Edwards Lied!
Find a Conversation
Edwards Lied!
| Sat, 07-10-2004 - 6:04pm |
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."--John Edwards, "CNN Late Edition," Feb. 24, 2002
He is the person who called Iraq an "imminent" threat. Not Bush


Pages
Here's an interesting article (not exactly related to the above though..)
http://newyorker.com/fact/content/?030331fa_fact1
The intelligence committee oversees the intelligence gathering agencies which report directly to it. NOT THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
<<US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
http://intelligence.senate.gov/juris.htm
JURISDICTION
Created pursuant to S.Res. 400, 94th Congress: to oversee and make continuing studies of the intelligence activities and programs of the United States Government, and to submit to the Senate appropriate proposals for legislation and report to the Senate concerning such intelligence activities and programs. In carrying out this purpose, the Select Committee on Intelligence shall make every effort to assure that the appropriate departments and agencies of the United States provide informed and timely intelligence necessary for the executive and legislative branches to make sound decisions affecting the security and vital interests of the Nation. It is further the purpose of this resolution to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States.>>
It has the power to subeona ANY information or witness it wants.
Rule 7. Subpoenas
Renee ~~~
If they didn't have the information, then they were not on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
End of story.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Nah, because many people still believe it wasn't a mistake and support Bush...looks like you might have to face the facts my dear. The polls continueally show Bush has a steady support even after the revelation of some faulty intelligence that BTW EVERYONE and their grandma believed too. Oh yeah I forgot too, you think he somehow masterminded the whole thing and banked on something like 9/11 happening to give a reason for doing so...must be nice to live in a fairyland where it doesn't matter if things don't make sense.
I thought freedom of speech entails "questioning your President and leaders"...or does that only apply to the average citizen? ::rollseyes::
from Preventive or Preemptive War? by Alan Bock, 9/10/02:
"There’s a well-accepted definition for preemptive war in international law," Joseph Cirincione, Director of the Non-Proliferation Project of the Carnegie Endowment, told me on the telephone last week. "Preemptive war is justified by an imminent threat of attack, a clear and present danger that the country in question is about to attack you. In such a case a preemptive attack is recognized as justifiable."
During the 1967 Six Day War, Israel attacked first, but Egyptian and Syrian troops were massing on the border and airplanes were being mobilized. For most observers that was the very definition of a preemptive attack, although scholars and international relations experts are still able to debate whether the attack was justified under international law. But there is little question that there was an imminent threat.
THREAT? MAYBE. IMMINENT? NO
What the administration is discussing in terms of Iraq is not an imminent threat of attack on the United States – which might justify a preemptive strike – or even on any of Iraq’s neighbors. What the administration wants to do is to attack Iraq to prevent or neutralize a potential future threat. That’s very different from an imminent threat.
The United States has never undertaken a "preventive" war in all of its history. (Some would say that invasion of Panama that led to the capture of Manuel Noriega was preventive rather than preemptive, and maybe it was. But that was a relatively low-level incursion with a few troops, that lasted longer than the interventionists expected but still was over fairly quickly. Even the most modest plans against Iraq are more ambitious and costly by orders of magnitude.
If the criteria for such a war were simply that a country be dictatorial and despotic and have weapons of mass destruction, the world does not lack for candidates, including Pakistan (whose leader installed by a coup, who recently unilaterally changed the constitution to give him something approaching dictator-for-life, recently pledged new fealty to the administration's war without end) China, North Korea and maybe Russia."
http://www.antiwar.com/bock/b091002.html
From The Preemptive-War Doctrine has Met an Early Death in Iraq:
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/daalder/20040530.htm
"Bush's preemption doctrine went well beyond anything previous presidents had contemplated. To be sure, the option of using force preemptively had existed for Bush's predecessors. Some had used it—as Bill Clinton did in 1998 when he ordered an attack on a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, that U.S. intelligence suspected of producing nerve gas. But Bush's conception of preemption far exceeded responding to an imminent danger of attack. He instead advocated preventive wars of regime change. The United States claimed the right to use force to oust leaders it disliked"
Yeah Bush rushed to war, how can anyone possibly deny that?
I certainly didn't claim Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen - where did you come up with that idea?
But when 9/11 did happen he was ready to invade Iraq because of all that Texas Tea and the fact they'd tried to kill "daddy". He didn't double his efforts in Afghanistan where the root of terrorism was actually hiding. We know what he chose to do instead and we know how it's turning out -
Pages