Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards: I would have started a war with Iraq - Hardball snippets

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:06 AM
Original message
Edwards: I would have started a war with Iraq - Hardball snippets
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 08:36 AM by Skinner
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

MATTHEWS:


Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Above IS Why I Will Not Vote For Kerry Or Edwards
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 06:09 AM by mhr
If the country wants four more years of Bush by selecting one of these two individuals as the democratic nominee, then so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
regnaD kciN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. And just think...
...if Kerry gets the nomination and loses in November, the powers that be will have annointed Edwards as the unbeatable 2008 front-runner before the last votes are counted.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. This has another thread elsewhere too. I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOO
completely disgusted. :( I guess we would have the
draft under him same as dimwit.

RV, with three, count them three eligible boys,
two reservist boys and a nurse girl draft bait
if they call up. I wish these sleazy cretins had
their own kids on the line, maybe they would grow
a soul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. Good point
Edwards has a daughter of proper age to serve in the armed forces. Why isn't her darling ass in Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
3. The peace movements loss is not the Democratic Parties gain
The Dems got to support the war, but in the end, only Bush would have rushed into war with Iraq. Gore would not have.

If the war was a good thing, then the only true choice is Bush. All else are Bush lite.

Do you think that Gore would have unilaterally invaded Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Gore would not have. Kerry either. But Edwards, Lieberman - YES
By their own statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Their statements - LOL
The anti war movement would have kept them from it. And the GOP would have never let them have war hero status. Iraq was NOT that much of a threat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kerry is starting to look pretty good right now - only half joking here
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 06:28 AM by robbedvoter
At least he's less proud of his IWR vote and wouldn't have gone in Iraq - that much I believe him.
Not a whole lot - but you can see why the media is now pushing hard for Edwards - no one would ask W about WMD or even the yellow cake - the whole debate will be: "2 Americas" vs: "I am the wartime preznit - crowned at Ground Zero"
Mind you I am voting Clark in the primaries and ABB in general - but food for thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texasmom Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. Yeah, it wouldn't take much to be less proud of his vote than this.
However, I'd like to read a transcript of Kerry explaining/defending his vote. I heard him on NPR a couple of months ago, and it didn't impress me at all. It seemed like he was trying to have it both ways.

It may be that they are each trying a different defense of their vote--one is trying to present that he's strong, makes decisions on his own, and stands by his decisions. The other one thought the war would prove to be the right thing to do, supported the president who had the intel, but now it's now, and he doesn't want to appear weak and shifty, but he doesn't want to come out in support of an unpopular war, either. I guess I'm feeling jaded, and each of these guys have to take responsibility for a vote that much of the country and most of the world was against. There was a lot of public debate and discussion on this.

It seems to me that they each took a political risk with their vote, but they didn't want to be viewed weak on national security in 2004 and it seemed like a good gamble, and they are taking different tacts of defense of that vote now in order to win the primary when the war is not popular.

That said, these statements of Edwards really disturb me....more than anything I've read about him, by a long shot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:27 AM
Response to Original message
5. I cannot support
this guy and his weak foreign policy positions for POTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
9. I'm confused.
Did Saddam attack us on 911? I watch the news all the time, I must have missed that "Breaking News."

I don't know about you, but I find this frightening as hell. He actually believes Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected. Holy shit. :scared: This, and this ALONE, should keep Edwards out of the WH. We already have Bush, who needs Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. As multiple threads devoted to this misinformation
have pointed out, COMPLETE WITH LINKS to the debate transcripts, Edwards does NOT believe this and never said anything of the kind.

Why do you and others keep repeating your own distortions, and then bashing Edwards for them? If you don't like Edwards, fine, but let's stop slandering him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. Slander? His OWN statements are slander how? is he responsible
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 07:19 AM by robbedvoter
for what he says or not?
Debate transcripts you want? here's one:
went out of his way to smack Kerry on this:

"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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. WHERE in these two sentences OR in the full transcript does he link
up 9-11 and Saddam Hussein???

Answer: NOWHERE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:24 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. This has been pointed out to you NUMEROUS times and you have never
been able to refute it. It is a black-and-white issue; he NEVER said what you and others are interpreting. So please STOP slandering Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #20
27. What's Edwards excuse
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 08:10 AM by in_cog_ni_to
for illegally and pre-emptively attacking Iraq then? Just because he thinks Saddam is a "bad man?" There are a LOT of "bad people" leading other countries....should we also attack them? WHAT is his excuse for attacking Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. What are you talking about?
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 03:02 PM by BullGooseLoony
I'm looking at the link right now. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

He said:

(MATTHEWS: ) Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

---------------

That's from MSNBC. He said he supported invading Iraq (which, oddly enough, is CONSISTENT with his vote- kudos to Edwards), even without the help of our allies. What are you arguing about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Then why the HELL
does he think attacking Iraq was the RIGHT THING TO DO???? THAT, 911, is what this whole thing is about! THAT is why the Bush cabal attacked Iraq, remember? Saddam and Al Qaeda were connected. Give me a break.

If there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, WHY does Edwards think we should attack Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HFishbine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. By his own words
ignoring all evidence to the contrary and disregarding the evidence that alternative solutions were working, Edwards feared Saddam with nuclear capabilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alexm Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #10
29. Too bad this isn't one of those (Read the TRANSCRIPT)
Since when is qouting someone word for word misinformation???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
11. What an outrageous and irresponsible statement by Edwards.
This is depressing. Didn't he just a few days ago say that he regretted his IWR vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VOX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. I'm confused. I saw Edwards speak in L.A. last week...
And he specifically mentioned how wrong it was for * to unilaterally invade Iraq. I heard it with my own ears.

So what he hell is he dancing around with Treety on this question for now?


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texasmom Donating Member (490 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. This is from October 13, 2003 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RafterMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. He said that on Hardball, too, pretty much
But unfortunately he also said the opposite.

He seems to have this fantasy that the UN was just about to sign on and then Bush insulted them away. They weren't coming, so the fact that he "couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage" would have come into play anyway.

Giving him the most generous of interpretations, he's completely muddled on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
14. oops! Missed Homeland Security - also his baby!
still Hardball
Senator Edwards, in February you introduced legislation in the Senate to create a Homeland Intelligence Agency.

EDWARDS: Yes.

KAMARCK: Since then, I have heard you be very critical of Attorney General John Ashcroft, be a staunch defender of American civil liberties. How do you reconcile the domestic of a domestic spy agency, which we have never had in the United States? How do you reconcile that with your defensive civil liberties and your critiques of John Ashcroft?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Another Bill C. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. Disgusting!
I read through the whole interview on MSNBC to see if there was a redeeming statement later in the interview. There isn't.

If we end up with a choice between Bush and Bush "lite," I don't think I'll brave any bad weather to get to the polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vernunft II Donating Member (247 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
21. Every people get the government they deserve
or rather, that they didn´t stand up against. Now that Dean is out I´m with Kuchinich who was my second choice for a while now.

I don´t want to see Kerry or Edwards in the white house but I´m rather have Kerry than Bush. Not that I think it´ll make much difference. I cling on to the hope that I might see things too negative...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
22. robbedvoter
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you


DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Too late to edit - - if you do it, please put this link for the selection
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
24. I could get into a trouble speaking about
Lieberman and Edwards and their plans for war. This was truly horrific as to what these two men were saying during their campaigns and the public debates. I am very much a peace activist and am very concerned about the future of international relations between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Bush Jr. cannot get past a script which makes him very dangerous, but thinking person like Edwards who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee is proclaiming that 911 and Saddam are linked together is just as dangerous. Kerry wants to sit on a fence about the war. Kerry said in the Rolling Stone Magazine that, "Bush fucked up the Iraq war" thus, has a lot explaining to do about this comment and his vote to give Bush an OK to start a war. Just what are these people are thinking?

I am going to have to hold my nose when I vote abb. Kucinich and Dean seem to me to be the only responsible people when in charge of an army. This will be very hard to give this responsibility to any old body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
farmbo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
30. He used every Bush talking point except "Saddam's the most dangerous man..
...in the most dangerous part of the world".

We are in serious s%#t. Dean has been out for all of 18 hours now and already Edwards is blowing off the Democratic wing of the Democratic party and groveling for the NASCAR dunderhead vote.

Sorry, John. They will be pulling the lever (or punching the Diebold) for Bush/Cheney in November, no matter how much you gush your support for Bush's Iraq invasion. Why vote for a fake Republican when they can vote for a real Republican?


At least Kerry had the cajones to admit that Bush lied and f&!#ed up the Iraqi occupation.

Go Kerry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
31. Random editting without my title quote. read my selection here
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 09:28 AM by robbedvoter
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2004/2/19/62036/0322
MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. That last line is classic
No John, theres no misunderstanding between us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Chris: ...ask a nut cracker of a question.
Edwards thinks to himself, "Isn't that language in violation of FCC rules?"

They both laugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
La_Serpiente Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
34. OK people
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 02:48 PM by La_Serpiente
here are some of his speeches from the Senate. Make what you want of it.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO
(Senate - September 12, 2002)

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to 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 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 UN Security Council resolutions – including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These UN resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush Administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a UN Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We must show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences of success -- helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the Administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the Administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.


  1. We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction – the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

  2. We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

  3. We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

  4. And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grass-roots.



The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


And now, his second speech

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html

AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF
UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ
(Senate - October 10, 2002)

I'm here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. Mr. President, the prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. 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.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process – squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side – I support its recent efforts to forge a new UN Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want -- anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies with possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the president the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

Mr. President, the resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new UN Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we've learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, Mr. President, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.

Mr. President, the decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
35. Well, at least he's consistent. nt
Edited on Thu Feb-19-04 02:53 PM by BullGooseLoony
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. consistently wrong. What an attribute. Where do I donate?
/sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ugnmoose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
37. All I can say is.....
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-19-04 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
38. God this all makes me so sick
Kerry and Edwards.

What a pair.

I can see the quotes from the newspapers now in June of 2005 when one of these guys announces that the draft has been reinstated and that "we can't afford to lose the 'war'"(sic).

Bush is like having a fucking case of herpes. You never can get rid of it.

We are sooo fucked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 05th 2024, 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC