone takes Cheney's gun away - we'll all be a lot safer. Talk about a weapon of mass destruction!

Sharon B - Considering there ins't any mention of the right to bear autos in the Bill of Rights, your comparison doesn't hold water.

And besides, did car licensing and registration reduce crimes involving automobiles? The answer of course is no. So why do people think doing the same with guns would reduce crimes commited with guns?

KW you write the questions, make the comparisons and then answer yourself. No need for anyone else on the forum. The Supreme Court discovered we have a "right to own and use a car" so my comparison is not so far off as you think.

Licensing and registrating cars was for tax and identity purposes, not to reduce crime.

Some of us do not think registering guns would lower crime, we just think you over react, as some people do every time guns are mentioned.

If Edwards or any Democrat really scares you, more then what we have now, then you are afraid of shadows.

Sharon B - I'm afraid of any politician who would require gun registration, rep or dem.

And just because the SC seems to think you have a right to "own and use a car" (reference please) doesn't make it part of the Bill of Rights. You'll also notice our right to keep and bear arms isn't way down on the list. The founding fathers listed it 2nd, knowing the importance of having an armed populace.

"Licensing and registrating cars was for tax and identity purposes, not to reduce crime."

And if you require registration of guns you won't reduce crime either. But what big brother will have a gun ownership list which gives them exactly what they're after, a list for identity purposes. And they'll do it all claiming it will reduce crime which is a complete fallacy.

KW,

What with illegal wiretaps, and very sophisticated spy-ware, the "government" has an identiry list already. Add in Social Security; and it is an almost universal list, covering every American.

And, in about 15 minutes - or so I am told by those who do the job all day - a search on the Internet will turn up your gun ownership, along with every credit card purchase, etc., etc., etc., and other details of your life as well. How do you think the extortion racket of "Credit Reporting" keeps expanding?

And have you ever asked - under the provisions of whatever the Federal Act be called - for your FBI report? I would - if I were a betting man - give you long odds you would be surprised when you got it, as to just how full it is - even with pages blacked out as "sensitive" to "protect informants".

Sure, another registration might be another nuisance. But it would be just one among the many already there.

KW, identity purposes, now we are getting close to your paranoia. Do you see it yet?

If the government knows each gun and each house where they are at, then what?

i can`t begin to answer because this is not a problem I dwell on.

Are you a single issue voter who will go with anyone who is pro gun ownership?

They let you have guns and take away your civil rights, but thats ok because only bad folks need those rights, habias corpus and so on. But if they come for you, all the guns in town won`t save you.

KW doesn't care who they torture, how many rights they take away, how many of your phone calls & emails they intercept as long as he can have his guns. Talk about one-eyed!

OG,

"And, in about 15 minutes - or so I am told by those who do the job all day - a search on the Internet will turn up your gun ownership"

Not true OG. Only 2 of my guns were purchased w/background checks. And the FBI swears they destroy those records, right? My other guns were from private sales or have been in the family for a few generations so there isn't any record of them.

Sharon B,

"KW, identity purposes, now we are getting close to your paranoia. Do you see it yet? If the government knows each gun and each house where they are at, then what?"

Cute Sharon but accusing me of paranoia is another form of insult and that's usually a debaters last resort. But I'll endulge your inane remarks this one time.

NYC first required all handguns to be registered in the name of safety. They later decided to outlaw handgun ownership and used the list to round up all the now illegal guns. My guns will never go on ant list ever.

Did you see DC gun ban has been overturned? The courts ruled the right to bear arms IS a personal right. At least now we can relax somewhat but this IS why I fear any candidate that endorses strict gun control. It's not my only issue for a candidate but it is a most important one.

What's yours? Abortion? Because being allowed to kill a baby before it's born wouldn't be tops on my list for a president. Especially if it involves crushing the skull and sucking the brains out.

Now lets try and keep it more civil next time, ok? :~)

Drew - I think you have "one-eye" envy.

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly