John Edwards: greatest threat to US is China and radical Islam...

[k_jerome]

I fear this guy as the greatest challenger to my favored candidate. His message seems to resonate, and I find myself agreeing with much he says.

[iamjoy]

1. OUCH!

That was a very true thing Edwards said, also very dangerous.

We are in debt up to our eyeballs to China. If they call in their loans, or yank their credit or dump more of our money we are so screwed. Do we really want to piss off the Chinese government? The balance of power is shifting, perhaps in a calamitous way.

[k_jerome]

2. he is very educated on the threat China poses...

both militarily and economically.

[still_one]

4. and why would they call their loans?

Who in the hell buys most of their products today? It is us. First, if they called their loans, which they won't, it would hurt us, but hurt them a lot more

I am not saying it is good to be a net debtor nation, but I am saying that it is nonesense to believe that they would call their loans. It won't happen.

[durtee librul]

60. Don't count on it

first....look at all 'our' companies doing business over there.....it's a commie country for cripes sakes...they make their own rules as they go to benefit themselves....

Let our companies set up shop over there, get their economy established and poof....call the loans..

Or how about this scenario - - W pisses them off somehow (like by just opening his mouth) and they take serious offense....call the loan.

It's just too precarious a situation for my liking and I don't like owing anybody any money...especially if they can take the roof over my head or my wheels away....and China is poised to do just that to us. They call the shots and if you think for a minute they don't, you have a koolaid stand next to Bush.

[sandboxface]

188. dump a trillion $s

No, they probably wouldn't call their loans, but that isn't the real threat. All China's Central Banks need to do is dump 1 Trillion in US dollars on the market, which they are threatening to do. We have major problems with the dollar, it is losing its power and no one wants to be in a loosing currency.

Do a google search on the chairman of the Fed's (Ben Bernakie (SP?)) trip to China last month and you will shit your pants. Hold on.. Here it is http://www.hamptonroadspub.com/blog/2006/12/18/the-collapse-of-the-dollar-or-just-the-economy/">Report - China To Dump One Trillion In US Reserves"

[Zynx]

20. An economic pissing contest between us and them hurts them worse.

They face total collapse if their exports to us dry up. Losing their imports hurts badly, but we can survive. Their system is much more fragile.

[fuzzyball]

55. China can't screw us.....not due the debt we owe them anyways...

For you to understand my POV you have to know how
US Treasury obligations work. China owns around a Trillion
US $ worth of Treasuries, mainly long term Treasury bonds.

For openers, the bonds can not be called in by the holder
before the maturity date. All the bonds China owns mature in
different years.

Second, when a bond matures, the only thing the US Treasury is
obligated to do is pay it off in US DOLLARS, nothing else. So,
China can use those cash dollars to buy US real-estate, US goods,
US businesses etc. Does not sound like a reason to cause upheaval
in US financial markets.

Third, and MOST IMPORTANT, USA is the best customer China has got
by a long shot. If they cause trouble, we stop importing Chinese
manufactured goods. That will result in MILLIONS of Chinese unemployed.
Not very good result for the Chinese political leaders.

Don't even worry about Chinese causing trouble. The trouble is with
US cutomers who will buy cheap Chinese goods over American made goods
made by union workers.

How many of you own foreign cars? Please raise your hands. Uh huh.
I thought so.

But China can and will screw us militarily. They are expanding their
military capabilities at an astonishing rate. They will attack and
subjugate Taiwan. Not a question of if, only when. They will wreck
havoc with our navy in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean.

But most of all, China is very dangerous because they have 4 times
as many people as us willing to work for less than 1/10 of American
wages. Yes, job loss is the biggest threat China poses against us.
And that is what John Edwards is talking about, and he is absolutely
right.

[fuzzyball]

57. self delete...answered wrong post

[durtee librul]

61. One more thing...

look at who 'owns' the top 10 banks in the US? Guess what folks, it ain't us no more.

[Township75]

3. Bullshit! Nice way to spread hate a-hole!

China is not a threat because we are in debt or because we seem to start a war with anyone we want to. Our materialistic desire to buy everything from slave labor is a threat to us, and our war mongering politicians and their supporters are a threat to the future of the US. Figures someone who wants to get elected is demonizing someone else for our faults (which he voted for)!

[JNelson6563]

5. China poses a huge threat to America

The fact that we ourselves have helped them to achieve this position of power over us does not change that.

Julie

[still_one]

7. Have you ever been to China?

[JNelson6563]

26. No and yet I still understand

the fundamental principles of the global economy. Funny how that works, isn't it?

Julie

[still_one]

32. I appreciate your point of view, but it is not China that is a threat

but our representatives who negotiated these wonderful trade agreements, and that includes Clinton

The reason I asked if you had been to China, was NOT to put you down, but explain that China is not how it is portrayed by the MSM here.

It is an extremely diversifed and complex society, where business thrives

It is sad that these wonders in our government always negotiate these trade agreements to our disadvantage. Why?

First thing we should do is remove ALL LOBBISTS from Washington, and allow for public financing of elections, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

My point is the problem isn't China, it is us. China is a scapegoat for our bad policies on both sides of the aisle

[durtee librul]

63. I have been to China

a lot over the past 15 years with business and I got news for all of ya....

Sure they want to be 'westernized' but only to a certain extent and if you think it's all peachy keen over there with all their modernization, then think back to Tienamen Square.

China wants what is best for China. Peroid.

I have seen many many changes over there and believe me, we are in a cauldron of crap with them and if you think they are not going to blink, you're dead wrong.

And as far as them not having a strong economy - it's stronger than most people know and they like it that way...kinda like playing high stakes poker the way I see it....and we do NOT have a winning hand right now.

We ARE to blame for not being somewhat protectionist for our own country's survival and keeping strict policies in place, hoever to say that China is not our 'adversary' is just plain wrong. They are. And the sooner we accept that fact, the sooner we can rectify it. Edwards is dead nuts on with it, like it or not.

No-one is spewing hate, just stating the truth. This borrowing for the damn war in Iraq MUST stop. It is a microcosm of the problem, but it is still a contributing part.

Our desire for cheaply made (and trashy in some cases) MUST be stopped as well. Hell, I can remember when the old man used to brag that 'Wal-Mart saved 'x' amount of American jobs.' He must be rolling in his grave with what his kids have done to his company. I don't think they have one thing made in the USA there anymore.

[Labors of Hercules]

189. Translation: greatest threat to U.S. is US.

and China knows it.

As long as Americans continue to buy mountains of shit they don't need not giving a damn where it came from, the profiteers will keep China and themselves fat and happy. And besides, who gives a flying rat's ass as long as profits are up? That is, of course, until they crash through the floor...

[angry_chuck]

90. they want china to be the scapegoat

because they pose the greatest threat to NWO domination of everyone. For their plan everyone has to go broke, including CHina. They are still the 'gap' but the 'free' trade agreements are aimed to bring them into the 'core'

[fuzzyball]

179. You don't have to be sick to be a Doctor

By being educated is more than enough to understand
what is going on and what can be done.

[Township75]

41. In what way?

militarily? no way...there military is horrible outdated. The only thing they have in their favor is numbers. They are making attempts to modernize their military, but if that is the basis for being a threat, then every country in the world is a threat.

economically, they are a threat if you consider becoming a larger economy than the US a threat, but what country wouldnt' want that. And if he thinks that is a threat, well he can start with every Dem that ever voted for "free" trade.

He is a scapegoating asshole who didn't add shit to the Kerry ticket in 04. There is no chance in hell I am supporting him.

[FrenchieCat]

44. China is a challenge, not a threat.....

We won't always be able to have our cake and eat it too.

To call China a "threat" is provocative and unrequired. We called Iraq a threat, and look what happened. We cannot be so callous with our framing; in this day and age, it is a dangerous thing.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Right on target, FrenchieCat. This is an immature statement by Edwards!

Let's not go down the same unilateral road that Bush has taken!

[VOX]

174. And "challenge" is the exact word Edwards used in the video as interpreted by OP...

"...a huge challenge America faces which is the growth and emergence of China.."

That's it. Not "threat," but "challenge."

OP's interpretation conveys a very different message than the actual statement.

[leesa]

180. Good for you. I'm so sick of this macho stuff. China is smart and they are

doing good business as far as I can tell. We are doing bad business and we need to do better. And as far as referring to them as 'commies'...jeez!

[renie408]

48. China is a threat because they

are the only major player in the world who purposely keeps the value of their currency falsely low, among other things. By doing this, they effectively keep outside countries from being able to compete for any share of the Chinese market while their own goods are extremely attractive overseas. The Chinese government has fiercely regulated the value of Chinese currency and while they made some placating moves, they ended up being mostly for show.

[durtee librul]

65. Amen!

You are spot on about them and their currency.....

[HamdenRice]

94. False

All the Asian tiger economies, including Japan, have at one time or another manipulated their exchange rates in order to devalue their own currency compared to the dollar and European currencies -- hence encouraging exports, discouraging imports and accumulating foreign capital for development. It's called the "Asian model" for a reason.

[renie408]

99. Ok, fine. Throw 'currently' in there and it is no longer a false statement. Happy? n/t

[HamdenRice]

105. Still false

You are painting a false picture that China is somehow uniquely a threat because it undervalues its currency. That is a routine policy of Asian countries.

The problem isn't China. The problem is our own government and corporations selling us out, relying on a bloated reserve currency dollar policy that allows them to float enormous budget and trade deficits financed by foreigners.

It's like blaming the liquor store for your own alcholism.

[renie408]

107. Ok. n/t

[The Magistrate]

116. A Pleasure To See You About The Forum, Mr. Rice!

Your analysis here is very good.

[HamdenRice]

132. Thanks and greetings! nt

[DemDogs]

161. Our wretched materialism is one of our threat's greatest weapons

The fact that we are complicit in giving them power doesn't make them any less a threat.

[still_one]

6. Edwards does not know what he is talking about by saying China is greatest threat

The greatest threat is the corporations who off-shore the jobs, and the longer we stay in Iraq

[VOX]

175. Edwards *didn't* say it. He said a "huge challenge, which is the growth and emergence of China..."

OP is wrong. Listen to the Hardball link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925398/

Click on "Edwards onthe Economy"

[dogman]

8. The greatest threat to US is homegrown fascism.

They are the ones who enabled the fascists in China to gain a hold on our economy. The current US foreign policy is a threat to the world and enables the military-industrial complex in China to dictate their country's foreign policy. The same is true for radical Islam. We are currently trying to create new enemies in South and Central America. The creation of enemies strengthens the hold on our own citizenry. I would prefer a candidate with a deep background in both economics and foreign policy.

[Odin2005]

11. But to deny outside threats is naive.

[Pithy Cherub]

14. To vote for a pre-emptive strike doctrine was beyond naive.

China is using the ability to play economically to even the playing field. America is in less of a position to counteract that due in some measure to the Iraq war and a loss of prestige for doing so. Globalization is a complex issue that has some of its genesis within America as corporations offshore critical infrastructure to make a buck.

[renie408]

52. They manipulate their currency. THAT'S why they can compete.

They were kicking our ass economically before we got into Iraq. They have always falsely kept their currency low to make their own goods more appealing to foreign markets and to make competition in China nearly impossible. Chinese manufacturers don't have any compunction about workplace safety or their worker's welfare. These and other things mean that China is NOT playing on an even playing field.

[Pithy Cherub]

69. And who is purchasing those goods at prices

below market value in order to make a profit? The trade imbalance was delinked from Human Rights and opened the door to enlarging the deficit in the name of, The Almighty Dollar. The dollar has taken a beating because of FP debacles and squandering money on no bid contracts to companies that off shore as well as bilk taxpayers. America is guilty of short term profit exploitation in a global market rather than protecting a long term economic strategy. America is not a victim in this but a partner in its own downward trajectory as the economy is based on GDP and not intangibles. The Euro is faring better.

[renie408]

92. Duh...Walmart...

Seriously, I am obviously no expert on this. But is looks like I am going to be before long because there is something about what your statement that doesn't seem right to me. I am open to being wrong because I am just not informed enough about this.

[Pithy Cherub]

102. Possibly, it is

written in broad brush strokes to highlight that America has enacted policies that have helped China reach a certain prominence while allowing the quest for certain stockholders to garner wealth at the expense of the American worker. The plight of the middle class has been tied to knowledge work which has transitioned offshore in large numbers. Free trade has a place but at what cost?

[renie408]

110. Dead honest?? I have no clue.

It is one of those things that I have a hard time making a final decision on. I hear pro-free trade arguments and I think, "Huh. That sounds good." Then I hear anti-free trade arguments and I think, "Well, that makes sense." Not even kidding here, but when you hear 'free trade' that sounds like it should be a good thing, right? But then so does 'the Clear Skies Initiative' or whatever. I remember hearing Clinton talk about it and being convinced. But then Bill Clinton could convince anybody to buy magic beans and then talk them into seeing the beanstalk. And I don't necessarily think that is a BAD thing. Persuasiveness is good in politics. It just makes it harder to get a clear, unbiased fix on things.

[Pithy Cherub]

114. Joseph Stiglitz is a good read.

He led the World Bank and speaks about Globalization. Clinton created jobs in his tenure and Bush erased jobs in his using the trade agreements, NAFTA CAFTA to erase them. China is fascinating because it is manufacturing now (and polluting) and there are some excellent books on China. China is on its best behavior right now because they want the Olympics to be a smashing success on the world stage - after who knows? That's why whoever is president better be up to speed and use language that is more diplomat driven than America will remove your leader driven...

[renie408]

115. Thanks...But

please note that this thread was a fake. Edwards never said that China was our #1 threat.

I have to go to the library tomorrow. I am making a list and will put Stiglitz on it. Thanks a lot!

[Pithy Cherub]

121. The history

of the poster made me disregard his comment and not even bother directly since no source material was in the OP. It was the after effects that got me interested because the war has made us myopic about China.

Happy reading! I need to do more myself. Kristoff of the NYT's wrote a book called China Wakes that was good, but it is a bit long in the tooth now! :)

[angry_chuck]

165. european banks are just as f8cked as FED banks

they are all bankrupt, by design

ordo ab chao

[dogman]

18. To enable and create outside threats is criminal.

These are obvious points but really don't relate to the OP do they? I don't believe I was denying anything. I was pointing out the fact that the problem is bigger than a simplistic statement. Enabling bushco's agenda is at the root of the problem. Democrat enablers have helped create this problem. When is the next mea culpa going to be issued?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Likely in 2010, over mistakes regarding the war with Iran

In time for someone's 2012 Presidential run.

[Odin2005]

9. I'm liking Edwards more and more.

[jcrew2001]

10. china

China is def a threat economically. But they do not care about military expansion besides Taiwan - which would be a dumb move since they are a strong economy and it would be smarter to engage in an economic partnership. China does want to build military for defense against neighbor, such as Japan, which invaded the country during WW2.

But China will never engage or threaten the US militarily or via cold war. They are not seeking to expand socialism like Russia was.

[Odin2005]

12. China is socialist in name only

In reality it has become a fusion of fascism and traditional Confucian bureaucratic despotism.

[still_one]

27. Again I must ask, have you ever been to China?

In many respects they are much more capitalistic then we are. Fascist they are not. The corporations in China DO NOT CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT.

In fact business flourish in China

It looks like Edwards is trying to set up a scape goat for the problems WE HAVE CREATED

[durtee librul]

67. I would sure like to know where the hell

you have been in China....you're right, the corporations don't control the government over there.....they'd wipe them off the face of the earth if they tried.

And yes, dear reader, I HAVE been to China regularly for the past 15 years and have seen many changes take place...and not a one of them for the 'good and welfare' of the US of A.

Now, get ready cuz here it comes.....they plagarize our software, movies, music...etc. They regulate their import taxes (and I can speak volumes about that!) to benefit them, NOT us. And guess what, WE are to blame for that with our 'leaders' who can only see our companies going over there to 'help the poor chinese' become better global citizens....spare me.

We have been screwed by our gubmint (both parties), corporations and China and no-one has ever dared to question any of it and it's high time someone did.

Go Edwards. Bring it to the forefront, take blame for what is what, accept that we have made serious and long lasting mistakes with trade policies and then move to rectify them and not whine and say woe is me, I have no job and it's all big bad gubmint/corporations fault.

In the meantime, buy American....and believe me, it's getting harder and harder. We should have content laws if nothing else as starters.

[HamdenRice]

98. They are not socialist "in name only"

I have to agree with the posters who ask have you ever been to China? I worked with Chinese environmental officials at very high levels for about three years, and saw some of the inside of their legal political process.

They are definitely socialist, and in a very, very smart way. If you look at the very heart and guts of their legal system, they have built a very innovative socialist market system.

Of course they are not governing or developing their economy for the benefit of the US, but for the benefit of the Chinese. Our government (at least before Bush) has also governed in the interest of our own country. One question that Chinese politicians are obsessed with is: How are we going to continue feeding and providing for the overall welfare for 1 billion plus people for the forseeable future with very limited resources.

What people seem not to understand in this thread is that despite the fact that countries can compete in some arenas and ways, at the same time there is also always tremendous scope for mutually beneficial interactions. When good political leaders are in charge, there are more win-win situations in international relations and economics than their are win-lose situations. This is something that completely escapes Bush and his gang.

My experience of the Chinese is that they basically like(d) America and Americans, and want to work together profitably on a range of issues. They are especially interested in our system of environmental regulation and protection. The officials I worked with adored Bill Clinton and were utterly perplexed by the impeachment for a sex scandal that was going on at one point when I was working there.

If we think of them as a threat, they will be one; if we think of them as strategic, economic and environmental partners they will be that as well.

[Uncle Joe]

13. I believe this will change with the effects of global warming

Wars will be fought over water as the mountain glaciers melt, causing their rivers to dry up.

[Odin2005]

24. IMO China is screwed. One big enviromental disaster and there will be civil war there.

The peseants are getting pisssed that nothing is trickling down to them except smog and benzene.

[Uncle Joe]

25. I agree Odin n/t

[still_one]

28. Again I ask have you ever been to China. On what basis do you have your knowledge?

because in experience it is just the opposite

[Odin2005]

34. There has been an increasing amount of peseant unrest.

At least accoridng to news I've read.

[still_one]

38. I am not trying to paint that China does not have problems, as do all countries

but for the size and diversity of the people they govern, they do fairly well

If you have an opportunity to watch CCTV on cable or satellite it presents some interesting perspective

In general, the people in China aren't any different than in most western countries. There are definite problems and resentment against those doing higher paid technology jobs, verses farming the land

and there is definitely not as much freedom there as here, but that is not lack of freedom is not obvious to most people in China

The western press loves to use Tienam Square as how terrible conditions are in China. What is funny is that after the students made their point, the government told them to disban, instead the students continued, with the pushing of the wonderful western media, and diaster resulted. In a parallel instance under Reagan the air traffic controllers went on strike. The U.S. government told them to get back to work, but they were encouraged by their union to hold out, and disaster resulted.

Some countries are not ready for Democracy. In fact if Democracy was pushed on China today it would be a diaster which would result in civil war throughout the country.

Iraq is a perfect example of what could happen...

The western powers screwed China for years, and indirectly brought on the cultural revolution. China is slowly making progress for its population

[Odin2005]

45. Gee, Democracy isn't doing to badly in Taiwan nowdays...

...and the Taiwanese are Chinese, so you can't tell me the Chinese arn't ready for democracy. As far as I'm corncered the country is standing on a house of cards.

[fuzzyball]

64. India never had democracy for 4000 years and now its the largest

democracy in the world for 60 years and counting.

[Clark2008]

56. Peasant unrest?

Peasant???

OK, come back to 2006.

They're not "peasants." They're poor people.

Sigh.

[HamdenRice]

100. Do you know what a "peasant" is?

Some people seem to think that the word peasant is some sort of insult. It isn't. It has an very precise definition in economics, anthropology, history and agrarian studies. It simply means a farmer who uses primarily family labor on a small plot of land to grow food for home consumption as well as agricultural products for the market.

The vast majority of Chinese farmers are indeed, peasants and are considered so by their own government, Asian studies scholars and agricultural economists.

[renie408]

112. I have seen pictures.

I think that a lot of the people of China qualify as peasents no matter who defines it.

[angry_chuck]

167. so PROLETARIAT then?

maybe that suits you (edit I mean that is the terminology for the guy who wrote 'peasant' not that you are a member of the proletariat since I have no idea, sorry bad wording initially)

The proletariat (from Latin proles, offspring) is a term used to identify a lower social class; a member of such a class is proletarian. Originally it was identified as those people who had no wealth other than their sons; the term was initially used in a derogatory sense, until Karl Marx used it as a sociological term to refer to the working class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat

[renie408]

113. If you aren't good at sarcasm

you should leave it alone. It can backfire on you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

171. China is so large that you could spend a life travelling it without learning much.

The relevant question is not "have you been to China", but "how much have you read about China, and what".

And even that's not really the relevant question - "are your views right" rather than "how did you form them" is what should be being asked.

"Have you ever been there" is just an attempt to avoid having to answer that.

[citizen snips]

22. China has liberalized its economic system.

so I don't think it is socialist anymore

[renie408]

51. I am going to check this out. I don't have any links at my disposal

right now, but I know I was reading something just recently that said that China had NOT really made any significant changes. They were mostly for show to appease outsiders. I am wide open to being wrong about this, BTW. I might have it totally ass-backwards.

[Zynx]

97. It's not Communist, but it still has heavy regulation and a large government

sector so I would still define it as socialist. It isn't like Hong Kong.

[JNelson6563]

29. You may have noticed

the growing need for energy in China with all that growth and all. How long can they afford to sit by and let us have so much control over all the oil?

They aren't looking to expand their ideals, they will be taking action to maintain the growth of their country and that will require energy. Mankind has always been willing to go to war over resources. A communist regime with a blatant disregard for human life and over a billion humans at their disposal is an excellent candidate for a power willing to do just that. Holding massive debt of the only other "superpower" in the world should put them in an excellent position to achieve such a goal.

Julie

[libneo]

33. .

.

[still_one]

35. If you have cable or satellite I highly recommend CCTV

not only in regard to their reporting of the news, but also with their reporting of what is happening in China

To imply that the Chinese government has a blatant disregard for human life, represents a lack of knowledge of the entire country

In fact, that China even survived the rape by the western powers, the invasion of Japan, and the cultural revolution is a remarkable statement in itself

In fact the recognition of Sun Yat-sen and what he did for China is making a re-emergence

Everytime I go to China I see significant progress. That is not to say there are not major problems, but it is also NOT as bad as you are painting them

You indicate that China will go to war over resources, ignoring the fact that China itself is extremely rich in resources, and also disregarding the fact that it was the U.S. that invaded Iraq, not China, for resources

Perhaps it is the way we deal with our neighbors who have resources why it has become such an issue. Perhaps it is because we don't have an adequate energy policy. Believe it or NOT, Nixon tried to institue policy to move us away from dependency on fossil fuels. It didn't take hold because of watergate, but that was no excuse for subsequent administrations not to pursue it. In fact since 1973 there has not been a REAL energy policy in the country. That is not China's fault

[Odin2005]

46. Right, like the state news station is going to be objective...

[PVnRT]

181. CCTV? The Chinese state-run network?

Yeah, that'll be some objective reporting :eyes:

[libneo]

15. Proves why experience matters

Edwards has no foreign policy experience, nor economic policy experience for that matter. He turns out to be a very divisive figure, domestically and internationally.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. Clark doesn't frame China as a "threat", rather as a challenge

Wes Clark has always pointed to the continuing emergence of China and to a lesser extent India over the coming century as a massive challenge to the United States. He never underestimates the challenge that China will pose to us, but I much prefer Clark's framing. Much. Labeling China as a threat is jingoistic, and beyond that it is counter productive. Labeling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as "threats" didn't do a hell of a lot of good, it convinced leaders in those nations that the United States was on a collision course with them and that they needed to make the necessary preparations to prepare for that collision. It cemented antagonistic and confrontive relationships with Iran and North Korea, it accelerated whatever threats they posed to us.

And talking about "Radical Islam" as a threat to the United States is little better, if at all. Obviously everyone over the age of 6 knows that Al Quada attacked America on 9/11. Some radical elements within Islam do present a threat to the United States, but how is that threat best managed? In the current international climate having an American politician rail about the threat America and the world faces from Radical Islam doesn't play the same way as it does for domestic political consumption. It comes across as setting up the next war of civilizations. It comes across as Crusader talk. It further polarizes inflamed feelings, which is exactly the tact that Al Quada promotes.

Clark talks about our need to engage in a war of ideas with differing ideologies. He talks about finding common bonds with people of different cultures. He talks about our need to engage and support moderate islamic leaders who are willing to explain and defend the core peaceful teachings of Mohammad.

Sometimes I fear that too many otherwise Liberal Democrats posture using the toughest language possible in order to convince voters that they aren't soft on national security.

[libneo]

17. Edwards sent his dog Sheldon to slander Clark

last time around. It would be a cold day in hell before I ever supported Edwards.

[JNelson6563]

37. Ah, I was wondering

You're a Clarkie....now your "performance" in this thread makes more sense.

Man, I think the Clarkie/Edwards supporter wars are going to make DU an awful place to be this primary season.

Julie

[Clark2008]

62. I think you may have that backwards, Julie.

Sounds to me like the poster likes Clark over Edwards BECAUSE of Edwards' lack of understanding of both history and socio-economics world-wide, not because (s)he likes Clark over Edwards first.

I have my own reasons for distrusting Edwards. His complete failure to understand the world just adds to it.

[venable]

42. Edwards did not send Shelton.

Period. didn't happen. He knew Shelton. He did not send him. This notion should stop.

[dogman]

47. Edwards could have stopped this.

When his adviser, Shelton, made the remark he should have disavowed it.

[Donna Zen]

19. Sounds like...

There is a cluster within Washington (the ones that brought us Iraq) who believe in the "Long War" theory that ends with China. It sounds like that is policy that Edwards has bought into. I believe that Shelton is also part of this group. Clark believes that we must reform the strategic framework to move away from this thinking. He has said that he doesn't agree with the Long War promoters whose take their cue from outdated Great Game theory.

Yes, quasi-liberal Democrats without credentials are among the party's most outspoken hawks. I doubt the Jim Webb or Jack Reed would ever make such a statement.

[IndianaGreen]

78. Forgive my ignorance, but who the hell is Shelton and why should I worry about him?

I am quite familiar with the "Long War," Rummy's name for an Orwellian endless war, but I am missing the crux of this argument that Clark supporters are making about Edwards and this dude named Shelton because I don't have any background on him.

Please elaborate. Thanks!

[venable]

89. General Hugh Shelton

who had worked with Clark, said he didn't trust him (Clark).

Shelton advised Edwards, pretty infrequently. He, like Edwards, is from North Carolina. The Clark supporters blame Edwards for Shelton's opinion. They ought not, as it had nothing to do with Edwards.

The accusation that Edwards - whose position is that the world's greatest country should exert it's influence in ways other than militarily - is in favor of the Long War, is just wrong.

"It's time for Americans to be patriotic about something other than war" - John Edwards

[IndianaGreen]

123. That Shelton! Yeah. I remember him, he was a paratrooper.

Thank you for the info.

[Catchawave]

119. From The New Yorker:

snip....Soon after Clark entered the race, though, another Clinton-era general, Tommy Franks, who retired this summer after directing the capture of Baghdad, was asked in a private setting whether he believed that Clark would make a good President. “Absolutely not,” Franks replied. Retired General Hugh Shelton was asked the same question after giving a talk at a college in California. Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was Clark’s boss in 1999 when Clark was unceremoniously told that he was being removed from his position as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. “I’ve known Wes for a long time,” Shelton said. “I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . . Wes won’t get my vote.” Shelton has refused to explain how he came to his conclusion.

Clark indicated that he was puzzled by such comments. “I’ve known Hugh Shelton for years,” he said, with a tight smile. “I always liked him.” The comments of Franks, Shelton, and others in the Clinton-era military and defense establishment suggest a paradox in Wesley Clark’s candidacy for President: his military career, the justification for his candidacy, may also be a liability....snip....
more...http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/031117fa_fact?031117fa_fact

[IndianaGreen]

125. venable shook my memory banks when he said General Hugh Shelton

Thanks for your link. I believe this goes back to the Bosnian war, and the incident at an airport, and the comments made about Clark by British commander Sir Michael Jackson.

The last time Clark ran for President, his command of NATO during Clinton's war in Bosnia came under considerable scrutiny by both the Left and the Right. I suspect that Clark supporters still have a bad taste in their collective mouths about all of that brouhaha. I also suspect that we will revisit this issue if Clark were to announce for President again.

But that was 2004. The article you posted shows that Gen. Shelton should have been more specific about what Clark's character failings were. We don't know whether Shelton's comments are based on solid evidence, or are nothing more than the typical conflict one finds among the high brass, particularly when it involves someone that was promoted rapidly like Clark.

Thanks for the info. Now I understand what is meant by Shelton in relation to John Edwards, and why that matters to the Clark supporters.

[jen4clark]

178. A lot for you to read

but until and unless you do you will keep posting this crap.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2849226&mesg_id=2855982

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2849226&mesg_id=2856073

Thanks to Frenchie Cat for putting this all together. Now if only those who keep spouting the lies that were endlessly debunked in 2004 would inform themselves, we could move on...

[FrenchieCat]

182. How wonderful that you would quote Peter Boyers, who has long ago been discredited!

Boyles had an agenda.......

read two "respectable" sources on Peter Boyers' agenda here (who is also known for participating in the Hunting of our last Democratic President!)

Defending the General
The New Yorker's unfair slam on Wes Clark and his role in the Kosovo war.
By Fred Kaplan
http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/#ContinueArticle

Boyer's plate
Who is New Yorker staff writer Peter Boyer -- and why is he after Wesley Clark?
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=1383

And Here......
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=321522

Catchawave, who consistently accuses myself and other Clark supporters of attacks on her preferred candidate for simply questioning her candidate's co-sponsorship of the sorry war we are still fighting attacks Clark with a smear based on words against him by known Republican supporting Generals highlights a sad move on her part indeed (to have to even read Tommy Franks being labeled a "Clinton-era general" is just the start in this article of purposeful slander against our own Democratic hard working General)!

I'll bookmark that Catchawave post for prosperity of future demonstration of hypocritical sampling at its height! :eyes:

Kudos to Catchawave for finally allowing her curtain to come down so that we can plainly see what she truly represents! :hi:

[BootinUp]

168. Your last sentence made me laugh in a ironic way.

I share your concern about political posturing for domestic purposes and how it leads to increasing world tensions and problems.

[VOX]

176. So does Edwards. "...huge challenge which is the growth and emergence of China..."

Listen to the Hardball interview that the OP has misinterpreted:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925398/

[citizen snips]

21. China poses a huge threat economically

if you can't see it then go to wal mart.

[still_one]

30. Is that China or our government? Face it the U.S. pushed NAFTA and all the trade agreements

to the corporations advantage, not to the people in the U.S.

That is not China's fault that they try to get the best deal for THEIR country, it is OUR FAULT that OUR representatives DO NOT DO LIKEWISE

[spooky3]

31. do you have a link? Seems as if a lot of the replies are interpreting

your paraphrasing in a variety of ways. It would be helpful to have the original quote and the context.

[k_jerome]

36. sorry , saw it on Hardball the other day. nt.

[still_one]

39. well in the course of time I am sure if this is his view without media parsing

we shall hear it again

[IndianaGreen]

75. Are you saying that the OP is putting his own spin on what Edwards said

This better be clarified pronto by the Edwards supporters. The statement attributed to Edwards by the OP is very damaging to Edwards.

[spooky3]

91. No, I am simply pointing out that s/he is NOT quoting him

directly (there are no quotes in the OP, so by definition s/he is paraphrasing) and that there is no link to the original quote or context. Without knowing exactly what he said and in what context, it's hard to know exactly what he said or meant.

The OP said s/he did not have a link since it was a comment made on the Tweety show, so there was no way for him/her to track it down for verification.

Here is a link to a Q&A Edwards did in November re: The Future of US-China Relations. "Threat" isn't in the transcript. Maybe someone else wants to do additional detective work.

http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/edwards.cfm

Here's a link to the speech to the Asia Society that preceded it:

http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/06ny_edwards.html

...

JANET KARMOVSKI: It's obvious to me that the Sino-American bilateral relationship is the defining relationship of our time - geopolitically, economically and culturally, in fact. Describe for me your views of what it would take to shift an American mindset so that we could embrace and recognize the importance of this relationship. What is the resistance of the American electorate to coming out of denial and acknowledging the depth and the comprehensive nature of our interdependence with China, in effect? Thank you.

SENATOR EDWARDS: Yeah, there's a natural tension between political considerations in America and this relationship, which is so crucial - not just for the Chinese and not just for us, but for the entire planet. And it's based on some fairly simple things. I mean, a lot of Americans see China and the Chinese not as a potential ally but as a threat and a country that takes away jobs, a country that holds American debt, a country that takes advantage of a trade deficit with the United States - a whole range of things. But I think, honestly, the most powerful of those for most American voters are jobs. I mean, if you look at what's happening in places like Michigan right now, I mean, it is the huge issue in the Governor's race in Michigan, that's going on at this moment. I mean - just a quick aside on that -- I think Governor Granholm was being attacked because the economy was so much in the doldrums cause so many jobs had been lost. And I don't know the details of this but apparently her opponent, they discovered, had located some of his business in China. Is that correct? Somebody?

WOMAN: Yes.

SENATOR EDWARDS: Okay. And so she was able to attack him for that. So that was a huge issue and it's still a huge issue, I guess, in the Governor's race in Michigan. So I think you can't underestimate how powerful this issue is on the ground, politically. This goes, by the way, to the leadership issue that we talked about a few minutes ago. I think what's critical is for the President of the United States to make it clear, not just to the rest of the world but to America, why this relationship is important for us, why it's important for us in every conceivable way - to our safety, to our security. I mean, the most glaring example of that being North Korea and nuclear weapons right now. And why, over the long term, it's important to us economically. So I think on all those fronts it is the responsibility of the President to make it clear to our country why this relationship is so important - not to just go to China, meet with the Chinese leadership, tell them that it's important but make it clear to Americans. Because at the end of the day, you know, a lot of these efforts to engage with China not only go through the Executive branch, they go through the Congress. And if there's not political support for them you're going to see a lot of the things that we've seen happening in the Congress over the last few years.

...

[IndianaGreen]

40. China is not a threat. China is merely a competitor.

Let's not start another sham Cold War!

The greatest threat our nation faces is the supplanting of the Constitution by an authoritarian permanent-state-of-war Presidency.

The second greatest threat our nation faces is climate change.

I beg to differ with Edwards in his priorities. Someone less charitable than me may draw a comparison with similar neocon pronouncements about China and radical Islam, a radicalism that American foreign policy bears a great deal of responsibility for.

[renie408]

49. Competitors play on a level playing field. Threats cheat to maintain an advantage.

China is a threat. For one thing, the government there manipulates the value of the currency to keep it low. This makes Chinese goods inexpensive for the rest of the world and also makes it nearly impossible for outside businesses to compete in Chinese markets. That isn't competition. That is cheating.

[Donna Zen]

72. Yes China is a strong economic force and getting stronger

...and this will not change. They will soon be the world's largest market and thus, control the point of source. IOW, why make widgets in the US when China will be buying the largest number of widgets. What follows is the next widget technology, and thus we lose our economic edge. So by that logic, our China policy is a problem for America; however, the neocons view the solution as military. Thus, the Long War which starts by cornering the oil (he who has the most oil wins the war) and is promoted by the strategic framework which is currently set to oppose China militarily not economically. I have great difficulty with the Edwards' statement.

The solution is turn away from 19th century thinking that advocates alignments of convenience and moves to an enlightened policy of creating alliances based on permanent common interests.

Iraq is creating a world that has put our country and future generations of Americans in a horrible position to participate successfully in the 21st century. While we are borrowing the money from China to destroy ourselves in Iraq, the Chinese are benefiting. Since the end of July, we are now a net debtor nation. The greatest threat to America is from America.

[FrenchieCat]

43. China is only a "threat" IF that is how we approach the inescapable fact

that China will one day most likely dominate the world's economy along with India.

We will have the choice to share the stage, or to get pushed off of it, but it will become impossible to stay on the stage on our own. The decision is ours as much as it is China.

I believe that one of the reason this administration took us to war with Iraq was specifically so that America would have control over the 2nd largest oil reserve and in essence, more control over the growth of the Chinese, Indian and Russian (who has oil) economies.

A large Part of the NeoCon manifesto has always been that America only had a short time frame (after the Cold War) in where it would be the only superpower in the world and therefore could set up for perpetual control of the rest of the world. The PNAC have always stressed that "acting" during this window (10 years) of time by using our military might to "instill" corporate democracies throughout the world would give us the opportunity to "set the stage" for continuing American World Domination EVEN in the face of the projected growth of these countries I mentioned. PNAC was and is wrong, and in my view, John Edwards is incorrect in "labeling" China as a potential enemy based on its economic potential. I consider this a dangerous premise based on an "in the box" set of principles.

America creates the foreign villains that it needs and when it needs them. Wish corporations would be the ones that we hold accountable instead of a country who's biggest crime we object to (unfortunately, more so than its human rights violation) is that they are becoming much more competitive and some in this country are deciding to consider that a threat to our way of life. It doesn't have to be that way. :(

[renie408]

50. China does not work and play well with others.

They cheat. I am not sure it is accurate to portray China as if they are just better at selling stuff than we are. Along with manipulating the currency, they do not bother with anything so silly as worrying about workers making a living wage or with maintaining safe work environments. I don't think YOU are saying this, but some of the posts I have read here make is almost sound like WE should take a few lessons from CHINA. That is just nuts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. We should draw some negative lessons from our non dealings with N. Korea

Bush likes pointing out that they don't work and play well with others also. Bush likes pointing out that they are a threat to the United States also. Same with Iran. So what has the Bush policy accomplished?

Clark thinks we can learn better lessons from how the United States, in a generally bipartisan manner, dealt with the Soviet Union. We negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union, we encouraged various cultural exchanges with the Soviet Union. We tried to promote positive Western values (and some negative ones also unfortunately) with the citizens of the Soviet Bloc. We developed plans to compete with the Soviet Union where needed, such as pushing for a revamped emphasis on science and math in our schools. We poured money into technological advances through government subsidies of basic research so we could remain competitive.

Americans who were active in various Peace movements from the 50's through the 80's understood that we could not afford to demonize the Soviet Union, although very serious issues separated the Soviet Union from the United States. The risks of entrenching hostility were too great. Simply two dimensioning the Soviet Union into "The biggest threat facing America" was Right Wing talk. We played "I hope the Russians love their children too" on our stereos. I think it does America no good now to begin the process that will culminate in America viewing China as "the enemy". Calling China now one of our biggest threats heads a long way down that road.

[renie408]

93. I am not sure that Edwards is advising 'non dealing' with China

In fact, I would be willing to bet he isn't.

In fact, we are all getting worked up over somebody's interpretation of something Edwards 'said on Hardball'. Do we even know if Edwards used the words 'threat'?

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. Yes, the OP provides no direct quotes or context

I already commented on that below in my post #95. Without that it is unfair to Edwards to make negative assumptions about his views. The discussion we are having on this thread about this issue is a valid and important one, but it can not fairly be linked to Edward's views based on out of context heresay. I've had to deal with that type of bogus attacks on Wes Clark more than enough already to not want to see it done to any other Democrat. Let's all pay attention to this one in the future, and what different Democrats actually have to say about it. It is important.

[renie408]

53. I could be wrong about this, so please, be gentle

but I am thinking the Chinese government does not look out across its vast lands and see a billion individuals staring back. Here, we are a society of individuals. Individual rights are sacrosanct (or they are supposed to be). In China, my understanding is that the government sees the Chinese nation. Because of this, they are not so focused on individual needs in such insignificant areas as a living wage, individual welfare or, I dunno, individual human rights. That coupled with devious currency manipulation allows China to operate with an unfair advantage. Saying that China is a serious threat isn't spreading hate. That is silly. China IS a threat. And RADICAL Islam is also a huge threat. The problem is making people see that RADICAL Islam is really different from the majority of Islam.

I am honestly not sure that I would consider these things our number one threat. (Plus, how could BOTH be greatest threats??) But to say that they are not serious threats is weird to me.

[Clark2008]

54. China, yes. Radical Islam? Dear Lord, the poor boy's been

listening to Rush too much.

:eyes:

[fuzzyball]

59. Radical islam & china.....I had no idea Edwards was so astute

in recognizing the biggest threats facing USA.
He is absolutely correct on both. If JE keeps
talking such astute understanding of geopolitical risks
I may switch my support to him from Hillary.

[Clark2008]

66. Are you serious?

You honestly think "radical" Islam is a real threat?

You need to read more and watch TV less.

[fuzzyball]

68. My opinion of radical islam is based on...

studying history of India beginning in 800 AD.
That amounts to 1300 years. Dunno what your opinion
is based on.

[Clark2008]

103. My opinion is based on KNOWING a lot of Muslims.

"Radical" Islam is a boogeyman.

American's internal threats are far greater than it's external threats.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

172. That would explain why it appears to be erroneous, then.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless, and assuming that the Muslims you have met are in any way representative of those in other countries is foolish. If you want to learn about Islam (or anything else) you need to study it, not to base your opinions on your personal experience of one tiny, tiny subset of it.

Radical Islam doesn't pose much of a threat to the US, but it poses a great deal of threat to those having to live under it.

[Clarkie1]

71. STEP. AWAY. FROM. THE. KOOL-AID.

Please!

[Clarkie1]

70. I find that statement from Edwards profoundly disturbing and troubling.

The greatest threats to the U.S. are threats to our constitutional form of government, global warming, our dependence on foreign oil, our loss of credibility in the world, and a crises in our educational system, to name a few.

This sounds to much like Bush's "axis of evil" to me. We ought not to be labeling people and nations as threats. We need to live and work with the rest of the world, and maintain our moral integrity. That's the only way American will remain a great country in the centuries to come.

[IndianaGreen]

73. Edward's statement is politically immature and sloganeering at its worst

I agree 100-percent with your post, Clarkie1. Edward's sounds too much like Bush's "axis of evil" and we have had 6 years of labeling people and nations as threats. Enough is enough!

Ultra-nationalism is a disease which leads to no good. Americans better come to accept that we are an empire in decline, a rapid decline thanks to Bush.

I wouldn't be pissing off the one country in the world that can defeat us outright militarily! China is the rising hyper power in the world. Hurling insults at them will merely feed their xenophobia.

[dailykoff]

76. I agree. This is poisonous. I hope he didn't really say it. (n/t)

[IndianaGreen]

80. The OP poster has a Hillary icon and he has yet to provide a link

or any other corroborating evidence that what he said Edwards said, Edwards really said it. On its face the statement attributed to Edwards is a rehash of Bush's war on terra and axis of evil. We don't need this from a Democrat! At the same time, it is possible that the Edwards quote by the OP is disinformation from a Hillary supporter for reasons I cannot fathom.

Time will tell if this thread is just flame bait, or is based on facts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

95. I agree. Fuller context and a thorough discussion is called for

and it is not provided by the OP. There are some inside the Democratic Party who do frame China and "Radical Islam" as the greatest threats facing America, and that type of framing, in my opinion, IS ultimately a threat to America, and it needs to be confronted. However we have been provided with no direct statements by John Edwards here. All of this hopefully will be fleshed out in the debates before the primaries, and in other forums that provide us a chance to learn more about the full views of all the Democratic candidates.

[Clarkie1]

79. I hate to say this, but this is what happens when Democrats feel they need to sound "tough"

It's exactly why so many Democrats voted for the IWR.

[spooky3]

101. If you look at the links another poster and I provided

Edwards said nothing like what the OP attributed to him in either the Oct. 31 speech or the subsequent interview. In the absence of other links, I am inclined to believe he has never said what is claimed in the OP.

[loyalsister]

183. Elevating ourselves has become a way of life

Religiously, "racially" geographically, culturally...

No matter the details disputed in this thread, the spirit of Edward's statements speak to this tendency.
We should not allow this kind of toxic influence on policy to continue.

[VOX]

177. That's because Edwards didn't say anything like it.

Listen to the Hardball link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925398/
"Edwards on the Economy"

[dailykoff]

74. Playing the race card is no way to run a campaign.

I like Edwards but this stuff is ridiculous and I'm sure he knows it. The fact that we're in debt up to our eyeballs is not China's fault, and Islamophobia is Bush's bullshit gift to the world.

[antiimperialist]

81. Did Edwards really say that?

I notice no link was provided.
It sounds kinda weird. China over Kim Jong Il?

[IndianaGreen]

83. I think we have been had by a Hillary supporter

Edwards leads Hillary in Iowa, so why not expect the Hillaristas to start a smear and disinformation campaign against Edwards.

Where is the link to what Edwards was alleged to have said? If he said it, he is dead wrong. If he didn't say it, he was wronged by a Hillarista.

[antiimperialist]

84. Maybe not a Hillary supporter

But a Republican. Not that followers of other parties are not welcome, but they should not spread falsehoods. The Hil icon might be a decoy.

[antiimperialist]

82. We have been duped. Edwards never said that

1) No link was provided
2) I can't find a link
3) No-one else can find a link
4) The author of this post recently bashed John Kerry, in a thread that had to be locked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3025502#3026029

[IndianaGreen]

85. So this is the same OP that said that Kerry wanted a surge in Iraq

I wonder if the Hillary icon is a ruse.

[antiimperialist]

86. Edwards said the opposite: They (China) want the world to be a stable, relatively tranquil place

What the original thread author probably meant to blow out of proportion was Edwards'words during an interview with a member of the US Asia Society in NY in October 31st.

Edwards simply worried about China's support for the genocidal Sudanese government and the Chinese environmentally unsound policies.

But Edwads at the same time said:

They want the world to be a stable, relatively tranquil place.

Here is the transcript of his interview:
http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/06ny_edwards.html

[IndianaGreen]

88. Thank you for the link to Edward's Asia Society interview with Leslie Stahl

Not quite the simplistic caricature of Edwards that the OP posted.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

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

[k_jerome]

111. wahhh. lol. nt.

[spooky3]

96. Please see my post above in reply to IndianaGreen

In the included link, Edwards discussed how OTHERS saw China as a threat because of the loss of American jobs, etc., and the context of his remarks is included.

What he said is NOT the same as what the OP posted.

Maybe someone else can provide a better link, but so far, I don't see any.

[Trajan]

109. This one has been doing this for weeks ....

IF THIS is a fabrication .... then it shouldn't be tolerated ...

[GreenTea]

87. Dude, is truly for real...and truly cares...

[rman]

104. What's so special about saying that?

Bush has been raving about the great threat of radical Islam for the past 6 years.

And by now we should realize he's been exaggerating that threat for political and economic reasons.

Edwards sounds like just another fear monger.

[enough already]

117. I'm tired of shitheads spreading fear

Frankly, the greatest threat to the US is politicians who spout moronic bullshit like Edwards just did. It's no better than Bush.

[Trajan]

118. Edwards apparently DIDNT say it ....

The OP said he did ... read the whole thread ....

[antiimperialist]

120. Delete this thread please

Many might come here and leave with the impression that Edwards really said this. It will set a precedent for others to claim things such as "Hillary said Bin Laden is a hero" or "Obama says global warming is a myth".

[Trajan]

122. You need to alert the thread at the top

Many good DUers have been DUPED by this poster .....

[angry_chuck]

166. get past the title

look at the discussion, good points being made

don't beleive things you read in titles anyway, they are spinned up summaries designed to implant false impressions in the minds of those who give them merely a cursory glance.

[k_jerome]

124. more detail of his statements...

-focus on radical Islam is important because we have to survive and our planet has to survive
-overlooked issue is China, both economically and militarily. obsession with radical Islam has overshadowed China. Their military is opaque, we have no idea what they are doing militarily.

Spot on.

[IndianaGreen]

126. Your credibility has come under serious question, k_jerome

On what do you base your post "more detail of his statements?" They are not in quotes, so can we assume they are not direct quotes? Are they based on notes you took? I take notes sometimes when I am listening to candidates, and I will right down direct quotes. Did you? If this is based on a published story or transcript, why didn't you provide a link?

Your credibility has come under serious question, k_jerome, and you need to rehabilitate yourself by providing some substantive answers before this thread is labeled a flame bait by the mods.

[k_jerome]

127. credibility around here seems to be directly linked to...

the candidate you support. it seems that Edwards supporters would know of his appearances on major talk shows. He was on Hardball the other day, and I watched. Why didn't they? I note that the post police do not patrol threads that portray Hillary in a bad light. I also note that the Hillary supporters here do not cry and whine nearly as much as other candidates supporters. The hall monitor attitude I have seen is laughable. Here is one direct quote for you. I will supply no more. Watch Hardball or hire your own stenographer. And then see if this quote is commented on by the Edwards whiners.

"our focus, our obsession i should say, with radical islam, which is important because we have to survive, our planet has to survive, but it has lead us away from the other huge challenge america faces which is the growth and emergence of china." -John Edwards

china, which he stated was opaque militarily. radical Islam, which he stated was a threat to our, and our very planets, survival. like i said originally. like i agreed with originally.

good luck with that shorthand.

and for the record, my rehabilitation with YOU is not high on MY list of issues facing ME. unless you are a radical Muslim or Communist Chinese.

you should grow a skin as thick as your arrogance for the upcoming primaries. if i whined nearly as much about the threads that i perceived to be critical of my candidate of choice as many here, i would...well i don't so...

[IndianaGreen]

128. Looks like we have some arrogance issues in here as well

The only rehabilitation I wrote about was your rehabilitation to the DU community, not to me. Other DUers have pointed out threads you have posted that can charitably be described as less than honest as to their intention, such as the one in which you lamely said that Kerry supported a troop surge in Iraq.

[k_jerome]

129. because they were critical of their favorites...

like I said, Hillary supporters don't engage in such whining and then seizure of the moral high ground. ALERT! LIES! BOO HOO!

Like I said, you will see no comments addressing what Edwards said. Just whining.

[k_jerome]

136. some solid proof here. links and all huh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3035927#3035938

you seem to be consistent in your call for evidence.

[spooky3]

130. credibility is linked to EVIDENCE

I appreciate your including what you believe to be a quote in this post, but the best source is a link to a respected media outlet. Such an outlet will include a full, exact quote AND the context.

Surely you have been around DU long enough to know that it is the responsibility of the POSTER, and not to those responding to him/her, to provide the evidence in support of a point s/he is making.

[k_jerome]

133. i SAW it on tv. the whole world is not the internet my friend...

however, go onto Hardballs site and look around. i am sure it is there somewhere. i see several posts that do not supply evidence, or supply evidence from obscure sources. i don't whine about it. the guy said it. apparently it hurts some people. attack the messenger. i understand.

[spooky3]

135. we GET that you saw Edwards on TV. What you don't seem to understand

is that if ANY poster simply describes what she or he says she or he saw or heard, but cannot--whether because none exists or for other reasons--produce verifiable evidence, she or he will NOT have the credibility of someone who DOES provide this evidence.

It is simple, common sense.

[k_jerome]

138. i see threads like that all the time...

they are not questioned unless you disagree or dislike what was said. understandable hypocrisy.

see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3035927#3035938

[IndianaGreen]

146. Dan Senor was educated in Israel. His bio was on the Iraq Coalition Authority website

and his dual citizenship is also a fact. I would be a dual citizen the moment I set foot in Israel.

Plus, I didn't start the thread in question, like you did here.

Are you saying that Dan Senor is not any of those things on that thread, including his marriage to Campbell Brown? Are you also supporting Lieberman, Dan Senor's pal?

[k_jerome]

147. so you are saying there is sufficient evidence of the relationship...

because the poster thought he heard it on a show he watched?

[IndianaGreen]

150. Dan Senor graduated from Hebrew University, Jerusalem

The White House has a very brief bio for Dan Senor, not as extensive as the chest-beating he had on the Iraq Coalition Authority website when he worked for Paul Bremer.

Senor completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Western Ontario and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/senor-bio.html

[k_jerome]

151. wasn't the thread about a relationship between Lieberman and...

this guy and not his background?

[IndianaGreen]

154. You didn't post the link to the OP on that thread, you posted link to my post

in reply to the OP.

Don't get dense!

[k_jerome]

155. i guess i did that...

to demonstrate that you did not question this assertion at all. oh well. sorry to offend.

[IndianaGreen]

156. If you want to comment on Dan Senor, go post on that thread

don't play this disinformation game you have been playing in here all along and then act all innocent.

[k_jerome]

157. i'm not acting innocent...

just pointing out your hypocrisy in questioning what you don't like and not questioning what you want to agree with anyway.

[IndianaGreen]

158. Go post your pro-Lieberman and pro-Dan Senor views at the Dan Senor thread then.

instead of hijacking your own thread.

[k_jerome]

159. have a nice day. i expect to see the hypocrisy many more times..

before the elections.

[Solon]

131. Incorrect, you only deserve credibility if we can VERIFY what you said...

Either to a news article about the item in question, or another article that has references that we can verify. Other than that, I assume you made this shit up.

[k_jerome]

134. you can assume what you want...

makes it easy to not react to what was said. have a nice day.

[madfloridian]

185. This is not true about what Edwards said. Very misleading.

I think some of what you post should be under scrutiny now after this. I saw you do this to two other Democrats lately.

[spooky3]

137. Here is the link to the video; Edwards did NOT say what the

OP claims.

Click on the Edwards on the economy link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15925398/

[k_jerome]

139. yeah he did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034415&mesg_id=3035909

[Solon]

140. Where?!

I watched the video, he said he was concerned that we are "obsessed" with radical Islam, which he termed as a "serious concern" while completely ignoring China as an emergent power, by the way, did you notice he didn't use the term threat for either of these?

[k_jerome]

141. see my direct quote...

regarding focus on radical islam and the survival of our country and planet. what did that mean to you? he also said that we have no idea what China is doing militarily and we need to focus on them as well.

"our focus, our obsession i should say, with radical islam, which is important because we have to survive, our planet has to survive, but it has lead us away from the other huge challenge america faces which is the growth and emergence of china." -John Edwards

[Hippo_Tron]

142. Nowhere in that statement is the word "greatest"

Therefore it doesn't match the OP.

[k_jerome]

144. you are correct. i would change it.

if i could. i should have wrote John Edwards: survival of country, planet, depend on focus on radical islam...but we should not lose sight of China, either economically or militarily.

[Solon]

143. First, you have no direct quotes...

Edwards did NOT term EITHER of these as "Greatest Threats" which are YOUR words, not his, so STOP MAKING SHIT UP! Also, while he said he was concerned with China's military, and our lack of knowledge of it, he mostly talked about economic issues that concern our Free Trade agreements, and how they should be reformed to help retain jobs here, as he said, they need to be modified to conform to some Labor and Environmental standards.

[k_jerome]

145. here, i did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3034415&mesg_id=3035909

and as i said, i should have said John Edwards: survival of country, planet depends on focus on radical islam, but we should not lose sight of China, economically or militarily.

better?

[Solon]

148. Then he his guilty of hyperbole...

The worst thing Radical Muslims can do is possibly destabilize a few regimes, though this could be a disaster regionally, like in Pakistan, with nuclear weapons and all that, I would, far and away, consider Global Climate Change, or the fact that the U.S. and Russia still have hair triggers on their thousands of nuclear weapons, as much greater threats.

[k_jerome]

149. if it makes you view of him more positive to think...

he did not mean what he said, then that is your option. i expressed support for his views on these issues, and i think many others will as well.

[Solon]

152. There is no global threat of Radical Islam...

Its more regional or national at best, to be honest, this dims my view of Edwards, engaging in such exaggeration as he did.

[k_jerome]

153. my original post was support for his comments...

i still feel the same. my opinion of him has increased.

[spooky3]

162. please listen to the video to hear what JE REALLY said, and in what

context.

[k_jerome]

164. please explain context...

of "survival of our country, our planet" depends on focus on radical Islam. Or not. i got it.

[spooky3]

160. My post referred to the OP. That means "original post"

that started the thread. Notice also the placement of my reply--it replies to the OP.

He did NOT say what you claimed in the OP.

Others have pointed out what is wrong with your other post.

[k_jerome]

163. i have acknowledged that...

the original post was done from memory of the show. should have wrote:

John Edwards: survival of country, planet, depends on focus on radical islam, but we must not lose sight of china, militarily or economically.

that sounds better anyway, and captures his intent much more accurately.

[Lone_Wolf]

169. The greatest threat isn't China and Radical Islam

I'd say Global Warming, bioweapons, and the W's new nuclear arms race are bigger threats.

My biggest concern is the new arms race. Despite objections from nations all over the world, W has proceeded to militarize outer space. Countries like China and Russia have no recourse other than building up huge stockpiles of nukes as a deterent.

For instance, Russia has something like 4,500 nuclear warheads on hair trigger alert pointing towards the US. Giving the decaying state of Russia's incoming warning system, this is a catastrophe waiting to happen.

Noam Chomsky has said this:

"Our systems are also computer controlled, and there are regular occurrences, frequent occurrences of the computer systems giving a warning that a missile -- that the U.S. is under attack, and must respond. The rules are that when such a warning comes, and it is very frequent, there are three minutes for human intervention to determine whether it's an authentic attack, and then there's a time for presidential authorization, 30 seconds. That's the way our systems work. The Russian systems are far worse, furthermore deteriorating. The threat is being very consciously enhanced, and it's a very serious one. Senator -- former Senator Sam Nunn, one of the leading figures in arms control, wrote a couple of weeks ago that it is madness for human survival to depend on the hope that regular computer errors will be caught in time. The threat is severe, and he says, may well be increasing."

[wisteria]

170. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out the threats. It's how to handle them that's important.

Sorry, but Edwards is weak on defense issues. He talks a good talk but that is all. Now, some one like Senator Kerry, who has been on top of the terrorism issue since the late nineties (A must read- "The New War", by Senator John Kerry) and is chairman of the subcommittee on east Asian and Pacific affairs.

[VOX]

173. OP distorts Edwards' views - Edwards said China is "huge challenge," not "threat"... BIG difference!

By using the word "threat," the OP reduces Edwards' views on China to some oversimplistic sound-bite that never occurred.

On 10/31/06, Edwards addressed the Asia Society in New York and did go on record with many detailed, thoughtful and nuanced observations about China, and strengthening U.S. relations with that country. Nowhere could I find a simplistic statement such as "China is the greatest threat, etc."

Senator John Edwards
Address to Asia Society
October 31, 2006, New York
The Future of US-China Relations
AsiaSource interview with Senator Edwards
http://www.asiasociety.org/speeches/06ny_edwards.html

<snip>
The second subject I want to talk about briefly is the question of China's rise and what it means for America. And one meetings that I remember best was that we had a meeting with the Education Minister. And it was fairly startling to me - it won't be to most of you - that China is going to become the largest English-speaking country on the face of the planet because they require that their kids in school learn to speak English. And they are completely invested, both financially and emotionally, in closing the education gap that exists in China - both regionally and between the better off families and those that are poor. About half their kids major in science, math, technology - the areas which I think are critical to success in today's world. By comparison, they graduate somewhere around ten times the number of engineers that we graduate each year. So they're very, very focused. It was striking to me, both in terms of their domestic policy but also the way what I'm about to say informs their foreign policy. Basically, what they seem to want is, they want to stay focused on being successful internally, strengthening and growing their economy - not at any cost, but willing to take a significant amount of cost in order to accomplish that. And that includes things like environmental degradation and continuing their rise in the consumption of energy. But it also affects their foreign policy and you can hear it in everything they say. You know, I asked specifically about the genocide in Darfur in Sudan. A lot of people, including me, are concerned that the Chinese are providing some propping up of Sudan and the Sudanese government because they get a lot of oil from Sudan. And I think there's just some truth to that. Their energy demands are high. They're focused on developing their economy. They need this oil in order to strengthen and grow their economy. So they're willing to not put pressure on the Sudanese government, even when a genocide is going on. But I think, also, it's put of this whole notion that they are focused in, not out. They want the world to be a stable, relatively tranquil place. I think it's also one of the reasons that they generally are not supportive of sanctions. I mean, America is much more aggressive about sanctions than the Chinese are, I think because we are about projecting ourselves around the world. And they certainly have more influence internationally than I think they're willing to recognize. But they are clearly focused on being successful internally. And it affects not only their domestic policy but also their foreign policy.

They also have huge challenges. That became clear. We had a meeting with a gentleman who was in the equivalent of their Environment Protection Agency. He was in the environmental bureaucracy, which is relatively small, by the way, for such a huge country. And he talked about going out into the rural areas of China and trying to get the local public officials to do something about the extraordinary environmental problems - and they have huge environmental problems in China. And he said, It's virtually impossible to get them to engage on this issue because they are judged based on their economic development. And he said, It is not a perimeter of their success whether they're doing something about environmental problems. Just anecdotally, I know a lot of you - and maybe all of you - have been there, but Beijing has as bad a traffic as Moscow, where I spent some time a few months ago, which is virtual gridlock a lot of the time. You can barely move. So they're becoming a car society with very little control, huge traffic problems. And they have both environmental and energy concerns. They're now the second largest consumer of oil on the planet, after the United States. I think that's very important in our relationship with them. Because, as I said earlier about Sudan, I think it's also true about Iran - as long as they continue to have these energy demands, as long as they're focused on economic development and what's happening internally, it will drive the way they engage on these other issues, particularly Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, other countries that we care about. So the question is, What does America do? How do we engage the Chinese? How do we engage them in a way that strengthens this relationship over time? Because I think it is in our interest for that to happen. It's in their interest for it to happen. But I don't think it's an easy challenge. You know, I had a conversation with the Defense Minister about the EP3 incident that happened in 2001. And I said, In follow-up to that, do you now have a direct line to the Defense Department in the United States so that if something happens accidentally we have a way to communicate with you and communicate quickly? Because that was one of the problems that occurred back in 2001.
<snip>

[shance]

184. Radical Islam????? How about Radical Christianity or Judaism?

They are all the source of problems as much as each other.

I come from an Irish Catholic/Protestant background. I can say they all promote the same oppressions and the same manipulations by those abusing power within the confines of the religion.

Take your pick.

I have to say this disappoints me tremendously of Edwards that he would make such a divisive and ignorant comment.

[madfloridian]

186. So, can I just make up crap also? And post it.

And never source it?

Oh, goody, that should be fun.

[madfloridian]

187. So it should be fun just making stuff up. Wonder who.

I should make stuff up about first? Let me see.

k_jerome, you have some interesting stuff at a forum I never saw before...talking about DU.

[Clarkie1]

190. What is his opinion on bombing Iran? Would he support a strike? nt

[fuzzyball]

191. Israel will beat Bush to bombing Iran

Israel really has no choice if she wants to survive.
Beats being wiped off the map as Iran leaders have threatened.

[Clarkie1]

192. Have you seen this?

And if Bush doesn't take on Iran, prominent Israelis are speculating that president Clinton 2 (Hillary) will do so. Oded Tira, the chairman of Israel's Association of Industrial Manufacturers, and former chief artillery office in the IDF, said, "Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party, which is conducting itself foolishly, and U.S. newspaper editors."

http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20070102-125318-7565r

[fuzzyball]

193. I would'nt be in the least bit surprised...eom