Man what a Warmonger!

TheSitRep on January 14, 2008 at 10:25 PM

This is no surprise. Clinton, Edwards, et al. all voted for the AUMF. Bill Clinton made the case against Saddam in the 90s.

The whole world knew Saddam had WMD and was sponsoring terrorism throughout the world.

As soon as the winds shifted, and the polls indicated possible electoral success by opposing the war and the broader national security policies, the liberals shifted their rhetoric to the anti war tone they advocate today. These liberals are nothing more than political hacks, and it will be a long time before they are anything else.

kc2ige on January 14, 2008 at 10:26 PM

Will you miss him when he drops out as much as I will?

Silky who?

I’d say he was definitely for the war before he was against it.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 14, 2008 at 10:29 PM

THE END!

colep on January 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM

The first thing that came to my mind was, wow, look at that hair! Then I couldn’t believe my ears! The silkiest of them all, advocating eliminating the threat! Heh. That’s something.

4shoes on January 14, 2008 at 10:31 PM

THE END!

colep on January 14, 2008 at 10:30 PM

Was there ever a beginning?

Pent. on January 14, 2008 at 10:32 PM

Geez, he looks like he’s twelve years old!

Big John on January 14, 2008 at 10:38 PM

Allah, you’d be a hero if you can dig up the clip I continue to reference (and paste a partial transcript of) from when Edwards was interviewed by Chris Matthews on October 15, 2003 (when the Dems, who’d made the WMD case for the previous 13 years decided to start calling Bush a liar). Edwards remained the one Democrat in the primaries to back Bush’s action both at the UN and in Iraq.

The following partial transcript is long (so I’m not accused of leaving out context) but I’ll also include the link to be completely open… Obviously he wanted to run against Bush in the 2004 race, so he wasn’t going to compliment him, but if you get through his attempts to draw a division between him and Bush, it still boils down to his claim that he supported Bush’s action at the UN and Iraq, and that he’d have done it exactly the same way… here goes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

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.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists…

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: … trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the “don’t tread on me and if you don’t we’ll leave you alone.” We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn’t get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they’ve got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that’s what I think the threat was.

Notice Matthews BEGGING Edwards to call Bush a liar over those “13 words” from the state of the union speech (as the rest of the Dems were quick to do). Edwards wouldn’t budge… he’d only go as far as to say “I didn’t put much stock in it anyway”. Which is, oddly, a good point. It wasn’t the entire argument. It was a bit of intelligence from the Brits (as bush noted), which they stand by, but it was vague enough for the media and leftist spin machines to create something out of nothing over it. But Edwards knew (at the time) that it wasn’t the whole ball of wax, it was just one piece of a giant puzzle.

In the end, regardless of whether he “put much stock” in that specific argument or not, the important part to remember is that he stood by the actions REGARDLESS of that state of the union line… but that is not the Edwards we know today (or more importantly, that his moron anti-war support base knows.)

I want to repeat one part of the excerpt:

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

F you John Edwards. You’re the scum of the Earth as are any and all of your supporters. Anyone who supports this shameful SOB is either stupid, dishonest, or just plain lazy (all of which are common characteristics of a modern Democrat, so it’s not really that surprising).

RightWinged on January 14, 2008 at 10:42 PM

he supported the war out of nothing more than venal political expediency.

The same way Al Gore decided which way to vote on the Gulf War Resoultion based on who gave him the most floor time.

Tony737 on January 14, 2008 at 10:43 PM

I see why he was Kerry’s running mate. He was for the war before he was against it.

William Amos on January 14, 2008 at 10:44 PM

Wow, what a display of an “arrogant, bunker mentality”.

someguy on January 14, 2008 at 10:58 PM

Forget Edwards.

It’s ALL THE DEMOCRATS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ

Good Lt on January 14, 2008 at 10:59 PM

That’s an excellent/classic video we should all refresh ourselves with a couple of times every year (and there are dozens more quotes where those came from), but I think the difference with Edwards in particular is that when ALL the Dems flipped in late 2003 to the “Bush lied!” line, Edwards, running in the Dem primaries held fast as the ONE pro-war Dem candidate who supported Bush’s action at the UN and in Iraq. The others were busy calling Bush a liar, but not Edwards. NOW, he (and his idiot supporters) claim that he’s the far left most anti-war hero they could hitch their wagons to.

Again, I enjoy checking that video you sent every couple months and everyone should familiarize themselves with the 180 the Dems have done (cuz the media won’t do it for you), but the Edwards thing is a slightly different case, and deserves to be examined separately too.

RightWinged on January 14, 2008 at 11:11 PM

Who said:

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

George H.W. Bush? George W. Bush? Would you believe Bill Clinton? He signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and put Iraq’s liberation from Saddam Hussein into official U.S. policy. Thank you, Bill. It may be the only thing you did right during your 8 years in office.

Amy Proctor on January 14, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Is there such a thing as a 60,000 sq. ft. mobile home? [ie. trailer] With a garbage compactor? [ie. trash]

Griz on January 15, 2008 at 12:16 AM

These clips should be on National TV ads NOW. What’s the RNC sitting on these for? Waiting for the nominee and then dropping this bag of “surprise” on them?

Do the dems really think we’re going to forget about all their previous statements?

JetBlast on January 15, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Pablo, Sir, please comment more on HA! Treasures!

Will you miss him when he drops out as much as I will?

Well, yes, if he’d ever drop out of perpetual campaigning. He only won once or twice, but has been campaigning for something all his life.

Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 12:58 AM

I was misled! Ehm… Which I realized only later! Yeah!

Seixon on January 15, 2008 at 1:59 AM

Let slip the poodles of WAR!!!!!

hillbillyjim on January 15, 2008 at 3:58 AM

It amazes me that people like Edwards always forget that there is this thing called videotape and that things recorded and said on it can last for years, and be brought back years later so as to remind all of us what someone like Edwards said back then, and compare it to what he is saying NOW. I swear, politicians like Edwards must think we are all idiots and they are all superior intellects!

pilamaye on January 15, 2008 at 7:42 AM

It amazes me that people like Edwards always forget that there is this thing called videotape and that things recorded and said on it can last for years, and be brought back years later so as to remind all of us what someone like Edwards said back then, and compare it to what he is saying NOW. I swear, politicians like Edwards must think we are all idiots and they are all superior intellects!

pilamaye on January 15, 2008 at 7:42 AM

Actually pilamaye, these Dems don’t “forget”, they know full well what they’re doing… They know the MSM WILL NOT pull these videos out to bust them for their lies and flip-flopping, because the MSM is on their side. So it’s not so much “stupidity” or “forgetfulness”, as it is confidence that their media allies have got their backs. Remember, as big as HotAir is in the blogosphere, it’s still not getting the tens of millions of eyeballs that the network news shows and the nation’s papers get. I wish someone would do a poll to see what percentage of Americans are aware that the Democrats spent 13 years making the “WMDs in Iraq” case right up to the war. I wager it’s less than 20% of the public is aware.

RightWinged on January 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM

Now that was hawt. No wonder he uses Cover Girl now — he’s lost all his sex appeal.

Too bad the Democrats have this force field made from sheer stupidity and the scalps of babies and puppy tears that prevents the media from actually confronting him about it.

Numenorean on January 15, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Good Lt on January 14, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Wow, what sound judgement! What firm and decisive positions. Really stickin to their guns ain’t they. Never seen their own damning words layed out that well before.
Be the USA’s worst nightmare with these fair wind non-leaders getting elected and playing political popularity position-of-the-month, with USsoldiers lives and our Nations honor.

christophercube on January 15, 2008 at 12:38 PM