Meet the Press: Senator John Edwards is a walking contradiction

[1songbird]

Sen. John Edwards was on Tim Russert's Meet the Press this morning talking about the reasons for going to war, the patriot act, and the economy. Sen. John Edwards uses the same verbage as the Repuglicans in stating why he voted on the war resolution. He would not say that he regreted his decision on the war. Instead he claimed that the overwhelming amount of evidence against Saddam over a period of time showed that he was a real nuclear threat. After supporting the Bush* administrations' policies on this war this morning he then reversed course and stated that he did not support the 87 Billion dollars. Thus Edwards was the author of confusion and contradiction in full affect.

Onto the Patriot Act, Sen. Edwards now opposes the Patriot Act but he voted against all measures by Senator Feingold to reign the Patriot Act in.

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

It's time for the confused, Bush-Lite Edwards to drop out of the presidential race and do no more harm by repeating the administrations rhetoric with Democratic lips. He is clearly not in step with the majority of Democrats.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I am not going to hold the

Patriot Act vote against any of the candidates. It was a very difficult time in America at that time.

[dofus]

2. Personally, I am going to hold the Patriot Act vote

against every single person who voted for it. Any thinking person could tell it was being rushed through without thought or even a proper reading of the bill. We were asked to give up basic civil rights in the name of "homeland security" and that was wrong, wrong, wrong.

[yaledem]

13. Do you hold it against Paul Wellstone?

Is Wellstone Bush-Lite? He voted for the PA.

[Eloriel]

62. Yes. No one in either house should vote for something unread

And I know they don't always get to personally read all legislation, and have staffers for that. But for anyone, any time, EVER to vote for something that hasn't been fully vetted is an unacceptable abrogation of responsibility no matter what the circumstances are.

Period.

Including St. Wellstone, whom I otherwise adored also.

Eloriel

[slaveplanet]

87. any democrat or republican

that either supported or contributed to the legislation contained within the Patriot act, it's unsigned additions waiting to be passed,in it's present form. Read or unread. Is an enemy of the individual citizen of the United States. That includes Wellstone. As evidenced by the recent use of the patriot act in it's present form for charging Meth producing scum for WMD(chemicals that are on the shelf of every Home Depot), and it's recent use against the criminal activity in Nevada Strip club monkey business.These crimes were criminal but not terroristic. Section 802 and it's broad definitions let them abuse it, and abuse it they will. we have seen nothing yet.
It is a wish list for a police state, and they are simply gleeful.
the money laundering provisions seem good in theory, but in practice(Green Quest Raids) people in high places always have the final word, and it will only be used to final purpose against the little guy without wherewithall. It is a greenlight for Soviet style domestic spying, and they have every intention of making it stronger, not weaker, when it sunsets in 2005. Anyone who thinks different is simply not paying attention.

[JNelson6563]

3. The thing I found most disappointing

about Edwards in the last interview I saw him in was that he would basically say nothing more about Iraq than "Saddam is gone and that's a good thing."

Wow John, really going out on a limb there! I wonder, is there anyone in America who would disagree with that?

Julie

[1songbird]

6. Exactly

I just wished he would admit that the war authorization was a mistake.

[DemDogs]

34. Think about the soldiers' and families

That's what he said. Something like "I will not say to the mothers and fathers of the men and women who died that what they did was not important." If you think the Democratic nominee will win with ANY other message, you are wrong.

[JNelson6563]

50. Yes, just think happy thoughts

that's the ticket! Not.

Julie

[DemDogs]

133. We always elect the optimist

and we never elect an angry man. Heed the words or face the image of Bush's next five State of the Union addresses.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

112. So what are the soldiers, their mothers and fathers saying lately? n/t

[topdog08]

79. And your point is....

Just because everyone agrees with Edwards, doesn't make him wrong....

I still say the war was justified to free, not control, Iraq. That is basically Edwards' position. Why is this so hard to understand? Getting rid of Saddam was right. Not internationalizing the postwar is wrong. Is it so hard to understand these two sentences?

[Rose Siding]

91. Because that's not what the Am People tacitly

allowed to happen. That was not the case presented to the people or to Congress. That would be a totally different war.

In that case the questions would be diffent, like "Is the US the best choice to occupy a ME nation?" "Do we all think it's OK to invade a sovereign nation because we want to?" "Do we all love Iraqis enough to die on their behalf?" "What evidence do we have that they will Welcome Us With Open Arms?"

[topdog08]

94. Invading and occupying are not synonymous

Removing the Bath regime, versus being perceived as occupiers, are two different things. If we had internationalized the postwar effort to provide some legitimacy to the new government as we did in Afghanistan, the Balkans, and elsewhere, we would not be perceived as occupiers. Those nations are not protesting demanding we leave.

[Rose Siding]

102. They are not asking NATO to leave

in the Balkins or the UN in Afghanistan. I don't believe we aren't even in charge in the small secured area of Kabal. Isn't it Spain's turn?

The US face is not the right one to invade Iraq, even if we had been given a more realistic picture of the motives of invasion. We are less safe because that was not considered. Why wasn't it? Because of the lie that saddam was a threat to us.

[treepig]

92. it is so hard to understand "these two sentences"

because they're lies!

[topdog08]

95. Sentence one: Getting rid of Saddam was right.

this is a lie?

[treepig]

101. yes it is a lie

it was not right (morally or legally) for us to start the war to get rid of saddam.

if the iraqi people disposed of him, great! i'd be all for that. but meddling by the usa kept him in power (which was wrong), and then the atrocious war to get rid of him equally wrong.

therefore, it's a complete lie to say that "getting rid of saddam was right"

[Scott Lee]

180. BS. Saddam was never a direct or indirect threat to the USA.

.

[topdog08]

97. Sentence two: Not internationalizing the postwar is wrong.

this is a lie?

[treepig]

104. perhaps this one's a bit murkier

but option number 1 is not to international iraq, but to get the hell out of there and let the iraqi's take care of themselves

or

option number 2 is (if foreigners are to remain) to clean up the mess we made ourselves

[DemDogs]

158. Two correct statements

1. Getting rid of Saddam is good. Everyone agrees with this one, even Dean although he said he "guessed" it was a good thing. (Geez, have some strength.)

2. Not internationalizing postwar Iraq is bad. Everyone, every single one agrees with this.

The can't be lies because they are opinions. And they are opinions that all the Democratic candidates agree with.

[treepig]

167. just because all the democratic candidates say something

doesn't make it magically become true. and the point is not simply that "getting rid of saddam is good" - evaluation of the "getting rid of saddam" strategy is intricately linked to how it was done. and how it was done makes it much worse than leaving him in power.

the war to get rid of saddam was WRONG for very many reasons, here's a couple of obvious ones:

a) it was being planned for over a decade by the pnac crowd

b) bush II decided it was war at all costs at least a year in advance, even though saddam was offering overatures to leave the country and allow democratic elections, thousands of us inspectors (etc. etc.)

[CWebster]

93. Disappointing?

I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but what I thought was HORRIFYING was when Edwards claimed that the 400 kids who died in Iraq, died for a good cause. I could spit in his eye.

[topdog08]

106. So you'd tell the families their children died in vain?

If you ask any of those families they will tell you their sons and daughters were proud to serve their country and felt they were doing the right thing getting rid of Saddam. Edwards' point was that if we simply withdraw and leave Iraq to the anarchists and Bathists, THEN their deaths will have been for nothing. As it is now (you may disagree) but those families feel their sons and daughters died so that the Iraqi people can have a better life, and in the long run we can be safer here at home, as well. This is why it is important to internationalize the postwar now and provide legitimacy for the process. There is still a risk that we could fail. An unstable, chaotic Iraq could leave us even worse of than when we started. I hope no one is rooting for that outcome, no matter their politics.

[treepig]

111. once you start telling lies

you gotta keep them coming (i.e., your children died for a worthwhile cause vs. they were murdered by the bfee).

at some point, the whole web of lies WILL collapse (hopefully sooner than later, but it's inevitable).

and talking about "an unstable, chaotic Iraq" - somehow with us running the show over there, we're kicking saddam's ass in that category!

[topdog08]

121. It's not a lie! The ends - if not means - were just.

The ONLY way to ever have a stable Iraq is to have a legitimate government that rules by the consent of the governed. If we leave today, there is no chance for a legitimate government. Similarly, if we refuse to give up control to the international community, there is little chance for a legitimate government. We could still give up control to win broader support. It is not "inevitable" that Iraq will collapse into civil unrest or civil war no matter what.

We could still leave Iraq better than we left it, and then those words to the families of the soldiers will ring true. Which is why the postwar period is the most important of all, and why we need to internationalize the effort and give up control to foster legitimacy.

To take another example, let's say we had an international force that took out Saddam. Then would the deaths have been in vain? If not, why is it any different just because the soldier was American?

[treepig]

127. why are you so obsessed with taking out saddam?

he was a two-bit dictator who actually, on balance, did quite a bit of good for his country.

a couple of days ago (and i can't find it now) somebody posted a bunch of new articles, all quoting prominent government/media sources who claimed "if we leave now, the country will descend into chaos . . . " (i.e., essentially what you're saying). however, the ironic denoument was that all the articles were from 1968 and referred to vietnam. somehow, once we got the hell out of vietnam they seem to have rather nicely rebuilt the country. similarly, i submit the very best thing to happen to the iraqi's would be for all foreigner's to get the hell out pronto, and let them rebuild their country as they see fit. why are you so condescending to assume they are not up to the task. god knows our involvement has not been kind to the iraqi people!!

[SahaleArm]

144. Care to explain this position?

> he was a two-bit dictator who actually, on balance,
> did quite a bit of good for his country.

Iraq was not an imminent threat and that is why we should not have gone to war; instead we should have worked with the the UN to disarm him under the threat of force. That said, Saddam was a morally reprehensible person, a brutal dictator who we helped prop up prior to Gulf War I. I can't think of any redeeming values.

[treepig]

154. sure,

Not copyrotten (or, apparently, spell-checked). Reproduction and redistribution encouraged. Know
someone who would enjoy receiving Peace Porridge? Send email address to
[e-mail]

But What About Saddam?
======================
FAV Note:
The following text comes from Peace Porridge #30.
For more information about Peace Porridge, look at the end of the page.

**********************

I've been to Iraq three times in the past four years. Each time I go
someone asks me whether I met Saddam. The first question the editor of
my local newspaper asked me was, "Did you ever meet a dictator you
didn't like?" That was the high point. The interview went downhill from
there.

I can't figure it out. I go to Nicaragua every year; but no one has
ever asked me if I met Enrique Bolanos; or if I met Jean Chritien when
I went to Canada, or Vicente Fox when I visited Mexico. Perhaps, when
the US government and its propaganda machine demonize a head of state,
people confuse the head of state with the country and its population.

I try to avoid talking about Saddam. My work in Iraq with Veterans for
Peace is rebuilding water treatment plants which were deliberately
destroyed through war and sanctions.

Saddam is irrelevant. He isn't drinking polluted water because of
sanctions, but millions of Iraqis are. Saddam's children aren't dying
from water-borne diseases, but hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children
have died of water-borne diseases because of sanctions. Iraqi children
will continue to die needlessly until the sanctions are lifted and the
12 year old state of war is ended. Saddam is the excuse for continuing
the slaughter.

I've been told that if I don't talk about Saddam, no one will listen to
me. I've also been told that if I don't repeat the litany, "Saddam is a
brutal dictator who gassed his own people," I will have no credibility.

Whether I'm talking to a pro-war hawk, or an anti-sanctions activist,
it's the same litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who gassed his own
people." Something is wrong. If everybody agrees, why repeat it?
Strange. This litany would seem to obscure some important truth.

Below, I will debunk some common myths relating to Saddam Hussein; and
then suggest an hypothesis concerning the hidden truth behind the
demonization of Saddam.

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

MYTH: By gassing civilians at Halabja, Saddam placed himself on the
level of Hitler and a few other genocidal maniacs.

FACT: It's almost never stated that this happened during the war with
Iran, and that both sides used poison gas (although Iraq did so first).
It's also rarely stated that much of the raw materials and technical
knowledge to produce these weapons came from the US, which at the time,
raised no protest to the gassing of civilians at Halabja.

Most major participants in World War I used poison gas. After WWI,
Britain gassed the Afghans, France the Moroccans, Italy the Ethiopians,
and so it went among the "civilized" Western powers. During WWII Japan
attempted to spread anthrax and plague among the Chinese, a feat the US
also attempted in North Korea some years later.

The US has a long history of using biochemical weapons. As early as the
18th century, European immigrants deliberately spread smallpox among
the indigenous peoples of North America. The US sprayed Vietnam
copiously with dioxin containing agent orange, poisoning the land, the
people, the food and water supply, and its own soldiers. The US is now
using a toxic fumigant in its war against Columbia, again poisoning the
land, the people, and the food and water supply. In each case, the
victims are mostly civilians.


MYTH: No other country would use biochemical weapons on its own people,
like Saddam did.

FACT: The US has also used biochemical agents against its own people.
During the early decades of the cold war, the US Army routinely used
unsuspecting US citizens as human guinea pigs to test nuclear and
biochemical weapons. On many occasions, the US Army released the toxic
heavy metal compound, zinc cadmium sulfate, which causes birth defects
and developmental retardation, in US and Canadian cities, sometimes in
close proximity to schools. This heinous and unpunished crime took
place at a time of (relative) peace.


MYTH: If Saddam stopped building palaces, he could provide for his
people. Sanctions have nothing to do with the excessive childhood
mortality in Iraq.

FACT: During the 1980's Saddam built an educational and health care
system in Iraq that was the envy of the Arab world. Childhood mortality
in Iraq fell by an astounding 38% in a decade. By 1990, Iraq was well
on its way to achieving a level of education and health care comparable
to the industrialized world.

This changed dramatically with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the
ensuing sanctions. UNICEF has blamed sanctions for an excess of 500,000
child deaths over an 8 year period.

Iraq gets no cash through the oil for foods program, so virtually all
cash, including the palace-building fund, comes through the black
market trade, which is estimated at less than $1 billion per year. Even
if the black market trade is as much as $8 billion, it would provide
each Iraqi with only $1 per day. Try providing for your child on $1 a
day.


MYTH: Saddam is a threat to global peace.

FACT: What global peace? The world has been at war for most, if not
all, of my 60 years.

Interestingly, in a recent UK Mirror poll, 75% identified Saddam
Hussein as a threat to world peace, second only to the ubiquitous Osama
bin Laden, whereas George W. Bush finished third at 51%. After Israel,
Britain is the staunchest ally of the US, yet over half of the British
people think that Bush is a threat to world peace, and 22% identify him
as the greatest threat to world peace. What would the results be in a
worldwide poll?


MYTH: We must invade Iraq now. If Saddam gets weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs), he'll use them or give them to terrorists.

FACT: There is only one nation that has irrevocably demonstrated to the
world its willingness to use nuclear weapons, and it's not Iraq.
Further, the US routinely threatens to use nuclear weapons, even
against non-nuclear states. Saddam's use of biochemical weapons pales
in comparison.

The US demonstrated in the 1980's its desire to not only arm terrorist
groups, but to create them, specifically the Afghan Mujaheddin and the
Nicaraguan Contras. The US continues to train Latin American terrorists
at the School of the Americas and continues to arm terrorist death
squads in Columbia and Guatemala. No connection between Saddam and
Al-Qaeda or any other armed group has ever been substantiated.

Israel is a thermo-nuclear power and one of the world's most
aggressive, expansionist countries. Few in the US propose disarming
Israel or even cutting off the over $3 billion of aid the US has given
Israel every year since 1967. India and Pakistan were within a hair's
breadth of nuking each other. Few propose disarming India and Pakistan.
With the breakdown to Russian society, Russia is by far the world's
most likely source of nuclear proliferation. Few propose taking
measures to secure Russia's nuclear arsenal.

With all these aggressive irresponsible nuclear powers about, why
invade Iraq because it might have stashed away a few biochemical
weapons or might acquire some nuclear weapons in the future?


MYTH: Iraq must be invaded because Saddam is in violation of UN
resolution 687, calling on him to destroy all WMDs and submit to UN
inspections.

FACT: UN inspections have in the pass been used for espionage. Iraq
would probably allow UN inspectors to return, if given assurances that
they would not be used again for espionage.

Other countries flout the UN with impunity. Israel is in violation of
dozens of UN resolutions. Israel, India and Pakistan are in violation
of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The US doesn't even pay its
dues to the UN.


MYTH: Saddam has twice attacked his neighbors. Unless disarmed now, he
will do so again.

FACT: Both attacks were with the apparent blessings of the US. The
Iran-Iraq war was a proxy war which Saddam fought with material and
intelligence from the US. With Iraqi troops amassed on the border of
Kuwait, US ambassador April Glaspie virtually invited invasion by
saying to Saddam, "But, we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts,
like your border disagreement with Kuwait." If the US had unequivocally
opposed these acts of aggression, it is unlikely that either of them
would have occurred.

Meanwhile, it is conveniently ignored that Israel has attacked all its
neighbors: Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. It is
unlikely that these acts of aggression could continue if the US cut off
the over $3 billion it gives to Israel every year.


MYTH: Saddam must be taken out because he is a brutal dictator who
oppresses his own people.

FACT: The world is full of brutal dictators. The world is full of
oppressors and abusers of human rights. Many dictators such as
Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf are good friends of the US. Many of the
world's most heinous human rights abusers like Ariel Sharon are good
friends of the US.

The US could oppose dictators by supporting democracy. Yet the US
opposes Iran's Mohammad Khatami and Palestine's Yassir Arafat, both
democratically elected heads of state in a region with very little
democracy. The US could strike a fierce blow against human rights
abusers by supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US
opposed the ICC.

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

So, instead of repeating the litany, "Saddam is a brutal dictator who
gassed his own people," perhaps, we should ask why the United States is
so bent upon destroying Iraq? Clearly it has nothing to do with weapons
of mass destruction, threats to neighbors, dictatorships, human rights
violations, or any other reason put forward by the US.

Some answers I have heard are oil, revenge, and stupidity. All three
make some sense, but don't fit the facts completely.

Here is an hypothesis which does fits the facts. The US is bent on
destroying Iraq for the same reason it destroyed Nicaragua and has been
trying to destroy Cuba for 43 years. It cannot tolerate that a third
world country should follow an independent course and place the health
and education of its citizens before the profits of US based
multi-national corporations.

No other explanation I've heard fits the facts so well. Every third
world country that has placed the health and education of its citizens
before the profits of the multi-nationals has earned the enmity of the
US. It doesn't matter whether the country has oil. It doesn't matter
whether they have done anything aggressive toward the US. It doesn't
matter whether the US president is a clever Clinton or a bungling Bush.

Whenever possible the US has crushed these upstarts and dismantled
their health and education infrastructures. The Mossadegh government in
Iran, Sukarno in Indonesia, Allende in Chili, and the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua are some of the better known examples.

While Iraq was fighting a proxy war against Iran for the US, it was far
too valuable an ally to crush. But, that changed in 1990. Iraq was
enticed into Kuwait, and then crushed in the Persian Gulf War. Iraq's
health and education infrastructure were destroyed, but Saddam remained
in power. And this has continued through 12 years of murderous
sanctions.

Now sanctions are unraveling. Little by little the world is calling for
their end or quietly ignoring them. So the US now contemplates open war
and invasion.

But, again, Saddam is just an excuse. The real war is, and always has
been, against education and health care. The goal is to keep the
children poor, sick, and illiterate, the resources in the hands of the
multi-nationals, and to let Iraq serve as an example to any other
country that might contemplate pulling itself up from third world
status.

This, indeed, is the important truth hidden by the demonization of
Saddam Hussein.

-Tom Sager

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Porridge is published occasionally and sent out as blind copies.
To subscribe, email [e-mail] with subject, INCLUDE ME.

I welcome comments on these mailings. Where appropriate, I respond as
time permits. I hope you find Peace Porridge a nourishing alternative
to the glut of junk news which we are constantly fed by government and
corporate controlled media.

Not copyrotten. Reproduction and redistribution encouraged. Know
someone who would enjoy receiving Peace Porridge? Send email address to
[e-mail]

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:TGuaMai_D_YJ:www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/whatAboutSaddam.htm+demonization+of+saddam&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[SahaleArm]

168. New world order?

> Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire
> have turned Justice Mute

Nice title and a neatly packaged argument that justifies Saddam by citing bad US policy. There are no arguments for/or against Saddam on his merits, just an indictment of US foreign policy. I do see a few platitudes about Saddam's healthcare system. Has Saddam been demonized to justify the war? Yes, but discounting his unwillingness to relinquish power and disregard for Iraqis is absurd.

[treepig]

177. if you're so concerned about saddam's human rights violations

wouldn't it be imperative that that the worst human rights be identified and then eliminated based on a ranked prioritized list of badness?

peruse the "human rights watch" website for a while

http://www.hrw.org/

- and then come back with a straight face and tell me that saddam was even among the top 10?

if actually takes the bullshit that the war was about saving the iraqi people from saddam's human rights atrocities, then why haven't launched pre-emptive strikes against

north korea http://www.hrw.org/asia/dprkorea.php

cuba http://www.hrw.org/americas/cuba.php

russia http://www.hrw.org/europe/russia.php

egypt http://www.hrw.org/europe/russia.php

china http://www.hrw.org/asia/china.php

zimbabwe http://www.hrw.org/africa/zimbabwe.php



etc etc


in fact, all the "isn't it great how saddam is gone" smokescreen obscures the fact that right now the US is creating a bunch of saddam jr's that will be around to haunt us for the next two or three decades:

On January 9, for example, the United States rewarded Tajikistan for its support of the war on terrorism by lifting an eight-year-old ban on arms sales to that Central Asian state. Tajikistan has a history of torture, suppression of political opposition and the media, and arrests based on religion.

Uzbekistan will receive $43 million in security aid, including $25 million in military assistance and training and $18 million for border security, as a result of its cooperation in the war on terrorism. Uzbekistan has a dismal human rights record, which includes torture and extensive religious persecution.

"These transfers won't make the United States more secure in the long run," said Joost R. Hiltermann, Executive Director of the Arms Division of Human Rights Watch. "And they make the United States complicit in the abuse of civilians in other countries.


http://hrw.org/press/2002/02/usmil0215.htm

[SahaleArm]

179. I'm not the one defending Saddam

There are plenty of vile autocracies around the world, Saddam ran one of them. Did I say it justified war or that it was used by * to justify the war? More importantly does it justify praising Saddam?

[treepig]

181. there are posts in this thread that say

everybody agrees that it's a good thing that saddam's gone.

my point is that any rational analysis would suggest otherwise.

instead of scores of people being murdered each year by saddam (in years when there weren't armed rebellions) there were anywhere from 7 to 30,000 innocent iraqi's killed this year by the american forces. are they better off?

is that fact that iraq has become a magnet for terrorists making the people any better off?

are the one million christians, who used to be able to worship as they saw fit but are not being persecuted better off?

is every woman, who is now afraid to leave her home for fear of being raped better off?

etc

etc

geez, some people sure have a warped sense of what being "better off" means!!

and as far as me praising saddam, how about what i said above, quote "if the iraqi people disposed of him, great! i'd be all for that (hello reading comprehension)

[CWebster]

119. There was NO CASE to go to war,

REMEMBER?

God, how I hate having to state the obvious starting with square one.

[topdog08]

123. How about 300,000 obvious reasons

The Iraqi people tried to rise up against Saddam themselves in 1991. Remember? They wanted to get rid of him. We let them down. Saddam has killed 300,000 of his own. Isn't that a valid reason?

If you say "NO!" then what is your answer if we had a true coalition?

Does Bush's failure to get a coalition make the justification false?

[treepig]

124. looks like you have the gop talking points memorized very well

according to amnesty international (their website is available on-line) saddam killed "scores" of political opponents annually. efforts to portray saddam as some type of super evil, hitler-like monster are given at this "demonization of saddam" site: http://www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/whatAboutSaddam.htm

any mass killings he committed were against iran (and kurds who got caught in the crossfire/crossgassings -see http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Middle_East/gassings.htm ) or against the shi-ites after george I urged them to uprise and then abandoned them.



in any event, let's say that saddam did kill 300,000 of his people. well, the usa killed 500,000 of his people (via sanctions and bombings throughout the 90's - see http://www.harpers.org/online/cool_war/cool_war.php3?pg=1 and subsequent pages lnked therein), so using your logic, if it's good that saddam's gone, it would be 66% better still (i.e., 500,000/300,000) if the usa was out of there.

[Scott Lee]

182. Clearly.

And on top of that, I find it aamazing that you presume to know exactly why some of these soldiers enlisted in the military to begin with.

Is it not possible that they saw a great way to make some extra money, or go to school? Is it not possible that many of them found themselves in Iraq and didn't much agree with why they were there - but stuck there anyway?

Is it not possible that these unlucky folks later died there - amidst the murkiness of their mission and/or reservations about it?

[ima_sinnic]

4. He insists on being very very mild on the Patriot Act

--sorry I missed MTP this morning, but I did hear Edwards in an interview recently where he repeatedly prefaced all remarks about the Patriot Act with "well, there ARE some good sections of the Patriot Act that need to be kept in place" (paraphrase). This leads the casual listener to believe that, well, it's not all THAT bad. I wondered why he felt the need to keep being so nice about the PA. If it has any redeeming qualities at all they are greatly overshadowed by its unprecedented and abusive restrictions on certain Constitutional amendments (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the specifics right now, but I do have a page devoted to "assaults on civil liberties," with a lot of info on both PAs, on my web site, in my sig line). After I heard those remarks I completely lost any interest I might have had in John Edwards. He is wishy-washy and actually quite ordinary. I will continue to support Dean, who minces no words in saying it like it is.

[1songbird]

9. I've also heard it

mentioned at one of the debates that Edwards authored some of the language of the Patriot Act. Your comments are right on point.

[AP]

20. The part Edwards "authored" was a requirement for hospitals to stock

some antidote to a biological agent which terorists are likely to use.

Is that provision bad?

(By the way, that's information from DU. If anyone has a citation for this, I'd love to see it.)

[DemDogs]

137. Edwards did NOT author any part of the Patriot Act

He did have some bio-terrorism provisions and protection of food supply amendments in other bills after 9-11.
He answered a question that had a wrong statement in it. That doesn't make the wrong statement right. You ought to be ashamed for falling for the oldest trick in the right-wing media's book.

[DemDogs]

35. Actually Edwards did not ANY of the Patriot Act

That was in a question by Carl Cameron, but I asked the campaign what parts and they looked and said "None. Cameron's question was erroneous."

[1songbird]

39. He was asked that direct question and he did not deny it

[AP]

45. I don't think he was. At least not in the first part.

But I'll check my amateur's transcript below.

[1songbird]

51. The moderator said

and I'm paraphrasing severely
Moderator: "but Sen. Edwards you authored parts of the Patriot Act yourself"
Edwards: "yes, but I did not .....something"

[AP]

55. From my summary below:

R: Patriot Act. CBC debate quote: advocate revision of patriot act. Wash Post wrote editorial criticized your vote on the act. called it a good bill. voted against all four Fiengold amendments. You're ignoring your record. Do you regret your vote.
E: There are provisions (information sharing, techology updating, money laundering) that NEVER get talked about which are good. These are teh ones that are bad: sneak and peeks without DP protection, ability to go into libraries and book stores without DP protections. Step back. This is abigger issue. Arresting Americans on American soil without any DP, which contradicts foundations of American civi liberties. Change these


Obviously, this is shorthand. But I don't think there was enough in there to conclude Edwards authored anything in the Patriot Act. And, like I said, I think he contributed only to a portion which required stokcing of certain medication in hospitals.

[1songbird]

61. Bottom line, he authored a portion of this bill.

I watched the actual debate not just what Russert is quoting that's why I remember him affirming his participation in crafting the bill.

[AP]

64. Thank god! Provision was re stocking medication in hospitals.

How is this bad. Clark probably would have supported it.

[1songbird]

73. Sure this is a good thing, but did he not

read the rest of the bill? Surely when one is writing a bill he takes the time to read the bill in its entirety. No concerns were raised until lawyers outside of Congress actually read the bill. This is the pertinent issue.

[AP]

75. 98-1 vote on that bill. You think Clark would have voted no?

And Clark and he have same perspective today: keep the good stuff, get rid of the bad stuff.

[1songbird]

78. That's a fair question so let's look at Clark

he marches to the beat of his own drum. He stood up against the majority in the military over plans for fighting the war in Kosovo. Yes the vote was 98-1 because we don't have many Senators that are willing to march to beat of their own drum.

[AP]

81. Clark said that he supported many things in the bill. You think he

would have voted more like Fiengold, and less like Edwards, Wellstone, and every othr Democratic senator?

Right.

[1songbird]

96. Clark is not and was not in the Senate

I don't have a crystal ball sitting in front of me full of handy hypotheticals. Honestly I think he would have voted for an amended Patriot Act. I don't think he would have let a final version pass without his reading and approving it.

[AP]

98. Exactly my point.

But it's not stretch to assume he'd have voted yes on the same day everyone else voted yes.

[DemDogs]

139. You remember wrong

AP has laid it out for you. He did not affirm any such thing, and it's about time for you to admit that instead of carrying water for Carl Cameron.

[DemDogs]

138. Edwards did not say "yes"

And you ought to be ashamed again. If you have something that suggests otherwise, say it. If not, quit making up lies to support your position.
(I can say this with great confidence since I know he did not author the Patriot Act.)

[1songbird]

160. Go back and look at AP's earlier

comments and compare them with mine. We know Edwards did not write the Patriot Act, that's not what I said. But it was implied during a debate that I watched that he wrote some portions of it. It struck me as unbelievable when the moderator asked the question and he did not say no. He should have cleared this up because I have been left with the impression by his words that he was involved. Even AP said earlier medical provisions were added by Edwards. That's great but you are missing the whole point. The point is that you should know an entire bill if you are making additions of any sort. This says to me that he must have read the bill and decided that everything was gravy, cool. Now if he was worried why didn't he make his worries known at the time the Patriot Act was passed. This is the question that matters and the question that has to be asked.

[AP]

173. The acutal transcript is available. Maybe you should do a cut and paste...

...so that we can see if you drew a logical conclusion.

[1songbird]

188. For clarification and debate

Here's the link you judge for yourself. Shame on me? shame on Edwards, who is a trial lawyer for goodness sake for not putting Carl whoever in his place when being accused of AUTHORING any part of the Patriot Act! You don't let that just go unchecked. Don't tell me that I didn't have the right to make this conclusion.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21551-2003Oct26?language=printer

This is a transcript from the Washington Post of the CBC Fox debate.
<SNIP>
"CAMERON: Senator Edwards, the PATRIOT Act, a piece of legislation that you voted for, a piece of legislation that has been much criticized by virtually everybody on this stage, falls two years old today. There has been a tremendous amount of criticism of John Ashcroft and the Justice Department for its enforcement of that legislation, legislation that you authored.

Shouldn't it, in fact, be incumbent on those of you who wrote the legislation to take responsibility for it, other than those who are legally responsible for enforcing it?

EDWARDS: Well, I did. "

[jbfam4]

41. Thanks for posting your site

I love it and have sent it on to others.......good job.

[slaveplanet]

100. he was disgusting

this morning ...and I didn't here him point out which sections he thought were good...has he even read it yet?.. I have...I've also read Victory act 1 & 2.

[AP]

107. I have two posts belo summarizing the Qs and As.

If you missed the things he said he thought were good, I think I've got them in those two posts.

You can read them, and you can have at least a partially-informed opinion.

Myabe you won't think it was so disgusting then.

[slaveplanet]

122. Is this what you're referring too

//E: There are provisions (information sharing, techology updating, money laundering) that NEVER get talked about which are good. These are teh ones that are bad: sneak and peeks without DP protection, ability to go into libraries and book stores without DP protections. Step back. This is abigger issue. Arresting Americans on American soil without any DP, which contradicts foundations of American civi liberties. Change these//

what are the parenthesis for....I'm going off memory so i don't know if you inserted these, or whether edwards mentioned them...if he did say this it went by quick.

about the Money laundering....would have been a great opportunity to bring up the stifling of Loftus's investigations....wonder why he bit his tongue.

as I said in post #87-great in theory not in practice.

[AP]

141. Those were the examples Edwards gave

elsewhere in my summary, my opinion was in parantheticals, which I wouldn't have done if I could type brackets in html -- I'll try to start using {} when I want to use bracktes.

So, let's say you were listening closely...then you would have agreed with Edwards, right?

[slaveplanet]

155. Let just say

some provisions are very useful when going after terrorists. and let me say I like when he brought up the 34 cases of abuse he knows about, I believe these abuses to be much higher than what we hear. If you are trying to make me agree with him on the grounds that the road to hell is paved with good intentions....well then sorry, but I see evil for what it is...I'm sorry he didn't at the time he voted for it.He should be sorry for that too...That taint what I saw today

[AP]

159. I don't know where you got that second part...

But the first part, that the examples he gave ARE useful, then we're cool. He's complaining about the bad shit, and saying the truth about the other stuff.

I thought he did a great job of rebutting Russert's implied criticism that there was nothing to complain about. That was very powerful when he referred to the inspector general report. He's right about the "chilling" accusation. However, I don't think Americans really get excited about hypothetical legal cause and effect. What they get hyped up about is stuff like concrete numbers and complaints to people with the word "general" in their titles.

Notice how Russert wanted to stop talking about it after Edwards made that comment.

[DemDogs]

140. Disgusting? From what planet did you watch?

Edwards was really firm in why he voted for the PA. It made improvements to information sharing (remember that Al Qaeda came straight to CA from the Manila meeting, but the CIA and FBI didn't communicate well about that, so no one tracked him once he got into US), to outdated provisions dealing with technology (they could use a search warrant to get to an answering machine but not to voice mail), and to money laundering provisions, so terrorist money could be tracked and seized. Got any problem with those? 98 other members of the Senate didn't. The parts he didn't like then he doesn't like now and he has been fighting to get the off the books and he has been hounding Ashcroft about their enforcement. He has done more than almost anyone else. Look at Biden and Feinstein who said everything was fine under the PA. Not Edwards. And it hasn't been just word. He was not only not disgusting, he has been amazing, and we ought to all be cheering for him.

[slaveplanet]

163. yes

//and to money laundering provisions, so terrorist money could be tracked and seized. Got any problem with those?//

If you research at all ,about the Green Quest raids, spurred by John Loftus(His research is also being used to sue the Saudi's on befalf of the 9/11 victims families). You'll see that the leads were thwarted at the highest levels, this has many an FBI agent really PO'ed. So they do not intend on using this in the way it is portrayed to the public. And therefore I deduce there are ulterior motives to use this domesticly. Time for you to check what Planet you're on.

[DemDogs]

135. You need to hear the whole thing

He said information sharing (which was one of the huge problems underlying our lack of response to the threat of 9-11) needed to be improved and it was. He said money laundering for terrorist activities needed to be addressed. And he said the law was behind the technology so that needed to be updated. THESE are the provisions that he supported. Those are sensible improvements.

Then there were the problematic provisions: sneak and peek, library surveillance, etc. And he went after them pretty strong. He did not leave any doubt that he did not support any of those provisions. But he and 98 other senators including Wellstone knew that some improvements were needed immediately, so the Act passed.

Additionally, there is a lot of confusion about the Patriot Act. See next post.

[DemDogs]

136. Enemy combatants is NOT part of Patriot Act

A lot of the provisions people think are bad (because they are) in the Patriot Act are not actually in the Patriot Act. They are administrative interpretations of pre-existing authority. Edwards has grilled Ashcroft on these on the Judiciary Committee. They had Edwards on C-Span once really putting the screws to Ashcroft on enemy combatants, for example, which is one of the things people widely think is part of the Patriot Act but is not.
If you had seen that grilling, you would have loved Edwards.

[slaveplanet]

145. EC designation is written into

Patriot act 2 or whatever name they wish to use(see below). In my best guess-waiting to be enacted without prejudice after a code red situation.

Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal
PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns
Use of statute in corruption case unprecedented, attorneys contend
By J.M. KALIL and
STEVE TETREAULT
REVIEW-JOURNAL

The investigation of strip club owner Michael Galardi and numerous politicians appears to be the first time federal authorities have used the Patriot Act in a public corruption probe.
Government officials said Tuesday they knew of no other instances in which federal agents investigating allegations such as racketeering and bribery of politicians have employed the act.
"I don't know that it's been used in a public corruption case before this," said Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department.
An attorney for one of the defendants in the Galardi case said he researched the matter for hours Tuesday and came to the same conclusion.
"I have discussed this with lawyers all over the country, and if the government has done this before, then this is definitely the first time it has come to light," said Las Vegas attorney Dominic Gentile, who represents former Clark County Commissioner Lance Malone, Galardi's lobbyist.
Two of Nevada's lawmakers blasted the FBI for employing the act in the Galardi probe, saying the agency overstepped its bounds.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Congress intended the Patriot Act to help federal authorities root out threats from terrorists and spies after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"The law was intended for activities related to terrorism and not to naked women," said Reid, who as minority whip is the second most powerful Democrat in the Senate.
"Let me say, with Galardi and his whole gang, I don't condone, appreciate or support all their nakedness. But having said that, I haven't heard anyone say at any time he was involved with terrorism."
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she was preparing an inquiry to the FBI about its guidelines for using the Patriot Act in cases that don't involve terrorism. The law makes it easy for citizens' rights to be abused, she said.
"It was never my intention that the Patriot Act be used for garden-variety crimes and investigations," Berkley said.
But Corallo insisted lawmakers were fully aware the Patriot Act had far-reaching implications beyond fighting terrorism when the legislation was adopted in October 2001.
"I think probably a lot of members (of Congress) were only interested in the anti-terrorism measures," Corallo said. "But when the Judiciary Committee sat down, both Republicans and Democrats, they obviously discussed the applications, that certain provisions could be used in regular criminal investigations."
Federal authorities confirmed Monday the FBI used the Patriot Act to get financial information in its probe of Galardi and his dealings with current and former politicians in Southern Nevada.
"It was used appropriately by the FBI and was clearly within the legal parameters of the statute," said Special Agent Jim Stern of the Las Vegas field office of the FBI.
One source said two Las Vegas stockbrokers were faxed subpoenas Oct. 28 asking for records for many of those identified as either a target or subject of the investigation.
That list includes Galardi, owner of Jaguars and Cheetah's topless clubs -snip-
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov-05-Wed-2003/news/22521283.html

PATRIOT ACT

Section 314 Cooperative Efforts to Deter Money Laundering

(1) REGULATIONS -- The Secretary shall, within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, adopt regulations to encourage further cooperation among financial institutions, their regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities, with the specific purpose of encouraging regulatory authorities and law enforcement authorities to share with financial institutions information regarding individuals, entities, and organizations engaged in or reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities.

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

SECTION 501 (Expatriation of Terrorists) expands the Bush administrations enemy combatant definition to all American citizens who may have violated any provision of Section 802 of the first Patriot Act. (Section 802 is the new definition of domestic terrorism, and the definition is any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law.) Section 501 of the second Patriot Act directly connects to Section 125 of the same act. The Justice Department boldly claims that the incredibly broad Section 802 of the First USA Patriot Act isn't broad enough and that a new, unlimited definition of terrorism is needed.

[DemDogs]

152. Patriot 2 -- not passed and Edwards is against

You mean THAT Patriot 2?

[slaveplanet]

166. Yes

I believe they call it the victory Act ...until they find another name

[RichM]

5. 'Scuse me about "not in step." To be Bush-Lite is PERFECTLY in step

with the majority of Democrats. 60% of Dem senators voted for the IWR; more than 75% voted for the recent $87 billion. The "opposition" of Democrats to Bush's policies is quite minor, limited to occasional symbolic efforts & tactical differences. Most of the time, Democrats are on TV "standing shoulder to shoulder with the President."

[1songbird]

7. Sadly that is true

but when an invidual runs for President then he needs to be in step with the majority of Democratic citizens. Over 80% of Democrats nationwide disapprove of this war and the rational.

[DemDogs]

37. Edwards never on TV with the President

He has fought his judicial nominees. He fought him on Patients' Bill of Rights. He fought him on Clean Air. He voted against the tax cuts both times. He voted against the $87 billion.
We should never forget that we are nominating a candidate from the Democratic Party. If you want to spit on every Democrat, you better be willing to lose the House, the filibuster-proof Senate, the White House for your lifetime.

[spooky3]

59. what DemDogs said!

[kanrok]

66. Yeah, what DemDog said.

[Pastiche423]

125. "He has fought his judicial nominees"

INCORRECT! Big time!

Judge D. Brooks Smith

[DemDogs]

156. He has fought his nominees

which is why you don't have Pickering, or Patricia Owen, or Miquel Estrada or whats his name Moore I think. It did not matter how he voted in Smith, you know, you have known it since your first post on this issue a year ago. Complain to Biden. His vote gave the Republicans enough votes to get him out.

[Pastiche423]

184. "It did not matter how he voted in Smith"

The hell it din't matter to me and over 50 million disabled U.S. citizens!

But I guess you don't think we count, huh?

His Karma is going to get him and soon. After January 2005, he's out of the Senate and he ain't gonna be pres.

[Flying_Pig]

8. Boy, do I agree with that! He's always struck me as nothing more

than an opportunist, who uses his "Southerness" as a key card. He's another, albeit prettier, Zell Miller. I have never understood why he thinks he's qualified to lead this nation. Where's his background, his stuffing? It's not there. Does being a big dollar trial lawyer give him the credentials to be a president? Perhaps so, in this vapid age of robber barons, but I think he's light in the ass, and about as trustworthy as any other snake-in-the-grass, ambulance chasing lawyer. No thanks.

[1songbird]

11. I couldn't have said it better if I had tried

[QC]

17. It's interesting to see a Democrat describe plaintiff's attorneys

as "ambluance" chasers. That's been one of the most popular GOP talking points for years. Oh the poor, defenseless corporations and how they suffer at the hands of those damn trial lawyers! It's enough to make one cry!

I don't like Patriot and the war resolution either, and I'm not voting for Edwards, but to compare him to Zell Miller is just a mindless smear. Edwards is the only one of the candidates to come right out and say that the Republican agenda is all about: exalting capital over labor, destroying upward mobility, and shifting the burden of funding government to the middle class.

Class warfare, in other words, by the plutocrats against everyone else, and no other candidate, not even the good doctor, has addressed it in such explicit terms.

[Flying_Pig]

19. There are some who "are", and some who "aren't". Edwards

strikes me as a "chaser", and it has nothing to do with my support of current tort laws (which I support). It's just my personal feeling about the man himself. I wouldn't buy a horse from him, any more than I'd buy one from W. We're all entitled to our opinions...

[QC]

23. Have you looked at cases he has taken?

Is your opinion based on something other than just some vague impression that you just don't like him?

We all do that sometimes. My grandfather despised Hubert Humphrey passionately, and we finally figured out it was because Humphrey looked just like a brother-in-law of his that he had never gotten along with.

As for me, I am glad that people like Edwards are willing to sue abusive corporations. Now that those corps own the regulatory agencies, the only protection we have against them is in the courts.

[DemDogs]

164. And what wing of the Republican party are you from?

"Snake-in-the-grass, ambulance chasing lawyer" sounds like it is straight from a right wing website. Edwards represented children and families, including a case where a little girl had her intestines sucked out because a drain company didn't put a two cent screw on their drain.
He has just the right combination of real life experience, being a warrior for his entire career, and some Washington savvy that we need. He has over 8 million constituents in NC, he has served on intelligence, judiciary, education, commerce, etc. Most important, he connects with the American voter, not just us who spend night and day thinking about this stuff but with real people with lives and fears and debts. He talks to them optimistically about what he believes in. If you haven't seen him talk to voters, drive to Iowa or New Hampshire or South Carolina and do yourself a big favor. You won't be talking that way anymore.

[UTUSN]

10. Aw, He Stood Up Great to that Booger G.E.RUSSERT

(I'm a KERRY supporter.)

[1songbird]

14. Russert tied him in so many knots with lots

of help from Edwards himself.

[AP]

76. Where? I listed every Q asked. Which one was the knot?

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

12. I was not impressed with his MTP showing today.

He contradicted himself constantly, and I'm just more than a little confused on where he REALLY stands.

[KoKo]

15. I am so angry over this! He gave Condi's speech with the same emphasis as

if he had been coached by her Speech advisor! It was awful. I was banging my kitchen counter and stomping my foot. We didn't need this! He used the EXACT words the Repugs use. I knew he totally supported Bush because he's my senator, but I never expected him to go on Russert and Parrot the Repugs. He hasn't yet said a word that isn't what a Repug would have said. And Russert is a trash bag, but Edwards gave him the answers that must have him laughing up his sleeve and the Repugs just hooting at how he's trashing those of us who were against the Invasion.

BTW: WORD FOR WORD, it was Condi's Speech, that we've heard so many times. Get a transcript if you don't believe me. I could repeat it by heart myself, but I'm still so worked up, I don't have the ability to think straight.

[1songbird]

16. Yes, exactly

My husband and I were both yelling at the television. He turned my stomach.

[BuckeFushe]

18. It was a hatchet job by Russert, plain and simple

With EVERYTHING going on this past week, he has Edwards on to skewer him on his voting record.

Pure BULLSHIT.

[1songbird]

22. Sure Russert is a jerk but,

the main problem is that Edwards put himself in this position with his waffling. I would much rather have seen Edwards use the opportunity to hammer the Senate Intelligence Committee over information stalling. Edwards instead repeated the Bush* mantra, "Saddam was a bad man, were glad he's gone regardless of how whether or not he had WMD".

[DemDogs]

40. Edwards - no waffling, completely straightforward

Edwards actually offered answers to questions that Russert did not ask. If Russert started talking about whether he could afford one program, Edwards said, you ought to know I have OTHER spending programs too, naming them, and then saying he could pay for them all with his tax and subsidy cuts. He was unbelievably great.
Go Edwards

[AP]

84. I listed every question asked...just tell me which ones had you screaming

at the TV with your husband.

Edwards hardly repeated the Republican mantra. The last 4 questions, or so, were about how he's perceived as not liking Bush personally (which he re-framed in a very intelligent way -- it's about policy and not personality, but the guy is definitely out of touch, look at his policy).

And saying no SH is good, but this execution is for the birds is just about the exact right way to go about this.

[spooky3]

117. AP, it appears to me that some folks here don't want to

deal with facts and specifics. You've made the point excellently.

[1songbird]

126. As you wish

E opens with a statement that SH was a threat. Support not having SH in power. Don't support the blank check.
--------------------------------

This is what sent me over the edge early
We have heard this over and over again from Bush*. The premise of the war was that Saddam was a direct threat to us the United States. We realize that Saddam was an evil man and an old school dictator. People in other parts of the world live under them every single day. We support many dictators today that we have not gone to war with.


R: Quotes statement about WMD. Why weren't you more demanding for evidence of nuclear threat.
E: You can't pick any one isolated piece of evidence. We had a decade worth of evidence nobody is talking about.
----------------------

Edwards talks about Nuclear weapons specifically even though reports showed that this was not credible. If he has information that nobody is talking about then he should have elaborated if it was declassified information. If there was information that the public should know about then just state that there is classified information that the public does not know and can not know. In number of statements would have cleared this up.

R: But without evidence, what was the threat?
E: We knew he was trying to acquire weapons. Unique threat, obvious and serious.

------------------------
Is he referring to the uranium from Niger? Which was a lie. The WMD specifically was chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This was the case made to the American public. None have been proven to be true so why spout this crap again?

[AP]

142. Greg Pallast says that SH had a nuclear weapons program.

It's in The Best Democracy Money can Buy. The Saudis gave him millions to start one.

There's a huge gap in this debate about SH, which isn't filled with logic.

[treepig]

143. ok, we're back to the "program"

or in other words, desperately grasping at straws!

of course saddam had a real-enough nuclear weapons program 20+ years ago (before the israeli's took it out).

after the israeli attack (possibly) or after the first gulf war (for sure!) saddam's nuclear weapons program was no more substantial than my own - with the reference here to when i was a teenager are heard about the borderline college student who designed his own atomic bomb for a physics course. at that point, i began designing one too - eventually the outcome was that essentially no substantial progress was made, so to save face i filled a balloon with hydrogen - and called it my H-bomb - a stuck a fuse in it and blew it up. really, saddam's nuclear program in march 2003 was probably not even that dangerous!

[AP]

146. No. Palast asks in TBDMCB, "where'd the 300 Mil SA gave SH go today?"

In The Clinton Wars, Blumenthal states a case which makes it sound like SH is dangerous for the future of liberalism TODAY.

Nobody is saying Bush's execution in Iraq was good.

however, what do you think would have happened if Dems voted against IWR. Do you think we'd be talking about the Niger uranium claim? Uh uh. We'd be talking about all the good evidence the Democrats ignored. The bad evidence is what the press uses to make Democrats turn their backs on candidates who can win in 2004 and embrace McGovern-type candidates. The bad evidence is what they use to try to get Tony Blair out and the Tories back in the UK.

I have no doubt that there was plenty of good info, and plenty of bad info, and that there was no real option but to vote for the IWR and then win the political battle if the execution of the invasion went to hell, which is exactly what the SMART candidates with a REAL CHANCE TO WIN (by not being McGoverned) are doing.

[1songbird]

169. Oh really!

I haven't read that book. I know that Iraq did in fact have facilities the Israeli destroyed prior to Gulf War I. Is this what you're talking about? If not then I will have to check this book out at library and read it. It would probably change my beliefs if this were substantiated. The problem is that there has been no proof of this program found. I'm open to more info.

[AP]

171. Go read the book.

I believe he said that the Suadis have given SH 300 mil since 1992 to build up a nuclear program, and nobody knows where that money went, but there's a good chance it went to building up a nuclear program (the parts of which might be back in SA, I'd guess, but I haven't heard anything about that...just that the US pulled out all their forces from SA, and it's usually trouble when the US turns its back, right?).

You should also read The Clinton Wars and The Age of Sacred Terror, which is cited in the Clinton Wars.

[1songbird]

178. I definitely will

because it looks like they're blowing smoke to me, but sometimes where there's smoke there's fire. You've got me wondering... After watching Sidney yesterday on C-SPAN, I had planned on reading his book. You know SH may have just pocketed the money. Never mind I'll check this out in the book. Thanks.

[treepig]

183. well, if the allegation is that saddam spent $300 million on a nuclear

program - right there there's evidence that he didn't have anything worth shit.

a nuclear power plant, just the first step needed for the basic set-up needed for fuel reprocessing & plutonium production, runs $2-6 billion a few years ago:

http://www.policyalmanac.org/environment/archive/nuclear_energy.shtml

does no one have any ability for critical thinking and risk evaluation so as to not take all this proganda seriously?

[AP]

185. Who said they gave him ALL the money he needed? He has some

of his own and there are hundreds of other countries in the world helping him, including the USofA under Reagan-Bush.

I'm also guessing on the number. It might have been more. Might have been less.

[treepig]

186. hmm, where have i seen this strategy of constantly

changing the playing field before and shifting justifications for the ludricrous allegations that saddam could unlease a mushroom cloud in 45 minutes?

$300 million not enough by a factor of at least 100 - no problem, there clearly must hav been more money from sources that we do not know about.

and hundreds of countries helping him? that means at least 200 countries were doing so, and since there are only somthing like 217 countries in the world, that means that ~92-93% of all countries were helping saddam? doubtful at best, another outright deception at best, designed to prey on the ignorance of the masses (because no one who's even slightly informed would believe this shit)

[treepig]

187. do you have any idea of the "footprint" of a nuclear weapons program?

a nuclear weapons program, contrary to what wmd apologists would have you believe, is not something to hide in the basement of a hospital. for example, here's a satellite photo of iran's natanz facility - it's huge!



a higher resolution picture is here:

http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/zoomviewer/index.php?display_img=natanz

there is no doubt that if there was any shred of truth to pre-war allegations (by cheney, clinton, or whoever)that iraq had a nuclear program of any consequence (compared to a cartoon bogeyman program), it would have been found long ago

[AP]

21. disclaimer: 1songbird is routing for Clark.

Right?

[1songbird]

24. Oh my goodness

Yes, I am voting for Clark.

[AP]

26. Has Clark said how he would have voted on the Patriot Act?

[1songbird]

28. Yes he has as a matter of fact

He said that the Patriot Act has some good provisions in helping with information sharing but he stringently objects to other portions that tread on liberties. Edwards actually co-authored some of the wording in the Patriot Act so he knew all of the provisions and still voted for it.

[AP]

30. So Clark and Edwards say exactly the same thing.

Edwards wrote a provision about stocking medication in hospitals. You think Clark would have objected to that one?

[1songbird]

33. There's a big difference in being directly

responsible for a vote and looking in from the outside. Edwards was the duly elected representative responsible for knowing exactly what was in the bill and what he voting on. Edwards went so far as to vote against others that tried to limit the power of the bill. Sorry big difference.

[AP]

47. Yeah the difference is that Clark says he would have done the same thing

now.

If he had been a Senator, he actually would have done the same thing.

[1songbird]

56. No, that's not what he said

he mentioned that he had read it many different times and it should have been more thoroughly reviewed by congress before it was passed, but I actually don't have him on record for supporting this. Can you provide the background for this? Which debate did he say this in?

[AP]

43. Edwards (my summary) Part 1

E opens with a statement that SH was a threat. Support not having SH in power. Don't support the blank check.

R: but that disarms troops. What next?
E: He'd have to come back with bill not loaded with pork, and he'd have to come up with a plan that worked.

R: Your hometown paper calls 87 bil vote as desperate blah blah blah
E: That isn't true. This message is consistent.

R: What would you do in Iraq?
E: Asking for ssistance without relinquishing control is what B is doing wrong. UN in. Use NATO force. Need to present Iraq as international effort moving toward Iraqi self rule.

R: French don't want to participate. What if NATO says no? Pull out?
E: France will want to participate. We won't have to pull out. The case for this action was not made to UN, Nato the way it should have been. This region of world is vital to Europe. Not going to let it go to seed.

R: More troops in Iraq?
E: McCain's perspective, I understand. I'd give deference to generals who say they don't need more troops. But for security, like to see more. Need to be international.

R: Where to find more troops?
E: Ok, here's the perfect example of what's gone wrong. The Turkish fuck up. If we had made the case right, and if we do, we will get the international face needed for success.

R: should B apologize to FR?
E: No. we need to go to ALL our friends and make the argument for Iraq being foothold of democracy in ME, etc.

R: If they say no, we're there alone?
E: They won't say no.

R: Lead up to war. IWR. Quotes E's statement. You believed nuclear threat. And you got booed in Cal.
E: A decade of efforts by SH, senate intelligence committee had a ton of info on this. About booing, I think it's enormously important for candidates to stand behind what they believe in, even if they know the audience will not be receptive.

R: Blank check?
E: no.

R: Where are WMD's
E: The intelligence we were given has been born out. Now we have an enormous responsibility to look into discrepency. Need to find out cause. Were we mislead. Incompetence. Misleaders will be held accountable. If our intelligence gathering is inadequate, we neee to fix that or we're really fucked.

R: Quotes statement about WMD. Why weren't you more demanding for evidence of nuclear threat.
E: You can't pick any one isolated piece of evidence. We had a decade worth of evidence nobody is talking about.

R: But without evidence, what was the threat?
E: We knew he was trying to acquire weapons. Unique threat, obvious and serious.

R: France wanted more inspecitons. Should inspections have gone on.
E: We don't have benefit of hindsight. I did what I thought was right at the time. We've lost lives in a cause which I thought was right. I will not say this isn't important ... so long as this ends up in Democracy.

R: Was march the right time to invade?
E: Timing was Bush's choice. I would not have done this the way Bush did. I would have built the coalition. But I still stand by what I did.

R: Patriot Act. CBC debate quote: advocate revision of patriot act. Wash Post wrote editorial criticized your vote on the act. called it a good bill. voted against all four Fiengold amendments. You're ignoring your record. Do you regret your vote.
E: There are provisions (information sharing, techology updating, money laundering) that NEVER get talked about which are good. These are teh ones that are bad: sneak and peeks without DP protection, ability to go into libraries and book stores without DP protections. Step back. This is abigger issue. Arresting Americans on American soil without any DP, which contradicts foundations of American civi liberties. Change these

Russ was imposing on national gov't that they meet state law requirements. We need national legislation. Response was not to have Feds have to meet 50 different procedural requirements.

R: JD has never actually sought records from libraries. It's wrong for you to say it has been done.
E: We don't know what the JD has done and the JD has admitted that they've been "in touch with libraries." They won't say what their authority was. It's a chilling effect. Needs to change.

R: Biden, Feinsteing say it's good. Has anyone complained to you about PA.
E: There are 34 reported abuses to Inspector General.

R: Is it wrong to vote 87 bil, to criticize PA to make yourself more palitable.
E: I've never wavered. I stand by what I've done, and I've been consistent.

[1songbird]

49. You did a great job.

He sounds just like many Bush* pundits. I would have had more respect for him if he had said, I regret voting for the war authorization but at the time it seemed to be the best thing to do with the information given. Instant respect.

[AP]

58. I think it makes sense

to phrase it the way he did.

No SH and democracy in the ME is a pretty smart thing to work towards.

The problem was in the execution, which is on Bush.

[1songbird]

63. The execution and the purpose is the problem.

Democracy in many other parts of the world would be nice also but the only country we just blew up was Iraq. Democracy is a warm fuzzy word that makes us all feel good, but you don't really believe the hype and neither do I.

[AP]

65. liberal internationalism is good. FDR and Clinton and Edwards all agree.

[1songbird]

77. FDR is in a league by himself on nation building

Let's be fair here and look at the nation building that Clinton did.
Haiti and Kosovo are not even close to being successess. I'm glad that Clinton sent our troops to stop the atrocities but they are going economic hell over there. Haiti has a long way to go. We are not very good at this anymore. Give me some examples that show otherwise and I'll concede the point.

[AP]

82. No he isn't. He's in league with Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, WJC, Edwards...

Economic hell isn't the litmus test for what's wrong and right. Fighting fascism. Making the world safer. Those are good critieria too.

[1songbird]

85. Economic hell makes us all unsafe

[AP]

90. Fascism makes us all unsafe. You think Kosovo was a mistake?

[AP]

99. Clark supported Kosovo, by the way.

You think Clark fucked up in Kosovo?

I don't.

[1songbird]

128. Poverty makes a climate

ripe for fascism. Economics is the breeding ground of fascism.
Kick out the scum, but if the conditions don't improve there's another one waiting to pick up the reigns.

[1songbird]

129. Gen Clark did a wonderful job

militarily in Kosovo, I do believe that he wanted more grounds troop to limit the destruction of the air campaign which he did not get. This was the hot bone of contention between Clinton and him. Clark has said recently that he does not intend to nation build so there's no debate here. If Edwards want to engage in further nation building then let the American people decide if he is their candidate. We sure don't need anymore claims of WMD

[AP]

151. Clark and Edwards aren't so far apart. (High chance of sharing ticket.)

Clarks problem with Kosovo was that Americans don't want to risk a single life to do good. Americans put protecting a singel American life ahead of engaging in a liberal internationalism to end tyranny, oppression, and the reign of fascists.

It would have saved many more lives if the US had committed ground troops, and Kosovo would be better off today. What's your measure? They'd be economically richer today.

[AP]

148. Is there fascism in Haiti in Kosovo today?

The problem in Iraq is we've just replaced on fascist tyrant for another.

[1songbird]

165. This is the cart before the horse argument.

[AP]

172. The problem with this debate is that it's not clear what you're criticizng

Tell me what you didn't like about Kosovo and Haiti? Is it just because those countries aren't rich today?

It just seems like such a narrow, useless point to make your litmus test for whether it's right or wrong to use power responsibly to reduce fascism and tyrany in the world.

[SahaleArm]

162. If that was the case then India and all of SE Asia...

would be in the hands of dictators. It's not poverty but negligence by the haves (western nations) which breeds facism. It's not just about toppling dicatators but helping foster an alternative and giving the populous a stake in it's success.

[1songbird]

170. SE Asia is now a breeding ground for terrorist

and this war has definitely made the ground even more fertile

[SahaleArm]

174. SE Asia is not just Indonesia or the Philippines.

Terrorists can grow with complicit governments, not just due to a popular uprising. If terrorists feel threatened they will keep moving from country to country; and it's not always about the money.

[AP]

175. Probably not. All the SE Asian terrorists are going to move to Iraq now.

It's not just poverty, but a thousand factors, political economic and cultural which results in the things you're describing as your litmust test.

[OKNancy]

103. I'm for Clark too

and I thought Edwards did just fine. There were a few awkward moments, but all-in-all it was a good showing.

[Jacobin]

25. Silly man. He needs to go back to being a young senator

and stay out of the race. It's a vanity thing at this point.

[AP]

29. As far as effective spin goes, "vanity" seems kind of lame.

Vanity, eh?

If it was vanity, then why not start taking PAC money, and kissing corporate ass so that he has a better chance of winning? If it's vanity, why doesn't he do the stupid shit that Dean does to get attention? Why not change your political philosophy to fit the current mood.

Edwards has the most consistent political identity of just about any candidate which goes back to when he was 11. Vanity doesn't explain that political identity.

[spooky3]

67. nice to know that age 50 is still "young"!

[IndianaGreen]

27. A question on gay rights...a very important question

Since 1songbird is a "Clark supporter," I wonder what Clark's answer would be to the question that Tim Russert asked Edwards on Meet the Press, which went like this: "If a lesbian couple goes to Canada and gets legally married there, should their marriage be recognized when they return to their state?"

Edwards's answer was "No!"

What would be Clark's answer? What would be the answer of any Democratic candidate?

[1songbird]

31. Clark has stated that he believes that gay men and women

in the military should have the same rights as everyone else. He has been quite open about supporting gay rights. I haven't specifically heard him address gay marriage, but if he is supportive of gay rights in the military then he is an open tent Democrat. What has your candidate said about this issue?

[IndianaGreen]

36. Dean supports a state's right to have civil unions

and by extension of that, opposes DOMA.

The issue is one that has not been specifically addressed by anyone: Should we recognize gay marriages that were performed in other countries? Would we look like sectarian idiots by not recognizing same sex couples that were married in the EU or Canada?

We used not to recognize marriage across racial lines, isn't this the same?

[1songbird]

42. There are lots of things in this country that

at one time or another were unfair. With steady work many things have been resolved. Gay marriage will be one of those things. I'm glad that Dean has taken a positive stance on this matter. Clark may or may not take this same stance. Either way he has already shown that he is open to diversity. The last time I checked Clark was the only candidate that actually sent a brief to the United States Supreme Court supporting Affirmative Action. Yes he walks the walk.

[DemDogs]

32. Note: half the posts here by Edwards-hater

Watch the show yourself. Edwards was really terrific. He was direct, strong, just what we need to beat Bush.
This thread should be called 1 songbird hates Edwards.

[1songbird]

38. Were we watching the same show?

Hate is a disingenious word in describing my objections to Edwards. I had respect for him, but hearing him use the crap rhetoric of the Bush* admnistration is unacceptable.

[treepig]

44. yeah, and what's the deal with him being tired

of outsiders telling the south what to do? (ok, that's from the debate, not the mtp, but still, it rankles!)

personally, i'm completely sick and tired of southerners controlling the national policies that affect me at home in springfield

[DemDogs]

131. He was exactly the voice of the Democratic Party

The voice of the people who have been the backbone of the Party for decades is the voice Edwards seems to hear intuitively. This was exactly the right blend of support for our forces (which might be what you mean by "crap rhetotic" since I can't think of anything else it could be) and a reasoned even-toned attack on Bush. And he called Bush a unadulterated phony. I don't think Rove thought that was a love letter. It was more like a warning shot across the bow. Don't mess with Edwards.

[welshTerrier2]

46. Here's one from the other half then

i don't hate edwards ... and i'm not supporting any candidate yet ... and, yes, russert did his usual hatchet job ...

but edwards seemed unable to reverse being put on the defensive into positives ... i thought he was very weak ...

the one that really killed me was the question that asked whether bush's decision to invade Iraq was substantially correct ... watch the tape tonight ... edwards never said "No" ... that's what i was waiting to hear ... well, that's totally unacceptable to me ...

edwards also did some pretty sad tapdancing on the Patriot Act ... when challenged on why he didn't support Feingold's amendments that would have softened some of the act's most heinous provisions, he peddled some kind of nonsense about needing the act to be implemented on a federal basis and that it was a bad idea to make it have to respond to individual state issues ... for my money, an act that directly violates our Constitutional freedoms should not be supported ... again, i'd like to hear someone effectively defend edwards' vote on this ... he certainly didn't do so himself ...

edwards may have a future as a presidential candidate ... but i'm afraid he's just not ready yet ...

[Snellius]

48. Russert's such a Bu**sh** crap head

His final question to Edwards: "Nevertheless, wouldn't you agree that, personally, people like George Bush?" As if, yes, he's screwed up everything he's ever touched, but, "Gosh, what a nice guy."

Of course, Edwards didn't have the nerve to say straight out what he should have said. "No, I can't stand the doofus. He's an arrogant, closed-minded, childish, lying little elitist trying to pretend he's just one of the guys."

Democrats have to hit Bush on the CHARACTER issue. Behind that bu**sh**, this is one of the most immature, cowardly, and corrupt presidents in American history. He is NOT a nice guy. He's a bigger crook than Tricky Dick.

[WillyBrandt]

52. He needs to go now

He has absolutely no chance of winning. He needs to go along with Kucinich, Sharpton, and Braun. This isn't a joke: it's a primary.

[ima_sinnic]

68. yes, I agree, he's finished now

He's just muddying the waters and should step aside for those with a clear vision and strong spine to get the word out.

[AP]

108. You just saw the message that will win the election,

in my opinon.

He has the logical message about Iraq, which will click with a majority of voters. He has a logical message about the Patriot Act. He has the BEST, MOST LOGICAL argument about taxes and the budget. And he just said exactly what needs to be said about disliking Bush: this isn't about personality (which many DU'ers seem to ignore about their own candidates), it's about policy, and Bush's policies suck and are enough reason not to like him, whether you think you know his personality or not.

[DemDogs]

147. Absolutely right! (n/t)

[AP]

53. Russert vs Edwards Part 2 (economy)

R: Is the economy good?
E: short term up a little. All long term indicators are down.

R: tax policy working?
E: I can't tell you how much I care about taxes, and it really distinguishes me from the other candidates. Bush is doing something very radical ... shifting burden on to middle class in a very dramatic way. Not fair and it's very bad economic policy. To grow the economy, we have to take the burden OFF the middle class.

R: how much would you repeal?
E: repeal breaks for top two brackets. Raise cap gains rate for people earning in top (2) brackets. Get rid of corporate subsidies.

R: Your vote for 92 tax cut
E: that wasn't the vote on teh components. That was a vote on the framework. When the framework was filled in, the components shifted the burden to the middle class.

R: so you would support a tax cut?
E: back then the situation was completely different. And there are things we could have done, cuts which would have increased wealth, encouraging saving. these are things we need to do now.

R: balance budget how?
E: Not only do things I just told you. Bigger picture: we have to reduce defecit, but he have to make investments which result in long term growth, and those two things are at odds. We need to increase spending where it produces long term growth.

R: balance budget by raising taxes?
E: taking burden off middle class, means lower taxes. But people who are doing really well might have to take up some of the slack (but we'll have a wealthier society as result).

R: Dean's opt-out on public funding?
E: I'm staying with campaign finance system. Dean is making a mistake. Sending exactly the wrong signal. If it's a matter of principle to stay within the system and we should deviate.

R: what do you think about Dean?
E: Like him personally. We've had run-ins. I've expressed myself to him publicly and personally on these issues. On flag - repeats the Sharpton-Edwards analysis. Condescension and elitism is very dangerous for Democrats. All Democrats want to be treated with respect, not be talked down to.

R: Flag to You?
E: devisive symbol.

R: convicted felons get vote back?
E: of course. do the time. once out. get your rights back.

R: trial lawyers? 51% of your money came from law firms. JD looking into allegations.
E: There was ONE incident MONTHS ago in Little Rock. I'm proud of my work as lawyer fighting important battles agains negligent corporations. I'm supported by people who appreciate those battles and that kind of work. The other half of money is from all types of people. I do agree with weeding out claims without merit.

R: Gun manufacturer liablity?
E: I'm against limits and it has nothing to do with being a lawyer. No class of anybody should get special treatment.

R: Gay adoption yes, CU a state matter? Why reservations?
E: CU is a state law issue. But it's very important that Fed Gov't recognizes that all people get same protections under federal law (ie, where Fed Gov't confers benefit to married people, it should be conferred domestic partners).

R: Full faith and credit for overseas gay marriages (eg Canada)
E: Up to states. If it were my state, probably say no 'cause don't support gay marriage.

R: abortion and gun control?
E: different. Gun control: interstate commerce angle makes it a national concern.

R: you're the top spender in IA and NH, but you're in 4th place in IA and tied for 3rd with other in NH and you're way behind.
E: I've seen more polls than just these two. I'm moving up dramatically in all the polls I've seen. And I'm in the lead in SC and very close to top in OK. My bus trip in NH has been great.

R: You're behind Clark in SC?
E: In only one poll. I'll win SC.

R: You don't like the president.
E: Guy has no contact with regular Americans. Comes from a different background, which explains lack of perspective. I'm out among the people daily. He's never out there. He's pretending that he understands people.

R: what do you think people think of your attacking him?
E: look at the guy. I'm telling the truth about him. "jobless recovery"? Come on! These people are out of touch.

R: ecoomy or war on iraq aside, people like Bush as a person.
E: I don't know him. He seems personable enough. But when it comes down to voting, it's going to come down to more than just liking a guy. This guy is going to have a miserable record to run on. Lost jobs AND has driven us into defecit, which is quite a remarkable feat.

[spooky3]

57. thanks, AP.

[1songbird]

176. I had no problems with his economic stance

I personally would like to see gay rights extended but I want beat him up on this.

[spooky3]

54. You are misstating what he said on both points. WTF?

1. He said (as he has previously) that he believed that * should have gotten multilateral support for the action but at the time of the original vote felt it would be best to support *. (I disagree as do many others, but at least I will provide an ACCURATE post about what EDWARDS said). He said that now he can't support the $87B because we STILL don't have a multilateral presence that includes France, Germany and Russia, and that we don't have an adequate plan.

2. The Patriot Act has many provisions. Contrary to what you said, Edwards does not now oppose the Patriot Act as a whole. However, he DOES oppose some provisions of it and he articulated those on MTP. He also directly answered Russert's question about why he didn't vote with Feingold's amendments. He gave one example--that Feingold's amendment forced the fed. govt. to know and follow the procedural requirements of all 50 states, and he did not agree with this, but that he opposed the inquiries into libraries, etc., and would amend the Patriot Act in OTHER ways now.

I don't like his war vote and that he doesn't now state forcefully that we were misled, but the guy votes with what he thinks is right even though it clearly hurts him with some who will be voting in the Dem. primaries. That, and the fact that I agree with him on most of his other positions, are reasons that I like both him and Dean.

You are doing a disservice to other posters here if you don't listen carefully and report accurately what they say. And I hope if I have misstated any of the positions that others will correct me.

[1songbird]

69. I heard exactly what he said just as you did

and I stand by what I said. He is attempting to straddle the fence that came through loud and clear to me as a voter. Edwards had data that showed Iraq was not a nuclear threat. Did you miss that? Did you also hear him state that he felt Iraq was a nuclear threat. My problem with this is that he overlooked data that was crucial and voted with the majority because it was the popular thing to do.

[spooky3]

71. you are wrong about what you said in your original post. Get

the transcript. No sense in continuing to discuss matters of fact rather than opinion.

[AP]

74. He said there was 10 years of data which never gets discussed.

[1songbird]

83. Yeah and we saw the results of this 10 years

of data in Collin Powell's address that seemed incredibly false even at the time.

[AP]

89. Why do you think the Repulbicans aren't selectively

presenting the information in a way which ties the Democrats in knots?

Why isn't it possible, as Edwards inferred, that we're not hearing the whole story.

I think we're getting the crap information so that Democrats are encouraged to pick an anti-war candidate.

But, once we do that, and make the whole focus of 2004 the war, then we're going to learn about the real information, the classified information, which, although it wouldn't have justified Bush's execution, certainly would have made the IWR seem less outrageous.

Clinton has said that he hasn't seen intelligence since Jan 01, but, before that, there certainly was information jusifying strong action agains SH.

Why do you think Repulbicans want us to think, right now, that there might not have been? Perhaps so Democrats nominate Howard Dean?

[1songbird]

105. I've thought about that and if this

was truly the case then we would not have the Memogate scandal at our footsteps. The Rethugs do have something to hide the question is what. Remember Collin Powell the head of the CIA initially did not want to go to war with Iraq. If he really thought that the Iraqis were a direct threat he would have been resolute from the beginning. What I personally think will happen is that some secret agency will plant some WMDs. I don't think the American people will buy however if it on the foothills on election 2004.

[AP]

110. Powell never wants to go to war, ever. Regardless of the justification.

But I see that you're open to the idea that the public isn't getting the full story, even when it TEMPORARILY appears to hurt Bush and help Democrats.

That's good.

Keep those thoughts in mind.

[Demobrat]

60. Edwards doesn't need people like me. He said so.

So I won't be bothering to vote for him. Of course I doubt if I'll be offered the opportunity, anyway.

[QC]

70. What did he say?

[DemDogs]

149. Beg your pardon?

Edwards embraces an even bigger group than the next most inclusive candidate, Kucinich. He has a great message for those at the bottom of the economic ladder, and he always says he doesn't want to stop people from becoming successful.
If you are wearing a confederate flag t-shirt, maybe your statement makes sense, otherwise, it's just silly.

[polpilot]

72. Not sane comments and certainly not an educated take on Iraq as a

threat. Pathetic, pitiful misrepresentaion of why the U.S. destroyed Bagdad along with our international reputation. Edwards is a Bush enabler along with his compatriots Kerry and Lieberman.

Dean '04...The New Democratic Leader of The NEW Democratic Party.

[carrowsboy]

80. he just seems like...

a big phony. Or that is the impression I get from him.

If he gets the nom then I'll vote for him, but he is not my 1st 9or even 2nd, 3rd, 4th) choice.

[gauguin57]

86. i think he's running

for v.p. at this point.

The dude who thinks he can deliver the South for the ticket. And then REALLY run for prexy in 2012.

Jed Bartlett for President!

[topdog08]

115. thanks for posting this to EVERY Edwards thread

we heard you the first time, anything new to add?

[carrowsboy]

132. this is only the 2nd time

Sorry you are that insecure that you cannot take criticism of your candidate and therefor must lie.

[CWebster]

88. "Not ready for prime time"

Is the charge frightened party insiders are using against Dean.

They would prefer Edwards? Well, yes, probably so, they demonstrate a fairly consistant losing streak.

Whose side is the Party on anyway? I'll tell you--their own not ours.

[topdog08]

113. who is us?

I'd like to think all Democrats could at least refer to themselves as "us" as opposed to talking about the Democratic party as "them"

[CWebster]

116. yes, that would be nice

get yourself up to speed.

[baby_bear]

114. Yup --- follow the money. n/t

[DemDogs]

150. Edwards is for building the party on principles

that reach out to America. Sounds good to me.

[lysergik]

109. I wonder if he'd like some syrup with his Waffles?

What a train wreck of an interview. Time for Edwards to fall (as well as Droopy, CMB, etc) by the wayside and let the real candidates move on

[AP]

153. I've listed every question asked and answered above. Rather than sloganeer

perhaps you could cite the, uhm, "waffels."

I thought he did a pretty good job of hashing consistency from Russert's attempt to cast him as a waffler.

In fact, the only way I think your waffling spin works is if you DON'T talk about what was actually said.

[realFedUp]

118. I'll leave it to Pundit Pap to reveal

or watch it on CNBC later today.

[topdog08]

120. You heard the questions. Did you even listen to his answers?

All you are doing is rephrasing Russert's questions, and completely ignoring Edwards answers!

"After supporting the Bush* administrations' policies on this war this morning he then reversed course and stated that he did not support the 87 Billion dollars. Thus Edwards was the author of confusion and contradiction in full affect."

"Onto the Patriot Act, Sen. Edwards now opposes the Patriot Act but he voted against all measures by Senator Feingold to reign the Patriot Act in."

Those are the questions Russert asked. Edwards answered them!

Why are you pretending like the questions are all that happened?

Edwards explained why he did not support the Feingold amendments.

Edwards has said repeatedly that he supports money for Iraq, but the spending authorization is the only way Congress has to try to get Bush to change course. He has said we need to internationalize the postwar, from the start. This is not a change of course at all. You are greatly oversimplifying the issue to pretend that it is.

It is like saying someone supports the right to own guns but has REVERSED THEIR POSITION by supporting the assault weapons ban. You must either have no idea what you are talking about, or else you must think that your audience does not. Either way, you're wrong. It's another level of granularity, not a reversal of position.

[1songbird]

130. As repeated from above

E opens with a statement that SH was a threat. Support not having SH in power. Don't support the blank check.
--------------------------------

This is what sent me over the edge early
We have heard this over and over again from Bush*. The premise of the war was that Saddam was a direct threat to us the United States. We realize that Saddam was an evil man and an old school dictator. People in other parts of the world live under them every single day. We support many dictators today that we have not gone to war with.


R: Quotes statement about WMD. Why weren't you more demanding for evidence of nuclear threat.
E: You can't pick any one isolated piece of evidence. We had a decade worth of evidence nobody is talking about.
----------------------

Edwards talks about Nuclear weapons specifically even though reports showed that this was not credible. If he has information that nobody is talking about then he should have elaborated if it was declassified information. If there was information that the public should know about then just state that there is classified information that the public does not know and can not know. In number of statements would have cleared this up.

R: But without evidence, what was the threat?
E: We knew he was trying to acquire weapons. Unique threat, obvious and serious.

------------------------
Is he referring to the uranium from Niger? Which was a lie. The WMD specifically was chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This was the case made to the American public. None have been proven to be true so why spout this crap again?

[AP]

161. I believe I have a response to that up above.

[quaker bill]

157. I concur

He like John Kerry think that war on Iraq was a good idea, just badly managed. Time will prove that they were wrong on this. The war on Iraq was a poor and immoral idea that has actually been managed about as well as a truly stupid idea could be.

Nothing about this misadventure could not have been predicted. In fact, most of it was predicted by Shrubya's* daddy and many others.

Edwards standing is totally compromised by his position on this issue. While Kerry seems now to have some second thoughts, Edwards professes none.

[murielm99]

189. Edwards

I am glad someone commented on this. I saw Edwards on Meet the Press, too, and I thought he sounded like an apologist for President Pinocchio.
All this business about how great it is that Saddam is gone? That is just a coverup because they haven't found any WMD. They could care less about Saddam being a butcher. What about Korea? Oops ---they don't have any oil.
Also, I am getting very sick of the acronym WMD. THEY made it up, and we are all using it. We need to find some other way to say this, something that shows it for what it is. Any suggestions?