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 actually dated a few nerds myself, (some might even say I married one) and found them much more interesting than the so-called "cool" guys. Clinton and Edwards both remind me of slimy used car salesman-you can actually see Edwards turning on his Dentyne smile when he notices a camera rolling. I suppose most politicians have a kind of phony quality to them, I think that's why some people respond to President Bush's demeanor-it's not smooth and polished so it seems a bit more real. But I admit IMO he can come across as kind of a, well, dufus sometimes.
Not as of yet anyway, but the point is if one is going to say Bush lied for calling Saddam a threat with WMD's than one must say Edwards lied too, since he said the same thing. As did Kerry. As did the majority of Congress. As did the unanimous UN security council. Oh, that's right, I forgot-they were all duped by Bush the incompetent idiot who somehow managed to convince the entire world that some faulty intelligence was correct.
He was voting on whether on not to send our troops into war, he had darn well better be "in the know". But if ignorance is your defense, why did he say Saddam is an imminent threat and had WMD's? Why didn't he just say, "I don't really know". Sheesh, the rationalizing is unbelievable! What about the UN Security Council? They all agreed in 1441 that he was a grave threat and had WMD's as well. Were they not "in the know"?
And still does. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that conclusion-Saddam had at the very least WMD capabilities and contact with Al Quaida. But assuming one agrees with your assumption, do you not believe it is the Congress's responsibility to dig a little deeper past the "spin" before they vote to send our troops into war? Can none of you acknowledge even a tiny bit that these men supported the war when it was politically popular to do so, and abandoned that support when it became less popular to do so? And Bush supporters are called blind...
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
It just shows the double standard that some liberals have. They don't call their own liars, but call President Bush a liar for something he didn't even say.>
Good grief, who cares who used the words "imminent threat" first.
I'm not sure Bush can even pronounce imminent, but he certainly knows how to pronounce "WAR". Bush couldn't wait to invade Iraq, he alienated our allies in his rush to war. It was his duty as president of the United States to ensure that our country was doing the right thing when he declared war and he failed miserably!
Sorry, but what they relied on were poll numbers, no more no less, particularly the president's approval ratings at the time. Bush, and the members of Congress, believed the war in Iraq was going to make them all heroes in the public eye. Obviously that didn't happen. The only difference is, only Bush and Cheney are now being called liars for that belief. Everyone else on the entire planet was just "misled".
Because at the TIME the action was undertaken, they supported it. If they want to say they made a mistake in supporting it, fine. But what they are trying to do is rewrite history and act as though they never supported it to begin with, and as if they were somehow coerced or deceived into what little support they had for it. That's slimy. And if they want to criticize what's currently happening there, that's fine too, if they have some kind of alternative solution to offer. Still haven't heard anything yet beyond the very vague "reaching out to our allies" idea (some allies, yeah, that'll really turn things around over there).
Again, the piece of the argument you continually neglect to include is that Saddam had the opportunity to show the world that the threat was imaginary-he chose not to. Given the intelligence we had and 9/11, we couldn't take the chance that it was imaginary. If he had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he cooperate? Either he had something or he's even more maniacal than we thought. Either way, he was a threat.
Glassy
Pages