John Edwards Proposing Anti-Terrorism Agency

[Sapphire Blue]

Edwards Proposing Anti-Terrorism Agency
Associated Press
23 minutes ago

NEW YORK (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is proposing an international organization to fight terrorism through shared intelligence — cooperation that he says will combat the dangers facing the United States where President Bush has failed.

"We need a counterterrorism policy that will actually counter terrorism," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery at Pace University. "We've got to throw away the failed George Bush policies of the past, and move in a bold new direction."

The 2004 vice presidential nominee was delivering his speech four days before the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, not far from Ground Zero. The speech also comes in chief primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's home district, and he made a point of challenging he notion that post-9/11 reforms have made the nation safer.

"Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it's worse around the world," Edwards said in excerpts provided by his campaign. "It means the results are in on George Bush's so-called global war on terror and it's not just a failure, it's a double-edged failure."

Edwards said the centerpiece of his terrorism policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization. He said it will be designed to coordinate operations like the recent arrest of three suspected terrorists in Germany who were suspected of plans to bomb airports and other institutions in the country.

"Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation," Edwards said. "Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."


Continued @ http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hQvAuHnlHI84KSwnT1-1tZL36wdw

Transformational Change For America And The World - JOHN EDWARDS for PRESIDENT 2008

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

A true revolution of values

"I'm proposing we set a national goal of eliminating poverty in the next 30 years." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"If you call wanting to give everybody a chance 'class warfare,' then so be it. That's what I'm for." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

"Every time another radical Republican running for president speaks, the American people are reminded of how out of touch with economic reality they are." - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Building One America Starts in New Orleans - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Silence is Betrayal - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Moral Leadership - JOHN EDWARDS 08

Ending Poverty in America - edited by Senator John Edwards

[David__77]

1. Who would decide who gets to be a member?

Would China be a member? It is, after all, a permanent UN security council member. Same with Russia? Russia faces an insurgency, and China has terrorist incidents in its far west. Would they be required to submit to "democratic" litmus tests to join?

Would Saudi Arabia be a member? Egypt? This proposal raises many questions. On the face of it, I'm not too impressed. The UN is an established international forum for matters related to security. It sounds like an attempt to create a more US-dominated, duplicative body.

[ColonelTom]

24. Exactly. Sounds like the "coalition of the willing" to me. n/t

[Cameron27]

2. I'm not sure where he's going with this...

"Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."

[Milo_Bloom]

3. More usless Edwards Rhetoric

He slips further and further into obscurity everyday and makes loonier and loonier claims.

Forgetting the fact that he helped form and signed onto those failed policies, he now wants to create another organization to help confuse the others already on this task.

Then, worse, like mandating doctor visits, those nations unwilling or unable to participate in this appendix of police work, will get "called out" before the world (whatever that means). "ooooo, everyone wag your finger of shame at Kazakhstan because they haven't met our standards for 'combating terrorism'".

I fail to understand how people fall for this snake oil salesman.

[Sapphire Blue]

7. You might want to read the speech before making such a foolish comment:

It's posted here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/529

[Milo_Bloom]

12. Read it, usual empty rhetoric from Edwards.

First, Edwards, as usual, wants us to forget that he was a major playing in forming this failed strategy.

Second, we don't need a new organization with new rules and new complications. There are entities in place that could serve this function much better.

Just like his tax plan, this is another item that wouldn't solve the problems he claims it solves.

[Sapphire Blue]

14. Gee, you know so much! You should go to work for one of those "entities". Better yet, you should...

... be the director of one!

(Do I need to add :sarcasm: ?)

[Milo_Bloom]

15. I know empty rhetoric when I read it.

I also know a snake oil salesman when I see one. I am sorry that you can't see it, but you are shilling for one.

[Sapphire Blue]

40. What you know is how to bash Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

41. You are not so bad at it yourself.........

considering that you are complaining!

Speaking about Obama's alleged (but proven nonfactual) "put it on the table" social security statement.....


Sapphire Blue (1000+ posts) Fri Sep-07-07 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
9. Why doesn't he just put sending us to the ovens on the table?
The cost of living is increasing phenomenally, and he's considering cuts to the incomes of poor, elderly & disabled people. God in heaven, help us! We've had enough of a president who caters to the haves & have mores. No more. No way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3504719&mesg_id=3504803

[Sapphire Blue]

42. No, I'm just not a member of the Obama cult & don't take kindly to suggestions of Social Security...

... cuts.

[Netbeavis]

11. well it worked as far as getting some attention

remember, in today's politics, as long as the attention you are getting is not overly bad, as in indictments or trips to the men's room, it's all good and beneficial.

The worse thing any candidate wants is an empty room and dead microphone (see Brownback)

[Milo_Bloom]

13. Not good attention...

When you propose more useless entities, the attention is not good. Like his mandatory doctor appointments, this is an easy one for the GOP to win.

That is what happens when you make empty promises for the purpose of trying to please a specific audience.

[Netbeavis]

16. Got news for you...they are all the same

They may look like ducks of a different feather, but they all quack the same.

I don't really care either way, I just want a Blue White House in '08.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. So you are saying I shouldn't vote for the Dems?

I wouldn't even consider voting for Edwards, Clinton, Biden or Dodd, so you are saying it isn't worth considering ANY of the dems then?

Okay, I'll go do some work for the Unity party.

[Netbeavis]

19. thats not it at all . Please re-read as no where did I say that

my point is people get all rabbled up over Clinton said this and Obama said that. They are all the same. Pick one, support one and then hope yours make the cut.


Look they will say anything right now to gather votes but at the end of the day, they are more alike than different and I don't really care that they are.

I want a Dem in the White House in '08. This will complete the sweep and the Dem will have the House, Senate and White House.

From there the Democrat platforms for healthcare, education, middleclass tax cuts will be brought into discussion and passed in one form of the other.

To nit-pick over one national healthcare plan or the other...when we don't even have one yet is ridiculous.

Its like arguning with your family about how you're gonna spend your inheritance and mom and dad are still alive. Its a bit premature.

[penguin7]

21. I think Edwards will have problems getting elected.

So I am not so sure I agree with your premise.

[Milo_Bloom]

22. But they are not all the same...

Some have good plans, some have bad plans.

Some offer real solutions, some offer empty rhetoric.

Some would be good the country, some would be disasterous.

If they are "all the same", then I want nothing to do with any them.

[GreenArrow]

32. thy're all pretty nearly the same

The differences come in packaging (as in this case, Edwards plan has new rhetoric, but there isn't much new in it) approach...it's all marketing, but at the end of the day, whether it's Coke, Pepsi, or RC, you'll be drinking cola.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Well, you are certainly convincing me not to vote for the Dems.

Since 4 of these candidates are absolute nightmares, I guess I can judge the rest of the candidates by these 4.

[GreenArrow]

37. there are cosmetic differences

and in the case of Kucinich, a fairly substantive difference in that he has
a real vision and understanding that America is going to have to reevaluate its place in the world, a task that most politicians are not prepared to take leadership on.

I'll vote for DK in the primary, and then comes the general and the same old dilemma -- hold the nose and vote for the lesser evil or don't vote at all. The trouble is, when you take your fingers off your nose, the stench is still there.

While none of the candidates who are likely to win are going to make any great changes for the better, the Democrats are, by and large, the better bunch, lacking for the most part the venal cruelty and outright antisocial, anti-life even, viciousness of the Republicans. I don't especially want to vote for corporate toadies like Clinton or Obama or Richardson, or jejune, self promoting hucksters like Edwards, and a vote for any of the Republicans is impossible. Death by slow poison, or death by fast poison. With the slow poison, there is at least the hope of an antidote.

I may vote third party, or not at all.

[jillan]

4. I really like Edwards - but I have to ask

don't we already have this in place?

Yes - our intelligence community needs a major overhaul, but wouldn't it make
more sense to fix what we have than to start all over from scratch?
Especially when we can't afford down-time and growing pains in our intelligence community?

[ColonelTom]

5. Yep. This is a big misstep.

I like Edwards, but this doesn't sound sensible at all. He may have just torpedoed his campaign.

[jillan]

8. I don't think this will hurt him - if anything it will show that he is

thinking ahead.

[ColonelTom]

23. He's going to get hammered for this.

I can't tell from his statement whether the organization is supposed to be for intelligence-sharing or strictly for political grandstanding. (I don't mean the latter in a pejorative way - just that it wouldn't have any effect on actual intelligence operations.)

Our country should not join in any treaty organization that requires the disclosure of sensitive intelligence to other members. I will guarantee you that Biden and Clinton will hammer him on this point, and rightfully so.

If it's just some sort of political stamp of approval, I don't see it as very meaningful. Isn't it just the "coalition of the willing" mark two?

It also undercuts the U.N.'s role in dealing with international issues - shouldn't we be trying to work within the U.N. for these things, as we've done on WMDs in the pre-Dubya era?

Finally, it does exactly what Edwards indicated earlier that he didn't want to do - it puts the "war on terror" front and center in our foreign policy again, rather than recognizing that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or an enemy. If it's a bumper-sticker slogan, why do we want to create an international agency specific to it?

I'm deeply troubled by this, and I'd love for someone to talk me out of it before I start hunting for another candidate.

[Sapphire Blue]

6. No, we don't. Edwards discusses his strategy, including CITO, in detail in his speech:

I've posted it @ http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sapphire%20Blue/529

[jillan]

9. Reading his speech - it reminds me so much of one Biden

gave earlier this week.

More and more my dream ticket would be the two of them together.
They both are very passionate politicians. Both are out there
on the campaign trail full of ideas, displaying leadership.
I like that :)!

[Cameron27]

18. It's not that detailed:

"CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells."

I thought that's what our intelligence agencies were doing now.

"The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world."

Exactly what criteria do these nations have to meet in order to be included in this new coalition. Who's determining what criteria will be used? Is he talking about a multi-national effort or something the US cooks up and expects everyone else to follow or be called out before the world.

I never thought we had that big a problem with our intel, I thought the problem was how it was distorted. Before any IWR vote was cast, the NIE already pointed the fact that Bush cooked the data: lack of evidence for the Niger yellowcake, the aluminum tubes, and Saddam's WMD. I wish he'd get specific about what he feels is lacking in the agencies we already have. Is it that bad that we need more of them?

Just questions, because I don't have any answers.

[RethugAssKicker]

10. This was my proposal on 9/12/2001

I really don't think I have any more wisdom
than many learned men....

But, why was it so simple for me (and others)
to see this solution six years ago... but
our government intelligence agencies
could not !

[penguin7]

20. Has Edwards heard of interpol?

http://www.interpol.int/

[Warren Stupidity]

28. nah we need a new agency

can't use the existing one, what fun would that be?

[Canuckistanian]

31. From his description, interpol is what he wants

Why start another?

[Adelante]

25. Oh, yawn

He once wanted to start an American version of MI5 and this reminds me of it, because it's one more unnecessary intelligence organization he's dreamt up to make himself appear credible on national security. Meh. I wish he'd come up with a method of ridding us of green bouncy things in OPs and sig lines. Now that would be something.

[slipslidingaway]

34. LOL n/t

[Cameron27]

35. lol, I missed his version of M15

:bounce: :bounce: :P

[GreenArrow]

38. "green bouncy things"

:rofl:

[Tigermoose]

26. Is Edwards part of the CFR? This sounds like their policy...

Eck. I like Edwards, but the last thing "the people" of the world need is a coordinated world government seeking to eliminate any reaction by the people. Think on it. Anarchism would now be considered "terrorism" in the parlance of today. Hmm....

[Warren Stupidity]

29. Food riots in los angeles!

Terra terra terra!

[Superman Returns]

27. great

another bureaucratic organization ready to do turf wars.

[wyldwolf]

30. What will this agency do???

At the South Carolina debate, the candidates were asked to raise their hand if they believed there was a Global War on Terror. Edwards did not raise his hand. Well, if there is no Global War on Terror, what will this agency do?

[IndianaGreen]

43. Unlike Hillary's fuzzy "proposals," Edwards has put specific and solid proposals on the table.

All you got to offer are Hillary's vagina politics (vote for me, I'm a woman), or nostalgia politics (vote for me, I'm a Clinton).

Edwards is not my top choice for President, but he deserves credit for putting his proposal forward. As to Hillary, where is the beef?

[wyldwolf]

45. ... to deal with something he believes is a fairytale?

Sounds like deanunderground logic to me.

[1932]

47. the leap from your evidence to your conclusion is crazy big.

Do you believe what you're writing, or is it just stuff you say that you hope fools people?

[wyldwolf]

48. Edwards said he doesn't believe in what he wants to create an agecy to combat.

:shrug:

[1932]

51. You think so?

I'm no sure if I agree with your detective work, wyldwolf.

[IndianaGreen]

49. Hillary is the American version of Evita Peron

Like Evita, she has her own version of "descamisados," ill-mannered fanatical followers. Hillary is as corrupt and ambitious as Evita was. If you recall, Evita and her equally corrupt and ambitious husband Juan Peron once concocted a scheme to get her appointed Vice President of Argentina. The scheme failed.

All the Hillary camp has to offer the American voter is either vagina politics, vote for me I'm a woman, or nostalgia politics, vote for me I am a Clinton. They already suckered enough people with that bait, let's hope the number of "descamisados" does not increase, else we doom what's left of the Republic to more decline and more of the status quo.

I can almost expect the Hillary camp to adopt Bush's 2000 primary campaign slogan, "A reformer with results."

Like karl Rove did with Bush, the Hillary camp is reinventing Hillary as a "change" candidate, despite her record of being a staunch defender of the establishment.

[citizen53]

36. Kudos to Edwards...

He was talking about terrorism before 9-11, too:

Targeting Terrorism
by John Edwards
Littleton Observer
August 16, 2001

As a member of the Senate Intelligence committee, I've become convinced that terrorism is the most important national security challenge our country will face over the next decade. That is why I am working on new ways to address the threat of terrorism.

See this WaPo article from 2004: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37644-2004Jul8.html

[FrenchieCat]

39. This reminds me of the time Edwards suggested that Israel be made part of NATO......

at his infamous speech to the Herzliya Conference in Israel earlier this year!

http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

Guess he doesn't quite comprehend that the primary NATO pledge to "defend" all and any NATO country attacked would be a sure set up for World War IV if Isreal was a member (since Isreal's record on being attacked is quite high)!

Come on John Edwards. THINK! We're trying to win the White House here. Like calling for higher taxes to pay for trillion dollar health care program still ran by the Insurance companies and now new Government Bureaucracy to deal with a war he just recently claimed exists only as a bumper stick is really gonna appeal to enough voters to win a General Election! :eyes:

[2rth2pwr]

44. Is there an official Edwards supporter guide to his daily

utterances? Are they supposed to talk up and defend this proposal or
wait for the campaign to provide the "clarification" that is likely to come?

If his campaign could get that coordinated I would be impressed.

[Adelante]

50. They will defend his proposal to the death

Then they will defend his clarification to the death.

If any contradiction is pointed out, they will tell you he never said what he said in the first place or possibly the second place.

If all else fails, they will tell you to read his website and pay no attention to what he says.

It's quite the system :D

[killbotfactory]

46. What's wrong with Interpol?