INDCJournal: I Laughed ...

« Which Minority Will You Oppress Today? | Main | Overheard at Kerry Campaign Headquarters »

July 29, 2004

I Laughed ...

Posted by Bill

"Ah will crush you, Al Qaedah ...

... and then I laughed some more, after John Edwards stirred up the typically bloodthirsty mob of Democratic National Convention delegates with this threat to Al Qaeda:

You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you.

It's good that he pays lip service to the concept, but something tells me that somehow, somewhere, terrorists were laughing as well.

For reference, let's flashback to 9-11, as Tom Clancy takes a shot at Senator Edwards' vague platitudes about confronting terror on the Charlie Rose Show:

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): Well, Mr. Ambassador, we-- First of all, we've not heard from the administration yet -- and, I think, understandably so -- precisely what they'd like to see us do.

I've heard some of the discussion over the course of this program by you and other panelists. And I think you're exactly on the right track. And, as I think you and I have already discussed in the past, this issue of terrorism, of course, is the greatest national-security threat we face in this country today.

There are a number of us who have been working on this issue. We've actually been in the process of drafting legislation aimed at accomplishing a number of things.

Number one -- establishing terrorism as the kind of national-security priority that it should be.

Number two -- making sure that the federal agencies who are involved in this are adequately and properly coordinated in their activities.

Number three -- making sure that the institutions who are involved have the authority, the legal authority, to do what's need-- what needs to be done.

I've heard the discussion in this program -- and we've talked about it in the past -- the building of coalitions, internationally, to deal with this issue because we're going to need partners around the world to make this process work.

But I think the single most important thing is for the American people and our government to recognize what an enormous priority this needs to be. And I have to say, Charlie -- and you may have discussed this and I apologize if you have -- but I think the will of the American people will become stronger as we go forward because they watched this devastation today.

But what's gonna happen as we move forward through this thing is all of those people who lost their lives and who were injured at the World Trade Center and here at the Pentagon -- brave Americans who were totally innocent in this process -- this is gonna become a very personal thing for the American people.

And the American people are gonna respond in a strong and personal way. And I think they're going to expect their leadership to do what's necessary to insure that this sort of thing does not happen again.

CHARLIE ROSE: All right. Let me go to STEVE EMERSON--

TOM CLANCY: Gee, Senator.

But then what actually are you going to do? I think the-- I think the American people recognize that this is a 10,000-plus dead American citizens. What action are we going to take, sir? What are you gonna vote for? What are you gonna authorize? What are you gonna fund?

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): Well, I think the-- I think the starting place is to do the thing--

First of all, there is an immediate response to what just occurred. And then there's a long-term issue, which is the issue that I've been discussing. Long-term, we have the national-security threat of ongoing terrorism.

There are multiple things that need to be done in connection with that--

TOM CLANCY: OK.

Let's-- What are they? What are you gonna do?

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): Those are the things I just talked about -- putting more resources in our counter-terrorism, making sure that the things that need to be done are in fact being done, making sure that the federal agencies who are involved are working together, making sure that they have the authority to do what needs to be done--

TOM CLANCY: Senator, you're not--

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): --making sure that--

TOM CLANCY: You're not doing anything. You're just talking. What are we going to do? What action are we going to take?

CHARLIE ROSE: I think, Tom, what he is saying is ``give the people that are responsible for this in the executive branch the resources to do it'' is what his answer has been.

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): And, Charlie, if I can add to that, that has to do-- that has to do with the long-term issue.

And, by the way, I think the building of these coalitions internationally are also a critical component.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.

Sen. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): In addition to that, we have a specific response to these particular incidents, which is to identify who did this and go out and hold them responsible.

The extended transcript is here.

UPDATE: "crucifies" changed to "takes a shot at," due to reflection after reader comments.

Posted by Bill at July 29, 2004 11:53 AM | TrackBack (2)

Comments

While no fan of Edwards, I don't see that Charlie Rose bit as particularly damaging--after all, wasn't it a mere day or two following 9/11? That Edwards didn't have a fully formed anti-terror plan springing forth from his head is understandable.

That is he doesn't have one NOW, however, is not.

Posted by: Christopher Cross at July 29, 2004 01:16 PM

Article proves nor suggests anything.

Who says he doesn't have a plan now. Where do you come up with some of these things?

I guess what you all expect is for him to pick up a rifle and hunt Osama himself. Whatever

Posted by: Ben at July 29, 2004 01:39 PM

I agree that it's not damning, but it's perfectly indicative of the sort of vague platitudes that Edwards is terribly fond of.

If I recall correctly, George Bush was very quick to use language like "we are at war," and "you are with us or against us," and issue the proclamation that there was little distinction between terrorists and the regimes that harbor them.

If you read the whole transcript, Clancy's tidbits are very similar to what Bush said in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11.

in any case, I guess the main point of the post should be the fact that I literally laughed uproariously when Edwards (who has never mentioned terrorism or any foreign policy in his previous two-Americas speeches, decided to talk tough.

Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at July 29, 2004 01:47 PM

Oh, man have the press been just lobbing out softballs lately? Check out my first impression after I saw this...

Posted by: Aaron at July 29, 2004 03:09 PM

I'm working on scoring an exclusive interview with Edwards' fountain pen.

Posted by: Jeff G at July 29, 2004 04:13 PM

I don't know about you, but if a successful trial lawyer said he was going to destroy me, I'd probably soil myself.

However, someone bent on destroying western civilization might have a different reaction...

Posted by: Chrees at July 29, 2004 05:24 PM

Heh ...

Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at July 29, 2004 05:49 PM

Frankly, what's particularly telling about the Charlie Rose interview is what a nutcake Tom Clancy is. Being a right-wing wacko may help write compelling, but it's Clancy view of the world that got 900 Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.

But who'd of thought the President's reponse to Clancy's "What are you going to do now?" was, "Well, I think the first thing we need to do is let all of the Saudis out of the country, especially if their name is Bin Laden and make sure you don't let the FBI talk to any of them." Decisive leadership to unbelievable to even show up in a Clancy novel.

Posted by: Kurt Moosdorf at July 29, 2004 08:38 PM

Kurt,

I'm concerned for you; you shouldn't run around commenting on blogs and leaving your name when you are so poorly informed. It's like taking out an ad in a newspaper that says, "I'm an idiot."

Point #1:
Tom Clancy has publicly spoken out against the war in Iraq. It did not meet the criteria for invasion according to his "view of the world."

Point #2:
Despite how Mr. Moore has disinformed you the Sept 11th Commission's report has found that Richard Clarke cleared the bin Ladens to leave the country and that the President had no knowledge of this action. For reference, read here and here.

Point #3:
Your use of "to" requires two 'o's.

In the future, you might want to e-mail your comment to me for editing - before you post it.

Your pal,

Bill from INDC Journal

Posted by: Bill from INDC Journal at July 29, 2004 09:04 PM

Thanks Bill "I am an idiot" from INDC.

I appreciate the edits. That fact that Bush had no knowledge of the fact that planes of Saudis were leaving the country right after 9/11, is certainly comforting. He either makes horrible decisions, is not in control, or is just completely incompetent. I'm thinking all three. His lack of knowledge cost us dearly in catching the Saudis who killed Americans in New York, Washington and PA. And as a bonus, Bush opts to get another 1000 Americans killed in Iraq. Mission Accomplished! And thanks again for the editing help.

Posted by: Kurt Moosdorf at July 29, 2004 11:51 PM

You are welcome.

I would assume that Bush is not responsible for keeping tabs on the bin Laden family on 9-11 ... I'm surprised that someone as high as his counterterrorism advisor was even involved in the decision.

Also, it may be important to note that George Bush also does not ensure that the press has fresh toilet paper in the lavatory on Air force One.

You will always find some way to lay blame at Bush's feet, because something will always go wrong. Whether it's contextually appropriate to assign that responsibility to the target of your hate requires a much more dispassionate analysis than the one that you are interested in ...

Posted by: Bill from INDC at July 30, 2004 12:25 AM

"He either makes horrible decisions, is not in control, or is just completely incompetent."

He's an idiot, except that he is an evil mastermind. Take your pick. He's probably both, or as you stated, all three.

Posted by: Iraqi Intelligence at July 30, 2004 12:57 AM

What Edwards is really saying (re the pic) -

"When I first met John, I was just overwhelmed by how manly he is, but it turns out he's only thiiiiiiis big...but it's not the size that counts."

Posted by: bkayel at July 30, 2004 10:57 AM

When Edwards threatens the likes of al Qaeda it's like the guy who brings a fountain pen to a gunfight.

Posted by: Matt at July 30, 2004 04:27 PM