Edwards: "Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country"

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Edwards lied. People dies! This guy needs to go to The Hague.



CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER



Quote:

KING: Senator Edwards, when discussing the North Korean problem, the president wants to confront the regime, deal with its own missiles program plus its exports. There is not a reasonable military option when it comes to North Korea is there?



EDWARDS: Well, I don't think we're focused on military options right now, John.



I think it was important, in answer to your last question, it was important for the president to go to the region. I think he did help alleviate some of the concerns that people in that area had about this "axis of evil" comment.



But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.



«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 44
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Quote:

    Aired February 24, 2002 - 12:00 _ ET



    It looks like this was made after the 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union, the first after 9/11. The case was already being made for the war against Iraq and the faulty intelligence was being shown to lawmakers. Is it any wonder that the false intelligence reports made people think that Iraq was a big threat to the United States?



    Plus, Edwards wasn't actively looking for reasons to fight Iraq before 9/11. Instead, there was reason for him to believe that Iraq was supporting terrorism and Al Qaeda from the intelligence reports he was seeing.



    Edit: Go to the Hague? He didn't order the troops to go into Iraq now did he? There's a big difference in giving the President the authority to use the military to fight terrorists and actually sending troops to die.
  • Reply 2 of 44
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    Go to the Hague? He didn't order the troops to go into Iraq now did he? There's a big difference in giving the President the authority to use the military to fight terrorists and actually sending troops to die. [/B]



    There is also a big difference between granting authority for the use of military force as a bit of political positioning (because you figure SH won't respond to anything but the threat of imminent military action) and the President taking that little bit of strategery and running with it.



    I'm just sayin'
  • Reply 3 of 44
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    If Edwards isn't the total and complete opposite of Cheney, then I should just vote Bush-Cheney.



    Binary Scott strikes again.
  • Reply 4 of 44
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    looks like flamebait

    smells like flamebait

    hmm

    naah
  • Reply 5 of 44
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    He was just fooled by the big fat idiot that can't even form a coherent thought.



    If you are fooled by an idiot, what does that make you?
  • Reply 6 of 44
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    He was just fooled by the big fat idiot that can't even form a coherent thought.



    If you are fooled by an idiot, what does that make you?




    Fool me once . . .uh . . .



    yeah sure . . .what he said. . . . bout that fat idiot and all . . .
  • Reply 7 of 44
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Fran441

    It looks like this was made after the 'Axis of Evil' State of the Union, the first after 9/11. The case was already being made for the war against Iraq and the faulty intelligence was being shown to lawmakers. Is it any wonder that the false intelligence reports made people think that Iraq was a big threat to the United States?



    Plus, Edwards wasn't actively looking for reasons to fight Iraq before 9/11. Instead, there was reason for him to believe that Iraq was supporting terrorism and Al Qaeda from the intelligence reports he was seeing.



    Edit: Go to the Hague? He didn't order the troops to go into Iraq now did he? There's a big difference in giving the President the authority to use the military to fight terrorists and actually sending troops to die.




    I just had a thought...



    The left screamed for Bush to go to congress and then to the UN for approval. This would then mean that both entities could have easily stepped up and denied the President the legitimacy for further action. Neither did. It seems a bit late to grow a backbone.



    IKs it just me?
  • Reply 8 of 44
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I just had a thought...



    The left screamed for Bush to go to congress and then to the UN for approval. This would then mean that both entities could have easily stepped up and denied the President the legitimacy for further action. Neither did. It seems a bit late to grow a backbone.



    IKs it just me?




    We've been over this one before also.........



    At the time most of us would like to think the president has good justification for going to war.



    Now we know that just isn't so ( I knew then anyway ).



    The president should grow a backbone and not try to pass the buck.
  • Reply 9 of 44
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I just had a thought...



    The left screamed for Bush to go to congress and then to the UN for approval. This would then mean that both entities could have easily stepped up and denied the President the legitimacy for further action. Neither did. It seems a bit late to grow a backbone.



    IKs it just me?




    Nope, not 'both', the UN was not fooled . . .they had their own sources of information, unlike Congress which, for some completely unimaginable reason trusted the information that was given to Bush (*ehem*) as well as the constant slew of misinfo that was pumped out of the Office Of Special Plans in the Pentagon



    . . . You know, the Office of Special Plans; that entity set up by the admin for the purposes of streamlining the information that they wanted to released . . . Libby, Cheney et al. . .



    And throw that into the post 911 mix and the climate of "you're with us or against us" which still lingers here, where idiots call people 'Treasonous' for using their right to free-speech and critiquing the screwed up government now in office . . so, that and the lack of real information either given to Bush, or, more likely, used by him to get people to step in line and voila: we go to a war we should not have gone to.
  • Reply 10 of 44
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Send him to the Hague! And they'd just shrug their shoulders.



    Ban Scott finally.
  • Reply 11 of 44
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Scott. I know you didn´t bookmark that page over two years ago and now found it for this thread.



    In all honesty: How did your attention get drawn to that interview?. Please be honest.
  • Reply 12 of 44
    formerlurkerformerlurker Posts: 2,686member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I just had a thought...





    Cool - I'll alert the news media!
  • Reply 13 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    ...

    where idiots call people 'Treasonous' for using their right to free-speech and critiquing the screwed up government now in office . . ...




    Please provide and example of someone that was called "Treasonous" for "using their right to free-speech".
  • Reply 14 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Send him to the Hague! And they'd just shrug their shoulders.



    Ban Scott finally.




    Bunge the though police.
  • Reply 15 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Scott. I know you didn´t bookmark that page over two years ago and now found it for this thread.



    In all honesty: How did your attention get drawn to that interview?. Please be honest.




    Why the pleading for me to be "honest"? I may be coy here some times but never dishonest.



    I read it in my daily news blog. Best of the Web Today
  • Reply 16 of 44
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Why the pleading for me to be "honest"? I may be coy here some times but never dishonest.



    I read it in my daily news blog. Best of the Web Today






    That horse ain't movin' much is she?
  • Reply 17 of 44
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.



    Iraq was no threat to the USA. That means we must be in pretty good shape huh...no real threats at all?
  • Reply 18 of 44
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    That horse ain't movin' much is she?



    Anders wanted to know where I got the link from.
  • Reply 19 of 44
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,937member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    There is also a big difference between granting authority for the use of military force as a bit of political positioning (because you figure SH won't respond to anything but the threat of imminent military action) and the President taking that little bit of strategery and running with it.



    I'm just sayin'




    Oh, right. "I voted for the threat of force, not force itself." Who are you shitting here?
  • Reply 20 of 44
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Oh, right. "I voted for the threat of force, not force itself." Who are you shitting here?





    Get over it SDW. One started a war the other was political posturing. Which all politicians do.



    Plus you want to believe what our president says don't you? It's just that some people swallowed what he was saying.
Sign In or Register to comment.