Why didn't Edwards say THIS?

[jaybeat]

OK, so I realize I’m a little behind here, but I finally got to watch the NH debate, not just sound bites from it. (I suck as a political junkie, I know. Sorry. But hear me out.)

What really hung me up was the first question—the one where ABC tries to scare us about nukes, NUKES, and bin Laden, and Pakistan, and, Obama, did you really mean it when you said you’d go after him in Pakistan. And Barak and Hillary wade into it trying to out-tough the other, about how bad these terrorists are and we can be as tough as any Republican, blah, blah, blah. And I’m thinking Edwards is gonna nail ‘em and call BS on the whole thing, but, of course, he didn’t.

Now, I’m an Edwards supporter. More so after seeing the debate, and the Iowa and New Hampshire speeches.

But help me out here. Why didn’t he say THIS (written with the way they talk in debates still in my head, channeling JE’s soft southern drawl):

Charlie, I’m sorry, but the entire premise of your question is completely flawed. To call the Musharaff government "soft on terrorism" completely misses the point. The Musharaff government, and the military and security apparatus in Pakistan, is inextricably intertwined with Islamic terrorists—because we, the United States, encouraged and made it possible for them to do so. In our obsession with creating a Vietnam for the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, we funded the jihadists; we funded, supported and trained Osama bin Laden, and we poured obscene amounts of money and materiel through the Pakistani military, undermining democracy there, and funding the very people who turned around in 2001 and attacked us! So all of this so-called "war on terror"—it’s really all the blow-back of a failed policy that, unfortunately, goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter. In fact, Zibignew Brezinski, who, I might add, is now a senior foreign policy advisor to Senator Obama, to this day has no regrets about his efforts that literally created the jihadi Islamic extremist movement, and the unholy alliance between it and the military dictators in Pakistan—despite 9/11, despite all the chaos and suffering that it has caused since.

If you want to make America safer, if you want to prevent a nuclear attack or other catastrophic attack on America, then you have to have a President willing to repudiate the failed policies of the past. Your whole premise, Charlie, I mean, who sold critical pieces of nuclear technology and know-how to A. Q. Khan? Who let A. Q. Khan operate his nuclear supermarket, selling secrets to the likes of Libya, North Korea, Iran, all the while building the so-called “Islamic bomb” for Pakistan? We know from Sibel Edmonds that it is because high-ranking Americans—in business and in government—profited from either looking the other way or in some cases directly selling this information. This is a monster of our own making.

And what has the Bush administration done? Well, for one, they completely destroyed Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert CIA operation, which was working on tracking nuclear proliferation in Iran and elsewhere that started in Pakistan. And they have gagged Sibel Edmonds from speaking out or naming names, to where even Congress does not appear to be interested in how American citizens and even American politicians may have profited from the very proliferation that threatens us now. Or the fact that it was Saudi money, not only funding jihad and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Islamic extremism in Pakistan but directly funding the 9/11 terrorists, in one case through a high-ranking member of the Pakistani military! We’ve not looked into any of this. Why? Well, because of where it might lead. Because the special interests, the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned us about almost 50 years ago, the people who profit from endless war, who want us to fear the bogie-man, Osama bin Laden, in a Hollywood-style good-guy vs. bad guy epic, so that we won’t question the trillions we spend that ends up making us less safe. That ends up making us less secure. That’s the real threat to America’s security. It is the fact that our government, regrettably, has been in the business, not of making us safer, but of selling us a story of fear and hate, so they and their cronies can continue to get rich from the proceeds of war and strife and destruction, and in the process creating more hate and violence directed against America, fueling more fear and hate and justifying more military spending, generating more profits, over and over again.

:wtf:

[XOKCowboy]

1. Wanna run for President?

I think we need you on the ticket. The first candidate that said that during a national debate would sure get my vote.

[jaybeat]

7. Thanks! LOL!

I'm afraid I would become the new definition of "unelectable," but you're very kind.

Honestly, I was expecting more from Edwards, though not *that* much more, even though it is fun to imagine. I know he has said that the "global war on terror" is really just a slogan and I wish he had at least said that and challenged the premise that a al-Qaida attack is "the greatest threat this country faces" or whatever crap Charlie was prattling on about.

My fear is that anyone capable of mounting a "viable" campaign and getting elected under our system will be, at best, naive and at worst, complicit.

:banghead:

[countryjake]

8. I didn't think he'd state that al Qaeda is public enemy number one...

like he did, judging from other things he's been saying all year, such as his previous statements on the "global war on terror" and the fear tactics that the criminals-in-charge use on us, daily. Like you, his response to that first question was a big let-down for me...he could have leveled right into both Obama and Clinton with his answer, with a clear anti-war message, and still not have appeared combative, naive or weak and preserved his "viability", too.

His use of that line, "public enemy number one", frankly made me wonder about the whole position he's been putting forward speaking to crowds, unions, and such. He did go into his position on nuclear proliferation with their second question and hit on "remaining calm" in the face of any attack, which I liked, but fell far too short on the entire subject, I thought.

[zazen]

2. Great analysis! The MSM would then marginalize him into oblivion,

but it'd be an historic moment if someone actually spoke this in an American national forum, since it only appears to be getting attention in the foreign press.

[Mythsaje]

3. Probably because it would be terribly dangerous.

Not only politically, but personally.

That's a truth certain people DON'T want to get out at all, and would do just about anything to stop.

[mojowork_n]

4. I put up a post that started with the same question.

Follow the link if you want to see how someone else posed a response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=330908&mesg_id=330908

[lame54]

5. Why didn't he say "The jerk store called and their out of you."?...

DAMN - He should have said that

[countryjake]

6. I was doing the same during that "debate"...

we were shouting at the tv, coaching him on what he should have said, could have said, what we hoped he might say. But he didn't. I'm no longer sure that I trust any of those we watched on stage during that Mickey Mouse/Donald Duck presentation.

I have been considering his platform, seriously. Lots of iffy stuff on his record, but some good, too. At least his supporters that I know seem to be much more respectful of those who have set their sights on other candidates, without going into harsh attack mode.

I'll be disappointed if he doesn't stay in the race as long as he's promised.