5/3/07

What kind of man could send over 650,000 innocents to their death, knowing it was for a lie?  What kind of man could promote the killing of over 650,000 innocents for what he knew was a lie?  What kind of man could co-author the death order for over 650,000 innocents for what he knew was a lie?  What kind of human being could vote for a man who would do this?

Think of working for Animal Control.  They bring in Lassie and claim Lassie has rabies.  Your boss secretly tells you that there is proof that Lassie does not have rabies and that they just want the dog meat.  Would you go to animal humane society and advocate that Lassie had to be killed?  Would you give speeches around the country to try to drum up support for killing Lassie?  Would you draft the order to kill Lassie and speak at the hearing to determine whether Lassie should die in favor of killing Lassie?  If so, you pass the John Edwards test. 


John Edwards is very good looking.  He looks a lot like the actor in the recent movie, The Manchurian Candidate. 

John Edwards was told in committee the truth.  He knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.   He lied to the American people in order to gain support for the war.  He co-authored the war powers act and he spoke on its behalf.  Then he voted for a war he knew would kill mostly innocent women and children for a reason that did not exist.   John Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which America now knows learned that the claims of weapons of mass destruction were a lie.  Though he knew the truth, he lied and acted like a good soldier in doing what it took to authorize and get support of a war based on a lie. Will there be any repercussions now that Minority Whip Dick Durbin has confessed to the world that he, John Edwards and other members of the Senate Intelligence Committee knew Bush was lying when Edwards wrote the bill that resulted in the deaths of over 3000 Americans and over 650,000 innocent Iraqis, mostly children? [1]


Here is a series of quotes from some of Edwards's speeches in support of war:

On September 12, 2002, coinciding with Bush's speech to the UN, Edwards gave a speech on why the Iraqi dictator had to go:

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability - a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
...
What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror. [2]

On  October 10, 2002, Edwards tricked Congress into supporting the war powers resolution, not as not only a supporter but a co-sponsor of the legislation authorizing the use of force in Iraq:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this  resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
...
[W]e must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.
...
As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.[2]

In promoting the war on October 7, 2002 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington D.C. , Edwards said:

This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering. [3]

Now, for the next Edwards war.  Start those wreaths for millions of innocents will die when oil is important.  Forget the wreaths.  There won't be time to bury all of John Edwards's next victims.  The international community has already called the following Edwards comments inaccurate.  That doesn't prevent him from saying them.

John Edwards recently did an interview where he said the following:

On January 21, 2007, John Edwards made the following statement, going after Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine and encouraging admission of Israel into NATO (an organization required to protect its member nations against other nations) :

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons. For years, the US hasn't done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse. To a large extent, the US abdicated its responsibility to the Europeans. This was a mistake. The Iranian president's statements such as his description of the Holocaust as a myth and his goals to wipe Israel off the map indicate that Iran is serious about its threats.

Once Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the Middle East will go nuclear, making Israel's neighborhood much more volatile.

Iran must know the world won't back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough...

The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it. I was in Israel in June, and I took a helicopter trip over the Lebanese border. I saw the Hezbollah rockets, and the havoc wreaked by the extremism on Israel's border. Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government, and Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel.

I cannot talk about the war last summer without referring to the Syrian role in destabilizing area. Syria needs to be held accountable. Syria has recently called for peace talks with Israel. Talk is cheap. Syria needs to go long way to prove it is ready for peace. It can start by not harboring terrorists and ending its nefarious relationship with Iran.

While Iran is the greatest threat now, but just as alarming is the one on your doorstep. Hamas, with Iranian support, doesn't make any mistake of its intentions to wipe out Israel, and repeatedly makes calls to raise the banner of Allah over all of Israel. Israel made many concessions. Many settlers gave up there land in order to advance peace.

Israel can take more steps to advance peace like bolstering Abbas against Hamas. While Israel is willing to go back to negotiating table, little has been seen on the Palestinian side. We instead have seen chaos and violence on the street, and no revocation of violence against Israel.

Outside assistance to Palestinian governance is not an entitlement. The US and Europe need to ensure that money going to the Palestinians does not go to lining the pockets of terrorists. For peace, Israel needs a partner.

Absent this partnership, Israel not only has the right to defend itself, it has an obligation to defend itself. This means continuing to ensure Israel's military strength, diplomatically and economically. The hurdles are clear.

For too long, the current US administration's commitment to this issue has been halfhearted. Now, on the backdrop of Iraq, they have tried to bring the two sides together. This is especially significant since they have squandered America's moral authority in the Middle East and around the world.

We should be finding ways to upgrade Israel's relationship with NATO. This could even some day mean membership. NATO's mission now goes far beyond just Europe. Therefore, it is only natural that NATO seeks to include Israel.

Your challenges are our challenges. Your future is our future. The US will continue to stand by you. God bless you. [5]

The issue is not Israel.  Most Jews oppose war with Iran.  Israelis are protesting their own government and its warlike policies.  The issue is the money that can be made in wartime. Oil companies, nuclear companies, mercenary companies, and disaster-rebuilding corporations are among those who benefit from war.  These are rich and powerful interests that are capable of buying politicians and getting them to do their bidding.  Only one presidential candidate (Dennis Kucinich) refuses corporate contributions.   Once they have the candidates by the contributions, they own them.

Edwards goes further than just supporting the war machine.  He is one of its strongest spokespersons.  While his appearance is to shift away from war with Iran, he has called for continued funding that goes straight to the war profiteers.  His supporters do not realize that John Edwards is leading them into funding Blackwater, Bechtel, Halliburton, General Dynamics, General Electric and other war profiteers when they support appropriations that go to these organizations.

On 5/3/04 John Edwards campaign sent out a thank you to his donors for $100,000 to put an ad on the air  backing the appropriations bill.  Military Families Speak Out, United for Peace and Justice, ANSWER and every other peace group in the country is saying "no" to appropriations.  Money given to Edwards goes to promoting the war.  Are Edwards supporters pro-war or have they just fallen for the country boy routine?

Why has John Edwards become the poster child for the war profiteers?   Who created his expensively groomed country boy appearance?  Who is the real John Edwards and is he a Manchurian candidate?  Take a close look and ask where is the conscience?

1. http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/05/02/p16517
2. http://www.command-post.org/2004/2_archives/009786.html,  http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Bleachers7/31
[original can be found in Congressional record at  thomas.loc.gov]
3. http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250935
4. http://www2.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
5. http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223,  http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/iran_edwards_iran_must_know_world_wont_back_down.htm