John Edwards is a liar

[Riprorin]

Edwards Says He Doesn't Want to Be VP
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
January 28, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - "I do not want to be vice president. I'm running for president," Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) said in a television on Wednesday morning.

"Okay, we're going to hold onto that soundbite, Today show anchor Matt Lauer warned Edwards.

Lauer raised the question of a John Kerry-John Edwards ticket in his Wednesday morning interview.

"There's a growing chorus, Senator, talking about Kerry-Edwards in the fall as a ticket that could really challenge George W. Bush," Lauer said. "Do you think you could be effective in that ticket?" Lauer said he meant Kerry for president, Edwards for vice president.

"I think you got the order reversed," Edwards joked. "I intend to be the [presidential] nominee, Edwards said.

Lauer persisted: "Would you consider being a vice presidential candidate?

"No," Edwards said.

"No?" Lauer said. "Final?"

"No. Final. I do not want to be vice president , I am running for president."

As part of the interview, Edwards said he's had a great two weeks. "In the last few days in New Hampshire, we went from 20 points behind Gen. Clark to tie Gen. Clark for third."

Edwards said his job now is to continue the "energy and momentum" into the next week.

The North Carolina Democrat described himself as someone who can bring change. "They love the idea that I have a positive, optimistic and detailed set of ideas about how we bring about that change."

Edwards said people respond to his upbeat message.

He said he "absolutely" expects to derail John Kerry in South Carolina and other southern states.

Link

 

[AcidicFury]

Umm, relavence?

 

[MonstaThrilla]

See, when one is running for President, they try not to concede the fact that they will most likely lose. Those of use with this thing called "common sense" know that.

 

[conjur]

Trollin' trollin' trollin'

 

[Riprorin]

Here's what he said about Saddam. Is he lying about this too?

John Edwards in 2002: "Saddam Hussein . . . has weapons of mass destruction and . . . is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons"
Now that he has re-emerged as a serious candidate, it?s worth looking again at where John Edwards stood on the Iraq war when it came to a vote in the fall of 2002. At the time, Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein?s regime had weapons of mass destruction. Of course, this puts Edwards seriously at odds with a substantial and vocal faction of his party; I address the potential fallout from this more on my own blog. Here?s Edwards, in his own words:

1. September 12, 2002: Edwards gives a speech on why the ?IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO,? coinciding with Bush?s speech to the UN:

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.
I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

[snip]

What?s more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam?s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.


2. October 10, 2002: Edwards speaks as not only a supporter but a co-sponsor of the legislation authorizing the use of force in Iraq:

Saddam Hussein?s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq?s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world?s commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction.

[snip]

[W]e must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations? credibility.

Link

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Trollin' trollin' trollin'

Atleast he posted a link this time :disgust:

 

[jackschmittusa]

Riprorin

Well, you've managed to point out that even smart people were mislead by purposefully modified intel. Anything else?

 

[AcidicFury]

Well Riporin, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was clear that Bush and Co. exagerrated the threat to the US. Why don't you read that report?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Well Riporin, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was clear that Bush and Co. exagerrated the threat to the US. Why don't you read that report?

Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein?s regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Why aren't you calling Edwards a liar?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

trollin trollin trollin

wonder how long before he gets banned.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Well Riporin, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was clear that Bush and Co. exagerrated the threat to the US. Why don't you read that report?

Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein?s regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Why aren't you calling Edwards a liar?

The Senate Intelligence Committee did not have access to the documents that called for war until about 3 or 4 months ago. Thus, they had to go on the word of officials who had more information than they. Also, in the press conference they held, they said that they were not privy to what the Shrub got in his daily briefings.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Well Riporin, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was clear that Bush and Co. exagerrated the threat to the US. Why don't you read that report?

Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein?s regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Why aren't you calling Edwards a liar?

Edwards wouldn't have access to anything bushbaby didn't. And in 2002, the CIA's conclusion was that Saddam posed a threat - either your prez and everyone else found it credible, in which case SHUTUP about Edwards, or they didn't - which means that you admit to having a lying commander in chief on your hands.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's what he said about Saddam. Is he lying about this too?...

And he had access to what, other than the discredited drivel from the CIA and the lying administration asshats. That's what most, if not all of the Senate had, and even some Republicans have now stated publically that they would not have voted to approve attacking Iraq if they'd known the truth.

The biggest lies were told by the biggest liars, George W. Bush, Dickwad Cheyney, Condescentia Rice, and the rest of their CHICKEN HAWK lying POS crowd. The only results were the deaths of over a thousand U.S. troops, many thousands of Iraqi civilians and lots of others, along with alienating most of the rest of the world, including most of Europe, as well as Muslims who could otherwise see the U.S. in a more friendly light.

Rip -- Give it up, and rejoin the human race! You're pissing in the wind, trying to defend the failed, shallow, empty policies of an intellectually and morally bankrupt bunch of liars and crooks with nothing to offer but a lust for greed and power.

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Rip -- Give it up, and rejoin the human race! You're pissing in the wind, trying to defend the failed, shallow, empty policies of an intellectually and morally bankrupt bunch of liars and crooks with nothing to offer but a lust for greed and power.

Exactly. Please stop Riporin.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Riprorin

Well, you've managed to point out that even smart people were mislead by purposefully modified intel. Anything else?

*slap*

 

[CombatChuk]

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Harvey

Rip -- Give it up, and rejoin the human race! You're pissing in the wind, trying to defend the failed, shallow, empty policies of an intellectually and morally bankrupt bunch of liars and crooks with nothing to offer but a lust for greed and power.

Exactly. Please stop Riporin.

:thumbsup:

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CombatChuk

Originally posted by: AcidicFury

Originally posted by: Harvey

Rip -- Give it up, and rejoin the human race! You're pissing in the wind, trying to defend the failed, shallow, empty policies of an intellectually and morally bankrupt bunch of liars and crooks with nothing to offer but a lust for greed and power.

Exactly. Please stop Riporin.

:thumbsup:

:beer: to that. Rip, you seem like a decent guy, but you come off like an unthinking stooge in the political arena. You are willing to quote out of context, mislead, and even make things up to support your side. Let the facts be the facts, and argue your position. Don't compromise your own integrity to support people who don't need your help. President Bush has the largest warchest in the history of presidential elections. He doesn't need you on his team, and you do him no favors by fabricating "facts" to tear down his opponents.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's relevant only in the sense that Rip hates Edwards, and will apparently do anything to attempt some denouement...

This, of course, the kind of thing where people are allowed to change their mind, when properly persuaded that it's for the good of the party, the govt, the people- setting aside personal ambition for a greater goal... the ability to adapt to changing realities is a positive attribute

Right now, Rip's idol, Dubya, is trying to change his mind about why we invaded Iraq, which is a whole different kettle of fish...

 

[lozina]

If you guys stop feeding it, it will eventually starve and die

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:roll: You people need to get a clue. You'd be all over Bush for something similar yet here you sit claiming Rip is "trolling", infact some of you have infact posted similar things.
Sudheer - if Rip should be "banned" then you should have been gone long ago. Someday maybe you'll be something other than a little bandwagon cheerleader....maybe....someday...

CkG

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: You people need to get a clue. You'd be all over Bush for something similar yet here you sit claiming Rip is "trolling", infact some of you have infact posted similar things.
Sudheer - if Rip should be "banned" then you should have been gone long ago. Someday maybe you'll be something other than a little bandwagon cheerleader....maybe....someday...

CkG

If a lib called out bush on this matter, he'd rightly be called a troll too. Fair enough?

 

[DealMonkey]

(A) Edwards (obviously) changed his mind about being VP. Either/or he was trying to be considered a serious candidate for the presidential ticket back in January 2004. Either way, it's not much of a story and I doubt any serious political strategist would suggest otherwise.

(B) Regarding Edward's words on Saddam/Iraq -- again, isn't it quite obvious? He saw the same flawed intel that everyone else saw. Remember that scathing Senate Intel Committee report that just came out? Yeah that one. The one in which they suggest that they would have never voted for war if they knew now what they knew then about the threat posed by Iraq.

Just wait until part II of that report comes out -- I'm sure we'll all get some juicy insight to just how the CIA became politicized by the administration on the run-up to war with Iraq. It's a crying shame that part of the report won't be out before the elections. Guess you Bush fan boys just caught a break. Enjoy it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

i admit sometimes I do my share of "trolling", but nothing even close to this. Ok maybe not BAN him, but maybe we can have some sort of filter on P&N that blocks all posts created by Rip.

 

[IndieSnob]

Wow, so he changed his mind about becoming vice president, and that makes him a liar? Talk about grasping for straws.

As to the Iraq thing, we all know that most on the left and right beleived that Sadaam had wmd's, or at least the capabilities. The problem came when the Intel was bad, that Bush was so war hungry that he wouldn't take the time to see if intel was bad and let the un find out the rest etc etc. That's ok though, keep on grasping for straws, you're desparation shows.

 

[CombatChuk]

Hmm...I'm competing to receive the democratic nomination for president. I'll tell people that I'll settle for Vice president...yeah that would really sound good :roll: