Posted on 02/19/2004 3:43:19 AM PST by Eurotwit
Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.
Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
You are abusing the little power you have been given by spamming every thread. Enough. We read your crap and it gains no additional credit by posting it to every threat. chill.
I'll take "Things John Kerry Would Never Say" for $400 Alex.
Hillery ran the country for 8 years with Bill as the sock puppet. No reason she can't do it again. Edwards has no gonads and she would walk all over him. And then get 8 more years with her as President afterwards.
No one living now would recognize this once great country after 16 more years of Hillary. Any damn fool that says they won't vote for Bush because he didn't take this issue or that issue will deserve the pile of dung that they will be living in when she takes over.
I agree. It'd be nice to have a Dem candidate that isn't completely evil like Clinton, or half evil like Gore, so we can have a race based on the issues instead of treason, girlfriends, or whatever else may come up with a fraud like Kerry.
Stop annoying the moderators?
You're still bugged about the whole WMD deal, huh?
John Edwards will run his campaign now, like a well oiled trial and he is good, he is a slick trial lawyer...he can make you think he 'likes' you...don't be fooled because he has a way with words...he is not your friend...he is a Democrat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.