Report: John Edwards faces imminent indictment

... According to Newsmax, by way of National Enquirer, the tabloid that kicked so-called mainstream media's butt on reporting about Edwards' scandal.

And the hits just keep coming ...

God forbid we foster dependence on government

Another part of the Democrats' script on Iraq, as exemplified by Sen. John Edwards on "Meet the Press" last week: Edwards not only opposes President Bush's plan to reinforce US troops in Iraq, but wants an immediate withdrawal (or would that be "redeployment"?) of 40,000 troops.

Borrowing from the tough-love lexicon of the therapeutic culture, Edwards said of Bush's plan that "all this does is enable continued bad behavior, political bad behavior, that we've see over the last several years" (the flag went up for me with "enable").

"What we need to do instead, in my judgment, is to shift this responsibility to them," Edwards said, referring to Iraqis. "It is the most likely way to create this political reconciliation."

I'd have an easier time believing that Edwards and other Democrats are sincere in this claim if they'd show a semblance of willingness to extend this principle beyond Iraq -- seeing how the Democratic Party's primary basis for existence is to foster greater, and endless, dependence on government (let me amend that -- a twofold basis for existence - government dependency and thwarting Bush at every opportunity).

The correlation has been clear for decades -- less dependency on government, fewer Democrats. They need big government the way a vampire needs blood, and turn in horror when anyone casts sunlight on the correlation.

That's odd, usually he's so smarmy

John Edwards, responding to a question from Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" this past Sunday as to whether as president he would accept a nuclear-armed Iran:

"I -- there's no answer to that question at this time. I think that it's a -- it's a -- it's a very bad thing for Iran to get a nuclear weapon. I think we have -- we have many steps in front of us that have not been used. We ought to negotiate directly with the Iranians, which has not, not been done. The things that I just talked about, I think, are the right approach in dealing with Iran. And then we'll, we'll see what the result is ... I think -- I think the -- we don't know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along, and that's what I would do as president."

But as James Tarantino pointed out in an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, less than two weeks before appearing on "Meet the Press," Edwards spoke by satellite to Israel's annual Herzliya Conference and stated the following: "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons ... To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table."

Of course, to the McGovernite wing now controlling the Democratic Party, all options is translated thus: negotiate, negotiate more if this doesn't succeed, call for yet more negotiations (preferably multilateral at this point), and as a last resort -- negotiate really, really hard with a lot of emphasis in what you say, like you mean it and all. That'll show 'em!