John Edwards pwnt.......... by John Edwards!! (cliffnotes included)

[Fenixgoon]

off of the drudge Drudgereport article

for those of you too lazy to click the link:

Edwards Suggests World Leaders Want Bush To Lose
Thu Jul 22 2004 10:51:24 ET

Sen. John Edwards said on CNN's LARRY KING LIVE last night:

"Just a few weeks ago...I was in Brussels at NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this. I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that. Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to reestablish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president. ...
"They didn't say that directly. What they said was they're very frustrated with the way this administration has dealt with them. They believe that in this case our trans-Atlantic relationships are important, should be important to America, are important to them. They want to be treated with some level of respect.

"They understand, because I made it very clear, at the end of the day, the president of the United States is going to do what's in the best interest of the American people. But the vast majority of the time, our interests are aligned with the interests of our allies around the world."


Prettymuch, Edwards is saying, "yay for NATO nations wanting a new admin, me and kerry. they want to be treated better." but let's take a good look at that last quote. again, in a nutshell, "the President will do what's best for America. This is laos often with the interests of our world allies." Well if Dubya is doing what's in the best interest for America AND our allies, what's the problem Edwards? GG, pwnt by yourself

Cliff notes:

Edwards says Nato people think Bush is treating them like crap.
He then says the President's job is to do what is best for America. America's interests are often aligned with the interests of our allies.

 

[Riprorin]

"contradicts himself, and expects people to believe him?"

Why shouldn't he? The libs still believe Kerry.

 

[conjur]

Uhh...the President isn't doing what's best for Americans nor what's best for its allies.

Making Americans bigger targets of terror attacks is what's best for us?

Growing the deficit immensely is what's best for us?

Scandal, secrecy, and deception in an administration is what's best for us?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...the President isn't doing what's best for Americans nor what's best for its allies.

Making Americans bigger targets of terror attacks is what's best for us?

Growing the deficit immensely is what's best for us?

Scandal, secrecy, and deception in an administration is what's best for us?

seems to be working pretty good for me...no complaints here other than what the Mass scumbag politicans like Kerry and Kennedy have botched up in my state (referring to abnormally high taxes with little to no services provided, insurance regulations which keep competition out of the state, housing shortages with zoning not modified to allow for more houses... good thing Romney is working to fix the latter two).

 

[Riprorin]

Notice how Conjur doesn't respond to the allegation that Edwards contradicted himself?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Notice how Conjur doesn't respond to the allegation that Edwards contradicted himself?

That's because Edwards didn't contradict himself!

 

[Fenixgoon]

yes he does. he's being sympathetic towards the nato members to whom he spoke, essentially agreeing with them that there needs to be an administration change. based on the last quote, edwards believes that it is the president's duty to do what is best for america, when it comes down to it. the next sentence say, "what america wants is also what our allies want"

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
yes he does. he's being sympathetic towards the nato members to whom he spoke, essentially agreeing with them that there needs to be an administration change. based on the last quote, edwards believes that it is the president's duty to do what is best for america, when it comes down to it. the next sentence say, "what america wants is also what our allies want"

No, you are misinterpreting.

Edwards is saying the office of the President is held by someone who is first and foremest beholden to those who voted him into office. But, the President also must take into account the interests of our key allies, esp. those with whom we rely upon for military, economic, and humanitarian assistance. Edwards is proposing that Kerry, when elected, will take our allies concerns into account when preparing policies that would affect them, such as invading sovereign nations. Edwards is expressing that that is currently not the case, hence the foreign leaders reluctance to work with Bush (evidenced by the numerous countries pulling out of Iraq.)

 

[Fenixgoon]

Edwards doesn't say "john kerry is going to do what's best for you and us" he simply says "the president will do what's best for america. period." since there is only 1 president, it must be bush. edwards needs to learn english again, if what you're saying is true, conjur

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Edwards doesn't say "john kerry is going to do what's best for you and us" he simply says "the president will do what's best for america. period." since there is only 1 president, it must be bush. edwards needs to learn english again, if what you're saying is true, conjur

You are misinterpreting. That can be a problem when trying to read a transcript where you miss out on the body language, inflection, etc.

Edwards is certainly not saying the President has done what's best for America and for its allies.

BTW, here's the full context (inserting the portion snipped by Drudge)

KING: We're back with Senator Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth.

If the military is stretched too thin, as many believe, should the draft return, senator?

J. EDWARDS: No. I don't think we have a need for the draft, but I do think we need to expand our military and have some real reform. And the starting place is one of the things that Senator Kerry has laid out over the last several months.

I mean, what we see happening, and you know this, Larry, because I've heard you talk about it. What we see happening is we have members of our Reserve and our National Guard who are being kept for long tours of duty, way beyond anything they expected. Now, my own belief is that it's a combination of not having enough troops, which is why we need to add troops to our military, but secondly, we shouldn't be doing these things by ourselves. We shouldn't be in the places that we're in.

I was, just a few weeks ago, for example, I was in Brussels at NATO meeting with a whole group of NATO ambassadors and hearing their perspective on this. I just believe that these countries around the world, whose cooperation and alliances we need, believe that in order for them to have a fresh start with America, we're going to need a new president to do that. Now, they're not going to want to say this very vocally, of course, but the reality is that in order for us to reestablish old relations and to establish new relationships, I believe we need a new president.

KING: Are you saying they implied that to you?

J. EDWARDS: They didn't say that directly. What they said was they're very frustrated with the way this administration has dealt with them.

They believe that in this case our trans-Atlantic relationships are important, should be important to America, are important to them. They want to be treated with some level of respect. They understand, because I made it very clear, at the end of the day, the president of the United States is going to do what's in the best interest of the American people.

But the vast majority of the time, our interests are aligned with the interests of our allies around the world.

KING: Can you say unequivocally in a Kerry-Edwards administration there will never be a preemptive strike?

J. EDWARDS: No, I can't say that. No...

KING: So there might be occasion in which the United States would make the first blow?

J. EDWARDS: No, of course. Suppose, for example, we identified some significant terrorist operation operating in some country that is hostile to us. We know that they're about to hit us. We have absolutely credible evidence, intelligence, that that's going to happen. It may be necessary for us to act preemptively.

No, we wouldn't take that off the table. But I might add, this is an important thing, that the administration has gone to this doctrine of preemptive strikes, which is completely unnecessary. Every American president has always had the authority to act in a way to keep the American people safe, whatever that requires. And laying this doctrine out just said to the rest of the world, we don't care what you think, we're going to do whatever we want when we please. It's just not the way to interact with the rest of the world.

 

[Fenixgoon]

1) does edwards realize that all intel is not black/white? this is always a major problem. politicians do a lot of talking, but they don't do any of the walking. it's one thing to lay something out on paper and say "damn, this looks good" and another to actually try and make it work. our intel obviously had problems, thanks to the 10,000 commissions that reported on it. 2) No, of course is an incorrect response, its self-contradictory (im not discerediting edwards on this basis, merely pointing out his grammatical errror that caused slight confusion). 3)i don't know if there is a direct link between saddam and al-qaeda specifically, but there are direct connections between saddam and terrorists-- iraq has been host to many training camps, among other things. if france and germany don't want to jepoardize their economic stakes in iraq, fine (i think germany did some engineering work for them, jacques chirac was high official in a french oil company that helped saddam setup oil fields in the 80's) off to bed for me, 'night all

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
1) does edwards realize that all intel is not black/white? this is always a major problem. politicians do a lot of talking, but they don't do any of the walking. it's one thing to lay something out on paper and say "damn, this looks good" and another to actually try and make it work. our intel obviously had problems, thanks to the 10,000 commissions that reported on it.

Why would you think Edwards looks at intelligence as black/white? He's been on the Senate Intelligence Committee. He knows what vetting means (a concept foreign to Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith and their DIA - the agency that brought back the discredited INC and stovepiped unvetted intelligence)

2) No, of course is an incorrect response, its self-contradictory (im not discerediting edwards on this basis, merely pointing out his grammatical errror that caused slight confusion).

So, are you going to modify your topic title based upon your backpedaling?

3)i don't know if there is a direct link between saddam and al-qaeda specifically, but there are direct connections between saddam and terrorists-- iraq has been host to many training camps, among other things. if france and germany don't want to jepoardize their economic stakes in iraq, fine (i think germany did some engineering work for them, jacques chirac was high official in a french oil company that helped saddam setup oil fields in the 80's) off to bed for me, 'night all

The 9/11 Commission knows there's no direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The Senate Intelligence Committee knows there is no direct link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

That's good enough for me but not for the members of the BAA.

Iraq was not the host to many training camps. Are you referring to Salman Pak, the counterterrorism facility outside Baghdad? Or are you referring to the camp in Kurdish territory (outside of Saddam's control but protected by the U.S.-imposed no-fly zones?

What links are there between Saddam and terrorists? Do you mean the money paid to the families of suicide bombers? That's not a direct link, is it? That's money going to families left w/o a source of income. It's not something he should have been doing, though, imo. But, then again, Israel shouldn't be occupying territory that doesn't belong to it.

 

[Todd33]

Would anyone think world leaders want Bush to win? Besides Sharon that is. Really, it's not hard to imagine, he has pissed off the world with his Hubris.

 

[jackschmittusa]

IMHO Bush has not done what's right for America and this has coincidentally put us at odds with much of the rest of the world.

 

[Willian]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Would anyone think world leaders want Bush to win? Besides Sharon that is. Really, it's not hard to imagine, he has pissed off the world with his Hubris.

Honestly who really cares what the rest of the world thinks about us, Thats the problem with liberalism it has blinded most of the people in the US. Its awful funny how their all pissed off at us but when it comes to hand outs they always want something.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

Reading that transcript, I don't see any contradiction.

 

[glenn1]

The Democrats need to stop with this "foreign leaders support us" crap. They're seriously pissing me off. I don't give a flying f**k who Europe thinks our President should be, anymore than I think I should tell Europeans who to vote for. Kerry and co. need to tell the rest of the world not to take sides in our internal politics. I don't want a spineless bastard who can't even politely tell other countries to mind their own damn business and treats their psuedo-endorsement like it's something to be proud of.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Willian

Originally posted by: Todd33
Would anyone think world leaders want Bush to win? Besides Sharon that is. Really, it's not hard to imagine, he has pissed off the world with his Hubris.

Honestly who really cares what the rest of the world thinks about us, Thats the problem with liberalism it has blinded most of the people in the US. Its awful funny how their all pissed off at us but when it comes to hand outs they always want something.

It's that exact type of head-in-the-sand attitude that has caused us to have been in Iraq pretty much all on our own. Had Bush actually used diplomacy and dropped his cowboy attitude, we'd have had more international support and had more troops from other countries in Iraq. There would have been much fewer dead and injured American soldiers and, perhaps, much less violence in Iraq since it wouldn't be a purely American occupation.

We're not alone in this world. It's time to stop being the bully.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: glenn1
The Democrats need to stop with this "foreign leaders support us" crap. They're seriously pissing me off. I don't give a flying f**k who Europe thinks our President should be, anymore than I think I should tell Europeans who to vote for. Kerry and co. need to tell the rest of the world not to take sides in our internal politics. I don't want a spineless bastard who can't even politely tell other countries to mind their own damn business and treats their psuedo-endorsement like it's something to be proud of.

But it's ok for the US to not only exert pressure on other countries' politics but to actually invade countries and depose leaders we don't like (even leaders we helped install earlier)?

 

[XZeroII]

I have to admit, the contradiction is pretty weak. It took me awhile to even see where it was.

 

[glenn1]

But it's ok for the US to not only exert pressure on other countries' politics but to actually invade countries and depose leaders we don't like (even leaders we helped install earlier)?

My problem is with foreign countries trying to inappropriately influence our elections. IMHO, it's not appropriate for one democratic nation to openly or hint at taking sides in another democratic nation's election. It'd be like Bush and Cheney coming out and supporting the defeat of Jacques Chirac in the next French elections. There's already enough political commercials on TV at election time, I don't want or need the EU sponsoring yet more with their POV.

If you're speaking about Iraq in your example I don't really see the parallel to the OP. Since voting Saddam Hussein out of office wasn't really a realistic option, the U.S. saying bad things about him is kinda a moot point. And I also haven't heard of any foreign nations planning to invade the U.S. and depose our leader. You can support our adventures in Iraq or oppose them, but that doesn't give foreign nations carte blanche to participate in our election, whether actively or passively.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: glenn1
The Democrats need to stop with this "foreign leaders support us" crap. They're seriously pissing me off. I don't give a flying f**k who Europe thinks our President should be, anymore than I think I should tell Europeans who to vote for. Kerry and co. need to tell the rest of the world not to take sides in our internal politics. I don't want a spineless bastard who can't even politely tell other countries to mind their own damn business and treats their psuedo-endorsement like it's something to be proud of.

But it's ok for the US to not only exert pressure on other countries' politics but to actually invade countries and depose leaders we don't like (even leaders we helped install earlier)?

wasn't saddam more of the "lesser of two evils" when we stuck him in? i was born in '87, so i don't know
but yeah, i'd say if someone has laughed at the UN "world court," broken resolutions, committed genocide, and supported terrorism (we have satellite photos of camps, conjur), I think that's a pretty strong basis to go ahead and take him out after the UN has been made a laughing stock for the Nth time in a row.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: glenn1

But it's ok for the US to not only exert pressure on other countries' politics but to actually invade countries and depose leaders we don't like (even leaders we helped install earlier)?

My problem is with foreign countries trying to inappropriately influence our elections. IMHO, it's not appropriate for one democratic nation to openly or hint at taking sides in another democratic nation's election. It'd be like Bush and Cheney coming out and supporting the defeat of Jacques Chirac in the next French elections. There's already enough political commercials on TV at election time, I don't want or need the EU sponsoring yet more with their POV.

If you're speaking about Iraq in your example I don't really see the parallel to the OP. Since voting Saddam Hussein out of office wasn't really a realistic option, the U.S. saying bad things about him is kinda a moot point. And I also haven't heard of any foreign nations planning to invade the U.S. and depose our leader. You can support our adventures in Iraq or oppose them, but that doesn't give foreign nations carte blanche to participate in our election, whether actively or passively.

Were you as equally upset when Aznar lost to Zapatero and there was much hue and cry from the neocons up here about "appeasing Al Qaeda"?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: glenn1
The Democrats need to stop with this "foreign leaders support us" crap. They're seriously pissing me off. I don't give a flying f**k who Europe thinks our President should be, anymore than I think I should tell Europeans who to vote for. Kerry and co. need to tell the rest of the world not to take sides in our internal politics. I don't want a spineless bastard who can't even politely tell other countries to mind their own damn business and treats their psuedo-endorsement like it's something to be proud of.

But it's ok for the US to not only exert pressure on other countries' politics but to actually invade countries and depose leaders we don't like (even leaders we helped install earlier)?

wasn't saddam more of the "lesser of two evils" when we stuck him in? i was born in '87, so i don't know

No, we didn't stick in Saddam. Saddam's party gained power thru a coup and then Saddam took over in 1979 and began having dissidents and rivals executed. This was pretty much exactly 25 years ago. It was after the fall of the Shah in Iran that we began to support Saddam as he was then the "enemy of our enemy".

but yeah, i'd say if someone has laughed at the UN "world court," broken resolutions, committed genocide, and supported terrorism (we have satellite photos of camps, conjur), I think that's a pretty strong basis to go ahead and take him out after the UN has been made a laughing stock for the Nth time in a row.

Then why haven't we invaded Israel? They fit every single one of those charges...well...genocide would be a bit of a stretch but they are doing their best to purge Palestinians from their own land.

And, those satellite photos are of Salman Pak and the camp in Kurdish territory, unless you want to share some links to some other "terrorist training camps" that have somehow missed the press.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Willian

Originally posted by: Todd33
Would anyone think world leaders want Bush to win? Besides Sharon that is. Really, it's not hard to imagine, he has pissed off the world with his Hubris.

Honestly who really cares what the rest of the world thinks about us, Thats the problem with liberalism it has blinded most of the people in the US. Its awful funny how their all pissed off at us but when it comes to hand outs they always want something.

You should care. The problem would seem, is that you are not smart enough to realize when you are being stupid. Who cares what the World thinks about us..... sheesh
:roll: