John Edwards assured Bill O'Reilly Dems wouldn't give Bush "a hard time"

[BurtWorm]

in the war on terrorism. Just saw this snippet of transcript while reading Bob Somerby's annihilation of David Brooks today. Weird!

On Edit: PLEASE NOTE the date: Oct. 4, 2001--one month after 9/11. The quote should be understood in that context.


http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010604.shtml

...

On October 4, 2001, for example, Bill O’Reilly hosted Senator John Edwards:

O’REILLY: You know, we’re all together now on the Taliban except for Phil Donahue and a few people who are on the fringe, but 90 percent of Americans are with the president. But then, when this war widens, and it will—

EDWARDS: Yes.

O’REILLY: —and Saddam Hussein comes into play, and maybe Libya and maybe Syria and maybe the Sudan, and maybe even Iran—when all these come into play, are we going to be as united as we are now?

EDWARDS: Oh, I think we will be.

O’REILLY: Really!

EDWARDS: Yeah, I think, I think—

O’REILLY: You guys aren’t going to give Bush a hard time?

EDWARDS: I think that we will be united with the president throughout this war on terrorism, Bill. I absolutely believe that.

...

[rumguy]

1. As much as I like John Edwards

I must say that was a stupid thing for him to say...

[redqueen]

3. That's why this kind of circus show should just not be participated in

Just don't do the stupid show. Few watch it anyway, and you're only giving them ammo because they'll edit whatever is said to tailor it to their ads later.

[BurtWorm]

7. Of course it was one moment, and a vulnerable one

but it reinforces my image of him as a Daschle Democrat, if you know what I mean, which I developed of him from around that time.

[Bombtrack]

14. what should he have said?

"Yes, democrats like me are going to give him a very hard time in the war on terror. Count me in with the anti-taliban-removal lefties"

[Skidmore]

17. He should have said that

we will hold * accountable for his actions. John Edwards just fell completely off of my radar screen. I was willing to entertain him as VP before. He learned well on his brief stint in DC.

[ShimokitaJer]

18. Well, he could have said

"Saddam? Who the fuck mentioned Saddam? The WTC wasn't hit by Iraqis or Libyans or even Afghanistanis. It was hit by Saudis under orders from al Qaeda. We'll support the president in fighting terrorism, but we won't allow him to use it as an excuse to attack non-involved countries."

Okay, I suppose he could have left the word "fuck" out, but it just wouldn't have had the same impact.

[Bombtrack]

28. they weren't talking about Saddam

this was less than a month after september 11 01

and they weren't talking about starting wars with those countries. They were talking about being involved with those countries.

And Al Queda and their fellow Jihadists are heavily entrenched in all of those countries and sympathized with, with varying degrees by parts of those governments.

[elsiesummers]

21. Remark made 2001, Oct. 4th: Someone fears Edwards.

This was in reference to the Afghanistan - before Iraq war was even a verbalized.

Someone must be afraid of Edwards to be pulling this stuff out of the woodwork at this late date.

[BurtWorm]

23. What's to fear about Edwards? He doesn't look like much of a threat.

I posted this because the quote shocked me. It shocked me that a Democrat would give such aide and comfort to the enemies within. But I didn't intend to mislead people into taking it out of context. I apologize for that. It's just an example of the kind of Democratic complicity in the phony "war on terror" that really provokes me.

[spooky3]

40. and did this just now come across your desk by chance?

The answer helps explain why the attribution of fear can be made.

I would be surprised if this quote--if properly considered in the context of O'Liely's ambiguous "baiting" and the climate AND the views of most citizens AT THAT TIME--would change the mind of anyone who was *truly* open to Edwards as the nominee, VP, attorney general or whatever. It will simply reinforce the views of some of those who have already have a negative view of him.

[iowapeacechief]

2. Very disappointing, even discounting...

...for the hyper-patriotism and unity displays of those anxious days.

[DemDogs]

46. Together on terrorism, that's all he said - 3 weeks after 9-11 (n/t)

[SlavesandBulldozers]

4. i dont think it was a bad statement

after all, we are "as united" then as we are now. Which is to say, not that united at all.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. No, No, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edwards just put himself down there with Joe Lieberman!


He is now my last choice along with Joe.


How sad he is!

[Bombtrack]

13. So democrats should stay out of the war on terror?

or should there just be no campaign to dismantle global terror?

[ShimokitaJer]

19. Of course there should be an effort to eliminate terror

But you don't fight wars against abstract concepts.. you fight wars against countries. O'Reilly was explicit in mentioning other countries NOT INVOLVED IN 9/11 that Bush wanted support to deal with... and Edwards promised him that support.

You fight terror like you fight crime, not like you fight dictators.

[Bombtrack]

32. the war on terror is like the cold war, it's about ideology

and it is directly linked to the aweful governments that rule over the almost the entire muslim world.

Al Queada committed 9-11, and Al-Queada is but one limb head of the serpent that is Jihadism.

and the problem won't go away until the west has the ability to empower moderate leaders who don't fear for there lives if they aren't themselves racist cheuvenist fundamentalists.

[spooky3]

41. In Oct. 2001 no one knew exactly what ties existed among

terrorists. We've gotten a lot of info since then.

For this to be a truly compelling piece of info: Why don't you pose the same question now to Edwards and see how he NOW would answer it?

[BeyondGeography]

6. Sorry, too nice

Chimpass plays politics with the War on Terra. If we don't hit back, we cede the whole national security terrain to him, as he weaves foreign misadventures like Iraq into the equation. He gets to strut around the flight deck while we whine about health care.

This is not the Year of the Nice Guy.

Wes, by the way, has the credibility to hit back.

[Bombtrack]

8. You COMPLETELY TWISTED HIS WORDS

he did not say he would not give Bush a hard time.

If that is what he meant he would have said "yes"

but he did not say yes, he said and meant that the democrats would be united with Bush in the war on terrorism. Which they should be, and were in all the initial stages up until Iraq.

You people just interpret "fighting the war on terror" through a paranoid, accusatory filter.

[BurtWorm]

10. So being united with Bush in the war on terror leaves open

possibility that they will give Bush a hard time in the war on terror? Interesting. Sorry for twisting his meaning so radically! ;)

[Bombtrack]

12. the "hard time" question was a loaded one

A yes answer was a bad one, a no answer was a bad one

democrats needed then as they do now, to be vigilant in wiping out global terror, a goal repulicans seem to share. But also continue to be an independant force in the overall strategy of the campaign and where and how it goes

[HFishbine]

9. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

Or revealing...

[Skinner]

11. I think fairness requires that more attention be paid to the date here.

October 4, 2001 -- less than a month after 9/11.

I'm tempted to lock this as flamebait.

[BurtWorm]

15. I'd understand that decision.

I posted this because the quote was shocking to me as I read it. But I agree that the date should be taken into account.

[iowapeacechief]

20. Of course the date makes a difference, but...

...O'Reilly's question explicitly proposed widening the "war on terror" from al Qaeda to prospective enemy states. Bush had already announced his Axis of Evil, and some Democrats were taking care not to give him a blank check. The transcript shows Edwards was not one of them, so it is revealing--and disappointing. I like Edwards a lot, and I say this sadly, not in flaming way at all.

Remember, there was a choice between "crime" and "war"--and we took the way more traveled, Democrats as much as Republicans. Let's be the first to come to our senses!

[BurtWorm]

22. Actually Bush had not announced the axis of evil by name, to be technical.

That wasn't until the 2002 State of the Union address. But Somerby's point in citing this piece of transcript was, not to shame John Edwards, but to underscore that attacking Syria etc., was way out on the table among Dems and Repubs right after 9-11, contrary to David Brooks' hint in the Times' today that the idea that the US was planning to attacking Syria according to PNAC blueprints is a weird conspiracy theory. Somerby was just trying to show that people were in fact talking about attacking Syria in response to 9-11, even though there was absolutely no evidence that Syria had anything at all to do with 9-11.

It is depressing that a Senate Democratic such as Edwards, when given the wide open opportunity, didn't say flat out, as you suggested, that the US ought to be clear on whether a crime or act of war was committed, and that war with countries not involved should be kept entirely separate. And Edwards did not say anything at all like that.

[iowapeacechief]

24. My mistake!

"Axis of Evil" was announced 1/29/02.

I wish Democrats had chosen to insist on framing the 9/11 attacks as crime instead of war. Joining the "war on terror" bandwagon handed Bush a perfect setup for specifying new enemies in the framework of an existing consensus that we were "at war." Understandable but big mistake.

[BurtWorm]

26. Big mistake BECAUSE it enabled PNACers to realize their scheme

of colonizing the Arab world to make it safe for zionism and oil revenues.

[JohnKleeb]

25. This was only a month after 9/11 he said this?

I see. Edwards and the other 7 are unranked for me but I like him, Burt I can see why this would shock you but skinner made a good point, this wasnt even a month after 9/11.

[BurtWorm]

30. The date didn't make much of a difference to me, but context matters

so I tried to bring it more up front than it was originally. Date is just one context, though, John. Another important one is the context of place--O'Reilly's show on FOX-TV--and the context in the conversation Edwards and O'Reilly were having. How would you want a Democrat to respond to O'Reilly's disgusting demogoguery, which can't have been any less transparent then than it is now in retrospect. O'Reilly was one of those media whores whose official job was to stifle dissent and debate about the US course of action. Why would any Democrat enable him in that depressing task?

[spooky3]

42. thanks, Skinner.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Oh, reeeeeeeeeeeeally?

I don't think so! That man (the mindless wonder) deserves to have his ass handed to him in a hand basket! This is NOT the time to "play nice"....sorry John.

[PVnRT]

27. Misleading headline, outdated interview

*sniff* *sniff* I smell flamebait...

[LiberalBushFan]

29. why did you post this?

I'm not an Edwards supporter, but this is too old to be worth posting. Most of the candidates, probably all, were saying things like that a month after 9/11.

[BurtWorm]

31. Follow the link to find out.

I got it from Daily Howler's critique of David Brooks today.

[sandnsea]

33. That's what he should have said

Good lord. Our country had just been attacked. People who criticize this are really living in some sort of alternative universe.

[BurtWorm]

35. Did he have to say it on O'Reilly?

Just curious.

[BobbyJay]

34. I wonder what Bill thought of Kosovo?

Was he "with Clinton" on that one?

[anti-bush]

36. So your argument is

When asked less than a month after 9-11 if he supported going after the terrorists he should have said "No" ? That's political suicide.

He said he would be with Bush on a war against terrorism. Do you think your presidential candidate should have said he was against a war on terrorism. I applaud John Edwards for not being blindly anti-Bush and doing what he thinks is right to preserve the security of this country.

[BurtWorm]

37. Going on Bill O'reilly is doing what is right

to preserve the security of the country?

If I have an argument, it's don't feed the FOXers.

[Kathleen04]

38. Non- issue

Alot of the candidates have gone on FAUX and talked to Bill O'Reilly..if you think they should all avoid him, that's fine. But, this really is a non-issue..especially with regards to Edwards and his statement.

[beaconess]

39. Let's go to the videotape . . .

" getting a lot of credit for not passing partisan stuff through the Congress. He's done a fine job of knowing he should try to get along with Democrats." Howard Dean, October 19, 2001

"What we had last week was an attack on our democracy. I will continue to work for peace, but we also have an obligation to defend our country. The United States cannot lack resolve in dealing with terrorism." Dennis Kucinich, September 21, 2001

"I think they are proceeding the right way." Paul Wellstone, commenting on the Bush Administration's actions after 9/11, September 20, 2001.

[spooky3]

43. Thanks, beaconess!

[LTR]

44. I'll let it slide

I mean, come on - this was a month after 9/11. Everybody was pretty much unified at that point.

Until we started to see through the bullshit.

[DemDogs]

45. Edwards: On Terrorism, we would be united - 3 weeks after 9-11

Don't make this something it is not.
Geez. The entire conversation was about the war on terrorism, not about anything else, about looking for terrorists and those supporting terrorism. This was three weeks after September 11th.