SwiftVets.com

[Guest]

"MR. VICE PRESIDENT, we were attacked but we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein."

John Edwards used those words--and others like them--several times throughout his debate with Dick Cheney. "They diverted resources from the people who attacked us," Edwards said. The Bush Administration took its "eye off the ball."

Edwards didn't always feel this way. On October 10, 2002, John Edwards explained his vote to authorize the war in Iraq this way: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

Was John Edwards wrong? He didn't say. And he wasn't asked.

Senator Edwards spent much of the evening expressing his belief that there was no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. He downplayed Iraq's role in terrorism generally and the threat posed by the potential that Saddam Hussein could pass his deadly weapons to terrorists. He didn't always feel this way.

On September 12, 2002, Edwards said this: "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 reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 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."

Was John Edwards wrong? He didn't say. And he wasn't asked.

Most important, Senator Edwards is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Although he missed many Intelligence Committee meetings to campaign for president, he signed the report that the Intelligence Committee issued on July 7, 2004. That report confirmed numerous high-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. And it included this passage:

From 1996 to 2003, the IIS [Iraqi Intelligence Service] focused its terrorist activities on western interest, particularly against the U.S. and Israel. The CIA summarized nearly 50 intelligence reports as examples, using language directly from the intelligence reports. Ten intelligence reports [redacted] from multiple sources indicate IIS "casing" operations against Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty in Prague began in 1998 and continued into early 2003. The CIA assessed, based on the Prague casings and a variety of other reporting that throughout 2002, the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning terrorist attacks against U.S. interests.

From p. 331 of the Senate report that Edwards approved: "Twelve reports received [redacted] from sources that the CIA described as having varying reliability, cited Iraq or Iraqi national involvement in al Qaeda's CBW [chemical and biological weapons] efforts."

What's more the Senate Intelligence report concluded that the CIA's assessments on Iraq-al Qaeda contacts were "reasonable."

Was John Edwards wrong? He didn't say. And he wasn't asked.

[Knighthawk]

This is all the connection I need.


_________________
Regards,
Brian

Beware of the lollipop of mediocrity! Lick it once and you'll suck forever.

If guns kill people, then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.

Knighthawk's Pictures!

[dmackto]

I blogged that. Hope you don't mind.
_________________
Deborah
The FROZEN CHICKEN Journal

This is no time for ease and comfort. It is the time to dare and endure.
- Winston Churchill

[Knighthawk]

Blog away!!
_________________
Regards,
Brian

Beware of the lollipop of mediocrity! Lick it once and you'll suck forever.

If guns kill people, then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.

Knighthawk's Pictures!