how to respond to this?

[LiberalBushFan]

So, I was listening to RW radio today (not by choice) and they were BSing about Saddam helping to plan 9/11 and all that. But then they started talking about Edwards and juxtaposed these two quotes. Things like this are why I was uncomfortable about Edwards, but now that he's the one, what's the context of the earlier quote and the best way to respond to this?


"He will keep our military strong, protect the American people, and create strong alliances around the world so that no young American ever goes to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone." -John Edwards, 7/8/2004


From MSNBC’s “HARDBALL”, 2/6/2003

MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Would you go it alone in a war against Iraq if the U.N. finally decides not to back us, if the French, the Russians or the Chinese, veto us, would you still go ahead and fight this war as the President seems to be heading to doing?"

EDWARDS: "I would go forward with the allies that we have with us, yes."

MATTHEWS: "You would go without the U.N.?"

EDWARDS: "Yes."

[boobooday]

1. I hate to say this

But this is why I supported, and still support, Kucinich. He voted against the war.

This is my biggest problem with our current ticket -- and it was clearly a problem the other night when Kerry was being interviewed on 60 Minutes, although I thought they dealt with it reasonably well.

I know that Gore wouldn't have gotten us into the mess in Iraq, and I know that Kerry wouldn't have, but the failure of our congress to stand up to this president will go down in history as one of our most shameful moments.

On this war, I WANT to see a FLIP FLOP.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[democratreformed]

5. It's really not a problem, election-wise

b/c it's very obvious that the majority of Americans do not feel as strongly about this issue as you and I do. Otherwise, we would not be stuck in this position of voting for two people that cast those votes.

[trotsky]

2. Offhand I would guess there is some context needed.

"Would you go it alone," Matthews asks. Well, in what context? If Saddam is shown to have WMDs?

[amber dog democrat]

3. I am not concerned about this.

The Chimp needs to go ASAP. This does not affect my choices one bit.
The Chimp needs to go ASAP.
and he can take his friends with him.

[library_max]

4. You have to remember

that on 2/6/2003, all of the lies the Bush administration had told the Senate had not yet been exploded. That makes a pretty big difference.

[Kali]

9. BULL

I don't buy this crap - if so many of us idiots out here in the sticks could see the puppet"s lies why the hell couldn't those jerks that should know things?

[library_max]

12. You can't make a statistically valid sample of the population

by talking only to your personal friends. Most Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. That's only just now starting to change, even after all the lies have been exposed.

[Spangle]

6. IT means he isn't a wus and weak

It means he isn't a wus and weak. Something Older men and republicans want to see. He will "do" what "needs" to be done.

This IS an image that "we" have to protray. It's an "don't start something we us" sort of statement, a warning. Its part of mental war fare that always goes on. WE don't want others to assume we will not respond, a worry of some sort has to be there for negotiations to be effective.

But this is a loaded question BECAUSE of those reasons. The real question would have been "Under what REASONS?" And would he go so far as to LIE to congress in order to go to war?" "We" have always been able to "play" this game, yet our President is expect to get authority from congress to actualy GO to war. Even Bush had to ask if he could. Only he LIED to congress.

There is nothing wrong with Kerry's statement on this. Sorta. IF we are backing the UN as the "law", then it would be a flip-flop to then ignore them... wouldn't it? THAT is exactly the place Bush put us in, in the worlds eyes. It was a card that NEVER should have been played.

But as a flip flop, this isn't it. Kerry based his vote on lies told to him by the PRESIDENT whom should be trusted on such issues. When Kerry is elected, he will have to go to congress.... will he LIE? IF IRAQ really was involed in 9/11 the world would have supported us. Going against the UN wouldn't have been an issue. We didn't have the evidence. And we are not the only country with intel.... Hence, they KNEW there was no evidence of a connection. They knew there was NO THREAT to "them" or "US", so our alies didn't support us.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

7. You've got to remember.....

At the time that the IWR was being voted on, Shrubs approval ratings were in the 70s or 80s. It quite possibly could have been a dagger in the heart of somebody just starting a presidential run to vote against him....hence Kerry and Edwards votes. I'm NOT condoning those votes, but from a purely political perspective I understand what was probably going through their heads. In my eyes the Iraq vote is the one major blotch on Kerry's record.....they have crafted a solid defense as to why they voted that places the blame squarely in the Bush camps laps, but I do not doubt for a second that if Kerry hadn't been running for president, he would NOT have voted from the IWR. Again, I stress, I am NOT condoning the votes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. You have to argue

That Edwards would only have gone into Iraq without the UN if all of the intelligence about Iraq planning and promoting attacks on the U.S. proved rock solid, and that it was shown that one or more Security Council members were so complicit in their dealings with Hussein that they would never let an invasion resolution get through the security council under virtually any circumstances. The U.S. went into Kosovo with NATO backing, but not the U.N., because Russia would have vetoed any U.N. approval.

Like it or not, that's the best argument regarding the U.N. comment anyway, and it is the Republicans job to poke holes in it, not ours. I don't think Kerry is on record anywhere actually saying he would have gone in without U.N. approval, though I am sure that no American President (to date) would have completely surrendered the option to use military force without U.N. approval.

[Dr Fate]

10. Kerry/Edwards would not preside over faked & forged intelligence,

It was the executive branch that forged & faked the intelligence.

Edwards was speaking under the assumption that if he had legit info, he may do this....

[DjTj]

11. If Bush had built stronger alliances before 9/11...

...if we hadn't backed out of every treaty, if we hadn't been arrogant and gone it alone on so many other issues, we probably wouldn't have been faced with that choice. However, if there is a real threat to the safety of the American people, a real threat determined by solid intelligence and not driven by ideology; if there's a real threat to the safety of the American people, there comes at time when you can't hesitate.

The intelligence we saw on Iraq pointed to a grave and immediate threat, and the Senate gave the President authority to respond to that threat. We trusted him to make a good-faith effort to build alliances and we trusted that the intelligence was correct. We trusted the President to form a post-war plan for reconstruction. We trusted that troops would be sent into battle until all things were considered and only as a last resort. George Bush broke our trust, but John Edwards knows that John Kerry is someone that he adn the American people can rely on.