Edwards claims Iraq Imminent threat!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

"But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? 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."

John Edwards

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,274 • Replies: 44

No top replies

"The other night while me and Laura were lying around watching porn and smoking crack with Barbara and Jenna the thought struck me that my real Father Lord Satan probably wanted me to invade another country immediately following my re selection in November, so I decided to sacrifice a goat in the Rose Garden to ask him which country."

George Bush

You see, I can just write any old damn quote too with no link or reference to back it up...... :wink:

In the future we will all be Matt Drudge for 15 minutes......

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

You see, I can just write any old damn quote too with no link or reference to back it up...... :wink:

Yes you can, in fact you are very good at it.

If you had the internet skills you could google the quote.

If you had the moral high ground you could argue the point.

But you can do neither, so you troll

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Now you're just trying to pick a fight and you're going to make me cry.......most of the respected and intelligent posters on these thread, on either side of the political spectrum offer links and source to their quotes or make it clear that it's just opinion.
Of course those of you who enjoy the moral high ground feel no compulsion to bother with such trivialities.

I have all the necessary google skills, whatever that means, thank you to look for your quote but I shouldn't have to.

As far as the "moral high ground"goes, if you mean the moral high ground that bushinc has used, with the support of the bushsheep and lemmings club to bring us to the position we currently find ourselves in please keep it with my compliments and I'll just hang out with the regular guys.

So I guess you're claiming that this quote has appeared in a reputable publication somewhere and did indeed issue from the mouth of John Edwards...and if it did, what's your point? If you will answer these questions you will possibly open the thread to debate by some of the intelligent members of A2K and not just this old bear. Very Happy

0 Replies

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Now you're just trying to pick a fight and you're going to make me cry.......most of the respected and intelligent posters on these thread, on either side of the political spectrum offer links and source to their quotes or make it clear that it's just opinion.

LOL, do you want the source, or are you just trying to avoid the point?

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

For someone that implies bush said "imminent threat" without backing that up you seem to be a little two faced.

But this isn't a thread about your mindless bush bashing, it is a thread about edwards belief that iraq was, um, what did he call it again? Laughing

0 Replies

The difference is, Karzak, there were people in place with the ability to see that the intelligence that was being gathered did not support the case for war, and those who do not have that ability.

The executive branch has that ability. They have oversight over all the intelligence community, and can access any number of secret or classified documents.

The Legislative branch really has to go on whatever the execs tell them the Alphabet Bureaus have said. There's not much they can do in the way of independent intelligence gathering - they pretty much have to trust the Executive branch.

So, if you are trying to say that 'Edwards supported the war,' TONS of people supported the war, because the exec. branch kept telling them the evidence was good. It wasn't. It now appears that they KNEW it wasn't good, and made their case anyways. THAT is the case against the admin, and it doesn't hold against the Dems who are running, and you know it.

Quit trying to use logical fallacies to prove your points....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

All I wanted was the link, you big bully.....now I can get squinney to read it to me....that's a lot of big words......

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

Quote:

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Since Rush likes to edit and change his transcripts you cannot rely on anything Rush posts as a "quote" as being real.

Anything else that's not so questionable?

Even if Edwards DID say it he didn't invade and he didn't go to war. Either you guys think all these people you claim to be liars are liars or they are not. Please stop choosing quotes to bolster your arguement only to turn around and degrade them. If they are to be trusted in what they say then that should be all the time not just when it's convenient to you.,

So if Edwards DID say it he was as wrong as Bush. What would be the point of this discussion?

0 Replies

How easy to quote Edwards from 2002.....making a statement based on the "facts and evidence" that had been presented at that time.......however in light of what we've learned ( those of us willing to learn) since then through investigation and on the ground evidence I would, as I think any reasonable person would, be interested in his take on the subject now........

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

Quote:
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Since Rush likes to edit and change his transcripts you cannot rely on anything Rush posts as a "quote" as being real.

Anything else that's not so questionable?

Even if Edwards DID say it he didn't invade and he didn't go to war. Either you guys think all these people you claim to be liars are liars or they are not. Please stop choosing quotes to bolster your arguement only to turn around and degrade them. If they are to be trusted in what they say then that should be all the time not just when it's convenient to you.,

So if Edwards DID say it he was as wrong as Bush. What would be the point of this discussion?

LOL!!!

Not a "Rush Limbaugh" transcript, a "rush- let's get it online" transcript!

Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

How easy to quote Edwards from 2002.....making a statement based on the "facts and evidence" that had been presented at that time.......however in light of what we've learned ( those of us willing to learn) since then through investigation and on the ground evidence I would, as I think any reasonable person would, be interested in his take on the subject now........

You mean *gasp* use hindsight!?! OMG!!!! Rolling Eyes

C'mon Bear, Let's keep the discussion on an even keel. We can discuss then, or we can discuss now, but we can't discuss then knowing what we know now. That's, as ILZ likes to say, retarded.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It now appears that they KNEW it wasn't good, and made their case anyways. THAT is the case against the admin, and it doesn't hold against the Dems who are running, and you know it.

Wrong, the data the clinton CIA supplied clearly indicated a threat that possibly was overstated, but to say that bush knew there were no WMD and went in anyway is not supported by the facts.

You seek to excuse the Dems because they were ignorant, but they had the same data at their disposal as everyone else. Your position is dishonest.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
How easy to quote Edwards from 2002.....making a statement based on the "facts and evidence" that had been presented at that time.......however in light of what we've learned ( those of us willing to learn) since then through investigation and on the ground evidence I would, as I think any reasonable person would, be interested in his take on the subject now........

You mean *gasp* use hindsight!?! OMG!!!!

C'mon Bear, Let's keep the discussion on an even keel. We can discuss then, or we can discuss now, but we can't discuss then knowing what we know now. That's, as ILZ likes to say, retarded.

nor should we use "then" to legitimize now if you are going to follow that logic...so I guess that would be the end of this thread.....

0 Replies

Quote:

Wrong, the data the clinton CIA supplied clearly indicated a threat that possibly was overstated

Oh, it was overstated allright. And the BUSH admin KNEW it was overstated, and they went right on and did what they had to do to go to war anyways.

Quote:

You seek to excuse the Dems because they were ignorant, but they had the same data at their disposal as everyone else.

Are you trying to claim that the democratic senators in question had the same access to the intelligence information that the administration had at the time? Can you provide some evidence of that?

Can you provide evidence to back up ANY of your claims?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Strange isn't it that when Kerry or any Democrat contend that Bush failed the contention of the Bush supporters is something like "yeah but they didn't have access to the same intel". Now we are supposed to believe that Bush picks and chooses the intel he will "show" them and in this it convenently works out so he has an excuse? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Not a "Rush Limbaugh" transcript, a "rush- let's get it online" transcript!

Yes Rush transcript that was "updated" which means "changed" in English I don't know about the righty speak you post.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Wrong, the data the clinton CIA supplied clearly indicated a threat that possibly was overstated

Oh, it was overstated allright. And the BUSH admin KNEW it was overstated, and they went right on and did what they had to do to go to war anyways.

Not according the the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Quit confusing truth with what you wish was true!

0 Replies

Redheat wrote:

Strange isn't it that when Kerry or any Democrat contend that Bush failed the contention of the Bush supporters is something like "yeah but they didn't have access to the same intel". Now we are supposed to believe that Bush picks and chooses the intel he will "show" them and in this it convenently works out so he has an excuse?

Quote:
Not a "Rush Limbaugh" transcript, a "rush- let's get it online" transcript!

Yes Rush transcript that was "updated" which means "changed" in English I don't know about the righty speak you post.

So, when you say:

redheat wrote:

Since Rush likes to edit and change his transcripts you cannot rely on anything Rush posts as a "quote" as being real.

Anything else that's not so questionable?

what are you referring to? You're trying to cover your tracks, simply post that you misunderstood and let it go... :wink:

p.s. being caught misunderstanding something is not a critical flaw, Bi-polar Bear does it all the time and we think no less of him. :wink:

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

[p.s. being caught misunderstanding something is not a critical flaw, Bi-polar Bear does it all the time and we think no less of him. :wink:

and that's the difference between you and me......

0 Replies

Quote:

what are you referring to? You're trying to cover your tracks, simply post that you misunderstood and let it go...

p.s. being caught misunderstanding something is not a critical flaw, Bi-polar Bear does it all the time and we think no less of him.

Huh?

Ok I'll make it as simple as I can. The source you give a link to is a Rush Limbaugh transcript. Now at the top of that transcript it says in big black letters.

Quote:

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

Ok key words here "may not be" and "final form" and "updated" bascially it's saying that all the quotes are not, could be, maybe not exactly percise.

I'm asking for a link to a source that doesn't have to premise the transcrips with the above key words. Does one exist?

Then could you explain the premise of your arguement? Are you saying that Edwards said it so it must be true? If so then you are claiming him to have superior knowledge so much so that Bush has gone along with his premise. Thus your future attacks on his character would seem to be hypocrtical since you are using his words to prove that Bush was right, (even though Bush never used the word) . So are you saying Bush thought the attack by Saddam was "immenent" if he didn't use that word why bring Edwards into it? Did Edwards advocate going to war on this premise? Was he promoting war on this premise? Did he have the exact same intelligence as Bush? or did Bush have more? If Bush had more intelligence then why did he give so much false information in his run up to war.

See the point is that Edwards quote real or not has very little relevance on Bush's actions. Either Bush has "personal responsiblity" and "says what he means, and means what he says" or he is easily influenced by Democrats and their quotes. Which is it? Pick a side and stick with it.

0 Replies

Edwards claims Iraq Imminent threat!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know