Forums

[Hank Chinaski]

help me figure out how this isn't a flip flop, I'm sure it's not, but only a Ty-like intellect can help us through:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

October 13,2003: Hardball
MATTHEWS: 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.

then today

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mpaign_iraq_dc

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday disputed a White House assertion that it was right to topple Saddam Hussein even if he had no illegal weapons because he posed a future threat.

The North Carolina senator, appearing on several television news programs, said Saddam's intention to eventually gather weapons of mass destruction was one of dozens of such threats.

"There are lots of threats waiting to happen all over the world," Edwards said. "That doesn't mean that that justifies invading a country."

Edwards was responding to U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. who told "Fox News Sunday" that President Bush was "absolutely" correct to have launched the invasion of Iraq even if they had known, as they do now, that the former Iraqi president had no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The two continued a debate that has dominated the U.S. presidential campaign in recent weeks and intensified with the final report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who concluded Iraq had no unconventional weapons -- a main rationale for going to war.

"You know, the Bush administration's explanation is: 'We invaded a country because at some point in the future they might get weapons of mass destruction?' ... I mean, the bottom line is, this is a convoluted logic to try to justify in hindsight what we now know wasn't true," Edwards said on CNN's "Late Edition."

float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!