It was May 23, 2007, in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations, that John Edwards first called the War on Terror a "bumper sticker."

Many Democrats cheered him for finally acknowledging that the Bush Administration's "War on Terror" is not a mission designed to keep us safer, but a slogan designed to quell dissent and to justify not only the disastrous war in Iraq but any number of abuses of our civil liberties as Americans.  Don't question our Commander-in-Chief, we've heard over and over, we're at war.

Republicans, ironically enough, confirmed the importance of the "War on Terror" as a political slogan by rallying to its defense, deploying the predictable smear that Edwards must be soft on terrorism because he doesn't agree with Republican framing on the subject.  And some Democrats - either because they supported a different candidate or because they were fearful of appearing weak on national security as a party - hastened to enable the Republican talking points and disavow Edwards' statements.

But now we have confirmation that Edwards was, in fact, exactly right - confirmation straight from the chief architect of the Iraq War himself, Donald Rumsfeld:

In a series of internal musings and memos to his staff, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued that Muslims avoid "physical labor" and wrote of the need to "keep elevating the threat,""link Iraq to Iran" and develop "bumper sticker statements" to rally public support for an increasingly unpopular war.

As this stunning Washington Post article goes on to detail, Rumsfeld specifically considered the political efficacy of the "War on Terror" bumper sticker and wondered if a different slogan might do a better job of rallying public support.

In one of his longer ruminations, in May 2004, Rumsfeld considered whether to redefine the terrorism fight as a "worldwide insurgency." The goal of the enemy, he wrote, is to "end the state system, using terrorism, to drive the non-radicals from the world."He then advised aides "to test what the results could be" if the war on terrorism were renamed.

(Some may remember Rumsfeld's subsequent attempt to rebrand the "War on Terror" as the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism," a move that generated widespread ridicule.)

You have to wonder how many lives might have been saved if Rumsfeld had spent less time contemplating bumper-sticker slogans, and more time actually planning for the post-war occupation in Iraq.

"Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build 'his plan,' which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq up for self-reliance," [retired Major General John] Batiste said.

In addition, Rumsfeld "refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency," the retired general said. "At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan," Batiste added.

When the Pentagon's top official spends more time trying to figure out how to sell the war than how to win it, is it any wonder Iraq has turned into a debacle of historical proportions?

It's clear that any of our Democratic candidates would do a better job of pursuing foreign policy and advancing America's interests in the world than George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have.  And it's worth considering John Edwards' fundamental point from that Council on Foreign Relations address - not only that our foreign policy must consist of more than sloganeering, but that we must combat the terrorist threat within the context of the other foreign policy challenges we face and ensure that, in defeating one enemy, we do not create even more enemies and make America less safe thereby.

While I strongly recommend that those with an interest in foreign policy read Edwards' entire presentation to the Council on Foreign Relations, I want to excerpt a few of the most substantive passages.

The core of this presidency has been a political doctrine that George Bush calls the "Global War on Terror." He has used this doctrine like a sledgehammer to justify the worst abuses and biggest mistakes of his administration, from Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, to the war in Iraq. The worst thing about the Global War on Terror approach is that it has backfired--our military has been strained to the breaking point and the threat from terrorism has grown.

We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.

What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power.

I believe that once we are out of Iraq, the U.S. must retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, deter a regional spillover of the civil war, and prevent an Al Qaeda safe haven. We will most likely need to retain Quick Reaction Forces in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We will also need some presence in Baghdad, inside the Green Zone, to protect the American Embassy and other personnel. Finally, we will need a diplomatic offensive to engage the rest of the world in Iraq's future--including Middle Eastern nations and our allies in Europe.

As everyone in this room knows, the Iraq War has made it far more difficult to deal with other global challenges--whether it's the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent... the nuclear ambitions of states like North Korea and Iran... the crises in Darfur and Northern Uganda... the effort to help bring peace between Israel and its neighbors... the growing economic and security threats from global warming... the plight of the over a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day... or the vast implications of the political and economic rise of states like India and China and the negative trends in Russia.

By framing this as a "war," we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.

The "war" metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power--the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

There's an emerging consensus inside the armed forces that we must move beyond the idea of a war on terror. The Commander of the U.S. Military's Central Command recently stated that he would no longer use the "long war" framework. Top military leaders like retired General Anthony Zinni have rejected the term. These leaders know we need substance, not slogans--leadership, not labels.

We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests... to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors... to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments... to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons... and to prevent or stop genocide.

Yet we must remember the complementary relationship between military force and diplomacy. Too often during the past six years, this Administration's diplomatic efforts have left the U.S. with two unacceptable options: do nothing or use force. We must do better than that. We should always seek to solve problems peacefully, preferably working with others. Yet one of the oldest rules of statecraft is that diplomacy is most effective when backed by a strong military. That does not mean, however, that every problem needs a military answer; far from it.

Our military has three important missions: deterring and responding to aggressors, making sure that weak and failing states do not threaten our interests, and maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitors.

The first mission is deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm. I want to make one thing absolutely clear: any American president must be able to act with swiftness and strength against anyone who will do us harm. But by elevating this right to a doctrine of "preventive war," this Administration has only isolated us further. Our goal must be to defeat Islamic extremists and limit their reach, not help them recruit and become stronger.

A second mission is to ensure that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States. We face substantial security threats from states that fall apart. These situations are not only dangerous for these countries' civilian populations; they create regional instability and can strengthen terrorist groups that, in turn, directly threaten the United States.

A third mission is maintaining our strategic advantage against major competitor states that could do us harm and otherwise threaten our interests.

In all of these missions, we must continue to strengthen our great partnerships--whether bilateral relationships with friends from Great Britain to Israel to Japan, or through institutions like NATO, which have done so much good for America and the world. While the U.S. does not need permission to protect its interests, we must realize that our strength lies in standing together with the world, not apart.

We all know the stakes are high in the next election.  And whichever candidate we support, I hope we can all agree that a serious, sober, Democratic approach to foreign policy is absolutely indispensable.  We simply cannot afford another four years of irresponsible "cowboy diplomacy" and mindless sloganeering as a substitute for planning and thinking.

Sometimes during primary season we obsess over trivial spats and forget the things that unite us.  Too many lives and too much of America's standing in the world have gone by the wayside in the last six years for us to ignore the disaster that another Republican presidency would represent.  When all is said and done, I hope we'll remember that the interests of this nation, and the world, require us to be on the same team when November 2008 comes along.