Is Edwards' position against the $87 billion so hard to understand?

[topdog08]

For some reason Google News lists this Jonah Goldberg monologue as news:

Of course, except for the odd character actors at the left end of the screen in the Democratic presidential debates, the leading candidates do not say they are in favor of immediate withdrawal. Rather, they spew clouds of verbiage about why we need to have a "plan" and insist that until we have a "plan" we should not spend money on Iraq. Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom voted for the war, voted against spending any money on Iraq's reconstruction because "we don't have a plan" or because we "need a real plan." Wesley Clark and Howard Dean — the Democratic frontrunners — also say that they would have voted against the reconstruction funds. Dean is consistent — and consistently wrong — in that his position has always been "if Bush is for it, I'm against it." Clark, on the other hand, is not only inconsistent on the question whether he supports Bush, but it seems that this inconsistency is his only reliable trait. Even the noble exceptions of Gephardt and Lieberman — who voted for the reconstruction funds — often couch their answers in terms that show they want to be seen as close allies of the naysayers.

Of course, the administration does have a plan. And central to that plan is, well, spending money to rebuild Iraq. The Democrats make it sound like all the U.S. Army is doing in Iraq is having one giant-sized Chinese fire drill every day. One can just imagine John Kerry going to the local garage:

Kerry: I won't pay you to fix my car until you have a plan.

Mechanic: Um, I do have a plan: You pay me. I replace the engine I just took out. Your car works. That's the plan.

Kerry:How can you say you have a plan? Look at the terrible shape my car is in. It's worse than before; there isn't even an engine.

Mechanic: You're an idiot.

Hey Jonah, open your fucking ears, jack ass: Here's what John Edwards said:

Before members of Congress approve Iraqi reconstruction funds, President Bush must:

1. Secure the help of the United Nations, NATO and other allies to help shoulder the military and financial costs of reconstructing Iraq.

2. Create an independent panel to oversee reconstruction contracts to ensure they are awarded fairly and through a competitive process, not used for political payoffs.

3. Develop a credible long-term plan for the transition to Iraqi civilian authority including a timetable and a role for the United Nations.

4. Provide an explicit timetable for the transition of all security forces to Iraqi control.

5. Develop an outline for the transition to a self-sufficient Iraqi economy.

6. Provide a long-term budget for reconstruction spending in Iraq.

Only by adding more accountability, international support and Iraqi participation, can we win the peace in Iraq.

In other words, to clarify that conversation with the mechanic:

Edwards: I won't pay you to fix my car until you have a plan that works.

Bush: Um, I do have a plan. You pay me. I replace the engine I just took out. Your car works. That's the plan.

Edwards: Your plan is to put the engine from a 1977 Chevy Vega into my 2001 Cadillac sedan? That's not going to work! Do you even understand what car you are working on? Then you want to charge me fifty million dollars for parts and labor, and fly in ten mechanics from Texas to do the work instead of hiring locals. Are you crazy? I'm going to get a second opinion. We need some independent experts. All you are doing is ripping me off to repay your friends.

Bush: Look. Do you want an engine or not, pal. It's my way or the highway - or should I say - sidewalk.

So what is Bush doing? No oversight, no control to the UN, no clear plan for transitioning to Iraqi control to assure them that we are not there to occupy them. Instead we are recruiting US companies for a bonanza of contracts, so that very little of the 20 billion for reconstruction finds its way into Iraqi hands. Honestly, I don't blame the Iraqis for reacting to us as occupiers, because Bush is not even making any efforts to alleviate those concerns. Congress has two powers, one - to authorize war, and two - to fund it. Their only way to control the post-war efforts is by making funding decisions. The Republican controlled House and Senate refused to call on Bush to make these changes, so if Edwards had voted with the majority he would have been agreeing no change is needed.

Is that really so hard to understand, or are Jonah and Peter just oversimplifying things because they are trying to make Edwards look bad?