Edwards Lied!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Edwards Lied!
179
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

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:43pm
<>

Do you see the "contradiction" you just made??? You say they were provided with the information but not the sources and then go on to say that the intelligence is as good as the sources...okkkkkkkkeeeeeey dokey.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:49pm
Thanks for you "opinion"...but I tend to lean more towards the words "Bush led us to a war that would forever change the world and waged a war to get rid of the murdering regime under Saddam who supported and harbored terrorism"
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:51pm


Of course it's a huge issue, but for heaven's sakes how can one man justify using the resources of our entire country, sending our young men and women to die, bombing innocent people so that he can carry out his own personal revenge. Must be nice to be able to bomb the hell out of an entire nation because their leader had failed in an assasination attempt. That'll show those Iraqiis - we'll smoke 'em all!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:54pm

<<The press focused on use of the word "imminent" because the Bush administration characterized the Iraq war as preemptive. The definition of a preemptive war, is one which acts first to preempt an imminent threat. This was just more clever word play which the Bush admin used to help sell their war to the public, and to the world. >>


I agree the press is to blame for that delightful bit of spin. The ironic part is that Bush Doctrine says that we have to act BEFORE a threat is imminent because with airplanes and WMDs, imminent is nonactionable. That's when he used the 'magic word' and the press and Democrats have the gall to claim he said the exact opposite. It's disgusting.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 12:57pm
Wait I am confused here...are you saying that if a "preemptive" attack means "imminent threat" that it would have been ok to wage war for itwe were going to be attacked very soon if nothing was done? Well at least that is what I am taking from your source here and your attempt to make Bush seem more faulty...so which is it? We shouldn't have attacked regardless of it being preventive or preemptive or if it were preemtive then it gives the means to justify the ends?
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 1:00pm
We went into Afghanistan with a light footprint because every country that has ever attempted to occupy Afghanistan has wound up in a situation that makes Vietnam look not so bad. Military analysts will tell you that we used a very innovative and relatively successful technique of using special ops forces in surgical strikes to avoid getting on the wrong side of as much

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 1:00pm
When Clinton bombed al Qaeda bases,

republicans wore angry faces.

"He did it just to change the topic,

from what's important - things erotic!

Now where were we..."

If you'd like to do your own, I give you a hint: Kandahar rhymes with cigar. ; )

Avatar for mrsed4
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 1:00pm
I'd like to add to that response. It is not the President's job to avenge the attempts on the lives of the former presidents. That is why we have laws and law enforcement.

If he wants to avenge the assassination of a former president, maybe he should bomb the CIA building.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 1:01pm
You are not making sense here...how would he have justified the war if there was not 9/11? You are saying he used 9/11 to rush to war but then said he wanted to go to war before 9/11??? That doesn't make an ounce of sense and where do you get this idea that he wanted to go to war before 9/11? Where is your proof? Oh that's right you don't have any...you just don't like him and that is warping your thinking through your responses...I see.

<>

Because you said he used that as a reason to go to war...if he didn't know about 9/11 how would he have a reason to go to war in the first place? There is that "not making sense" syndrome your posts are diluted with.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-29-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 1:04pm
LMAO...your responses are now becoming amusing to me...you think he only waged war to get revenge because he "daddy" was planned on being asassinated??? That's what you really think? You have been watching to many movies, it's time to get back to reality.

Pages