Edwards says he was wrong - why?
An email exchange I jumped into between my son and friend, regarding Edward's "I was wrong about the war" speach. It's in reverse order of posting, starting at the bottom with a copy of the Edwards speech...
On Nov. 14th, Ed Cleary responded...
Hillary needs to support this war. She'll continue her move to the right.
As for Edwards, while I respect has admission of being wrong, this is a political speech. Period. It's calculated and cold. This whole "unfiltered" differentiation (being what info the White House got and what he got) is bullshit because no one has or can name any information that would have changed their minds. They are speculating. They _think_ they have something, but they must not be sure. For example, Howard Dean called Bush everything but a liar on Meet the Press today, but just didn't have the guts to cross that one line. I guess the Democratic cover will be plausible deniability, wherein, after they find nothing of merit, they each say "Well _I_ never called the president a liar."
Reread Edwards speach and you will note that he never says Bush lied to him - but he immediately _implies_ that the President lied to you, the great republic. Read the weasle words: " * * [t]he information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community * * *" conjoined in the same phrase . Why would Edwards write it that way? Wasn't Bush talking to Edwards as well when he was talking to the nation? If he lied to the nation, Senator, say so. Still, why make a distinction between the type of information you recieved as a Senator from the type of information POTUS gave to the public.
I'll tell you why. Because, right or wrong, as a nation-state there are a thousand good reasons to fight this war, and we don't need to complicate issues. Maybe you think no one issue is worth going to war about, but here we are trying to reduce the entire reason for the war on WMD. That was the major selling point. There were other reasons, I am sure, but what did Edwards know or hear that he is not telling us?
The US as nation might want a war, but it isn't going to get it in this democracy without a _cause_. The cause was WMD - problem dealt with. Now the cause is freedom of oppressed people throughout the middle east. It wouldn't be the first war that was transformed ideologically. Lincoln did not engage the civil war as one against slavery - at least not openly. We entered Vietnam with the best of intentions, but it was transformed in the opposite direction, turning into a bitter seething conflict that seemed to have no connection with what we, as a nation, wanted to believe we were.
My fear is that this transformation is necessary for success in the Middle east - but that the Democrats have decided to poison the well to prevent any such transformation. The reason is simple - the people behind this hate Bush more than they love their country.
So undermine, undermine, undermine. Edwards line about intelligience that is "in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda" - notice it doesn't say that Bush did it or what the agenda is. He simply _implies_ it as a nefarious act. Now, follow that up with a few lines about how American leaders shoudn't lie to the world, and you get Edwards accusing Bush (indirectly, of course) of lying not to him, but to the American people and to the World.
Jack Petsche wrote:
> Kevin, Good speech. A politician who admits he made a mistake. I admire that. I hope more democrats who voted for this war come out and admit their mistake. Until they do they have no credibility with me. I mean specifically Hillary and Kerry. The white house had access to unfiltered intel unlike the Senate. Its clear from the evidence that has come out that the White House buried intel that showed al-Libi was a liar and al Qaeda was not being trained by Iraqis as the Pres falsely claimed, that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for centrifuges as the DIA and State Dept knew well before the war, that Iraq had no nuclear program as nobel prize winner el Baradei told us well before the war, and Iraq was not trying to buy uranium in Africa as the CIA knew well before the Pres said it. And UN inspectors were in Iraq in Jan and Feb of 2003 and found no WMD. There are very good reasons that 54% of the American people now believe that the Bush Administration deliberately misled us into this war, not the least of which is because it is true. We have to make them pay for that by voting out of office all those who got us into this war and continue to not admit their mistakes ala Edwards. Jack
>
> "Kevin E. Cleary" wrote:
>
> I'm convinced that he would be President right now if he'd been at the top of the ticket in 2004. Here's hoping he gets the nomination in 2008...-kev
> washingtonpost.comThe Right Way in Iraq
>
> By John Edwards
> Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07
>
> I was wrong.
>
> Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
>
> It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
>
> The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.
>
> While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
>
> The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
>
> George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
>
> Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
>
> The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.
>
> What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
>
> A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
>
> First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
>
> We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.
>
> That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
>
> Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.
>
> Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.
>
> Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.
>
> America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
>
> The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.
On Nov. 14th, Ed Cleary responded...
Hillary needs to support this war. She'll continue her move to the right.
As for Edwards, while I respect has admission of being wrong, this is a political speech. Period. It's calculated and cold. This whole "unfiltered" differentiation (being what info the White House got and what he got) is bullshit because no one has or can name any information that would have changed their minds. They are speculating. They _think_ they have something, but they must not be sure. For example, Howard Dean called Bush everything but a liar on Meet the Press today, but just didn't have the guts to cross that one line. I guess the Democratic cover will be plausible deniability, wherein, after they find nothing of merit, they each say "Well _I_ never called the president a liar."
Reread Edwards speach and you will note that he never says Bush lied to him - but he immediately _implies_ that the President lied to you, the great republic. Read the weasle words: " * * [t]he information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community * * *" conjoined in the same phrase . Why would Edwards write it that way? Wasn't Bush talking to Edwards as well when he was talking to the nation? If he lied to the nation, Senator, say so. Still, why make a distinction between the type of information you recieved as a Senator from the type of information POTUS gave to the public.
I'll tell you why. Because, right or wrong, as a nation-state there are a thousand good reasons to fight this war, and we don't need to complicate issues. Maybe you think no one issue is worth going to war about, but here we are trying to reduce the entire reason for the war on WMD. That was the major selling point. There were other reasons, I am sure, but what did Edwards know or hear that he is not telling us?
The US as nation might want a war, but it isn't going to get it in this democracy without a _cause_. The cause was WMD - problem dealt with. Now the cause is freedom of oppressed people throughout the middle east. It wouldn't be the first war that was transformed ideologically. Lincoln did not engage the civil war as one against slavery - at least not openly. We entered Vietnam with the best of intentions, but it was transformed in the opposite direction, turning into a bitter seething conflict that seemed to have no connection with what we, as a nation, wanted to believe we were.
My fear is that this transformation is necessary for success in the Middle east - but that the Democrats have decided to poison the well to prevent any such transformation. The reason is simple - the people behind this hate Bush more than they love their country.
So undermine, undermine, undermine. Edwards line about intelligience that is "in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda" - notice it doesn't say that Bush did it or what the agenda is. He simply _implies_ it as a nefarious act. Now, follow that up with a few lines about how American leaders shoudn't lie to the world, and you get Edwards accusing Bush (indirectly, of course) of lying not to him, but to the American people and to the World.
Jack Petsche wrote:
> Kevin, Good speech. A politician who admits he made a mistake. I admire that. I hope more democrats who voted for this war come out and admit their mistake. Until they do they have no credibility with me. I mean specifically Hillary and Kerry. The white house had access to unfiltered intel unlike the Senate. Its clear from the evidence that has come out that the White House buried intel that showed al-Libi was a liar and al Qaeda was not being trained by Iraqis as the Pres falsely claimed, that the aluminum tubes were not suitable for centrifuges as the DIA and State Dept knew well before the war, that Iraq had no nuclear program as nobel prize winner el Baradei told us well before the war, and Iraq was not trying to buy uranium in Africa as the CIA knew well before the Pres said it. And UN inspectors were in Iraq in Jan and Feb of 2003 and found no WMD. There are very good reasons that 54% of the American people now believe that the Bush Administration deliberately misled us into this war, not the least of which is because it is true. We have to make them pay for that by voting out of office all those who got us into this war and continue to not admit their mistakes ala Edwards. Jack
>
> "Kevin E. Cleary"
>
> I'm convinced that he would be President right now if he'd been at the top of the ticket in 2004. Here's hoping he gets the nomination in 2008...-kev
> washingtonpost.comThe Right Way in Iraq
>
> By John Edwards
> Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07
>
> I was wrong.
>
> Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
>
> It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.
>
> The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.
>
> While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
>
> The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
>
> George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
>
> Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
>
> The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.
>
> What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
>
> A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
>
> First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
>
> We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.
>
> That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
>
> Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.
>
> Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.
>
> Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.
>
> America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
>
> The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.
posted by Ed C:\> at 9:07 PM
1 Comments:
You neglect to mention in this post that the Bush administration has done way more than its fair share of stepping right up to a lie and splitting the difference. For instance, when they drove an unprecedented number of people into poverty in 2004, they claimed that they had relieved those people of their entire tax liability. I.E. These people were so broke they didn't have any taxable income, but we'll spin that as positive.
Post a Comment
<< Home