MyDD :: Edwards: War on Terror "is a Political Frame and Political Rhetoric"

Edwards: War on Terror "is a Political Frame and Political Rhetoric"

by Jonathan Singer, Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:40:30 PM EST

This afternoon I had the opportunity to catch a speech by John Edwards, who was in Portland promoting his presidential campaign. The point that stuck out most profoundly to me came when Edwards spoke about the so-called "Global War on Terror." Below, you can listen to what he had to say and read a rush transcript:

Click here to download the .mp3

And I don't know how many of you even noticed this or how many of you watched the Democratic presidential debate from South Carolina, but I suspect some of you did. But a question was asked whether you agree with the language - the Bush language, which is what it is - "Global War on Terror." And I did not. And I said, I took that position at the debate...

[Applause]

This is a political frame and political rhetoric. They use it to justify everything they do. They use that language to justify the war in Iraq. They use it to justify Guantanamo. They use it to justify torture. They use it to justify illegal spying on the American people.

[Applause]

It is time for us to quit kowtowing to these people. We have to say what we really believe. Now, are there really dangerous people in the world? Of course there are. We need to be smart and aggressive and intelligent, use intelligence - did I say dangerous people? - we have to use intelligence to fight them and stop them. Everybody recognizes that. But the one thing that's been proven beyond any doubt as a result of what's happened in the last six years is raw power alone will never make you a leader. You actually have to have the moral authority.

On the night of the debate last week, Matt was among the first to notice that while a number of the candidates on stage, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, responded affirmatively to the question as to whether or not they believe in the Global War on Terror, Edwards was among those who did not. This difference did not gain a ton of traction in the establishment media, aside from a few pieces (including this one from Time's Mike Allen), but it seems well worth noting.

Today's event, which drew a capacity crowd of about 600 to 700 at an International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) hall in Northwest Portland, was also notable for the fact that Edwards laid out his first television ad of the campaign in which he calls on Congress to send back legislation to President Bush that would set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Tags: John Edwards, Global War on Terror, 2008, Democratic Primaries (all tags)

Permalink :: 41 Comments :: Post a Comment

John Edwards is speaking (none / 0)

the truth about the false metaphor of the GWOT. His courage may inspire other Democrats who have been intimidated. The Emperor really has no clothes.

Excellent post, Jonathan.

by littafi on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:43:39 PM EST

Re: Edwards: (3.00 / 6)

That's it. I've decided - Edwards '08.

by mlr701 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:45:12 PM EST

quick fingers (3.00 / 2)

I think you got your post up just seconds before my diary -- impressive, Singer!

Did anyone else hear him say he doesn't support the judicial doctrine of corporate personhood? That's a pretty big deal, right?

by hubbird on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:47:38 PM EST

Re: quick fingers (none / 0)

I heard it, hubbird. I don't think it was entirely clear that he was against corporate personhood. Probably, but not definitely.

I'll quote from my comment on your diary here, because I think it was an intriguing answer by Edwards:

The answer on corporations having the same rights as individuals is interesting. The woman who asked it framed it in a pretty inflammatory manner, which you left out. She said something along the lines of, "Do you think corporations should be able to have the same constitutional rights as individuals so that they can trample the rights of people?" I can't remember the quote exactly, unfortunately, but it was close to that.

Edwards then just looked at her and said, in an emphatic and funny way, "No."

However, he didn't elaborate, and I wish he would have. I assume he knew the question was related to the Supreme Court decision that gave corporations the rights of citizens, but he wasn't explicit about it. My guess is that the answer means he doesn't support that, but it really wasn't clear, so I would be cautious about claiming that. Does anyone know for sure whether or not Edwards supports that decision?

Elect Steve Novick to the U.S. Senate - Donate

by aimlessmind on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is important (3.00 / 1)

This single issue may decide the 2008 election. If the Repukeliscum can resurrect this issue, they can use it to drive the American Sheeple to support their agenda of "the sky is falling, let me cut taxes" If Democrats can demonstrate that this is a pile of stinking offal, we are in good shape.

by dataguy on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:54:40 PM EST

Frame (none / 0)

Two things.

One. A guy posted a diary noting a lot of the times Edwards said "War on Terror" building the political frame for it.

Two. Edwards has the question wrong. The question was "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

It says nothing about Bush there. Secondly the questions is very vague. It could be interpretted 100 different ways and then some.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed May 02, 2007 at 05:59:00 PM EST

Edwards used WOT on his own (none / 0)

presidential website, which was noted in the TIME article. Link

by jj32 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards used WOT on his own (none / 0)

baby steps.

Would you rather he embrace the term outright?

by adamterando on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read what Edwards said (3.00 / 1)

Circumstances change. Yes, we have a real enemy, but it's clear now that BushCo has corrupted that language to mean endless war in Iraq, spying on us at home, Gitmo, etc, all the while having shut down teh program to capture bin Laden.

Michigan For Edwards and Labor-Netroots for Edwards

by philgoblue on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Edwards (3.00 / 1)

is growing, and the campaign is making him better. Usually, candidates get more cautious and more conservative the deeper they get into a campaign, but for Edwards's, it seems to be the opposite. He seems to have at least one ear open to what the left is saying. I don't know if that Bonior's influence, or Elizabeth's, or if this is his own doing, but it's exciting to have a canididate moving in the right direction. Who knows where he'll end up?

by david mizner on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Read what Edwards said (none / 0)

Yes, we have a real enemy, but it's clear now that BushCo has corrupted that language to mean endless war in Iraq

Many people knew that invading and occupying a fairly large country in the middle of the most delicate region in the world would lead to "damned if you do, damned f you don't" situation lasting an unspecified length of time (even if it were a Democratic President assuming the Bush/Cheney/Lieberman/Edwards/etal war a couple of years ago, he/she would have been put in a place to deal with the situation as it presented itself and acting in the best interests of the US and humanitarian concern for the people whose land we invaded. Similar situation may hold in Jan'09 as well.) Therefore, this is not a valid excuse, and especially so in Edwards' case.

spying on us at home

Edwards himself promoted creating a new domestic spying agency and wrote a bill S. 410.

Gitmo

On this, Edwards has always been on the right side of the issue, as far as I have seen.

all the while having shut down teh program to capture bin Laden.

Edwards said:

I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.
...
When it comes to fighting the war on terror around the globe, we have to keep the big picture in mind, and stay true to our principles.

-- John Edwards, December 18, 2002. Homeland Security Address, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Link

by NuevoLiberal on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:31:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

None of that (3.00 / 1)

makes what he is saying now any less true. Give credit where its due.

by okamichan13 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:20:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: None of that (none / 0)

I have given him credit on Gitmo because I think he has been logically consistent on it all the way through.

I consistently give credit where it is due; I deserve some credit on that.

by NuevoLiberal on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:51:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As usual, full of shit. (3.00 / 1)

Edwards himself promoted creating a new domestic spying agency and wrote a bill S. 410.

As noted in the article you link, Edwards would strip the FBI of its responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering and place it in a separate agency, modeled after Britain's MI-5. That's no more promoting "a new domestic spying agency" than promoting the continued existence of the FBI is promoting a "domestic spying agency."

FWIW, the 9/11 Commission strongly considered the idea, and chose not to recommend it only because the FBI promised reform. The heads of the 9/11 commission have since said that the FBI has failed in its efforts, which would seem to validate Edwards' criticism.

by Drew on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:21:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards Promoter Jingoism (none / 0)

is reflected in your title.

Now,

Civil-liberties groups have other concerns about the Edwards plan. For decades, FBI agents who seek to develop evidence about potential domestic threats have operated under tight Justice Department guidelines; those guidelines require there be grounds to believe targets are engaged in criminal acts. A new domestic spy agency would not be so encumbered, the critics say. In an effort to insulate himself from such criticism, Edwards had proposed steps to curb potential excesses by a domestic spying agency, such as requiring approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for infiltrating domestic political or religious groups. But some civil-liberties advocates say such steps would be insufficient--the FISA court has historically acted as a rubber stamp, critics say--and that a domestic-intelligence agency such as Edwards has advocated would inevitably be tempted to spy on legitimate dissenters.

"Senator Edwards's proposal ignored the serious civil-liberties problems it would have caused," said Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies. She said she hopes the Democratic candidates will await the full report of the 9/11 commission before pushing the idea any further and "not make this a political issue."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388509/site newsweek

by NuevoLiberal on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:54:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Continued Obama-supporter bullshit (3.00 / 2)

Is reflected in your suggestion that this would represent a "new domestic spying agency," when it's obvious to any observer that the proposal is a restructuring of the FBI.

It's telling that you've stepped back from that ridiculous accusation - of course, you still have to assume that his proposals to protect civil liberties are insufficient and insincere.

But I suppose that's the best I can expect.

In any case, where does Obama stand on this? Well, looking it up: "[The US should] strengthen and improve intelligence capabilities. We must reform our domestic intelligence capabilities in a manner that balances the risks of impeding on the civil liberties of our citizens and increase international cooperation on all fronts."

Familiar, isn't it?

I guess the problem with Edwards' plan was that it was specific enough to invite criticism. Clearly, a problem that Obama doesn't have.

by Drew on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:22:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Frame (none / 0)

by NuevoLiberal on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well then (3.00 / 1)

you should be even happier he's getting it right now, shouldn't you?

Believe him or not, its a discussion that needs to be had and he is the only top tier candidate doing it.

Instead of criticizing edwards when he gets it right, why not encourage others to join the debate instead of ducking it?

by okamichan13 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards' contradictory repositioning (none / 0)

is so sudden and dramatic that it makes him a very high risk nominee (it'll be way worse than the "flip-flopper" pain we've endured in 2004).

See below for more thoughts.

by NuevoLiberal on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That isn't what I asked you (3.00 / 1)

I could care less about your flip-flopper frame.

If he's right now, he's right. and noone else of his visibility now is saying it. and even you should give him some credit.

by okamichan13 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 08:19:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh, so that's your concern (3.00 / 1)

that Edwards wouldn't be a good general election candidate. Ha! Keep trying; you might come across a line of attack that works.

by david mizner on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what I know (none / 0)

is how ridiculously self-contradicting Edwards' record on the war is.

It's way beyond "flip-flopping" Kerry ever did. Kerry was a very reluctant IWR voter. Edwards was one of the most aggressive and most enthusiastic supporters of the war, as seen from the extensive link collection in my diary.

We also know about the stupic advice he apparently gave to Kerry/Edwards in 2004, which seems to have influenced Kerry saying he would have voted the same way on the IWR:

"His view was that we shouldn't be having this debate, that we should stick by the vote, and more broadly attack the management of the war," says the first person.

Adds the second source: "He could tell the tide had shifted, but he made one more attempt at having us not change our position. He thought it would show weakness."

Asked about the difference between the advice Edwards was giving in fall 2004 and his stance now, campaign spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield would say only this: "John Edwards's campaign is about looking forward and not backward and bringing about the kind of real change that we need in this country."

Still, though the Edwards campaign would prefer not to look back, his counsel in the 2004 campaign raises this question: Is today's John Edwards really the candid candidate he would have voters believe? Or is his supposed candor itself just more political positioning?
link

I know what I can defend; only what is logically defensible.

Based on your Obama-bashing writings, you are comfortable spinning anyway you want, and so you may see things differently than I do.

by NuevoLiberal on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:48:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, so that's your concern (none / 0)

I've seen the childish name-calling of "Flip Flopper" kill one campaign already. I'd hate to see it happen again so soon, I'd rather not give Republicans such a wide opportunity so soon after they had just used it.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, so that's your concern (none / 0)

So you and Neuvo choose to make the attack for them?

Nice.

by okamichan13 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh, so that's your concern (none / 0)

Actually I'm pointing out I'd rather have the best chances going in to 2008. I'm not much of a risk taker. If you'll read what I said, I never went, "ZOMFG JOHN 'FLIP-FLOPPIN' EDWARDS. LOOOOOOSING Elections for the DEMOCRATS ZOMFG"

I was pointing out that if he's the winner of the primary, expect to hear it. You have to research yourself in a race and put light on what's going to be said so when they say it, it'll already be said and uninteresting.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kind of like "moral leader" (none / 0)

On one hand, the netroots give him shit for pausing to figure out what the hell that question meant. Yet, here, you give him shit for knowing what they are asking and refusing to support a Bush frame.

Sometimes a guy just can't win.

John Edwards

First to say he would "push through" anyone who fought Universal Health Care.
First to say he supported full public financing of campaigns.
First to denounce the McCain Doctrine of Escalation.
First to denounce the framing of a Global War on Terror.
First to say his Iraq War vote was a mistake.

And, no I don't want to hear about Kucinich.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Thu May 03, 2007 at 09:57:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The ad is good.... (3.00 / 1)

....but just before the event they asked if they could film me reading the exact same text. I think they're going for more of a true woman-on-the-street feel for the web site version of the ad. Hope it shows up there someday!

by mouse on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:14:18 PM EST

Re: The ad is good.... (none / 0)

The campaign is doing exactly that. They are getting people to film their own message, upload it to YouTube, and then they will edit the messages together for a new ad.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Thu May 03, 2007 at 07:38:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Damn if Edwards isn't (3.00 / 3)

beginning to sound like one of them nasty liberals.

He's not about to start blasting Empire and imperialism, but for a leading presidential candidate, this is really good.

We seem to be witnessing the blossoming of a genuine progressive leader. You can sit back skeptically and cast doubt, or you can help to elect the most progressive president in a generation or two.

by david mizner on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:38:57 PM EST

A couple of extra bits: (3.00 / 1)

Edwards pops the question to the Repub debate:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 507/A_question_from_Edwards.html

Wonder if it will get asked?

Time also is picking this up: Edwards Rejects the "War on Terror"
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1616724,00.html?cnn=yes

and nothing stronger than a zealous convert:
"Edwards comes Full Circle"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id= 3125215&page=1

by okamichan13 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 06:49:54 PM EST

Jonathan, in light of Edwards' promoting the GWOT (none / 0)

frame vigorously and incessantly for three long years, namely the 2002-2004 period,, I wish that you had asked John Edwards exactly what he did and didn't know (and knew but chose to proceed the way he did with the "GWOT" frame and the war) back then has supposedly changed since then regarding this frame. Edwards is welcome to call bullshit on the frame, but it should be rememebered that he is at the same time calling BS on his own recent former self (promotion of the frame up until just 2.5 years ago.)

The ever growing mountain of Edwards contradictions make him a high risk choice for the nomination.

If he has indeed had some of sort of "moment of zen" experience that might explain his 180 degree repositioning from his former self, maybe he should establish his credibility in a lower position (such as NC Governor or going back to the US senate) first before running for President.

Barack Obama should not have raised his hand to that framing question asked in a barzen manner. He should have instead called BS on Brian Williams' incessant wingnut framing of "debate" questions. See here eg.

by NuevoLiberal on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:06:23 PM EST

EDWARDS FOR IT BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT...AGAIN? (none / 0)

As recent as September 28, 2006 Edwards believed that there indeed was a war on terror:

"In its zeal to score a political victory before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections, the Bush administration and the Republican leadership are playing politics with our national security by pushing through a deeply-flawed bill that would undermine our long term ability to win the war on terror.

"To win the war on terror, we must preserve our moral authority to lead the world. If we are to succeed in spreading democracy abroad, we must defend the fundamental principles of democracy at home."

John Edwards, 9/28/06

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/9 /28/12224/6829

The GOP will eviscerate Edwards on this "change of heart" just like they did in 2004! When will he learn? A Democrat who appears weak on security/terror is unelectable.

by ChicagoDude on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:29:04 PM EST

Re: EDWARDS FOR IT BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT...AGAI (none / 0)

You getting very tiresome.

by adamterando on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

why people laughed... (3.00 / 1)

In the midst of the audio, there's a spot where he's making a serious point and everybody laughs, and he says "Did I say 'dangerous people'?"

What you can't hear is that when said 'dangerous people' an infant in the tenth row suddenly burst into tears..... everybody laughed, etc.

Just thought I'd explain that for folks hearing this over the tubes.

by karichisholm on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:39:19 PM EST

Re: why people laughed... (none / 0)

Thanks for clearing that up. I hadn't listened to the audio, just read the quote. That part where he faux-questions himself reads oddly without the context you provided - and now listening to the tape, makes perfect sense.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:25:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why people laughed... (3.00 / 1)

Well, also someone yelled out "George W. Bush" right after Edwards said "dangerous people".

Blogging here @ MyDD.com. Twittering @jonathanhsinger.

by Jonathan Singer on Wed May 02, 2007 at 11:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards: War on Terror (3.00 / 3)

We are influencing Edwards, so I see no need to complain when he catches on to what we've been saying, and starts talking like us. He's using our language, at any rood (gang, frame), + listing all the items we care about with anger and tears.

TIME interview:
"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do," Edwards said in a phone interview from Everett, Wash. "It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans. Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/ 0,8599,1616724,00.html

Also, for laughs:
Edwards talking vs. Bush talking about the GWOT:

Bush speech: "Now we're involved in a -- I call it a global war against terror. You can call it a global war against extremists, a global war against radicals, a global war against people who want to hurt America. You can call it whatever you want, but it is a global effort."

Moral of the story: It's nice to have a president who is intelligent.

by mrobinsong on Wed May 02, 2007 at 07:59:21 PM EST

Edwards on CNN Situation Room: (3.00 / 2)

RUDOLPH GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK: If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on defense, where we got a timetable for withdrawal of Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance.

We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back. And we will be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, strong words from Giuliani.

What do you say to him?

EDWARDS: Fear-mongering. It's the same old fear-mongering that they have been engaged in for years.

Hey, what I would ask Americans is, do you feel safer than you did when George Bush was elected in 2000? Do you feel safer today? Are you happy with what's happened in Iraq?

Because what Giuliani, McCain, Romney, all of them, the best I can tell, are saying is, they are going to continue on this same course. I mean, the question for the American people -- and I think the answer is going to be obvious -- the question for the American people is, do they believe we can be smarter and still be aggressive about protecting this country?

And I think they're going to answer that question in a resounding way, come November of 2008.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0 705/02/sitroom.01.html

by okamichan13 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:52:03 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.