The Candidates and Blackwater

blackwater.jpg

Overcompensating:

Who needs an Army when you can have a private, civilian security company with a license to kill that charges a lot of (beer) money and isn’t actually accountable to anybody? Not the United States of America, that’s for sure! Wait…

Where does your candidate for 2008 stand on mercenaries?

Mine stands against them (International Herald Tribune, emphasis mine):

“Right now, we’ve got men and women serving in uniform in Iraq while we’ve got a bunch of paid mercenaries roaming around the country lawless, the best I can tell, working for Blackwater and people like that,” Edwards said at a New Hampshire campaign stop.

The U.S. government has rejected the use of the term “mercenaries” in a United Nations report to describe guards for Blackwater, the company involved in the September killings in Baghdad. It said the term is demeaning to those who risk their lives defending U.S. interests.

Edwards told reporters after his appearance that he did not know the government objected to the term.

“And I don’t care,” he said, adding that he “absolutely” believes it is a fair term.

Obama also comes out swinging on this.  Contrast with Hillary’s or Romney’s ties to Blackwater.

Its clear Blackwater itself has prefers Republicans in office.

Advertisements

One Response

  1. […] Fitness For The Occasion points out John Edwards view on paid mercenaries The Candidates and Blackwater […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: