Edwards: WMD irelevant! 9.11 justifies Iraq!

[robbedvoter]

At the SC debate he went out of his way to defend W on his lack ow WMD. Kerry had named some W exaggerations, Edwards made sure to shoot them down:
"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

OBL=Saddam.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. I was disappointed in that as well.

Basically Edwards was repeating the same emotional argument Bush uses.

[goodhue]

2. yes

that was the moment that I realized I could not support Edwards wholeheartedly. I like what he said in Iowa, but that SC debate troubling. I'm not sure I prefer him to Kerry at this point. Luckily, my preferred candidate is still in the race!

[aldian159]

3. Must be that lack of foreign policy experience

Edwardians gloss over here at DU rearing its ugly head.

[arewethereyet]

27. may just reflect what most of America feels

which is a pretty good idea if you want to be elected president

[KittyWampus]

46. Silly Me, Thinking A Presidential Candidate Should Exhibit

Leadership along with a polished speaking style.

[arewethereyet]

51. and how does this not do that ?

he reviewed the facts as they were known, took a stand and has not wavered in his evaluation based on what was known at the time and its a view shared by the people. Is it any wonder that they flock to him once they come to understand this ?

Leadership comes from first gaining the trust of the people.

[David Zephyr]

4. He Went Out of His Way in The Debate to Make This Point.

There's no way I will ever vote for this man to be President or Vice President.

[tishaLA]

13. I agree with you

[DjTj]

20. This is the point he is making:

EDWARDS: But if I can go back just a minute to a question that you raised just a minute ago on the poll and the fact that the war on terrorism was dead last on the list of issues on the poll -- and the president calling himself the war president. Why in the world would we let George Bush define the terrain of this debate?

What we know is the American people are enormously dissatisfied with the loss of millions of jobs, the fact that he has no health care plan of any kind. They've seen the damage being done by No Child Left Behind.

EDWARDS: They know there are hundreds of thousands of young people who want to go to college and can't go.

We should not allow him to define the terrain of this debate. We should define the terrain of this debate, and not just what's wrong with what he's done, but what will we do when we lead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44506-2004Feb15_5.html

Deomcrats have to say that terrorism is a real threat and that we will take it seriously. Otherwise, Bush will win this election.

[texasmom]

54. Thanks for providing that part of the transcript, DjTj.

I always appreciate the calm way you respond, with facts and well-reasoned responses.

Personally I haven't chosen a new candidate to support. I want to learn more about Edwards' and Kerry's positions and see what differentiates them and what they share in common. The more information the better.

[Room101]

58. Another ex-Dean supporter for Dennis

Edwards sees no problem with a NAZI style invasion of another country. :argh: He keeps pouring gas on the manufactured mythology of the so-called war on terrorism.

[enki23]

5. whew. wish i could vote against him. bring on kucinich.

and i'm going back to learning the canadian national anthem.

[Lex]

6. This has been brought up 100 times here

It was clear to me that Edwards was saying that we're living in a different time post-911 and all threats of terrorism against us here should be taken extremely seriously and not written off as unimportant. Look at number of lives that were lost on 911 because the threat of terrorism was ignored or minimized by Bush.

He wasn't referencing how Bush lied about Iraq.

[JackRiddler]

31. Look at the number of lives lost on 9/11 because

the threat of terrorism was deliberately enhanced and abetted by the Bush regime, with the conscious intent that 9/11 happen exactly as it did, so that we could launch wars everywhere with "even" an Edwards or a Kerry parotting the bogus line of a justification.

Wake up - LIHOP or MIHOP, 9/11 was an inside job.

[absyntheNsugar]

7. Wow! This if anything

Should bring us ex-Deanies and ex-Clarkies to the Kerry camp!

Like I said, at least Kerry regrets his IWR vote.

[Jax]

10. Where does Kerry say this?

I have never heard him say he regrets his reprehensible IWR vote.

Jax

[still_one]

14. What he said

is that he trusted Bush, and the other members of the Senate when they assured him force would be a last resort, and it would not be done without international co-operation. He indicated he was betrayed...

[ozone_man]

17. He is pretty gullible at the least,

but I supsect it is more political maneuvering that led Kerry to vote for IWR. Come on, everyone knew GW was lying through his teeth about WMDs.

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

56. Here's a quote from Kerry about this

http://www.wisconsindebate.com/transcript.asp
GILBERT: But what about you? I mean, let me repeat the question. Do you have any degree of responsibility having voted to give him the authority to go to war?

KERRY: The president had the authority to do what he was going to do without the vote of the United States Congress. President Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress. President Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress.

That's why we have a War Powers Act. What we did was vote with one voice of the United States Congress for a process. And remember, until the Congress asserted itself, this president wasn't intending to go to the United Nations. In fact, it was Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and others and the Congress who got him to agree to a specific process. The process was to build a legitimate international coalition, go through the inspections process and go to war as a last resort.

He didn't do it. My regret is not the vote. It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein. There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it.

My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war, is now spending billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we didn't need to spend this way had he built a legitimate coalition, and has put our troops at greater risk.

My take on his answer here in the Wisconsin debates is that Bush could have gone to Iraq without a vote from Congress, and what Congress did through that vote was to push Bush in a more peaceful direction--to the UN and a legitimate international coalition. That Bush chose to dismiss the UN and an international coalition and attack Saddam anyway was in spite of Congress's vote, not because of it.

It sounds good and I think it is plausible. But I haven't decided whether I'm buying it yet. It flies in the face of the interpretation that I had of it prior to the actual vote.

[jpgpenn]

8. Finally, facts coming out on Edwards

Thanks for the post!

[Zeke]

9. Let's Ask Him...

Someone needs to attend an Edwrdas rally and flat out ask him to define exactly what he meant by those words.

Ask him if Al Queda and Saddam are friends.

Ask him if Saddam was involved with 9/11.

Put Edwards on the psot for that comment.

[RafterMan]

15. Won't help him

The Bush/Edwards argument isn't founded on a specific linkage -- it's that the dangers exposed by 9/11 demand a dramatic lowering of the threshhold for taking preemptive military action.

Suicidal madness, if you ask me.

Edwards turns me Green.

[DjTj]

11. Didn't he win the state where they held that debate?

...this is my snide comment while I find one of the many statements he's made questioning the pre-war intelligence.

[DjTj]

19. Let's see what Edwards REALLY says:

A recent statement:

"The one thing we know is that often George Bush's rhetoric does not reflect reality. For nearly three years, he's talked about the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but he's done very little to work with our allies to secure these weapons and secure our nation."

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=655

His platform:

Edwards believes that America cannot accept the false choice between the administration's dangerous doctrine of preemption and a multilateral regime that isn't up to the current challenge. He has a plan designed to accomplish three broad objectives:

1. To establish new international standards and safeguards to stop dangerous weapons from getting into the wrong hands - standards that are clear, unambiguous and sanctioned by international law;

2. To give the international community tough new tools to punish nations that violate these standards; and

3. To improve America's ability to be an international leader in this effort.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=656

An how about the debate this week:

GILBERT: Senator Edwards, Democrats are questioning the president about his service in the Guard and they are saying he misled the country about Iraq. Is President Bush's honesty an issue in this campaign?

EDWARDS: Yes, it is, absolutely it is. Because the -- this president has said one of the most critical things, not only for a candidate for president, for the president of the United States is his integrity, whether he can be trusted.

We are in the middle, as you know, of investigating -- starting an investigation, an independent investigation about why there is a disconnect between what the American people were told by the president and others and what's actually been found in Iraq.

Now, I think integrity, character are critical issues in any presidential campaign.

EDWARDS: And certainly the integrity and character of the president of the United States is at issue -- no question.

***

EDWARDS: That's the longest answer I ever heard to a yes or no question. The answer to your question is of course.

We all accept responsibility for what we did. I did what I believed was right. I took it very, very seriously.

I also said at the same time that it was critical when we got to this stage that America not be doing this alone. The president is doing it alone. And the result is what we see happening to our young men and women right now. We need to take a dramatic course. We will take a dramatic course.

* * *

And back to your question. What we will do, when I'm president of the United States, is we will change this course. We will bring in the rest of the world we will internationalize this effort. We will bring NATO in to provide security.

For example, we could put NATO today in charge of the Saudi Arabian border, the Iranian border, allow us to concentrate on the Sunni Triangle, where so much of the violence has been occurring.

We do need to change course. And ultimately, we have to get on a real timetable for the Iraqis to govern themselves and provide for their own security.

[RafterMan]

29. Talk about false choices...

The international community did not walk away from this job because Bush was rude, they did it because it was a crock of shit. Iraq did not attack us, and the world did not support our attack on Iraq. The only way for him to deal with Saddam's "direct threat to the security of the American people" is unilateral preemption. But you're right -- Edwards does seem very clear in his support for options that did not exist.

And I'm sure the nations of the world can't wait to fall in line behind someone who "couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage".

NATO? NATO will laugh at John Edwards.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[DjTj]

35. There IS a choice for the future...

...it was and still is all about oil and money.

NATO will be interested in the money if we don't shut them out like Bush has done...

If they really aren't interested, then none of our candidates has a viable plan.


There were plenty of choices for the past, and I think it's obvious that no Democratic candidate would have made the choices that Bush did.

[RafterMan]

38. Obvious?

Q: What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Sure he says he'd have tried harder and earlier to get international support, but would have blown them off if he didn't get it.

It's clear that Edwards feels the long chain of might-haves and maybes that would make Hussein a threat to America justifies the actions that were taken. I do not doubt that such poor judgement will be reflected in his choices for the future.

Other than offering to ignore more security council vetoes, what will JH use to lure the internationals in? Iraq's oil and wealth you say? That'll end this thing quick.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[DjTj]

48. You cut him off...

...right where Tweety cut him off:

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn’t get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they’ve got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that’s what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don’t.

I don’t think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush’s approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn’t work with others. He doesn’t build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we’re seeing what’s happening to our young men and women.

[RafterMan]

53. Nice try

Does he contradict the point I highlighted? No, he repeats it.
---
"And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was. "

And yet:

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

So why are we invading?

---
"You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't."

And yet:

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

How is it not preemptive if Edwards wanted to strike while he does not even feel Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, let alone threatening to use them against American targets? That's what Bush's preemption is! I'm happy he *says* he's against it, but unhappy that he supports it in detail.

---
"We were promised a coalition on the ground right now."

I wish Edwards could understand why that coalition never materialized, but since he doesn't "think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage", he never will.

(edited for MS-charset stupidity)

[DjTj]

57. Edwards clearly believed the intelligence...

...in the fall of 2002 and at the time of invasion in the spring of 2003.

He is certainly less sure about it at the time of the interview, and by the time he went on the O'Reilly Factor, he is more skeptical:

O'REILLY: All right. Did President Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?

EDWARDS: I don't know the answer to that question.

O'REILLY: Do you have suspicions?

EDWARDS: Did I say that? You said that. I -- what I believe -- first of all, I think this is something that we should treat not hysterically, but in a very responsible way. I think it's a good thing that Saddam, who you know that I supported the war in Iraq. I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone. I think we should be proud of what our young men and women in the military did. I think the result of the war is a very good thing. And I think now the responsible thing for us and the Congress to do is to determine if there is, in fact, a discrepancy between what the intelligence community, our intelligence community, told us or told the president.

I don't know what they told the president. My view is we ought to tap down all the emotional response to this, and in a serious way, try to determine whether there's a problem in our intelligence gathering.


His thought process has long been that he made a judgment based on information he had in 2002 and 2003, and that since he can't change what happenned, there is no reason for him to make excuses or think about what he would do now, because it's really a meaningless question. Decisions are made at a point in time with limited information, and he feels that any excuses now would be insincere.

At this point, since nothing he says or does will save any lives he is perfectly satisfied with having a commission investigate the issue.

Anything a politician says a year after making a decision is only spin, and Edwards doesn't want to do that.

This entire experience is already affecting Edwards' thinking and I see evidence that leads me to believe that his foreign policy will be something I will have no problem supporting (and which won't be significantly different from Kerry's). Kerry and Edwards will both be handed a DNC-backed foreign policy at the convention anyway and will likely come into office with the same advisors.

If you're afraid that Edwards is going to go around waging pre-emptive wars, I think you can relax. It's not going to happen.

[RafterMan]

62. Not "clearly"

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

Where do you get "clearly believed the intelligence" from that?

But suppose that statement was not truthful, and that he did put a lot of stock in it. You say, "since he can't change what happenned, there is no reason for him to make excuses or think about what he would do now" -- the same could be said for Bush's feeble defense of his program.

Why can't he simply say it was bad policy? Because he doesn't believe it was: "I think the result of the war is a very good thing. " Of course he's not referring to the undermining of the international system and American moral authority because he, like Bush, is blind to the fact that these are the direct and major consequence of our actions in Iraq. Edwards just doesn't get it.

<Ignoring cringe-inducing comments about "handed a foreign policy" and reliance on "advisors" here. Fool me once...>

I really would like to "relax" my fear that he would go around starting preemptive wars, but I can't. The Bush Doctrine has profoundly lowered the bar for what constitutes and actionable threat and John Edwards stands firmly by it.

[DjTj]

63. In every speech he gives, Edwards says:

"America's also had two different images around the world over the last 30 or 40 years. It used to be the image we were all proud of: America this great shining light, this beacon of freedom, democracy, and human rights that everyone looked up to. And now the image George Bush has given us: America acting on its own, unilaterally, disrespecting the rest of the world. It doesn't have to be that way. You and I can build a world and an image of America around the world where we are once again looked up to and respected and the truth is this: Every child, every family in America will be safer and more secure if they live in a world where America is once again looked up to and respected. That's the world that you and I are going to create together."

Look, of course it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is out of power, and that's all John Edwards is saying when he says it's a good thing. If the British, French, Israelis, and Germans had gotten together to oust Saddam, I think we would all be pretty happy about that. The problem is the lack of international support, and Edwards has consistently criticized Bush's handling of the UN and the path to war.

With the intelligence - in the interview he says he didn't believe that part of the intelligence but he believed other parts of it. Clearly he saw enough to believe that Saddam was a threat. Many other Senators have said the same thing. Clinton and Clark and a vast majority of leaders believed Saddam had weapons programs that could have led to something.

If you seriously believe that John Edwards is a war-mongering candidate with a PNAC agenda, then I can't help you. There is no military-industrial complex behind him; where do you think he got his military friends, in all his years working as a lawyer in North Carolina? Did they make backroom deals with him while he was being embraced by the DLC as a freshman Senator?

He is going to toe the party line on foreign policy just like John Kerry would. That may not be the optimal foreign policy, but it's not going to be one of preemptive war.

[goodhue]

21. yes he won that state

but he most certainly did not win that debate. Look, I often like Edwards, particularly his two americas jive, but this debate was his worst performance to date IMHO. The sad thing is that it was a conscious appeal to more conservative voters. He came off poorly.

[MoonRiver]

12. I cannot see him holding up under fire.

That's why, imho, he got so many cross-over Repub votes in WI. * does not want to face either Clark or Kerry.

[HoosierClarkie]

26. Isn't he the same person who

did not know certain specifics about Islam and the DOMA? He is still so untested. We cannot win with him period. I am starting to think people have gone mad. :)

[MoonRiver]

34. Yes, I remember that. He's very, very shaky.

Fortunately I'm just about 95% sure that Kerry is getting the nom and * is toast.

[KittyWampus]

47. Yes, But Edwards Is So GOOD At Covering His Ass

when he exhibits a disturbing lack of knowledge and experience.

He changes the subject BEAUTIFULLY!

Isn't that what's required in a POTUS?

[Carni]

16. Voting to let the SOB go to war was one thing...

Giving our Reps the benefit of the doubt they were lied to by bush and company before they voted to let him go to war but THIS is something else entirely.

I am very disappointed with John Edwards over this- WTF is he thinking?

[spooky3]

18. Edwards said NOTHING about WMD, Iraq, or Saddam.

in this quote. Look at the full transcript. He is referring to the WAR ON TERRORISM. You know, as in 9-11?

Dislike Edwards if you want, but dislike him for what he actually did and said, not for the words you want to put in his mouth.

In a completely different question and answer exchange in this transcript, he said the following:

"BROKAW: But in fairness, David Kay also told me the other day that he thinks now, looking back, that the two years before we went to war was the most dangerous period in Iraq in a long, long time because it was spinning out of control. Saddam Hussein was not in charge. There were people coming in and going out of the country, including well-known terrorists.

You saw the defense -- you saw the National Intelligence Estimate, Senator Edwards, as a member of the Intelligence Committee. Did you believe it when you saw it? And was that the basis for your vote, which you enthusiastically talked about when you made the vote to authorize war against Iraq?"

"EDWARDS: Well, it wasn't just the National Intelligence Estimate, it was a whole -- it was actually two or three years of sitting in briefings and receiving information from the Intelligence Committee, not only about the weapons issue, which is what Howard just talked about, but also about the atrocities that Saddam was committing against his own people, gassing Kurdish children in northern Iraq. And I have to say, I think it is not for the administration to get to the bottom of this. It's actually not for the Congress to get to the bottom of this. The American people, we, need to get to the bottom of this, with an independent commission that looks at -- that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there."

In this exchange, there is NO mention of 9/11.

In no place did Edwards tie 9/11 and Saddam/Iraq together. And, search for the term "mass destruction." Although it came up with many other candidates, it does not appear in any q or a for Edwards that I could find.

[Lex]

22. He wasn't referencing Iraq or Saddam

as you said. I agree.

He was talking about how we were blind-sided on 9-11 because the our Intel. did NOT take the thread of terrorism against us here seriously.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. Examine the context

BROKAW: We're back on stage at the Peace Center for Performing Arts in Greenville, South Carolina, with the seven presidential candidates contesting for the Democratic presidential nomination. South Carolina's primary is next Tuesday.

Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it.

Who is right?

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

BROKAW: General Clark....

<snip>

BROKAW: Senator Edwards, do you think they would get enough help from our so-called Arab allies in this fight that is going on between those members of the Islamic movement who believe that we're unworthy and heathens in this country, and what the Bush administration is trying to do to close that schism that exists in too many areas?

EDWARDS: I think the answer is no, we don't get enough help in a lot of areas.

For example, the Saudi royals, who we're so dependent on Saudi Arabia for our oil, and we've not moved this country in the direction we need to go toward energy independence, which is desperately needed; cleaner, alternative sources of energy, more fuel-efficient vehicles, because we're so dependent on them for oil, the fact we don't get the cooperation we need from them.

And there's a complete disconnect between the leadership, not only in Saudi Arabia, but in a number of these Islamic countries and their people and their attitudes toward America.

Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.

I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.

And number two, the president actually has to be able to do two things at once. This president thinks his presidency is only about the war on terrorism, only about national security. Those things are critical for a commander in chief. The president of the United States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be able to do two things at the same time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

[DjTj]

37. Unless we can ask him about it...

...we'll never know exactly what he meant by that statement. You certainly don't think that Edwards actually believes there is a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam do you?

Here's what he said in the Wisconsin debate:

GILBERT: Senator Edwards, Democrats are questioning the president about his service in the Guard and they are saying he misled the country about Iraq. Is President Bush's honesty an issue in this campaign?

EDWARDS: Yes, it is, absolutely it is. Because the -- this president has said one of the most critical things, not only for a candidate for president, for the president of the United States is his integrity, whether he can be trusted.

We are in the middle, as you know, of investigating -- starting an investigation, an independent investigation about why there is a disconnect between what the American people were told by the president and others and what's actually been found in Iraq.

Now, I think integrity, character are critical issues in any presidential campaign.

EDWARDS: And certainly the integrity and character of the president of the United States is at issue -- no question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

41. That's your spin. The rest of us will make up our minds based on his words

[spooky3]

45. That's exactly what you SHOULD do. Not on Kerry's words, or parts of

Kerry's answers to which you think Edwards is referring--with no evidence--because at no place did he specifically say he was referring to what you think he is. Not on the basis of what you think Edwards said or what YOU think the context to be.

You owe him the courtesy you would want for yourself-- of being judged on the basis of what HE said.

The most obvious question is this: The following day, the W Post ran a huge story on the debate (page 1 and beyond). It quoted several of our candidates, including Edwards, multiple times. Don't you think that if Edwards had said or even implied what you and others seem to be claiming, that this would have been BIG news and emphasized or at least mentioned in this article? But the interpretation that you are giving is nowhere to be found in that article.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. What Edwards said

Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

You are welcome to believe that when Edwards says "You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism. It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th." he isn't referring to what Kerry said. :eyes:

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

60. Thanks for the full context

Here's my summary of the exchange.

BROKAW: Where is the exaggeration of terrorism?

KERRY: The lies they told about Iraq.

EDWARDS: 9-11 demonstrates that there is no exaggeration.


Making a strong conclusion based on this exchange is not justified because he didn't come out and explicitely link 9-11 to Iraq. In fact, in my opinion he made no comment about Iraq at all. Just as you can twist things around to make him say that there is a link between Iraq and 9-11, I can twist things around to make him say that there is not a link. But I think the natural interpretation is that he was answering Brokaw and saying that 9-11 showed that terrorism is a threat. No relation to Iraq.

[Zhade]

36. The "war on terrorism" is a false construct of fear and manipulation.

The only reason there is any increased danger of dying at the hands of terrorists is because George W. Bush and his illegal administration occupy the White House.

This includes 9/11, which at the very least was allowed to happen for BushCo's benefit.

This so-called WoT is The Big Lie.

[mohc]

24. Edwards was not talking about Iraq in that quote

Kerry answered a question about the threat of terror by saying Bush exaggerated about the threat of Iraq. But Edwards position, and in fact mine, is that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, as there is no Iraq-OBL connection. Edwards is simply stating that there is still a terrorist threat, and that it can not really be exaggerated because of the impact it has had.

Here is what Edwards did say about Iraq in the debate:

"And I have to say, I think it is not for the administration to get to the bottom of this. It's actually not for the Congress to get to the bottom of this. The American people, we, need to get to the bottom of this, with an independent commission that looks at -- that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there."

[JasonBerry]

28. That's right - he was talking about the threat of terrorism

Not Iraq.

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. I remember that comment

and was disgusted by it then and I am disgusted by it now. Bush LIED and Edwards now knows he lied.

[Zhade]

40. Edwards surely knew of the lies before now.

After all, millions of us around the world knew - before the IWR vote - that there was no threat from Iraq.

Funny thing is, I've yet to meet a person who can explain how the pro-IWR voters in Congress would know LESS than we did.

I think the answer to that one is pretty self-evident.

[arewethereyet]

61. at issue is "know" v "believe"

knowone knows even now although it seems to be getting clearer.

[TheDonkey]

30. This is a reason I'm afraid of Edwards

He has this populist feel which seems liberal. But with comments as outrageous as that I'm thinking elephant in donkey jacket.

[Thrill]

32. This another reason

I don't want Edwards. He just seems to weak. And won't be tough enough on Bush

[Shanty Oilish]

33. They were talking about 2 different things

Edwards took Kerry's comments and gave them a little twist. Kerry was talking about overstating the threat with regard to Iraq. Edwards did not say that Bush did NOT exaggerate with regard to Iraq, he just pointed to 9/11 and countered a statement Kerry never made. Tricky and effective.

[Skip Intro]

39. I pray he's not the nominee 'cuz I will not vote for him

Kerry is hard enough, but I've come to rationalize voting for Kerry in nov. should he be the nom. But I will not vote Dem if Edwards is the nom, it would be like voting bush with a d. At some point, principles become the determining factor.

Edwards should no more be on the Dem ticket than should Lieberman.

How can Edwards supporters, who surely a short time ago joined most of DU in emotionally slamming and mourning the invasion of Iraq, now back one of its CURRENT backers?

Sorry, if he is on the ticket, count me out. I will be forced vote my conscience.

[RafterMan]

42. I'm with you

I used to like Edwards (not as a first choice), who does have an upbeat message and very effective delivery. I also believe he has a good chance of beating Bush.

But when I heard he still supported the war, I flipped out. I've spent the last month contorting my mind into Kerry posture -- I'll never be able to do it for Edwards.

[arewethereyet]

59. music to the ears of the GOP

they love uni-dimentional thinking, so easy to negate.

[Crewleader]

43. Hi robbedvoter

nice picture of the General...and I love your sig, friend! :hi:

[mmonk]

44. Yes he won't back down from that premise

[ecstatic]

49. et tu, Edwards?

Yuck, I don't think I care anymore about who gets the nomination. Today I found out some things about Edwards that I don't like. Based on superficial factors, I still think Edwards has a better chance against Bush, and he is less divisive.

[Casablanca]

50. A couple of good Sharpton quotes ...

"It's almost contradictory to say, "If you don't win, get out."

Did you come in to win, or did you come in to stand up for something -- and make that win?

And I think that that's what's wrong. We have become too cheap. We act like we're at a race track betting on horses, rather than dealing with the fact that 75,000 lost their jobs in South Carolina."

"I've been inspired in this campaign hearing John Edwards talk about he's a son of a mill worker. Well, I'm the son of a man who couldn't be a mill worker because of the color of his skin. ..."

[killbotfactory]

52. He said war on terrorism, not war on Iraq

???