cause if you are, this ain't gonna work for you or your candidate.
First of all, Edwards was a co-sponsor of the Lieberman Bill, NOT Hillary Clinton.
And he started early and often......
http://web.archive.org/web/20020914012714/http://edwards.senate.gov/Senator Edwards calls for overthrow of Iraqi dictator.
Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent,
clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html October 7, 2002
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.
My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. snip
After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.
At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.
Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.
We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.
This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And
such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.htmlDecember 18, 2002
What we do here is, of course, cast in the context of America's responsibilities abroad. I have said this before and I want to say it again:
I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein. We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time,
we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. http://www.cfr.org/publication/5440/homeland_security_address.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more.
Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away." (BELOW, EDWARDS INDIRECTLY LINKS 9/11 ATTACKS TO WHY SADDAM MUST BE ATTACKED) "The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous.
This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters.
We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq." Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20030219152335/edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0912a-pr.html
Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.
Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02
Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.
Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations.
I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.
And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people. MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us,
was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes. In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074
What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?
The Lies of John EdwardsBy JOHN WALSH
The apology of John Edwards, former Senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for voting for the Iraq war in 2002, has been widely praised. But his apology is based on a lie, one that other Democrats are likely to embrace and one which will serve their ambitions but hide the truth. We should have no illusions about this, for to believe otherwise is to set ourselves up for the continuation of Bush's war by a Democrat.
......cont.....
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh12052005.html"Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.
But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
