Edwards: Al Queda,"We will destroy you"

Damn.

But it didn't seem to be convincing. Defense is not his thing. That stare and line won't get any votes to our side.

nt

There's your fucking sound bite, Karl.

I know the anti-war types will cringe, but I hear in John Edwards' words an echo of the Democratic Cold Warriors -- remember Jack Kennedy, Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey?

I know there's a different view, and respect the differences. But how sick I am of hearing Democrats are soft on defense! The Pubs have been running against George McGovern since 1972.

At last! Democratic Warriors! The ghost of Jack Kennedy stands at attention, and salutes!

Go get 'em, John!

We need the Democratic "Cold Warriors" to rise up and show the Repubs we're ready to fight terror. With all due respect to the anti-war crew, now's not the time...

I so totally agree with you. And while we're at it, we're taking the flag and patriotism back too.

So I don't know where he is.  You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.

See his full statement here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

Also the Bush* administration appeased bin Laden by getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia.

Wolfowitz:

There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0305/S00308.htm

the bush cartel, as well.

We got the 9-11 tribute, we got the religious hymns, we got ramping up the bellicose words, we got the Kerry military re-creation out in Boston Harbor. Who ARE these people? Why are not being allowed to be who we are? This isn't what we've been saying for the past year and a half.

Let's just ramp up the militarism, and never never address the reasons why most of the world hates us.

Welcome to DU--but watch out for flames!

Discussing these issues gives sway to the label of we're pessimistic we have no solutions, ect

I much prefer hearing our leaders say that we're going to get our respect back and how we're going to get it back than "they hate us boo hoo"

And I loved that line "We Will Destroy You" I am proud of Edwards for having the balls to say it because there is a real threat out there people, and the current administration has talked big but taken horribly wrong action to confront it, and has used the occassion to mislead the public.

I feel great comfort in knowing that we will have a presidency that truly does give a shit about our national security and about destroying our enemies without misleading the public or carelessly causing more innocents to die.

I see no evidence that Kerry/Edwards will be taking our foreign policy in any significantly new direction.

People all over the world hate us because we go all over the world raping and pillaging so our corporations can feed like bloated leeches.

Nothing in the democratic party platform shows the slightest recognition of this fact.

on issues of war and peace. He is someone who has studied not just the miltary and its strategies, but also has spent many years studying the cultures of other nations around the world and how that culture and religion influences their governments.

Anyone who has truly studied Kerry and his positions on military strategy knows he is is a huge critic of air campaigns and the use of carpet bombs. He believes that method makes more enemies than it eliminates because it increases the numbers of civilian deaths which he believes is unacceptable. He also plans to cancel the tactical nukes programs and Star Wars.

If you don't bother to study issues of such great import then you will never see the evidence that is there. The media isn't going to explain these indepth issues to the public. They won't give the truth of the details the airtime they deserve.

A kinder, gentler world domination?

than what you perceive. You will only learn that by actually studying who he is, what drives him and how willing he is to listen.

the dictates and long term strategic interests of Pax Americana (TM) then what?

..the Dem party that is.

Why do you feel it isn't?

Where did you get the impression that the Dem party was not pro-National defense?

Speak for yourself.

..who IS the Democratic party and HAS, through their history, been pro-National Defense. It's just a fact.

Name one Democratic presidential administration who was not?

Tell me one year when the Democratic party platform was anti-military or not pro-defense.

YOU can be anti-war, but this week's national convention is an extension of the DNC and is putting forth THEIR policies.

pro-National OFFENSE!

PS, what is unDemocratic about a 9/11 tribute?

What kinda nonsense is that?

deeply respectful of those who lost their lives on 9-11, are religious, believe in a strong national defense, respect those in the armed services. This is exactly what has been said for the last year and a half. That is why Kerry won the nomination.

BTW, Tamara, welcome to DU.:hi:

WE are these people. Since WE make you so uncomfortable, it might be a good idea to go back YOUR people.

George McGovern
John F. Kennedy
Max Cleland
Harry Truman
George C. Wallace

"Why are not being allowed to be who we are?"

Who are "WE" exactly? What do "WE" think that "WE" ought to be saying? Care to enlighten "US"?

God, it never ends....


Oh. and welcometoDUorwhatever.

I say most of the folks in DU agree with me. To illustrate this, try the following.

Wander into a DU thread anonymously where the war is being discussed and memtion that you were in the military and got several purple hearts. Will the reaction be positive or negative?

Go into a thread and mention how great America is...Will the reaction be positive or negative?

Go into a thread and say as Edwards did, "We will get you, Al Queda". Do you think the reaction will be positive or negative

Go into a thread and talk about your religious beliefs. Will the reaction be positive or negative.

I guarantee you if you do these things, as have been done at this week's convention, the reaction will be overwhelmingly negative. So the people who are at the convention are not acting like WE DUers are at all. Nor are they acting like they have for the past year and a half. WE are accustomed to them telling us in no uncertain terms that Bush is lying, that the war is wrong, that America needs to examine why it is hated. This timid stuff towards Bush..and the stuff they are doing up there might as well be the convention being held next month in NYC. So try the experiment. Get back to me.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Withhold the name calling and baiting. Try the experiment, then let's see if you still want to pop off

A RW lurker comes here to stir shit and I'M POPPING OFF?

That's rich.

You're the one saying that Democrats(Rats, haha!) are anti-military, anti-American, and anti-religion. The burden is on YOU to prove it, not for me to play your silly little game. Try harder next time.

doggone it.

Certain people I've had discussions with across the spectrum from where I sit hold that DU can be relied on to insult veterans--especially wounded ones--be universally hostile to the idea that America is great or that one is religious. That's a right-wing stereotype. I can see why Blue-Jay might be suspicious of the top part of your post.

But I do think you will not find many at DU who would react positively to anyone but John Edwards blowing hard about destroying al Qaeda. And I'm surprised that aspect of the speech is getting the warm response its getting her, frankly. I thought at most people would cough and look the other way.

It's been tombstoned.

I have a feeling I've talked to it elsewhere, though.

I'll quote for it for you:

We got the 9-11 tribute,

Which we SHOULD have...

we got the religious hymns

Are you anti-religion? Do you think all Democrats are? Most of them? What?

we got ramping up the bellicose words,

So. Happens in EVERY convention.

we got the Kerry military re-creation out in Boston Harbor.

So? Kerry's military service is a major voting point.

Who ARE these people?

Democrats. Remember, FDR took us to war. Kennedy and LBJ involved us in a war. Carter used the military. Clinton used the military...

Why are not being allowed to be who we are? This isn't what we've been saying for the past year and a half.

Again, this isn't completely about Iraq. It is about defense and our fight with terrorism.

doesn't feel good. And it might mean we have to make real changes, not cosmettically, but right down at the foundations. It might mean we become disillusioned, and that would suck, so it's easier and feels so much better to live under an illusion. And if we believe it strongly enough, then we can make the illusion a reality! We like what we got, and we don't want to change it.

But the most important thing is that talking about all those nasty things doesn't get votes and doesn't win elections. That's the bottom line.

There has been no mention of the horrible Patriot Act (as in we need to repeal ALL of it). Very little in the way of progressive ideas (except for Kucinich who I thought gave a very good speech). I am hoping they are just pandering to those fence sitters who still might believe that liberals are soft of defense.

Actually there has, from Obama speech:

"A belief that we are connected as one people. If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's a fundamental belief--I am my brothers keeper, I am my sister's keeper--that makes this country work".

From where I sit, this whole convention has been progressive through and through. It is all about people and the government's subservience to "we the people".

Edit spelling

how much of our base will stay home because of this nonsense? We can't "win a war on terror (the GOP name for our Iraq misadventure) any more than we will "win the war on drugs"! And when Edwards said that the soldiers in Iraq are "fighting for our values" I nearly choked! Not MY values, pal, those are Carlyle CORPORATE values!

Not that they have a choice--they have to do what they are told. My values do not include raping kids in front of their parents in Abu Ghraib, nor filling the coffers of the thieves of Halliburton.

"fighting for our values" is a Bush lie.
The "you can run but...bla, bla, bla," was pure Bush also

:eyes:

.....first, the Left-wing of the Party has no where else to go and second, they are trying to appeal to independants and disgruntled Repubs.....to get on board.....

I'll say one thing though, this will be the last time I'll ever buy that 'running to center is the only way can win' crap, ever again.....

And gods bless you for saying that! :toast:

This country had a chance to select several different people who had no difficulty with the idea of a stance diametrically opposed to that of * and crew.

They failed utterly and completely.

It would appear that the Democratic leadership thinks that it can do a wrong thing in a right manner.

It would also appear that they believe in *'s "WOT".

A special no thanks to all you who came out of the woodwork saying you've got some sort of problem going after a terrorist group that's killed so many people, not just here, but in Spain and the middle east. Great going. You did exactly as this disruptor planned and wanted.

Unfortunately people continue replying because its a top comment.

Anyway a moderator could add the later comments to the original post?

deleted

longer does he need?

That.was.AWESOME!

I love all Edwards ideals and domestic policies and eloquence, all very awesome, but there are moments at this convention when Dems are just echoing misguided and misinformed foreign policy themes from the neo-cons. The "Bush Lite" game is the stupidist part of this and we owe it to them to let them know that's not where America is going. And that's not how this inderdependent planet works....and of course they're bright guys who must really know that.

behind * is protecting America from terror. * is going to be shoving fear down the collective throat of the citizenry for the next three months. And what if there is another attack (real or manufactured)?

Kerry MUST do this. I, for one, would be disappointed if he did not b/c I want him to win.

On top of the petro! Smoke em' out John(s).

Bush talked a good fight against Al Qaeda and did nothing to make the world safer.
I'm not impressed by what Edwards said. Did it take courage? Did anyone expect him to say: "Al Qaeda, we will ignore you?"

...another country based on a pack of lies. Maybe you missed where military leaders, both retired and on active duty, have stated that FratBoy let Al Qaeda go when he had the chance to crush them. And what was with the three month head start before attacking their camps in Afghanistan?

Personally, I'm not impressed with your comments...your background knowledge on the subject lacks depth.

But still: Talking about destroying Al Qaeda is not the same thing as doing it.
I trust Edwards and Kerry not to be war criminals like Bush and Cheney are.
But my simple point is, talk is cheap.

I thought everybody here said that Al Qaeda didn’t really exist a few weeks ago. Did I miss something? Or did a Troll or Two (T)roll through here?

:wtf: is up with that?

There were about a dozen posts here saying that Al-Queda doesn’t exist. That it was a ploy of the Repub's to screw us out of our Civil Liberties. And now I’m being told that it DOES exist.

It’s MY turn to say “What the Bush is going on here?"

And people of differing opinions post here and disagree. But you knew that.

to put on their tin foil hat.

...let's get Kerry and Edwards elected first and then start solving what NEEDS to be solved, the Middle East included.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There is no one more sincere in their beliefs then me. Most people just can't face the facts.

about the dickhead part.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"After we re-install Saddam Hussein in Iraq, we will turn Afghanistan back to the workers."

Oh, wait I get it. It's comedy.

:smoke:

you must be one of those war on people that possess a plant people

you dont really believe that outlawing ANY drug does anything to keep people from getting it do you?

I really don't want to start another debate, but your quote is on the damn money. :)

But ahh screw it.... I just wanna say this.

I have to pose a question to a certain few in the gungeon.

You don't really think outlawing any gun will stop people from getting it do you?

War on drugs, gun control....

We should focus on the CAUSE of the problem with drugs and we should, I say focus on the problems that CAUSE violence, not the means.

Allawi is a former employee of his. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Yeah, I think I'll take the Dems approch thanks.

But--I do reluctantly admit that the war has accomplished some things--the Taliban were making the people suffer in Afghanistan and the US sanctions were making the people suffer in Iraq (now that they have ended people are better off--at least medicine and food are getting to them).

BUT I really hate the war-mongering stuff. It makes me feel very uncomfortable. I will be extremely upset if this war expands to another country--like Iran. Enough is enough already.

Peace.

and if it is wrong it is wrong. We do not have the right to take over countries and decide who leads them. Who here supports the war?
If you think the war is wrong, then so is the capture of a legal leader of a sovereign country. Bush is a war criminal.

(which has been operating in Afghanistan for decades) is preparing to leave b/c the country is too dangerous now.

Oops.

I think I read this on a recent LBN thread.

DWB have been in Afghanistan for 24 years. Now it is too dangerous for them.

driven.

OK OK - if saying "we will destroy you" to al Quaeda means "continue the bogus BS blah blah", then how would you say that we intend to destroy this terrorist group? How would you put it, so that it doesn't mean "continue the bogus etc etc"?

Oh, ok. Yeah, cuz that's not what he said.

a clearer distinction to have been made between the war in Iraq and the war on terror, I'm glad that Edwards made the statement. It was clear, concise, and it showed that the party wouldn't risk using force when it's necessary. Edwards and Kerry obviously understand (unlike a small minority here) that there are REAL threats and we can't make peace with some of them. Al Qaeda does pose that sort of threat.

Still, I am dissapointed several didn't make the distinction more clear, because it's important to make. Iraq and Al Qaeda were never the same threat.

John Kerry has already made it--and already gotten piled on because of it.

Al Qaeda and its terrorist activities are a law-enforcement problem.

It requires lots of hard work--and the cooperation of the rest of (world) society.

But (contrary to the way the Republicans want to frame the debate) I believe that OBL and AQ are criminals. They deserve to be caught, tried, convicted, imprisoned and their organization demolished.

Iraq is a bloody sideshow, a diversion from the fight against terrorism--but beyond saying 'we should never have done this', what we can best do to mop up the rivers of blood and reclaim some of America's honor is by no means obvious. Myself, I think we should pull out as quickly as we can--but the perils for being wrong are very high.

And again, Kerry has made the proper point: what's Iraq going to look like in January 2005? I shudder to speculate, but I really have no idea--nor, I think, does anyone else.

To proclaim a solution in advance is simply stupid. Kerry's refused to do this.

and I'm with him on this.

Some of us know who the real enemy is, who attacked us and who we are at war with. Iraq had not a damn thing to do with Al Qaeda, except to make the problem worse, once the terrorists moved into that country after its "liberation". There will be no preemptive bullshit, no unilateralism and we will work with our allies to destroy these terrorist killers.

And I FUCKING LOVED IT!!!

al Qaeda attacked our country (and yes, I believe it was al Qaeda) and murdered over 3000 people. Meanwhile, Jackoff George is playing with his weapons of mass distraction in trying to divert attention away from bin Ladin and his piece of shit terrorist organization.

At least Edwards got it right, and showed that he's not willing to sacrifice American lives just to coddle his Saudi oil buddies.

One of the best lines of the convention, IMO. He showed everyone that the Democratic Party is fair and compassionate, but ain't gonna take shit from nobody.

...the Democrats didnt' have.

It was a great line and delivered with sincerity. I believed he meant it! I'm betting it was a real bad night for the Idiot in Crawford. Heh!

We need to be pro-strong national defense. If someone messes with us and a democrat is in office, you bet your sweet ass there will be a retaliation. My problem is not with what Bush is doing, but how he is handling it. He has conducted his war on terror in a quite pathetic manner. What ever happened to the Democrats that loved FDR and Truman?

You know, where your opponents have armies with uniforms and stuff. Fighting terrorism is a matter of effective police work and real action to remove the grievances that nurture it--a very different kettle of fish.

My problem is how Bush has handled things thus far.

What kind of retaliation would you have taken after 9/11? Certainly, some response was necessary, don't you think?

Not even necessary to overthrow the Taliban for that, though if we wanted to do that as well it would have been wise to listen to the counsel of the 1000 anti-Taliban leaders that gathered in Peshawar on 10/27/01, who strongly opposed backing warlords with a heavy bombing campaign. We could also have let them have their chosen leader instead of cramming Karzai down their throats.

Put the Saudis who were flown out of the country through an intense grilling first--at least one had direct foreknowledge of 9-11. Sit on SA and Pakistan a lot harder for cooperation in unravelling financial networks.

Totally avoid the stupid saber-rattling about Syria. They had some very effective infiltration of Al Qaeda going, and were passing intelligence to us until Israel bombed them again with our approval.

I found it very discouraging.

by supporting despotic regimes that support US corporate interests above the interests of the people?

And how about not subsequently training those people in guerilla tactics?

:D

Different goals between us, I guess.

That's what the NeoFascists invented. Going after Al Q. and spending more money on real defense of US is not "War On Terror", it is defending the USA against Al Q. Invading Afghanistan was not necessary either. Find Al Q and confronting them should have been the one priority. Understand the difference? Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan had zero to do with Al Q. That is the lie that the NeoFascists keep repeating.

No, even Bill Clinton spoke of fighting terrorism. Forgive Edwards for using a term you don't approve of - even though it has seeped into the public's mind.

Going after terrorists is a real goal. If you don't want to call it a "war on terrorism" so be it.

But no leader since 9/11 is going to sit back and just play defense with terrorism (as you termed it defending the USA against Al Q.)

The invasion of Afghanistan had everything to do with Al Q. The Taliban was harboring bin Laden and Al Q. This is a fact. Did the bushies blow it? Yes. But the simple fact remains that going after the Taliban and Al Q was the proper thing to do.

Now, one more thing, Disturbed. You can play the condescending yet "wise" liberal when it comes to this matter but I guarantee you this war against terrorism is real and necessary. You don't have to ask me if I "understand the difference."

We'll kick yer ass and steal your gas(insert applicable vaulable resource/strategic interest here) with a smile and with the help of the global community, as opposed to Bushie and Fiends, who do it all by their lonesome with a swagger and a sneer.

Edwards has been nothing if not a hawk. And an unrepentant one, at that.

Edwards is no doubt a hawk. I was reading the 2002 statements from the Senate floor of both Kerry and Edwards. Edwards' statement was very hawkish and almost belecose. Kerry's statement although I still didn't agree with him, was far more measured and careful. Where Edwards was flatly stating Saddam was a "clear and present danger" Kerry was saying there is good chance he could be a threat.
That may be the difference between someone who has seen war and someone who has not, between an older and wiser politician and a younger less experienced one, I don't know.
I know one thing, I'm glad its not Edwards running for pres. I'd much prefer Kerry out of the two.

does not hearten me. I wish Kerry the very best of health.

I wasn't sure what to think of it. My girlfriend cracked up and said "he so not a tough guy." I liked it, but it might have been better from Kerry. Either way, I got the point.

MIHOP'ers maintain that Al Queda is a creation of the CIA, the BFEE and the neo-cons.

So what do Edwards and Kerry think? We really don't know. We do know that Kerry led the Iran-Contra investigation and has just called for an 18 month extension of the 9-11 commission. Is that just for fun, or is he planning to use this extension to get at the real truth?

If a Kerry administration were to find the truth, getting rid of Al Queda in all likelihood means blowing the lid off of 9-11's real causes. Destroying Al-Queda in that context means addressing the subterranean dealings between Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and so on. Could we actually hope for this?

Of course they could never say this pre-election. Even Michael Moore didn't really touch on the 9-11 truth, other than to probe the Bush-Saudi link.

I'm just saying...

I agree with all you are saying. Kerry stating pre-election MIHOP would be a political disaster for all of us.

Extending the commission though, and opening-up Riggs and many other links untouched by the commission so far, well the concept of this happening are staggering.

It could even lead to unsealing presidential papers all the way back to events in the 60's. The BFEE would indeed be 'toast'.

That's what I want. My sympathy for suicide bombers/religious extremists that want me in a Burqa or stoned to death for adultry or any of the other lovelies of this life-hating woman destesing ilk is nil.

All he needed was some war paint and a cool bandanna around his head and a machine gun.

When are they going to get it? Al Quyda is a symptom of the revolt against imperialism and the dictatorships that we support in the name of our "Vital Interests", otherwise known as $$$ and oil. Going after AQ is all very fine, but clones will spring up all over the world as long as we respond only with military force.

Not to mention how stupid he sounds.

So Al Qaeda will keep springing up all over the world if we attack them.... yet what will happen if we don't go after them? Same thing. We are their target and we have to deal with them somehow(Going to Iraq was definitely not part of that).

I think the answer is in staying tough means intelligence and military

Yes it is a tough situation, but destroy doesn't mean just kill, when you capture enough high members of Al Qaeda, don't doubt that some with less involvement would roll over on the others for a deal. With this higher leaders can be captured and major cells can be disrupted.

Again there is a balance between brute force for force's sake, and gathering information to capture or defeat major terrorist cells and leaders.

In my post I didn't say that we shouldn't go after al-Quyda. But, it's still just treating the symptom. We've been going after AQ for years - the result? More al-Quyda. The Israelis have been going after the PLO for decades. The result? More PLO, plus Hamas, plus Hezbullah, plus the al-Aqsa Brigades. We went after the Vietnames "infrastructure" with the Phoenix Program. The result? A victorious helicopter lifting off from the American Embassy.

Going farther back, the Brits went after the "major terrorist cells" at Concord and Lexington. That didn't work either.

The problem is that our "leaders" cling to the idiotic notion that somehow this time will be different.

The more we hit them, the more martyrs we make and the more recruits they get. They are the tip of the iceberg.

Fuckin' A, dude. Fuckin' A.

That's how you respond to OBL and his crew. Not this "we marginalized 'em and I don't really care what they do anymore... say, didja know Saddam is evil and in league with them? Now that's a guy who deserves conquering!" bullshit.