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
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 10:16am

Cheney never said anything of the kind. Look it up. You won't find it because it NEVER happened.


No one who paid attention to what the administration said, was ever under any misapprehension that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 or that a threat from Iraq was imminent.


The people who don't know what the administration actually said were

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 12:10pm
I think you may be thinking of Rumsfeld on Face the Nation. NY Times columnist Tom Friedman confronted him with some of his own quotes.

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/03/ana04004.html


Rumsfeld Caught Lying, Yet Again, On "Face the Nation." But This Time, a Journalist Actually Threw It In His Face.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Thanks to David Sirota of the Center for American Progress for spotting and forwarding this excerpt in which Rumsfeld is caughtin a brazen lie by Bob Schieffer of CBS. Sirota also suggests seeing this for further proof of Rumsfeld's lie on "Face the Nation."

Excerpt from "Face the Nation":

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 12:20pm
Yup. The forward looking people in the Democratic party won out. Because of the Bush administration's aggression and distortion, we're there now and we have to deal with it. You can't stand in a burning barn arguing over who put the latern right next to the cow.

(edited to add - I doubt Democrats will be trying to sound "conservative" at the convention. What are you thinking? I'm sure many Dem's are looking to get back to the moderate center that worked so well under Clinton though. And are you implying that Republicans are "wholesome" and Dem's are not? I think Cheney just lost you some points on that one after his remarks in the senate. And Rush (divorce AND a drug problem in the same year?) Ken Lay being led away in handcuffs is probably hurting your "wholesome" image a tad...And Britteny Spears, who staunchly supports President Bush in F9/11, has been married twice this year, once in Vegas http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml )

I would like to note that Democratic Representative from Louisiana is NOT the same Michael Jackson who is charged with molesting children at his ranch. http://house.legis.state.la.us/H-Reps/members.asp?ID=61 )


Edited 7/11/2004 4:42 pm ET ET by metrochick

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 12:29pm
"I think you may be thinking of Rumsfeld on Face the Nation. NY Times columnist Tom Friedman confronted him with some of his own quotes"

You are absolutely right, I *was* wrong and I'm sorry. That is exactly what I was thinking about but remembered it being Cheney. Thank you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 12:30pm
What is pathetic is the double standard that some liberals have. They can't even defend their own when according to them even Edwards lied about the imminent threat. Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committe and saw the same evidence as President Bush and came to the same conclusion.

<>

The point is that Edwards, Kerry and a whole slew of other Democrats were saying the same things (maybe not the exact same words) as the Bush administration but Bush lied and they didn't.

<
and it has to be more than for freeing the Iraq people...That is not our resposibility.>>

We are talking about Edwards lying according to the liberals not why we went to war. This has been posted ad nauseum on this board, but if you need to hear it again..



Saddam Hussein supported terrorism. He paid money to terrorist organizations and to the families of suicide bombers in Isreal. He established and supplied terrorist training camps in Iraq, such as Salman Pak . He hosted and sheltered terrorist leaders such as Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal. He violated 16 UN resolutions. He had used WMD on his own people and according to the CIA and other intelligence agencies from around the world, he had WMD in his possession at the time we went to war. He tortured and murdered his own people. He tried to assassinate a US President. He was threating to attack the United States according to Putin. Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the region, a man with a proven track record of aggressive violence, a hatred of the United States, and would use any means neccessary to accomplish his goals.

So to get back to the Edwards lie. Do you think he lied when he said that there was an imminent threat from Iraq?


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-11-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 12:45pm
On this specific point you were right I was was wrong. The specific incident I was talking about was in fact Rumsfeld not Cheney. But every other detail of the incident was exactly accurate. Rumsfeld denied ever using the word imminent and he was proven wrong. So yes someone in this administration did in fact use the word imminent.


However that does not change the fact that everyone else in this administration has danced around and used every word but imminent. But the message was clear enough, we were in grave danger from Saddam.They very clearly over stated the case no matter what words they used.

If you still want say that no one in this administration has in anyway indicated that Saddam was an imminent danger; then what is the reasoning for being in Iraq? You can't have it both ways, you can't say they were NO imminent danger to us; but that we were justified in attacking *Preemptively*. To attack preemptively indicates that you are in fact expecting an attack.

"The people who don't know what the administration actually said were the people who don't pay attention to what's going on, and instead of listening to the president speaking, listen to a 2 minute story about the speech on the news while they are bathing their dog and their kids are screaming in their ear or happen to catch the words '9/11' and 'Iraq' when they are changing channels on their car radio."

And what exactly is the point of this insulting diatribe?



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 1:11pm
<<<"The people who don't know what the administration actually said were the people who don't pay attention to what's going on, and instead of listening to the president speaking, listen to a 2 minute story about the speech on the news while they are bathing their dog and their kids are screaming in their ear or happen to catch the words '9/11' and 'Iraq' when they are changing channels on their car radio."

And what exactly is the point of this insulting diatribe? >>>>

IN MY OPINION, the point of it was to be rude and put down those that do not agree with her point of view.



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 1:33pm


What I find slimy are people (like Kerry and Edwards) who supported the Iraq action totally when they believed it was the popular thing to do, and who now act as thought they were totally against it because it isn't going all that well. Policy based on poll numbers, not on what they truly believe-talk about slimy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 1:42pm


They weren't my words, and no Bush never used the words imminent threat, but granted he told us that Saddam was a threat, to us and to our neighbors. Edwards and Kerry stated repeatedly that they wholeheartedly agreed. So my question is, if everyone wants Bush out for "lying" or "misleading" us, why do they want to elect two men who've done the exact same thing?



Presumably Edwards and Kerry based their opinion on the intelligence presented to them, the same intelligence President Bush saw, not just on President Bush's opinion. And if you have ANY evidence that President Bush lied about anything, please present it or stop making baseless accusations. It's amazing the rationalizations and excuses that people will give for the interpretations of the intelligence-Kerry, Edwards, a huge majority of Congress, the unanimous UN security council, ALL agreed based on the intelligence available, both the US's intelligence and other countries', that Saddam was a threat. Now suddenly they are all just a bunch of innocent little lambs who were completely scammed by one lying man-a man who is supposedly an incompetent idiot by the way. I guess his only talent lies in his ability to convince the entire world of facts he alone personally knew to be false. What a joke.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 2:15pm

Seen that happening here too yep.


I can't begin to count the times I had to remind them that Bush, in his address, was talking about "befóre the danger would becóme imminent".


I lost the link to that speech....desperately seeking....






Edited 7/11/2004 2:16 pm ET ET by djie

Djie

Pages