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
I don't think Edwards lied. The point is, neither did Bush or Cheney. They may have based a decision in part on some intelligence that is now proving to be questionable, but that same intelligence was very convincing to a lot of other people, most other people in fact. I also don't believe voting for the war was a mistake. I think failing to understand and prepare for the aftermath was a mistake, but I think the action against Saddam was entirely justified by his failure to comply with the terms of his ceasefire agreement. And I still believe his WMD capabilities and his connection to terrorism DID pose a threast to the US and to other countries. I'm not convinced that he didn't have WMD's-there is evidence at the very least that some chemical weapons have made it over the border to Syria and into the hands of Al Quaeda. And there is certainly evidence that he was exploring the possibility of nuclear capabilities-in the hands of a lunatic like him what could be a bigger threat to the world? But all that is a topic for another thread.
My problem with Edwards and Kerry, et al, is their accusations against President Bush for making the very same claims that they themselves made. Revisionist history. Hypocrisy.
You mean kinda like the situation we're in right now in Iraq? So the U.S., the greatest military force in the world, was afraid to dig out terrorism in Afghanistan so did the next best thing and invaded Iraq - aren't we supposed to be better than that?
No. They are jailed because they themselves have personally done something illegal. The fact that illegal activity is going on without their knowledge is not grounds for jailing anyone, no matter what their position is.
That's your opinion and I can respect that opinion, even if I don't agree. I just don't respect the opinions of those who call Bush a liar but don't call those who made the very same claims liars. (Hate to be so repetitive, but it seems that message just isn't getting across to anyone).
Okay, first of all "taped conversations" makes it sound like a sinister watergate thing. I'm sure you're refering to his background breifing for the press in which he was handed the task, as a personal advisor to the president, of putting the Bush administration's efforts against Al Qaeda in the best ight. Once he realized that polishing THAT turd was in neither his, nor the countries best interest, he left the administration and was free to discuss the Bush Administration's abysmal response to the al Qaeda threat in the plain light of the truth.
And as for those "taped conversations"....funny how quickly the Bush administration can declassify something if it seems to smear their critics.
"...the man who was in charge of counter-terrorism while we were attacked three times by al quaeda and while they plotted 9/11?"
Richard A. Clarke did more to protect our country from multiple terror threats and to increase our understanding of terrorism during his years of service under three different administrations than anyone I can think of...but he ain't Superman.
No, The United States claimed the right to enforce the UN resolutions against Saddam, who failed to comply with his cease-fire agreement, because he posed a threat to us and the world. The US did not claim the right to up and go after any nation simply because we believe them to be a threat. We claimed to have the right to act when it has become clear that diplomatic and UN actions have failed to dispatch with the threat, and when others are unwilling to enforce their own rules.
republicans wore angry faces.
"He did it just to change the topic,
from what's important - things erotic!>
Ah, you beat me to the punch. Good show.
LOL! Thanks for the help, I'll work on that.
Renee ~~~
Renee ~~~
Great post!
Here's another bit of Kerry hypocrasy from today's LA Times editorial:
This is strong language, but not unjustified. Last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report adds to the pile of studies and reportage that has undermined the key reasons Bush gave for going to war: Saddam Hussein's imperial designs, links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction and so on.
The trouble is, both Sens. Kerry and Edwards voted yes on the resolution authorizing the war in Iraq. And now they refuse to say whether they would have supported the resolution if they had known what they know today. Both say they can't be bothered with "hypothetical questions."
But whether it is a hypothetical question depends on how you phrase it. Do they regret these votes? Were their votes a mistake? These are not hypothetical questions. And they are questions the Democratic candidates for president and vice president cannot duck if they wish to attack Bush on Iraq in such morally charged language.
After all, the issue raised by the Senate Intelligence Committee report is not whether the Bush administration bungled the prosecution of the war, or whether there should have been greater international cooperation, or whether the challenges of occupying and rebuilding the country were grossly underestimated. When Kerry says "they were wrong," he is referring to the administration's basic case for going to war. Kerry supported that decision. So did Edwards. Were they wrong? If they won't answer that question, they have no moral standing to criticize Bush.
Reluctance to answer the question is understandable. If they say they stand by their pro-war votes, this makes nonsense of their criticisms of Bush. If they say they were misled or duped by the administration, they look dopey and weak. Many of their Democratic Senate colleagues were skeptical of the administration's evidence even at the time. If Kerry and Edwards tell the probable truth — that they were deeply dubious about the war but afraid to vote no in the post-9/11 atmosphere and be tarred as lily-livered liberals — they would win raves from editorial writers for their frankness and courage. And they could stop dreaming of oval offices.
Kerry and Edwards are in a bind. But it is a bind of their own making. The great pity will be if this bind leads the Democratic candidates to back off from their harsh, and largely justified, criticism of Bush. The Democrats could lose a valuable issue, and possibly even the election, because the Democratic candidates were too clever for their own good.
In the past, Kerry has dodged the question of his pro-war vote by saying that he intended to give Bush negotiating leverage and to encourage multilateral action, not to endorse a unilateral American invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, what he may have intended is not what he voted for. Furthermore, a vote in favor of the war resolution was unavoidably a statement that the various complaints against Hussein did justify going to war against him, if all else failed, whatever caveats and escape hatches were in any individual senator's head.
Kerry and Edwards would like to fudge the issue by conflating it with questions about how the war was prosecuted. Or they say that what matters is where we go from here. It is true that "what now?" is the important policy question. But that doesn't make it the only question. How we got here affects how we get out. And even if it had no practical relevance to our future Iraq policy, hearing how Kerry and Edwards explain their votes to authorize a war they now regard as disastrous would be helpful in assessing their character and judgment.
Their continued refusal to explain would be even more helpful, unfortunately.
Renee ~~~
But yes, I've seen reports on early speeches by Bush where he says "immediate" or "gathering" and the headline reads "Bush Calls Threat Imminent." Who ever would have dreamed we'd get into a four year semantic battle with a guy who uses words like "hispanically" and "insticated."
Pages