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: 11-08-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 2:45pm
<>

If you're voting for Kerry/Edwards, I sure hope you'll get to know him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 2:50pm

In Their Own Words: Iraq's 'Imminent' Threat


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970


The Bush Administration is now saying it never told the public that Iraq was an "imminent" threat, and therefore it should be absolved for overstating the case for war and misleading the American people about Iraq's WMD. Just this week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan lashed out at critics saying "Some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used." But a closer look at the record shows that McClellan himself and others did use the phrase "imminent threat" – while also using the synonymous phrases "mortal threat," "urgent threat," "immediate threat", "serious and mounting threat", "unique threat," and claiming that Iraq was actively seeking to "strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction" – all just months after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that Iraq was "contained" and "threatens not the United States." While Iraq was certainly a dangerous country, the Administration's efforts to claim it never hyped the threat in the lead-up to war is belied by its statements.



"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03


"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03


Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03


"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03


"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03


"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03


"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03


"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03


"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03


"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03


"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03


Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03


Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03


Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03


"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03


"Well, of course he is.”

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 2:56pm


Right, and Bush is presently being criticized for not stopping 9/11 before it happened. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. What is "imminent" enough for some people to give us the right to act? And why do so many people ignore the fact that IF Saddam truly posed no threat, he could have simply complied with the resolutions and averted the whole action. Why would he have defied the UN and forced the US to come in and overthrow his regime rather than cooperating with the inspectors and simply SHOWING the world that he was not a threat? What President Bush said all along was that we learned from 9/11 that we can't wait until threats become realities before we act.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 2:56pm

The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq.


http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf


****************************************************


"The hourlong speech was interrupted by applause 73 times.


But afterward, some said the speech failed to end the debate on whether to go to war.


Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said he would introduce a resolution today that would require Bush to come back to Congress and present "convincing evidence of an imminent threat" before U.S. troops are sent to war with Iraq. Congress approved a resolution last fall authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq, and that measure did not require a second review.


"Much has changed in the many months since Congress last debated war with Iraq," Kennedy said. "Another vote is necessary if the time has come for war."


Some Republicans agreed that the president has more work to do to persuade voters and allies."


Quote from...........


THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS


Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat


"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says


http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html





Edited 7/11/2004 3:21 pm ET ET by libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 3:13pm

Is 45 minutes considered "imminent"?


Exiled Allawi was Responsible for 45-Minute WMD Claim.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-24-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 3:13pm


In my opinion, it is becuase Kerry and Edwards can admit that they were wrong in stating the fact based on the information they had, while Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld still claim that it was true. Strong leaders can admit when they are wrong and when they have made mistakes.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 3:25pm
From Kerry circa 1997, before he was "misled" by Bush and Cheney (full speech is long but is available at the link below:

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200401261431.asp

"We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation. If he remains obdurate, I believe that the United Nations must take, and should authorize immediately, whatever steps are necessary to force him to relent — and that the United States should support and participate in those steps."

"There can be little or no question that Saddam has no compunctions about using the most reprehensible weapons — on civilians as readily as on military forces. He has used poison gas against Iranian troops and civilians in the Iran-Iraq border conflict. He has launched Scud missiles against Israel and against coalition troops based in Saudi Arabia during the gulf war."

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true."

"While our actions should be thoughtfully and carefully determined and structured, while we should always seek to use peaceful and diplomatic means to resolve serious problems before resorting to force, and while we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise. "

And his running mate:

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200407090915.asp

" When taking on Saddam Hussein was popular with the public, Edwards was all for it and leading the arguments favoring the use of force. When it became unpopular with Democratic-primary voters, he suddenly shifted his tune. Now, as American troops continue the hard work of helping the new Iraqi government secure the country and build a free society, Edwards calls the war "needless."

First, note that Democrats have claimed that Bush misled the American people, by claiming Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Bush never used the word "imminent," although he did use terms like "grave and gathering." But guess who did call Iraq an imminient threat?

I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. — John Edwards "

Edwards said that United Nations approval of military action would be nice to have, but was not necessary.

GIBSON: "Do you think that the president should act, even if the United Nations does not grant him permission?" EDWARDS: "Oh, I don't think we should be bound by what the United Nations does. I mean, we should do everything in our power to try to get the United Nations resolution. We should do everything in our power to try to build an ally — a group of allies and a coalition to support what it is we're doing. But, at the end of the day, this is something that we have to show leadership on."

Ultimately, Edwards decided he would vote for the resolution authorizing force against Saddam.

I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

In fact, Edwards specifically rejected the Democratic argument that Iraq would distract America from the war on terrorism.

I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein. We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security - because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security.

On the eve of the war, Edwards said he understood the need to act without all of our allies on board. In fact, he praised President Bush for making the tough call in the face of opposition from some countries.

It is also a test of Presidential leadership to have the backbone to say to those who strongly disagree with you — including your friends — what you believe. I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and that he must be disarmed, including with military force if necessary.

And he shot back at those who called it "Bush's war":

"Make no mistake. Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Our world will be safer when he is gone." March 19, 2003

The Boston Heraldnoted, "During the buildup and aftermath of the Iraq war, Edwards bought and sold stock in several defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, General Electric, British Petroleum, and General Dynamics."

As recently as last summer, Edwards was still on board, speaking as a pro-war Democrat, talking about the benefits of a world with Saddam out of power.

Removing Saddam Hussein's government from power was the right thing to do. The fall of Saddam offered the best opportunity in a generation to transform the Middle East and promote democracy and human rights in the region.

And as a vote on the $87 billion funding package approached, Edwards began talking about the importance of supporting the troops.

We have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. When we went into Iraq, the US assumed a responsibility to share with our allies the effort to reconstruct. That does not mean Bush should get a blank check... I will vote for what's necessary to support the troops. But we have a lot of questions that have to be answered first. We have to find out how he plans to bring our allies in, how much control he plans to give up, and what is our long-term plan there. I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground.

But suddenly, it became clear that Howard Dean's antiwar rhetoric was the favorite of Democratic primary voters. And, a few weeks after calling not funding the troops "irresponsible," Edwards said:

I will vote against the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq.

As the Democratic campaign started to heat up, Edwards decided to hurl some gratuitous insults at our allies, fighting insurgents alongside American troops.

As our military leaders say, you have in Iraq swimmers and non-swimmers, that's the term they like to use. The swimmers are us and to a much smaller extent the British and nobody else.... Most of these countries are window-dressing. This is not serious. [January

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-23-2004
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 3:31pm


First of all, where have Kerry or Edwards admitted that they were wrong? Secondly, Bush has said that some intelligence may have been flawed and that it should be investigated (which it has been). How is that "not admitting that they are wrong"? Perhaps they wanted to wait untilthe facts came in before drawing any conclusions? I'm just stunned that Kerry and Edwards are being given a complete pass on the EXACT same statements that Bush is being so harshly criticized for. The partisanship is unbelievable.

Avatar for baileyhouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 3:39pm
My guess would be because he had the same intelligence as everyone else on the Hill..The same shotty out of date information the Bush used to make his case. Bottom line Bush didn't ask the right questions when he got the information, and his admistration only used the information that would make "their" case. He is Commander and Chief HE should have made sure the information was correct not a Jr. Senator.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
In reply to: bethannne
Sun, 07-11-2004 - 4:33pm
You still didn't answer my question. Did Edwards lie when he said Iraq was an imminent threat?

<>

If they based their conclusions on the same intelligence, why is it that Bush lied and Edwards and Kerry didn't. They could have asked these questions that you are insisting that Bush should have asked. They took the word of the CIA and the other intelligence agencies around the world. Bush did ask the questions and it was a "Slam Dunk" according to Tenet. Maybe Bush should have used his powers of ESP to find out if the CIA and all of the other intelligence agencies were giving him shoddy information.

Pages