Anti-Edwards People: Show me one thing that shows he connected 9/11 w/Iraq

[JohnLocke]

Go on. Try it.

[Catholic Sensation]

1. has anyone said something so stupid?

[JohnLocke]

2. Alas, yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=537484&mesg_id=538236&page=

[xultar]

3. Remember when everyone was calling Wesley Clark a Repub n/t

[Catholic Sensation]

4. I remember when someone asked "what's a wes clark democrat"

and the first reply was "a republican." I have to admit, the bastard stole my idea, but I was going to do it in jest I swear! :)

[KittyWampus]

21. Yes, Edwards Was STUPID Enough To Link Them In A Debate

it was one of the debates towards the end.

Look it up yourself.

Post Script: I believe it was AFTER Clark dropped out.

[AP]

24. By the SC debate, things had clearly gone so badly in Iraq that the...

...discussion had shifted to Brokaw trying to lure people into saying that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated, and towards asking candidates what kind of investigation they wanted.

I'd be surprised if anyone said anything about the war being justified by ANYTHING after Clark was gone.

But you're probably thinking of the SC debate, which is addressed below.

If you want to support your argument, the WashPost has all the debate transcripts and you're more than welcome to use them to make your point.

[JohnLocke]

5. Kick (nt).

[Skip Intro]

6. pending...

EDWARDS:

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.

This is from the Dem debate in SC. There ARE others - I'll try to find them, and there is a thread from a few months ago that you might like to read. Looking for more links...

[JohnLocke]

8. And how did he connect 9/11 with Iraq? He doesn't mention it.

:shrug: :shrug:

[DjTj]

9. He is speaking about terrorism...

...I don't see any reference to Iraq in that statement.

I remember having this exact same argument before, and I believe Kerry's question and answer went into Iraq, but Edwards clearly made a statement about terrorism in general rather without saying anything explicit about Iraq.

The more incriminating statements you're looking for are probably where he says he doesn't regret his vote, Saddam was a threat, etc.

...but you'll never find an explicit statement where he says Iraq is connected to September 11th.

[AP]

10. And why don't you cut and paste the question Kerry was asked.

"Is the threat of terrorism exaggerated?"

Does anyone here think the threat of terrorism could be exaggerated? There is a threat. You can't really exaggerate it.

You can exploit a fear, and you can do things to increast the threat. Edwards in the rest of that answer said Bush was not dealing with the threat propertly. He said he might be increasing the threat. Then he said there is more to being a good president that pretending that the only thing you have to care about is national security and terror.

Later in the debate Edwards says that the evidence Bush gave to support the invasion looked to be faulty and there needs to be an investigation of the intelligence. (So, if a link to 9/11 was given as a justification, Edwards was saying the evidence needs to be investigated because it might not be true).

Another thing to note, Kerry was asked the question and he went off on a very boring, elaborate discussion of Bush exaggerating the case for invading Iraq. It wasn't the question Brokaw asked, and he was seriously running the risk of having listeners get the perception that Kerry though terrorism wasn't a threat. That was stupid, and he's lucky Edwards stepped in and said that Democrats saw what happened on 9/11 and are taking the threat seriously).

This is discussed in depth here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=536422

[AP]

12. Here's the question Kerry was asked:

BROKAW: ...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?

Notice how Brokaw makes it clear for the viewers -- who largely have no idea who Kagan is -- the question isn't about Iraq specifically, but generally about the threat of terrorism. Kerry embarks on a discussion of Iraq. Woops.

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.

Please don't, because you're already losing the viewers, and there starting to think that you think that the threat of terrorism is exaggerated -- ie, that there's no real threat of terror.

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, you've been quite outspoken in blaming the Bush administration for the terrorist attacks of 9/11. You better...

CLARK: No, no, no, Tom, no, I didn't blame the Bush administration for the attacks. We know who did the attacks. It was Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida. But what I have said is that the president did not do all he could have done to have prevented that attack.

BROKAW: That's the premise of my question. The fact of the matter is that I said I think that you know better than anyone is that we were under attack in this country by Osama bin Laden well before George Bush took office: the original attack on the World Trade Center, the attack on the USS Cole in the Arabian Sea, the attack on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which happened during the Clinton administration. Was there an inadequate response to terrorism during President Clinton's term?

Since he didn't get a question out of his mouth for Clark, I presume that he's referring back to the question he asked Kerrry -- is there a threat of terrorism, and it's not restricted to Iraq, or to justifying it with the 9/11. He's asking are these serious threats. And his point is obvious -- he wants viewers to think that Clinton did a poor job, and that the next Dem will too -- especially, if like Kerry, they start saying the threat of TERRORISM was exaggerated.

This is what Edwards was commenting upon when he said later:

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 ...
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.

How is that saying that 9/11 justified Iraq?

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.

(APPLAUSE)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61340-2004Jan29_4.html

[Darkamber]

18. Thanks AP...for showing in full what was mentioned

Some people seem to be taking this out of context and assuming that he was connecting the two. He did no such thing. By the way, he scored points on Kerry because of that answer. Kerry didn't answer the question directly and Edwards did. And that 'walk and chew chewing gum' line became one of the biggest 'sound bites' from that debate as well as getting a huge response from the audience.

I have never seen him state that he would have "started the war" and I've never seen him make a connection between 9/11 and it. He does feel that Saddam Hussein was bad for what he did to his own people and it was good to remove him from power.

But that doesn't translate into "I will start a war", talk that some people seem to think about him. And that stand is part of the reason why conservatives and Republicans like him better then other choices.

[Sopianae]

26. Kerry was talking about Iraq

because his point was that they exaggerated the threat of terrorism in order to justify the war in Iraq. Even if he didn't spell out his whole argument it is clear what he meant.

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

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. <Kerry is talking about IRAQ!

It is not like Kerry embarks on a discussion on Iraq accidentally. He wants to make a point. The administration exaggerated the threat of terrorism in order to justify the war in Iraq. This is the part Edwards comes back to and brings up 9/11 saying he doesn't see how the the threat of terrorism is exaggerated.

Most of the DUers jump on anybody who manages to mention 9/11 any time the subject is Iraq (as it clearly was in Kerry's answer). This kind of subtle or not so subtle deliberate confusing of the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq is one of the reason the administration was able to convince the public to support their war in Iraq. Any Democrat that uses the same talking point is helping them.

[AP]

55. Brokaw was asking about the "threat of terror" being exaggerated.

After Brokaw was satsifed that Kerry was hanging himself with the rope Brokaw handed him, he asked Clark a question, and notice what that question was.

He was aksing Clark about terror too, and he listed several acts of terror. Brokaw was clearly interested in having Democrats say that the threat of terror was exaggerated, then wanted to note the threat of terror during the Clinton adminstration, and he wanted to suggest that Clinton not taking them seriously was the reason they happened.

[Sopianae]

59. Kerry wasn't hanging himself

He had the guts to say that the threat of terror was exaggerated as it clearly was. He gave examples - all of them were used to justify the war in Iraq. Edwards had to chime in and say that it wasn't exaggerated. This is major line of attack against the Republicans. Edwards sided with them. Who else than Holy Joe would insist that the threat of terrorism was not exaggerated? Edwards! That says it all.

[AP]

13. Couldn't find anything?

[Skip Intro]

22. Check post #20.

I'm not the best "searcher" :)

[AP]

25. The Wash Post has all the debates, and you can look on the candidate's

web sites for their statements.

You'd think that such a firmly held impression of Edwards would be substantiated by SOMETHING easy to fine.

I don't think finding one paragraph where Edwards uses the word terror multiple times during a campaign dominated by the discussion of terror really supports your allegation.

[Skip Intro]

29. .

I don't think finding one paragraph where Edwards uses the word terror multiple times during a campaign dominated by the discussion of terror really supports your allegation.

This thread was started with a challenge to find an example of JE connecting 9/11 and Iraq. I believe the paragraph (post 20) does that, pretty clearly.

The only "allegation" I made was last night when I said there were examples other than the one I posted then. While I think the paragraph in post 20 answers the challenge of the poster who started this thread, I think the one from last night falls short.

I have already admitted that I haven't found other Edwards' quotes connecting 9/11 and Iraq (other than post #20), so if that's the "allegation" you're referring to, its been addressed.

I saw the debates. I read the transcripts. I know that Edwards was and continued to be pro-invasion, despite the "justifications" having fallen apart. That is why I have a problem with Edwards. A lot of people have died because of this invasion, you know?

[AP]

30. Oh, ANY connection. So sorry. I thought we were looking for causal...

...connections and justifications.

I didn't know that you were only arguing that Edwards should never have uttered the words "terror" "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same series of thoughts.

[Skip Intro]

31. oh boy

The thread asks for an instance where Edwards connects 9/11 and Iraq - and he does so in the paragraph in post 20.

You yourself say as much just now -

"I didn't know that you were only arguing that Edwards should never have uttered the words "terror" "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same series of thoughts."

In what other way would he connect them, skywriting?

I don't really have an "argument," other than to say that Edwards is and has been stauchly pro-invasion, and, considering the cost in human life alone, I have a big problem with that.

As to what this thread asked for, and what I posted, I don't see how I could be more clear. JE clearly uses 9/11 to justify action against Iraq.

What, may I ask, is your argument?

[AP]

35. So, what does Edwards think the connection is?

[Skip Intro]

39. I'm getting dizzy

Look, I came across this thread that asked for an example of Edwards connecting 9/11 and Iraq. I think I found one, and I posted it.

On the broader issue of invading Iraq, which was clearly a manufactured, fruadulent crisis - clear to many at the time - I have all but given benefit of the doubt to those who voted for IWR.

The thing about Edwards is that he continued, thru the debates, to support invading when it had become clear that invading Iraq was a terrible, tragic action. And that is my problem with John Edwards - not that he voted for the IWR so much as his continued support for the action. He supported it even after it became clearly wrong.

And I'll say that, as much as I would love a different running mate to be on the ticket, if its Kerry/Edwards, I'll still be voting straight Dem in Nov.

Gone 'till this evening.

[AP]

40. I bet you're getting dizzy. You can't answer simple questions.

Can you explain what kind of connection you think Edwards is making between 9/11 and Hussein?

Edwards didn't, throughout the debates make a case about invading Iraq. I think we've proved that much. You've found one reference and a press statement from his press office.

Edwards ran on middle class opportunity, public education, a fair tax code, and things like that. When asked about Iraq he repeated a very clear principle, which is consistent every time he was asked: he felt the evidence presented supported the vote, and subsequent events suggest that it's time to have an investigation into whether that evidence was fraudulent. (And I appreciate that you might have some kind of security clearance and access to information beyond the internet, but I'm willing to accept that I might not know what kind of evidence the neocons and people like Challabi might have been circulationg up to senators on the intelligence committes.

Anyway, wasn't it the Clark supporters who felt that Edwards wasn't talking enough about terror? How can you now claim that he was fear-mongering on 9/11 and Iraq? It doesn't make sense.

[Skip Intro]

43. Wait a minute

You were first talking about Edwards using 9/11 to justify invading Iraq. Again - see post #20 - he does that, imho.

And now you're saying this:

"Edwards didn't, throughout the debates make a case about invading Iraq. I think we've proved that much. You've found one reference and a press statement from his press office."

First of all, that's a little misleading. Seems you're insinuating that I turned up only a couple of quotes of Edwards justifying invading Iraq when the quotes I searched for were for Edwards using 9/11 to justify acting against Iraq, which is what this thread asked for.

If you've read those debate transcripts and come away thinking that Edwards didn't repeatedly defend/support invading Iraq every time he was asked about it, then I don't know what to say.

Are you really trying to make the case that Edwards DIDN'T support, and continue supporting, invading Iraq???

Edwards ran on middle class opportunity, public education, a fair tax code, and things like that.

Of course he didn't bring up Iraq, why would he? Its a big negative for him.

When asked about Iraq he repeated a very clear principle, which is consistent every time he was asked: he felt the evidence presented supported the vote, and subsequent events suggest that it's time to have an investigation into whether that evidence was fraudulent.

Well, how nicely crafted. I guess he never said it was the right thing to do, even after it became clear intel was "faulty"? I guess he never said he wasn't "misled."

And I appreciate that you might have some kind of security clearance and access to information beyond the internet, but I'm willing to accept that I might not know what kind of evidence the neocons and people like Challabi might have been circulationg up to senators on the intelligence committes.

That was for the skywriting remark, right? Well, no, I don't know what the regime presented to the Senators, but I do know that it wasn't enough for some. Again, it wasn't is vote so much as his refusal to back away from that support.

I didn't come here to burst your Edwards bubble. I'm just calling it like I see it.

Anyway, wasn't it the Clark supporters who felt that Edwards wasn't talking enough about terror? How can you now claim that he was fear-mongering on 9/11 and Iraq? It doesn't make sense.

I never claimed Edwards was not talking enough about terror. But again, in the paraghraph I posted in post #20, he does use "September 11th" and "September 12, 2002" in his statement for action against Iraq, and he does that for a reason.

[AP]

44. I've already covered all of this.

If you think anything in there is a rhetorical home run for you, let me know and I'll address it, but I really thing you're just retreading an old argument that is deflating.

[Auntie Bush]

7. Now that you mention it...

I vaguely seem to remember HIM saying something to that effect or giving that impression. I vaguely remember because I was so astonished that he believed that.
I think is was said during a debate so it should be on record somewhere if that's what he said. :shrug:

I'm not trying to spread a rumor or start a debate (I'm going to bed) but you asked and stirred my memory (which isn't too good). So no arguments from me.

Edited to say that I'm not anti-Edwards. I admire the man but I just don't want him for Veep.

[AP]

11. Here's what Edwards said abotu the justifications for the invasion:

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61340-2004Jan29_2.html

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I'm not anti Edwards

A lot of good men and women took, in my opinion, the wrong stance regarding Iraq. They were given false information by the Administration, and in a different political climate, Bush could be impeached for what he did. Almost all leading Democrats would NOT have pulled the trigger and invaded Iraq the way Bush did under the circumstances in play at the time. It would have been further worked through the UN at a minimum.

Having said that, some Democrats had it right; Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Bob Graham, Sen. Byrd from West Virginia, and others. Kerry and Edwards among a host of Democrats, in my opinion, did not make the best choices at the time. It is just my impression, but it seems to me that during the Primary campaign Kerry was verbally more pointed in his criticism of Bush's Iraq policy than was Edwards. However both men would never let the Neo Con agenda play out unchallenged, and for that I will give either or both my full support.

[Auntie Bush]

15. Seems to me...Kerry kept saying all through the campaign...

We shouldn't have gone to war because bla,bla,bla.

Edwards kept empathizing, Saddam was a threat...so we were justified in attacking him bla, bla, bla.

Don't know if it's true, but that's the impression I got and maybe others did too. :shrug:

[AP]

17. I think the media created those perceptions, and they aren't substantiated

by what the candidates said about themselves.

I think the media was very interested in creating the dichotomy that Democrats were doves and Republicans are for national security. So they very quickly made Dean the focus, and set up Kerry and Edwards as being too far to the right of him.

[AP]

16. I think if you read what the candidates said...

...you see that there wasn't that much daylight between what they all believed. Kerry and Edwards basically said that, given the evidence they saw, this was the only vote they could make. They said that there was plenty of evidence they saw that was classified that nobody has discussed. They've said that there needs to be an investigation of the intelligence. Some others said the intelligence wasn't good. The difference, to me, is that some felt they could tell on the face of the evidence that it wasn't good, and others felt that the last thing they wanted to do was presume the evidence wasn't good, vote against the war, and then have a nuclear attack on the US (by Iraqis or black ops) and then have Americans blame for the next 50 years Democrats for being so weak on national security that they let this happen.

I think the candidates who reall felt they had a chance at the nomination didn't have the luxury of presuming the intelligence was bad. I think Clark, because he was a general had some leeway to criticize.

I also feel like the media created perceptions of the candidates in order to undermine the democrats, and those perceptions weren't accurate. Kucinich was the anti-war candidate. However, the press wanted to set up a dove vs hawk scenario (to solidify in people's minds that the Dem party as a whol is weak on national security). They chose Dean to do that, even though Dean was pro-every war except Iraq. Then they cast Edwards and Kerry as being too far to the right at that time to weakne them in the primaries and to promote Dean.

I believe if you go back through the record and look at what these candidates were actually saying about themselves, you see that Dean had a very narrow conception of what it meant to be anti-war that betrayed what the media was saying, and Edwards and Kerry weren't the hawks that the media said they were.

I think you can see this is the case in the struggles some are having here in proving that their perception of Edwards being a hawk were founded on facts.

[sandnsea]

19. How to unspin spin

That's the dilemma right now, on alot of issues. It's amazing to me that adults don't understand that even Democratic candidates play political primary election games. ALL of them.

All of them, even Kucinich, had nearly the same view in 2002. They all thought Saddam was a threat and they all thought the world would be better off without him. It was always a matter of how and when to deal with Saddam rather then if. Even Wes Clark said that it might be necessary to use military force to get rid of Saddam sooner or later. Even Kucinich said we needed to get inspectors into Iraq, but never said how. People have just chosen to pluck out the words they want to hear and ignore the rest. And it isn't just on the war vote either, it's on almost every issue out there. Very annoying.

[Skip Intro]

20. Here's something

snip:
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.

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

Throw in a few "mushroom cloud" references, and that could be condi talking, yes?

Also, I will say that when I first responded to this thread last night, I was certain I'd find example after example of Edwards justifying the invasion by using 9/11, but I have not found those statements, other than the one above. But...

Is there any doubt Edwards supported invading Iraq? None, and I can find plenty of examples of that.

Is there any doubt that even after it became clear to most that the wmd lies were just that, that Edwards still supported invading, going so far as to claim he was not misled by the (bush) regime? No doubt. He was, in my estimation, no less pro-invasion than Lieberman, although more politically polished about it.

This is what turned me off to Edwards. He was pro-invasion to start with, and, as all the "justifications" for stopping the inspections and starting the bombing fell apart, he still supported going in. There's blood on a lot of peoples' hands, re: this invasion, and no doubt more to come. And a fair share of that blood is on Edwards' hands.

As far as him not literally linking Iraq with 9/11, with the exception of the above quote (and others I might have missed), I can only say that, to me at least, he certainly gave that impression. If we fruitlessly searched for quotes from bush that Iraq was literally an "imminent" threat, we, I believe, would come up empty handed. But that doesn't mean he didn't give that impression. I'm not putting Edwards on the same level as bush, but I do see a parallel in this instance.

[AP]

23. That still doesn't say that Edwards thinks 9/11 justified invasion.

And other posts above address the rest of this.

- The difference between Edwards/Kerry and Clakr/Kucinich/Dean was that Edwards and Kerry said they had to trust the evidence without proof that it was wrong. The rest operated on teh presumption that it was wrong. Edwards and Kerry both want to know what parts of the evidence were right and wrong, and since they were basing their decisions on the evidence, it's hard to believe they still would have voted for the IWR if there were no good evidence.

- Just because there's a media driven hysteria about these candidates, doesn't mean it's OK to be a sucker for it. I mean, don't you think it's interesting that you can't find one statement out of the candidate's mouth that supports your very firm opinion of what you think the candidate believes? Don't you wonder where you got that perception?

- fruitless searches? C'mon. You have all the debate transcripts available, and you have Bush's SOTU addresses. You really don't think you could find examples of Bush's hysteria if you looked? You really think that statements by Edwards justifying your allegations simply aren't available?

[Skip Intro]

28. Well - huh?

I don't understand how you can say that. Eye of the beholder I guess.

You say: "That still doesn't say that Edwards thinks 9/11 justified invasion."

Ok, what is he saying here:
--
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.
--

What is the message there? My take is that saddam = terrorist threat to the US. The whole statement is justification for taking action against Iraq. In this statement, that highlights reasons we must act against Iraq, he brings up 9/11 - even mentioning that the date of the statement is "September 12,2002." Why does he bring up 9/11, in a statement the main thrust of which is to justify action against Iraq, if not to use it to justify action against Iraq? Why bring it up? Why is it there, in this statement which seeks to support action against Iraq? Its not an accident I'm sure. September 11, 2001 and "September 12, 2002" are there for a reason. He asks us to imagine 9/11 if the terrorists had had wmds, and then moves right on to say that saddam is a threat in that his "arsenal" of wmds will are a danger. I don't see how you can say that he's not using 9/11 to justify action against Iraq. That is exactly what he's doing.

You also say: "The difference between Edwards/Kerry and Clakr/Kucinich/Dean was that Edwards and Kerry said they had to trust the evidence without proof that it was wrong. The rest operated on teh presumption that it was wrong. Edwards and Kerry both want to know what parts of the evidence were right and wrong, and since they were basing their decisions on the evidence, it's hard to believe they still would have voted for the IWR if there were no good evidence."

I believe they were lied to, and I believe that some were preceptive enough to see thru the lies. I don't really hold the IWR vote against JE as much as I hold his unwavering support for invading against him.

You also ask: "Just because there's a media driven hysteria about these candidates, doesn't mean it's OK to be a sucker for it. I mean, don't you think it's interesting that you can't find one statement out of the candidate's mouth that supports your very firm opinion of what you think the candidate believes? Don't you wonder where you got that perception?"

Being without cable, I am unaware of any media driven hysteria about them. "My very firm opinion," based in fact, is that Edwards was, and still is as pro-invasion as Lieberman, and in debate after debate he refused every opportunity to back away from, or admit to, his tragically wrong position on this. I don't wonder where I got this perception, I know where I got it - direct from John Edwards' mouth.

You're not saying that Edwards hasn't been, and still isn't, all for invading Iraq, are you?

You also say: "fruitless searches? C'mon. You have all the debate transcripts available, and you have Bush's SOTU addresses. You really don't think you could find examples of Bush's hysteria if you looked? You really think that statements by Edwards justifying your allegations simply aren't available?"

Well, I don't think you'll find bush saying, literally, "saddam poses an imminent threat." That was my point. He surely gave the impression and I am not in any way trying to put Edwards on the same level with that criminal. But it is an example that you can say something witout saying it. Again, my opinion of Edwards didn't and doesn't rest on whether he used 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq. The fact that he supported the invasion at all, and continued to over time, shaped my opinion of Edwards.

As for my "allegations" (?) I believe I already admitted that I can't find a quote by Edwards where he says, exactly "we must invade Iraq because of 9/11," but I think the quote from him early in this post comes pretty damned close.

[AP]

32. He's saying this:

First, I believe the argument you're making is that he thought no evidence was necessary because Sadam perpetrated 9/11. If you're making any other argument, please let me know.

What Edwards is saying is that the intelligence committees were shown a great deal of evidence which was very compelling (isn't the news these days that Challabi was responisibel for feeding faulty info -- do you think he wasn't?). He's saying imagine what the 9/11 terrorists would have done if they had the things evidence was showing that Hussein had. I don't think that he's exploiting fear or saying anything that people don't already thnk just be mentioning that in press release (he certainly wasn't running on this issue like Joe was, evidenced by the fact that you're having a hard time finding much of anything on this issue).

[Skip Intro]

37. No

I am not saying "that he thought no evidence was necessary because Sadam perpetrated 9/11." I am saying that he did, indeed, use 9/11 (at least in this one instance) to justify moving against Iraq. He's clearly connecting the two. That is what the thread asked for, I thought.

I read that statement and its clear to me that he used 9/11 and the fear associated with that date to justify what was about to be done. He even points to the date on which he made the statement, "September 12, 2002" for the same effect, imho.

I guess its possible to read that paragraph and not see 9/11 being used as justification, and if that's the way you see it, then we see it differently.

:D

[AP]

38. He used 9/11 to justify Iraq in what sense?

- Was he punishing Sadaam for 9/11?

- Was he saying, look at 9/11 -- look at the scale of the threat -- can we afford to turn or back when there is all this compelling evidence (which he had no idea was filtered up by people like Chalabi)?

Are you saying that nobody is allowed to make comments about the scale of modern threats by reference to 9/11?

Or are you just saying it's unseemly to use 9/11 to create fear? I agree with that. That's why I LIKE Edwards. I like him because, as evidenced by the walking/chewing gum quote his message was consistently that there are things much more important that scaring people about terror.

And I wasn't the biggest fan of Clark because I felt that he was only ever appealing because of the fear of terror. Do you think Clark would have even run if not for 9/11 and Iraq?

[Skip Intro]

41. I think

Its clear we're talking about a pretty good politician when we can both read the same paragraph and argue about what he's saying.

But its also clear he references "September 11th" and "September 12, 2002" for some effect.

Invading Iraq was wrong. He must know that by now. I wish he'd just say it.

Again, I'll be voting Dem regardless.

[AP]

42. What if, after the 9/11 commission issues its report, he says, it looks

like Challabi and the neocons and Bush perpetrated a fraud?

Would you be happy then?

Do you see the value in saying that, just as he would ask a jury in the courtroom, he wants to make his decision based on all the facts?

Btw, you're now agreeing that Edwards was not saying that the invasion is appropriate punishment for Hussein because he caused 9/11?

But you think he only doing it as a rhetorical flourish on the year and a day anniversary of 9/11?

Is that a fair characterization of your argument?

[Skip Intro]

47. What have I fallen into here

I've been as clear as I know how to be.

Btw, you're now agreeing that Edwards was not saying that the invasion is appropriate punishment for Hussein because he caused 9/11?

I hope youre not purposely trying give a false impression of what I've stated.

I never, ever said JE supported invading Iraq as punishment for 9/11. Never. You make it sound like I once stated that and now have changed. I never said that in any way, ever.

But you think he only doing it as a rhetorical flourish on the year and a day anniversary of 9/11?

If by "doing it" you mean using the terms "September 11th" and "September 12, 2002" in a statement that seeks to justify acting against Iraq, I tend to think it might be more than a "flourish." A speaker as skilled as Edwards doesn't use unecessary words. 9/11 and 9/12/02 (followed by more talk of saddam) are there for a reason.

Anyway, I'll just say, once again, yet again, one more time - the thread asked for an example of JE connecting 9/11 and invading Iraq. I think my post (20) does that. Whether you agree or not, I couldn't be happier.

Oh, and I'd be happy to hear Edwards say invading Iraq was wrong, bluntly, yes, I would. I would like to have heard it much earlier, but I'd still like to hear it. Its not rocket science. A lot of people are dead unecessarily.

[AP]

48. I gave you two possible "connections" Edwards was making...

...and you offered a third, that it was the anniversary plus a day.

Where does that fit into the spectrum?

And, I'm not keeping track of who's who among the critics, but this thread was started because of an allegation that Edwards justifed Iraq invasion solely on 9/11 attack. (Contrary to your impression, people were not looking for any statement by Edwards invoking 9/11 in a discussion of Iraq. Clearly, he had a purpose in talking about 9/11 in that discussion, and it's intellectually dishonest to act like it doesn't matter or to pretend that he's saying that it was right to invade Iraq as retribution for 9/11.)


You jumped into this argument, and I'm not accusing you of anything you haven't done, but if you don't take a firm stance from the beginning about what you're arguing, I don't think it's wrong for me to assume that you're taking responsibity for the entire other side of the argument.

Finally, as I said below, I think you're going to have to judge Edwards on Iraq after he has a chance to review the 9/11 commission's report.

[Skip Intro]

49. done

my last post in this thread


"You jumped into this argument, and I'm not accusing you of anything you haven't done, but if you don't take a firm stance from the beginning about what you're arguing, I don't think it's wrong for me to assume that you're taking responsibity for the entire other side of the argument."

The thread asked, very simply, for an example of JE connecting 9/11 and Iraq. I think using 9/11 as some type of justification does that.

JE was making a statement, not having a "discussion." A statement that clearly sought to justify acting against Iraq. He clearly felt that 9/11 somehow justified, or helped justify that action, otherwise he would not have included it, in the way he did.

And, I'm not keeping track of who's who among the critics...

I'm nu_duer, an individual.

[Scoopie]

50. I hope you get a prize

because you nailed it!! :thumbsup:

And, just think, I was going to e-mail robbedvoter to get her to access her files on Edwards - she's got tons of quotes on this very subject - but I think you blew it out of the water.

Nice going! :hug:

[Sopianae]

27. Exactly!

It is the same kind of rhetoric as the administration used in order to plant the idea that terrorism and Saddam was linked. They managed to mention Saddam and 9/11 and the terrorist threat in one sentence (or in one paragraph) every time the subject came up. It didn't matter that they didn't say "Saddam was responsible for 9/11". Clearly, that was the impression they wanted to create. The end result of this rhetoric was that at one time 60-70% of the public actually believed that there was a link. Even today, almost half of the public still believes it.

The statement above could have come out of Holy Joe's mouth.:puke:

[Darkamber]

33. I'll acknowledge you are right to a certain extent...

I read the statement on the floor that you quote and I also noted the date on it 9/12/02. And I can remember my own feelings. I remember Powell's presentation to the UN. I remember having my doubts. I remember being worried because as Colin Powell stated the chemicals that should have been destroyed were not listed or found. They might have them. And what if they did use them? Much of what Edwards states in his speech.

Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee...that means he was handed more evidence then we have ever seen. At that time, the risk that Saddam might have WMD's and might sell them to other terrorist was a risk that he felt was not worth taking.

He also outlined guidelines that the Bush administration must follow and highlighted the need for UN support and full support of our allies and having a plan once there.

Was that evidence false? I begin to not trust our intelligence. Is getting rid of Saddam good? I would have to say yes. Was the method that the Bush administration used good and did they have a plan? Did they even understand the cost of what they were getting into? I would have to say no.

Would Edwards have brought us into this war if he had been President? Based on his speech, I think he would have been much more aggressive in the UN and worked and compromised to get a resolution through.

I'd be interested in seeing what Kerry's speech was at the time and some of the other Senators who also voted yes on that resolution at the time.

[AP]

36. I also think that one thing we have to consider is that Bush

was very much interested in turning the primaries into a repeat of 72. They really wanted to go up against an anti-war democrat, so that they could run the election on who's better on national security.

People like Edwards and Kerry really had to behave as senators rather than candidates. They had to make their decisions based on the evidence. And it was quite possible that the media was wilfully presenting only the evidence that made the war look unjustified in order to fan the flames of anti-war sentiment, and were going to trot out all the good evidence later (or even plant evidence of WMD) once they got their anti-war candidate.

I think if Kerry and Edwards did anything but base their decision on the evidence they saw, they would have set themselves up for being destroyed if either made it to the top of the ticket.

[Darkamber]

61. I think Chris Matthews call Edwards a Hawk

If I recall correctly, when a discussion came up at one point between various aids to the Candidates, Chris Matthews kept going after Edwards man and finally said, "So your guy is a Hawk." It had to do with the fact that Edwards would not change his position on the war.

Is there a connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war? No WMD's have been found. However, at the time that we went in there was enough evidence shown by Powell and maybe more provided to the Senate Intelligence committee to raise a shadow of doubt in Edwards's mind.
This is combined with the horrible things and mass killings that Saddam Hussein did to his own people.

But it should be pointed out again and again that Edwards would have brought in more UN support and would have had a clear exit plan.

I don't anyone can argue that the final goal of having Saddam Hussein out and a Democratic government in place in Iraq is a good thing. How you get there is the big problem as well as the fact that was no WMD's found.

I'll add something else to consider. One of the reasons why Edwards was given better coverage by the Right wing talk host, was because of his stand on the war. When this issue was brought up, he would state that he would not change his vote and the subject is dropped. Suddenly it no longer becomes a debate issue. Instead it brings thing back to the strengths of the Democratic party...jobs, economy, education, health care and environment. His lack of service history also brings the whole military matter off the table and again brings it back to Democratic values and the areas where we are strong.

In adding Edwards on as a VP, it brings to Kerry a conservative block of voters who would turn away from Kerry and any anti-war VP.

And Edwards might be a Hawk, but he's a social progressive and a populist. To me, it doesn't bother me that he's a Hawk. Those who are singing the praises of McCain are looking at someone who is even more of a Hawk then Edwards.

[AP]

34. Wesley Clark says he would have said 9/11 and Iraq connected if given...

...evidence:

(And, note, we're not even talking about all justifications for invading -- we're only talkinga bout connecting Sadaam and 9/11).

CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."

RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"

CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html

Edwards and Kerry said that they were given the evidence and much of it was classified and never discussed publicly.

I think we're learning with Chalabi that there was a long term effort to develop enough false evidence fed it up through the intelligence community to force congress people to force them to make the decision they made on the IWR.

So, had Clark been a senator, had he seen all the evidence about everything (the same evidence Kerry and Edwards were saying it would have been irresponsible to ignore with good reason), would he have voted for the IWR?

Quite possibly.

[tameszu]

45. Clark saw all of the "evidence" that Edwards saw

And concluded that it was B.S.

Because, as we know, there was never any solid stuff, either public or available to the Senate Select Intel Committee: Bill Safire has gotten insiders to leak every single possible connection so he could print his wild speculation about it in his NYT column, and it all adds up to nothing. Anything Edwards saw is now public, as the neocons put everythign out there to justify the war.

So Clark pretty had similar information from inside intelligence sources, <b>but he had the foreign policy and national security insight to conclude they were bogus</b>. He would have had the same position if he had seen the same BS as a Senator. The fact is, Edwards did not, and helped to further the bogus connection between Saddam and fighting terrorism. The bottom line here is that Edwards thought that invading Iraq would make us safer from terrorism, and he has been proven wrong. That doesn't mean that Edwards is a bad person, or that he should shouldn't be VP; it just means he's not who I want speaking for the Dems' foreign policy.

[AP]

46. Whatever he saw cerainly didn't prevent him for immediately believing

evidence might be out there. His response wasn't, "based on what I know, that's impossible." He said, "I'll say it, but I need the evidence." If he knew the evidence wasn't out there, he would have been skeptical rather than accomodating.

All he's saying is that he didn't get the evidence, and is concluding that if the white house didn't give it to him, it's not there. Perhaps it was highly classifed lies spread by chalabi, and the WH felt that if they gave it to clark, that house of cards might fall down too soon.

The point, however, is that Edwards and Kerry have both said they saw classified information (and I doubt retired generals are allowed to have classified information) and they made their judgement based on that.

And, by the way, things edwards and Kerry have seen are NOT out there. Remember Keane talking about how they have to go to some super secure room, they're not allowed to take any paper or pencils in, and they can read through the documents.

Do you think that information is out there?

[tameszu]

60. OK, one more try

You are seriously stretching, but I'll try to be charitable.

"His response wasn't, "based on what I know, that's impossible." He said, "I'll say it, but I need the evidence."

He is saying "I will say it IF you give me some evidence, but based on what I know there is no evidence." It's really hard--impossible in most cases--to prove a negative, so of course he's not going to say, "it's impossible." If someone actually gives you persuasive evidence, then it's responsible to revise your views.

"If he knew the evidence wasn't out there, he would have been skeptical rather than accomodating."

He was being properly skeptical: namely, that's proven by the fact that he never became willing to say it, because he always suspected there was no evidence--and he was right. Note that this is precisely what separates Clark from the doctrinnaire pacifist left: although he was skeptical about the reasons for going to war, he was willing to review any evidence that was presented to him. And when he saw everything, he was still unpersuaded.

"The point, however, is that Edwards and Kerry have both said they saw classified information (and I doubt retired generals are allowed to have classified information) and they made their judgement based on that.

And, by the way, things edwards and Kerry have seen are NOT out there. Remember Keane talking about how they have to go to some super secure room, they're not allowed to take any paper or pencils in, and they can read through the documents.

Do you think that information is out there?"

First, retired generals aren't allowed to have classified information, but neither are top-flight investigative journalists. And yet somehow both of them manage to get ahold of them. Snarkyness aside, both do so through high-level personal and professional contacts, on an anonymous/unofficial basis, of course. Just because you retire, your buddies in the Pentagon don't stop gossiping or talking to you, even if you have less access than before.

And, yes, as a connected matter pretty much all of the substantive supportive evidence on Saddam's links to AQ is now out there. The neocons and the Bushies either leaked or put on the table almost everything they had in the run up to the war to whip up support. Everything else has pretty much been revealed through investigative reporting about the war's rationale in the war's aftermath. Go read the latest New Yorker piece about Chalabi and the BS he and the INC got defectors to feed the Bushies and the press. Also check out the exploding kerfuffle about the NYT's reporting on the reasons for going to war. We've now moved far beyond digging out WHAT evidence and BS was shovelled to Congress and the media to support the false reasons for going to WHO did and it HOW it perpetrated.

[Scoopie]

51. This wasn't the question

The question was about Edwards and asked by an Edwards fan.
Why must you Edwardians, when backed into a cornor, always come out swinging against Clark?
Nu-duer got the answer, found the quotes - end of discussion.

[AP]

52. It's totally relevent to the issue about EVIDENCE.

Whenever Edwards has been asked about the jusitications for the IWR post-invasion he has repeatedly said that he based it on the evidence he saw (not as revenge for 9/11) and that there needs to be an investigation.

Then we had an argument about the mere utterance of 9/11 and Iraq in the same couple of paragraphs is the equivalent of fearmongering on 9/11 to justify an invasion of Iraq.

So, I googled a couple terms, because I was going to provide examples of all the candidates doing this, and the first one I came up with was Clark saying basically that, had he been given the evidence of a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, he would have been happy to tell the public about it.

His immediate response was not that no way could there be evidence (and this, mind you, is about linking Hussein with 9/11 and not about anything else).

I thought it was a very instructive quote. People need evidence to make up their mind. It's the point Edwards and Kerry have been making.

Oh, and, not once, have I felt like I was in a corner in this debate.

[in_cog_ni_to]

53. It's what the repubs do when they can't defend the Chimp....they

attack Clinton. "Well Clinton is responsible for 911. Clinton let bin Laden go. Clinton destroyed our Military. Clinton had us in a recession before the chimp took over. Clinton is the cause of our country losing respect." on and on and on and on it goes. Edwardians will always fall back on what Wes did or didn't do because they have no other defense of Edwards other than...He has nice hair. He has a nice smile. He gives a good stump speech. :eyes:


Why must you Edwardians, when backed into a cornor, always come out swinging against Clark?

[AP]

54. You're comparing me to a repub? I rest my case that I'm right, then.

[AP]

56. By the way, if Edwards were guilty of what you accuse him of believing,

don't you think Clark would have brought it up?

Clark criticized Edwards's tax plan as not being sufficiently progressive, he criticized for knowing Hugh Shelton, you think he would have at some point accused Edwards of thinking 9/11 justified invading Iraq (or of using 9/11 fear mongering to justify IWR vote).

I don't remember Clark ever doing that.

[Scoopie]

57. Well, no

Because, despite the media assertations, Clark actually ran the cleanest campaign.

[AP]

58. He did criticize Edwards re shelton and tax plans.

It seems like this would be a more relevant criticism of Edwards.

I can only assume not even Clark agrees with this characterizatio of Edwards's statement at the SC debate and his statement on 9/12/2002.

However, perhaps he did criticize Edwards. Anyone have a quote?