Edwards Assails Clinton's Terror Remarks

[Colobo]

http://www.columbian.com/news/APStories/AP06072007news150550.cfm

NEW YORK (AP) -- Presidential contender John Edwards on Thursday disputed Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's claim that the U.S. is safer since Sept. 11 and contended GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani will never win if he embraces President Bush's policies.

Speaking on the New Yorkers' home turf - and not far from Ground Zero - Edwards dismissed Clinton's comments in Sunday's debate in which she said the nation is safer now that it was before the terrorist attacks. Clinton's other top rival, Sen. Barack Obama, also has challenged her claim.

"Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies," Edwards said at a news conference. "There was no group called al-Qaida in Iraq before this president's war in Iraq."

He never mentioned Clinton by name but the subject was obvious.

Clinton advisers said she had been referring to improvements in domestic and airline security in the wake of the attacks.

[ixion]

1. Hillary is a neocon, IMO

I may get flamed for that, but it's how I feel.

[bvar22]

29. Agree. Just look at who gives her money.

If Hillary becomes the next president, we will NEVER leave Iraq.

[Colobo]

2. Edwards is quite aggressive lately!

[ElizabethDC]

3. He's trying to get attention/momentum so that he can stay in the top tier

What with Clinton and Obama getting most of the media attention.

[Colobo]

4. The thing is that Edwards is not using effective aggression

In the debates, he was trying to make the others look bad instead of trying of looking BETTER than the other candidates.

[venable]

5. I think otherwise

I think he was gracious and clear - he did not want the differences between the candidates to be muddled. HRC did, which is absolutely the right tack for a front runner.

The reactions to his 'aggressiveness' in the campaign is that people see him as strong, not as petty.

I think he did great, obviously, and I'm glad he's come out with this.

It is a campaign for heaven's sake, not a tea party (or a coronation).

I think you might find that many disagree with your assessment of how effective this approach is.

[Cha]

22. Definetly not a

coronation and I'm glad to see Edwards and Obama being aggressive in their differences.

[bunnies]

9. It works though.

at least imho. He definitely impressed me in the last debate. My opinion of him increased ten fold when he started speaking up against the others. Ill admit. There was a point when I thought I would NEVER vote for him. At all. No matter what. But he showed some fire in the last debate... and it pleased me. Whereas, HRC & Obama acted exactly as expected. Dont get me wrong... I dont have a candidate as of now... and I have no favorites at all. Im just saying that in standing up to them.. he DID look better. At least to me.

[bvar22]

30. Most of the Media attention AND most of the BIG Corporate contributions.

Who do they serve?

[rinsd]

33. He has to be to stay relevant.

That why he attacked both Clinton and Obama in the last 2 debates.

If he's in the lead, you wouldn't see a negative thing come out of Edwards.

Frontrunners speak in the positive, now which two candidates focus on the positive ;-)

[BeyondGeography]

6. Ms. Inevitable Never Makes a Mistake needs a pooper scooper

Too bad she didn't just refer to "improvements in domestic and airline security in the wake of the attacks." No, she had to say Bush has made us safer.

Oh, I know, she didn't say "Bush." But that's the way the Republicans will put it, and she'll be playing defense on this ill-considered remark the whole campaign if she's the nominee.

[Tellurian]

8. No, Edwards is PO'ed because she didn't agree with him..

JE said the Iraq War was no more than a bumper sticker. Hillary disagreed.

And JE is taking her quote out of context...she said, "Yes, we're safer; but not safe enough." that is the complete quote and has nothing to do with Bush.

[BeyondGeography]

11. At least her advisers know she blew it, even if you apparently don't

How's this for a bumper sticker: Vote for the Democrat who says the Republicans have made us safer.

Nah, maybe not.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. "Vote for the Democrat who says the Republicans have made us safer"

Good one! :rofl:

[venable]

16. of course it has to do with bush

and it is flat out wrong.

I'm sorry - HOW are we safer?

We are not. She said we are, when it is widely acknowledged by everyone outside of cheney's office that we are decidedly less safe.

Of course she said we are not safe enough...that is not the issue. The issue is the first, remarkably and dangerously incorrect phrase: We are safer.

[Tellurian]

20. The reference to Bush is missing from the transcript..

and I distinctly remember Bitzer saying Bush's name in the original question. Bush's name is not mentioned in the question in both transcripts. It's been edited out or intentionally deleted. The only way to know for sure, is if someone has it tiv'od.

Nevertheless, it was a loaded question.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Bush has been prez since 9/11. Who else was she crediting? Santa Claus? nt

[polichick]

7. That really was a dopey remark!

I thought Clinton did great overall, but couldn't believe she said that! I've looked at the context for explanation, but I think she meant it. Yikes!

[Tellurian]

10. Has the cnn transcript come out yet?

I've checked back several times. They have everything available... but!

[BeyondGeography]

12. Here it is

<Senator Obama, you get the first question of the night. It has been nearly six years since 9/11. Since that time, we have not suffered any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Just yesterday, the FBI arrested three men for a terror plot at JFK Airport. Could it be that the Bush administration's effort to thwart terror at home has been a success?

SEN. OBAMA: No. Look, all of us are glad that we haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, and I think there are some things that the Bush administration has done well.

But the fact of the matter is is that we live in a more dangerous world, not a less dangerous world, partly as a consequence of this president's actions, primarily because of this war in Iraq, a war that I think should have never been authorized or waged. What we've seen is a distraction from the battles that deal with al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We have created an entire new recruitment network in Iraq, that we're seeing them send folks to Lebanon and Jordan and other areas of the region.>

...MR. BLITZER: Senator Edwards, let me let you clarify what you said the other day. You said the war on terror is a bumper sticker, not a plan. With the news yesterday, this alleged plot at JFK which could have done supposedly horrendous damage and caused incredible number of casualties, do you believe the U.S. is not at war with terrorists?

SEN. EDWARDS: I reject this bumper sticker, Wolf. And that's exactly what it is, it's a bumper sticker. As president of the United States, I will do absolutely everything to find terrorists where they are, to stop them before they can do harm to us, before they can do harm to America or to its allies. Every tool available -- military, alliances, intelligence -- I will use. But what this global war on terror bumper sticker -- political slogan, that's all it is, it's all it's ever been -- was intended to do was for George Bush to use it to justify everything he does. The ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture, none of those things are okay. They are not the United States of America.

MR. BLITZER: Senator Clinton, do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker, at least the way it's been described?

SEN. CLINTON: No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11.

And I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda. And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough, and I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should be following.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/us/politics/03demsdebate_transcript.html?pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087%0A&en=9793b5f3376eec42&ex=1181102400

[Colobo]

13. Obama answered the question very well.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Indeed, and it was an unforced error by Hillary

Wolfie didn't even ask her if we were safer, he just wanted to know if she agreed with Edwards. All she had to do was offer some claptrap about the terrorist threat being real and she would have been home free.

Obama takes a lot of heat for being inexperienced, but I don't see anyone trying to explain what he really meant in Sunday's debate four days after the fact. And he did handle this basic question much better than her. So did Edwards, for that matter.

[Tellurian]

17. Yes, Wolfie did frame the question as..

including, blah, blah ..."are we safer now" ...

Thanks for providing the report from the NYT...but it is factually inaccurate.

I'll see if I can find the cnn transcript. Apparently, part of that quote has gotten (intentionally by the NYT) edited out, as a way to spark controversy. (Oddly enough the Bush reference is edited out completely in both transcripts. I do remember Bush name mentioned at the time in that question. It has apparently been deleted.) Sen Clinton's statement is correct in the transcript. The parsing of the quote, as many here are want to do, changes the meaning and the intent of her words, however.

Found the quote and the transcript:

Bitzer:

"Senator Clinton, do you agree with Senator Edwards that this war on terror is nothing more than a bumper sticker; at least the way it's been described?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D) NEW YORK: No, I do not. I am a senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11, and I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists who are intent upon foisting their way of life and using suicide bombers and suicidal people to carry out their agenda.

And I believe we are safer than we were. We are not yet safe enough.And I have proposed over the last year a number of policies that I think we should following."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html

[BeyondGeography]

18. Don't be tinfoilin' now

Hillary stepped in this little mess with her own two feet. There is no bogus transcript scheme afoot to make her look bad.

[Tellurian]

19. "Wheres the Beef?"

sorry, I don't see a mess.

[BeyondGeography]

23. Beef: HRC throws a bouquet at the Republicans

Wingnuts like Rich Lowry are very appreciative; you should be proud of your candidate:

<In the recent Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton stood alone in maintaining we're safer since 9/11, demonstrating that -- whatever her flaws -- she's the adult supervision in the Democratic field.>

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2007/06/07/the_lesson_of_the_foiled_jfk_plot

[polichick]

15. Yep, there's no getting around that...

She really meant it ~ or she was playing politics. If so, who was she playing to?

[Cha]

21. Oh yeah, we're a lot safer now..

:sarcasm: the bushits haven't done anything to make us safer except everyone gets their luggage checked and gets thrown in prison without a lawyer at their whim.

[MethuenProgressive]

26. "He never mentioned Clinton by name" - Why such a chicken, John?

"Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies," Edwards said at a news conference. "There was no group called al-Qaida in Iraq before this president's war in Iraq."

This is news to him? Where the heck has he been?
And why so late with this "snappy comeback"? Had to do some polling first?

[Tellurian]

27. The O-bomb-a Throwers are cackling over a non-issue..

If it makes you somehow feel good to distort the Truth, then why should I be responsible for your delusional thinking?

[Triana]

28. 'improvements in domestic security?!!"...

:wtf:

Our food supply is being POISONED and there is NOTHING stopping a terrorist from doing more of that, our borders are WIDE OPEN, our water supply is UNPROTECTED, stuff coming into this country is by and large NOT inspected, people are streaming in here from who knows where for who knows what, our power grid is hobbling and unprotected...I could go on but you get the picture...

IMPROVEMENTS IN DOMESTIC SECURITY?!

I don't THINK SO!

The Psychopathic Drunk in the White House has done f*ck all about ANY of this. Hillary needs to do something about her bu$hit problem. I understand Pepto-Bismol can help with that.

Meanwhile, she just lost the election.

[bvar22]

31. Hillary MUST insist that we are safer if the Occupation is to continue.

If Hillary is elected, we will NEVER leave Iraq.
Look at who funds her.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Colobo]

32. Mmmmm!