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: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:04pm

<>


No. Different case; different strategy.


<>


No. That's exactly what we did and in an incredibly effective and wise way, too.


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:13pm
President Bush couldn't be more clear about setting a new policy of preemption. It was outlined in the 2002 National Security Strategy, and also in his commencement speech at West Point that same year. It's the centerpiece of his War on Terror. Are you saying it doesn't exist, or that we will only strike "preemptively" if it's to fulfill a UN resolution?

<>

Is that right ours to claim? And if the UN had voted against us invading, then could we still simultaneously enforce their Iraq resolution while ignoring their vote against our action? Besides, the UN wanted to give inspections more of a chance and we were unwilling to wait. (I'll pretend you've responded with the standard "12 years" answer if you pretend you've read my standard "inspectors were only back for three months" reply...deal?)

Are there other UN resolutions laying around unheeded which maybe we should pick up in their honor? Or do we just gallantly choose ones that justify our actions?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:23pm
Can someone translate this for me?

"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?"

I think you might be asking if I would have approved of the war if there had in fact been a clear and imminent threat. My answer to that question is, yes, if that imminent threat were to the United States, not just to stability in the region. Also, if such an imminent threat were apparent, it would have been easy to gain international support to respond to it (as was the case in the first Gulf War when Iraq was clearly the aggressor.) Would the response have to be a full occupation? I would hope not. It's a very complicated question without a specific threat in mind.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:24pm
LOL! And after 'it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is,' no one in this country should have to be told to

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:32pm
Again, "information" is one thing, "sources" are another. Sources can themselves specify that they cannot be published to anyone but who THEY want.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:38pm
The 9/11 commission said that saddam declined to helped AQ.
Avatar for mrsed4
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:44pm
Thank you for reminding us of that. Funny how the facts are forgotten when they don't work in their favor.
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:49pm
Not everyone disagreeing with Bush believes that there was a conspiracy. There's a lot of possibilities between the theories "9/11 is a conspiracy to get Iraq's oil and make money in defense industry" and the other extreme "Saddam had WDS that could be deployed in 45 minutes and reach the US, and his regime had to be destroyed no matter what cost".

I for one, think that Bush jumped to conclusions too quickly based on evidence provided to him that was poor (now shown to be), and unconsciously or not, he was too willing to get rid of Saddam. There's evidence he gave the message to essentially 'look for evidence' supporting his theories. That doesn't make him a liar. But that makes him unsuitable in my opinion to be the president of the US. Other factors that TO ME make him unsuitable include his inability to properly speak (please don't point out my errors in grammar.. my first language is French, not english!) Yes, that explains a lot, you say ;)

Yet another factor is the fact that he has not worked with the UN, except when it suited him. On one hand he uses the UN resolution as a reason, and on the other, he doesn't go with the UN, and bad-mouths it. The language he used on a number of occasions encourages racism, and the view that the US is 'arrogant'. The 'civilized world' comment was insulting to a whole lot of people.. I think he has soiled the image of the US to the rest of the word, and has managed to make terrorism a greater threat than ever. Again, my opinion.

And that's just the stuff related to foreign policy..

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:52pm
Comparing the "is" debate to one involving sending troops to war is pretty flippant.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Tue, 07-13-2004 - 2:53pm
Very well said.

Pages