 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
On Sunday, Tim Russert pwned Senator Edwards. Here is the transcript:
"MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to Tuesday night when you were talking about the war in Iraq, as compared with the war against Osama bin Laden. And let's listen:
(Videotape, October 5, 2004):
SEN. EDWARDS: Our point in this is not complicated. We were attacked by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead to begin to plan for the invasion of Iraq.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Your point being that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror against Osama bin Laden?
SEN. EDWARDS: Correct.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to October of 2002 to something you said then.
SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.
MR. RUSSERT: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national requires us to do both, and we can."
So you were urging the president in October of 2002 to fight the war against terror in Afghanistan and...
SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.
MR. RUSSERT: ...embark on the war in Iraq.
SEN. EDWARDS: No, sir.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, you're saying it's a diversion."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6200928/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Ned, that is EASILY explainable.
Kerry objects to how Bush handled the entry into Iraq.
Let's name two of the items he found lacking: Insufficent allies and insufficent planning.
If we had more allies in the coalition and more planning then we could have done both without sacrificing the war on terror. Well, at least that is Kerry's (and my) position. It isn't unreasonable at all, imho. He certainly isn't contradicting himself in that interview.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Now who's putting words in peoples mouths. Where did I ever claim a UN veto?
No I used your words, UN approval (your phaseology) UN backing (my phraseology), Global test (Kerry's today phraseology). According to Kerry, Gulf War 1, failed that test.
For most folk I would hazard the guess that is really unreasonable, yes. |
Oh, I am sorry, you are saying that Kerry would never go to war without U.N. approval....in other words, the U.N. could decide we couldn't go by not giving that approval; that's a veto. Two sides of the same coin of your position.
I already explained the Global Test, and that doesn't require the approval of others. That merely requires adequately explaining things to the American people and other nations so that they understand why we are going to war. Quite frankly, it simply seemed like we were rushing to war in Iraq under W. That's not an explaination as to why he went (and with his factual distortions and changing the primary justification it still isn't entirely clear). That's not a veto or approval. Though Kerry might believe that an adequate explaination would probably result *in* approval, assuming the war was just and necessary, this isn't the same as requiring approval by any means.
As for the passage you quoted, I have no date or context for it, but the one I quoted came right before the vote. In any case, it is a fact that the first Gulf War was not necessary to our immediate national interests, and it is possible Kerry (and others) knew of peaceful ways to resolve the situation. An important part of the speech I quoted states this.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Drach, words and puffery disquising flip-floppery. |
It is a consistent position, certainly much more consistent than Bush's stance against the office of homeland security before he decided to support it. (and numerous other such issues).
Proper planning and allies make a huge difference into the cost in troops and money you need a war and occupation. If you deny that then you are being purposefully dense.
Kerry's position here is quite consistent. He might not always explain it well, but that doesn't change the consistency of it. You might not like it being consistent, but that's how it is.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Squirm Drach squirm. |
If that is the only response you can make, then I am finished.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
I did explain that. It wasn't a coalition issue. Kerry thought we could handle the situation without a war, or at least give a more reasonable deadline so there wasn't a guarantee of war. It was one of his concerns this time around too, although the vote for force if necessary came much earlier in the overall process.
Again, it is a reasonable position; you shouldn't go to war unless you must. It is a position of last resort.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Ogie, Kerry fully supported armed intervention in Iraq when Clinton was president. Then he did an about face when a Republican became president. Similarly, he supported the Vietnam war when Johnson was president, then turned against it when Nixon was president.
His thinking on these issues couldn't be clearer. |
Clinton wasn't going to war, and Vietnam only slowly became a huge and obvious quagmire (and also Kerry was young at the time of Vietnam, and clearly he has changed some of his positions since then).
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
Kerry's fellow senators agree that he is a man of conviction. Therefore I think it is more likely that Howard Dean made it clear that he could make some of his real reasons public, rather than not mention them. Dean demonstrated that the voters were willing to listen to that.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
He might well have thought diplomacy probably wouldn't have worked.
Nonetheless, that doesn't mean just because you *think* it won't work that you should go straight to war. It is important to give the opposition the chance to consider a peaceful means, and even you are pretty darn certain they will refuse. It is what seperates the civilized from the uncivilized.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
St Leo
|
 |
Member of the Apolyton Social Democratic Party
Jul 2005
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Which is of course why you oppose the war.
BTW, just for the sake of argument, suppose that Saddam had every WMD we thought he had and also had ties to terrorists as alleged, would your opinion still hold? |
Hmm.
Let's backtrack a bit.
I seriously disliked everything Bush did in his first year.
Then, stuff happenned in New York. Bush started saying that it was the doing of Al-Qaeda even though Al-Qaeda had not claimed responsobility. He didn't provide proof.
Then, Bush started saying that the Taliban was hiding Al-Qaeda. The Taliban insisted that it had no idea where Al-Qaeda was. It was a he-said-she-said situation -- I hated both parties, though I probably hated the Taliban more.
So, anyways, all of a sudden Bush invaded Afghanistan. WTF? How about some proof first? Powell promised proof linking Al-Qaeda with the WTC attack in December of 2001. None has been released even now.
Anyways, I sorta warmed up to the Afghanistan war. The Taliban had an atrocious human rights record. The ony means to remove them would be a war in any case, so the ends-justified-the-means in this case. The excuse for the war was utterly moronic, but at least they were getting rid of the Taliban (of course, it turned out that the Northern Alliance is just as bad, but I didn't know it then).
Suddenly, Bush started talking about Iraq in terms of terrorism. WTF? What's Iraq got to do with it? Saddam was a secular westernized dictator. We knew that Osama hated his guts and that the hate was mutual.
Heck, Saddam had been behaving himself. He wasn't sword-rattling. No spectacular human rights violations in the last twenty years (whereas the Taliban was actively violating the rights and freedoms of 50%+ of Afghanis).
Okay, fine, could have been co-operating more with the UN weapons inspectors, but they were, in effect, ruffling through his basement on a random basis. That leaves a person grumpy.
And, as far as human rights go, Iraq was a much nicer place than Saudi Arabia or Syria or Iran. Heck, the Saudi Arabia is also actively violating the rights and freedoms of 50% of Saudis. Iraq was secular. No sharia laws. Etc.
Fundamentally, I don't give a rats ass about WoMDs and the idea that Saddam was supporting Al-Qaeda was as ludicrous then as it is now.
Bush started massing troops along Iraq's border. Boom. UN weapons inspectors declared Iraq WoMD-free. Boom. Bush didn't care. He invaded anyways even though his official Casus Belli had been invalidated.
So, yes, even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, I would have opposed the war. The idea that Iraq was supporting terrorists of a dangerous stripe requires changing far too many things in my model of the universe to be easily analysed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
2) You too easily dismiss Saddam's links with OBL. They after all had a mutual enemy and this has in the past made strange bedfellows. |
There are no links with Saddam and OBL. There are the rare links between an Iraqi official and some member of Al Qaeda, but there is nothing that suggests anything but one-time affairs (no permanent or semi-permanent arrangements between Iraq and Al Qaeda).
A lot of stuff gets put in the wrong context though. For instance, the Al Qaeda camps that were in Iraq were in regions outside of Saddam's control.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2004 18:28
|