John Edwards: The Right Way in Iraq

[benny05]

Op-ed piece preview

Washington Post Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?s=07d931557c41be0b129b370d470ba54e&showtopic=16866

Obtained originally from the One America blog (which is down temporarily, but check later--http://blog.oneamericacommmittee.com)

:kick:

[Mass]

1. Great to see that Edwards sees the light

and is basically in agreement with the plan that Kerry offered as a bill in the Senate on Thursday.

[YvonneCa]

26. A Vice President should always follow...

..the President's lead.:7 Glad Edwards supports Kerry's plan of October 26,2005. (Georgetown University Speech, see C-SPAN/IRAQ)


:patriot:

[flpoljunkie]

31. Although, unless I missed it, Edwards didn't say we must not keep 14 bases

Perhaps he would agree with this, even though he does not mention it. I would hope so.

[Mass]

33. I noticed, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that.

[Noisy Democrat]

81. You'd think, since Kerry has made a point of it

Kerry has been calling for a commitment to "no permanent bases in Iraq" since back during the presidential campaign. I wonder if Edwards agrees with him on that.

[DemDogs]

181. Here's what's different about what Edwards says

Kerry etc say they were misled, so voted for the war. Edwards, along, says whatever I was told, it was my mistake, for which I take responsibility. And that is all the difference in the world.

[wisteria]

196. Kerry has also said his vote was wrong and accepted responsibility

for it. I am proud that Edwards has spoken up and declared his vote was wrong. He stands on the same side as John Kerry.

[Noisy Democrat]

199. Yes, he has

So I wouldn't read in some huge character difference between Edwards and Kerry. However, I do think Edwards deserves props for expressing himself in a direct, hard-hitting, and classy style. I *like* Kerry's speech style, but there's also a lot to be said for the way Edwards began his Op Ed with "I was wrong." Kerry did in fact take responsibility, but not with the same pizzazz, I'm willing to grant that.

[DemDogs]

245. "My vote was wrong" vs. "I was wrong"

I'm sorry but there is a difference there. It has to do with personal responsibility. I was mislead and so my vote was wrong VS. I was mislead, but that's not an excuse. I was wrong.

[blm]

315. Big difference in detailing a plan and NOT detailing a plan, too.

But, then, that is one of Kerry's strengths on military matters whereas Edwards shows strength in his remarks about the profiteers involved.

They both did as I would expect, and it strikes me as odd that anyone would choose to condemn one over the other.

Any of those silly arguments are completely unworthy of either of these men.

[Noisy Democrat]

197. You have a point

I think Kerry has also conveyed that he takes responsibility, rather than trying to shift blame, but his wording wasn't as short, to the point, and punchy as Edwards's. Starting out with "I was wrong" is very classy indeed, and Edwards deserves major props for that.

I actually don't care whether Edwards was the first to say it, either. I think what some of us were talking about was the fact that Edwards's plan sounds a lot like the one Kerry has been pushing for a long time. However, since they *were* running mates, it wouldn't be surprising if they put their heads together on it last summer, and so naturally they would sound a lot alike now.

[ChiciB1]

285. You ARE Correct... Edwards Does HIS Mea Culpa and

and CLEARLY states that no matter WHAT he was told that it was HIS mistake.

For that I sincerely respect him. And I daresay, if most of the OTHER Dems would come out with some type of statement like this that it would be FAIRLY accepted.

As opposed to HILLARY who has YET to make the comment!!

What is the MOST distressing is that we are in a REAL BOG, and it's going to be terribly difficult to extricate ourselves from Iraq easily!!

[AmericanDream]

43. I don't think they work as a team anymore.. Edwards is his own voice now

[Mass]

47. I dont either.

Still good to see that good democrats can push some of the same ideas.

[AmericanDream]

78. Yup... I'm glad they are all getting on the same page! Clinton?Biden?Bayh?

[Noisy Democrat]

204. Good point

*That* is a trio whose appeal is mysterious to me. Clinton, Biden and Bayh -- I can't imagine what anyone sees in any of them. I support Kerry, but I will happily and energetically throw myself behind Edwards if he gets the nomination. But C, B and B -- I just can't imagine how anyone would find energy or enthusiasm for any of them. And it's interesting that they all have in common this dead silence on Iraq.

[AmericanDream]

219. Same here, I don't find anything appealing about those three. n/t

[Noisy Democrat]

83. Yes, but his proposals for Iraq sound just like Kerry's

of September 20, 2004 and since then. That doesn't mean that Edwards hasn't thought it through on his own, and in fact I think the two men *do* think a lot alike. But still, what Edwards is saying sounds like the Kerry Plan.

[sarahlane]

132. Edwards was saying all of these things during the primaries....

Edwards spoke about making his Iraq war voting mistake, firing Halliburton and training Iraqis elsewhere in Turkey instead back during the primaries. Please do your research before assuming that Edwards must have gotton his ideas from Kerry. He has been talking about these things long before Kerry!!

[Noisy Democrat]

143. I'm still digging

but I just heard elsewhere that Kerry and Edwards had many of the same advisors on Iraq, too. That would also explain similarities.

[AmericanDream]

146. In the primaries? Nah... you never have the same advisors.

[wisteria]

200. Do you have anything for us to reference. I don't recall hearing

him say these things. I even went to two of his own rallies during the formal campaign and never heard him mention he was mislead or lied to and he apologized for his vote. Please post references when you find them. I'm a Kerry supporter, but if Edwards said these things last year, I would like to know.

[blm]

309. Incorrect. Many details in Kerry's current withdrawal plan were also

stated many times throughout 2003 - 4. He especially emphasized the import of not being occupiers, and said that we should not be building permanent bases there or even appear in any way, shape or form as if we intended to stay.

[wisteria]

198. True, but they are still good friends. n/t

[sarahlane]

129. I'm not glad you do not have your facts straight...

Edwards said he regretted his Iraq vote back during the primaries. I'm glad Kerry is following the things Edwards has been saying for two years now.

[wisteria]

201. Again, please provide some refernce points. What you say is

new to me and I think we should be as accurate as possible here.

[Noisy Democrat]

203. I wasn't talking about that

Though by now the lines of replies are confusing me, so maybe you're not replying to me. I wasn't talking about who first said he was wrong -- although as an aside, it's interesting that the people on DailyKos who've been almost obsessively counting off "Who's said it? Who's said it?" -- have never mentioned Edwards, so apparently few people grasped the full import of his statements of regret in the primaries (I'm still looking for them to see how he put it). Anyway, Edwards can be first on the "I was wrong," if that's how it was; it's fine with me.

I was just surprised that people were reacting to Edwards's plan as if they'd never seen it before, when it sounds just like what Kerry said in Sept. 2004, and in his Oct. 26 2005 speech, and what he proposed as legislation in the Senate last week. And now I've discovered that apparently Edwards also put out the same ideas back in September 2004 in an Op Ed -- I think. However, since the two men were running mates, it wouldn't surprise me if they worked together on this issue, if they drew ideas from the same advisors last summer, etc. So it wouldn't be surprising if they got onto the same page last summer, pushed the same ideas together, and still sound very similar now.

[butterfly77]

134. He said this ..

to cut off bush's argument.

[ClintonTyree]

139. But we all know what will be the topic of discussion tomorrow A.M.

on the Sunday talk shows. Ken Melmac is going to burst a blood vessel tomorrow when he squares off with Howard Dean. THAT should be exciting! :popcorn:

[stray cat]

2. Honesty and integrity from a politician is so refreshing.

Now thats leadership.

[dogman]

73. No, that's following leadership.

He has finally adopted Wes Clark's three point plan.

[sarahlane]

90. Link?

Edwards was saying for a long time that Halliburton should be fired and Iraqis should be hired. He's been saying that we should train the Iraqis in Turkey so they'll be kept out of harm's way. He's been saying these things ever since the primaries, the same time Clark was probably talking about it as well. Before you say Edwards is just following Clark you should really check when Edwards was saying these things as well. I'm sure you weren't paying attention to what Edwards was saying because your a big fan of Clarks.

[dogman]

113. I was paying attention to Edwards defending his vote for IWR.

Why is he admitting today he was wrong, if he felt it was wrong then? In the primary debate in Jan. '04 he showed he differed from Kerry's assessment that there was no link between the Iraq War and 9-11.
Snip> Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th. <snip
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61340-2004Jan29_4.html
Where are your links to Edwards calling for a hree point plan previous to this op-ed?

[sarahlane]

138. Edwards spoke of these things long ago....

During one of the primary debates he admitted he was wrong in giving the President authorization to go to war. I watched all of the debates and I don't remember Edwards ever saying that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qeada. I don't believe that he said that, I think you must be mistaken. It doesn't make sense that Edwards would defend the reasoning to go to war in the same debate he said that he regretted his decision in voting for the war. During the primaries Edwards did speak of firing Halliburton and training the Iraqis in Turkey. I think Kerry's 3 point plan is more of what Edwards was saying almost two years ago.

[dogman]

142. If you don't think, read.

I gave you a link to the transcript of the debate where that is exactly what he said. Where is a link to Edwards saying this before Kerry or Clark?

[sarahlane]

170. Okay, so help me since I'm brainless

I just checked your link where Edwards says there was a connection with Saddam and Al Qeada. It will not allow to me to read the first page of the article, it says the page has been removed??? I read the other four pages and never read Edwards said that. Will you please post a link to the first page so I can read what you're talking about because he didn't say it on pages 2-5. During the VP debate Edwards says,
"And by the way, if we need to, we can take Iraqis out of Iraq to train them. It is not secure enough. It's so dangerous on the ground that they can't be trained there. We can take them out of Iraq for purposes of training.
We should do whatever has to be done to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process."
He also says during the VP debate that there was no connection to Al Qeada and Saddam, the evidence suggests it was tenuous at best.
BTW, could you be a little less rude and just post Edwards quote saying how Al Qeada and Saddam are connected?

[dogman]

178. The first page is no longer avaailable.

I'm not calling you brainless and I'm sorry if you felt my post was rude. I think the context of what was available made it clear but i can understand without Kerry's answer it might not be. Since I have been through this discussion before, I've copied text from there that might make it more clear. This is from the first page that is no longer available.
Snip>BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.
Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.
I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.
I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.
That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.
But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.
And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.<snip
Edwards felt strongly enough about his view being different from Kerry's that he called Brokaw back to it while answering another question later. During the VP debate Edwards had been brought on to the Kerry team and had been advised by the kerry FP experts, including Wes Clark who had joined Kerry as soon as he withdrew from the primaries. Clark had advocated these positions as a CNN analyst even before he was drafted. That is one of the reasons so many worked to draft him to run.

[Noisy Democrat]

213. Why is the first page no longer available?

And so is Clark the source of some of these ideas, originally?

[dogman]

233. You would have to ask the Washington Post why it's not.

The source is my archived posts on this site because I've had to go through this with other Edwards supporters. Clark specifically laid out a three point plan for Iraq, now edwards has a threepoint plan that is quite similar. Coincidence? Not likely, but good in that the media and the GOP say the Dems have no plan. That is why Clark presented a plan.

[Noisy Democrat]

210. I just want to be clear

The VP debate -- you mean the debate with Cheney, right? Sorry if that's a stupid question, but I want to make sure we're talking about the same time periods.

That was in October 2004, after Kerry's Sept. 2004 speech. I think Edwards published an Op Ed with many of the same ideas as in Kerry's speech in September, about 2 days after the speech. Since they were on one ticket, they may well have collaborated on ideas, coordinated their message, etc., to present a united front. Maybe both of them developed their ideas in consultation with a single pool of advisors working for the ticket; I don't know how those things work.

I've done a lot of research on Kerry's statements on Iraq, and was aware of Kerry saying a lot of these things -- perhaps not every last detail, I can't remember off the top of my head -- back in April of 2004. Some of what he said in September 2004 seemed new, though. I've never known much about the history of Edwards's position on Iraq and Saddam, and have never researched it. Now I'm interested and am starting to google it intensively. If anyone has links to his Iraq statements during the primaries, I'd love to see more of what he said.

I don't know whether Edwards ever said Saddam and Al Qaeda were linked, but now I'm curious too.

[wisteria]

205. Kerry's plan is actually multifaceted and is not just three points. n/t

[sarahlane]

144. Here's a quote from Edwards during the VP debate

"Yes. Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it, your own Secretary of State has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There's not. And, in fact, the CIA is now about to report that the connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is tenuous, at best. And, in fact, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We need to be straight with the American people."
Your statement about Edwards saying there is a connection seems to be unfounded.

[dogman]

149. What a difference a year makes.

After being included in the Kerry campaign, which was being counseled by Clark and other experts, he learned the truth. Today he has come a step further and accepted responsibility for his vote. maybe some day he will be able to actually lead on important FP issues.

[Tom Rinaldo]

184. Edwards was on Hardball October 13 2003

Edward's support for the War in Iraq extended long after his pro IWR vote. Edwards supported the War even after the U.S. failed to gain U.N. Security Council support for an Iraq invasion, and Edwards also expressed support for Bush's decision to go ahead and launch the war without the support of key allies in Europe, according to this interview. Edwards also said, in October of 2003, that had he known before the IWR vote that there were no weapons of mass destruction inside of Iraq, he still would have supported the war.

His current position and admission of prior mistakes is refreshing and to be commended, but his original support for the war in Iraq was not nuanced. Edwards doesn't just need to apologize for his IWR vote, he also backed Bush's actual decision to invade Iraq, and continued to believe the war was justified long after the supposed immanent threat posed by WMD was exposed as false. That, I believe, was a serious failure of judgment. I will applaud Edward's current sensible perspective, but I will not give him credit for leadership on this issue when in truth he actually trailed the pack.

Here are two portions of the transcript:

"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’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."


AND


"MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

[AmericanDream]

189. Give me a break... you are making false assertions....

When did Edwards say that there was a connection between Bin Laden and Hussein? He voted for the war because of the WMD threat... and Clark has nothing to do with his opinions because the two don't get along.

And, he will actually be able to lead on important FP issues... as the next president of the united states, hopefully.

[dogman]

234. No, I'm giving you Edwards' words.

They contain the false assertions. As I have quoted above from the SC Dem Primary debate.
Snip>BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.
Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.
I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.
I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.
That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.
But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.
And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.<snip
Snip>EDWARDS: Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th. <snip

Edwards felt strongly enough about his view being different from Kerry's that he called Brokaw back to it while answering another question later. Clark was an adviser to the Kerry-Edwards campaign. They got along well enough to want to defeat Bush.

[AmericanDream]

191. What does that statement show?

He is saying that the war on terrorism is an important issue, esp. after 9/11. How does that suggest that he is linking terrorism and the war in Iraq? Stop making naive claims and supporting them with statements that have nothing to do with your claim.

[Tom Rinaldo]

195. Edwards called Iraq the greatest threat to our security.

After 9/11, and after we invaded Afghanistan, but obviously before we caught Bin Ladin since we never did. That is not an explicite linkage, I conceed, but it mirrored the Bush line to prioritize Iraq over concentrating our resources on Al Quada since only one threat can be the greatest threat. Either one can deduce that Edwards thought Iraq was the greater threat to the United States for reasons unrelated to Terrorism, or one can assume that he thought there was a graver threat related to terrorism inside of Iraq than anywhere else.

Edwards was receiving cooked intelligence at the time and that explains a lot of course, but he also said as late as 10/13/03 that even if he knew at the time of the IWR vote what was known on 10/13/03 - that there was not WMD inside of Iraq, that it would not have changed his support then for the War. Edwards was concerned enough about Hussein's potential to create WMD even if he hadn't actually made any yet to justify the Iraq invasion.

[Noisy Democrat]

216. That's interesting but it doesn't prove

that Edwards said Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected. Nevertheless, it's interesting.

And it *does* sound like Edwards is saying he would've invaded anyway. To me, at least. It's not 100% unambiguous but it sounds that way. Kerry said he would have *voted for the IWR* (he's since changed his mind, with new information) but that he would *not* have invaded Iraq (many people wrongly reported that Kerry said at the Grand Canyon that he would've invaded Iraq; that simply wasn't true -- Kerry said he would've voted for the IWR, i.e. because that was the only way to get the weapons inspectors back in to find out that there weren't any WMDs).

Now I'm very curious about everything Edwards said and what he meant. Having seen how badly Kerry's position has been misrepresented, though, based on people taking a line or two out of context, I don't want to jump to any conclusions about what Edwards's position was. I want to research his statements more carefully.

[dogman]

235. Read post #234

Edwards did not say Iraq and 9-11 were connected. However he challenged Kerry when he said that was false information. He actually stopped the answer to his question to take the moderator back to the question Kerry answered. Specifically, snip>KERRY: ... I think that there has been an exaggeration ... BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism? ... KERRY: ... I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. ... Edwards:Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.
It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.<snip

Now if that isn't what Bushco has done, I'll kiss your ass on Broadway.

[dogman]

236. Stop defending the Bushco spin.

That is exactly what Edwards was doing to Kerry in that debate.

[DemDogs]

324. Terrorism is an important issue, esp. after 9/11

That's all that says, I agree. The snips that put these two comments in proximity to one another are misleading. There is nothing to suggest that he said there was a Saddam-Al Qaeda connection here espcially when you consider that everywhere else he said there was not.

[DemDogs]

323. Your memory is bad, I am sure

First Edwards never said there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda and never disagreed with anyone who disputed the purported link. You have just confused his disagreement with Kerry.

Second in the primaries Edwards talked about doing training out of country of Iraqi troops so we could move ahead more quickly on that. He said the reconstruction work should go to Iraqis, who, when they had jobs, would be less likely to plant an IED for $50. I don't know who wrote it, but I know who said, because I heard him say nearly every town hall in late 2003 and early 2004.

[karynnj]

135. link please

I don't recall Edwards talking about training outside the country in the primaries. Kerry set out the first comprehensive Iraq plan in Sept 2004 at NYU. Edwards from then on, like a good vp, spoke about that plan. Can you give a link to this in the primaries? I really think this idea was Kerry's.

[sarahlane]

140. You are wrong!

I'm sorry that you don't remember that Edwards said during the primary debates that we should train Iraqis in Turkey. I don't know how to get a hold of the televised debates, but I really want to so I can show you all that Edwards did say he regretted his vote and all his Iraq ideas like training the Iraqis elsewhere. If anybody knows how to get a hold of the primary debates, please respond. I would love to educate all the people who were not paying any attention to what Edwards was saying a couple years back.

[Noisy Democrat]

217. I'll research it some more

Somewhere on my disorganized hard drive I have transcripts of at least one or two debates (how many were there during the primaries?). And if there are more, I may be able to remember where to find them. If you want copies, PM me and I'll e-mail you such transcripts as I have.

[venable]

166. Edwards said 'train outside the country'

from the get-go...sorry I can't provide a link (just not very facile on such), but as a close follower of Edwards I can say without fear of being wrong that he has been saying this for a long time.

Also, he really was pretty vocal and out front on denying the $86B asked for in the midst of the primaries.

He said straight out that bush needed to explain what he was doing in Iraq before getting any more money, and, assuming bush was able to justify it (which he wouldn't have been able to do), Edwards would still only vote for the extra money IF bush rolled away the tax cuts.

This took tremendous courage, for someone to vote for the resolution and then not vote for additional funds. It laid him open to criticism that he sent the soldiers there and then wouldn't support him. His answer to this criticism was that his no-vote on the money was a way of drawing the line with the one tool the Senate still had: purse strings. It was brave.

[wisteria]

207. I think it was kerry's to. That was the first time I heard about it and

it was during the primaries.

[AmericanDream]

93. Um, actually edwards talked about a similar plan in 04... give him credit.

[jenndar]

101. Link?

Please?

[Noisy Democrat]

103. Any idea when/where?

I'm not being snarky, I'd really like to see it. Was it at any kind of event that might've been on CSPAN or find-able through LexisNexis?

[dogman]

120. Here is a statement from Clark in Nov. '03.

Snip>Today, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made clear that the Administration has no answers to the increasingly violent situation in Iraq. More than six months after the 'end of major hostilities', when the President boasted that the American mission was 'accomplished', they still have no plan to stabilize Iraq, return control to the Iraqi people, and protect our troops.<snip
http://www.clark04.com/press/release/058/

[stray cat]

115. I like Clark and I like Edwards and I like Warner

Why does it always have to be some sort of one upmanship. We need all the good leaders we can get - onlike repubs where they all follow one leader, dems are independent thinkers and they should stay that way. What I like is a politician who can lead with humility and say they were wrong without mixing words. I like someone who believes work wages are more sacred then estates.

[dogman]

124. I like Democrats too.

It's not one-upsmanship. I'm glad Edwards has come around to the arguement he made against Cheney in last years debate. I'm only pointing out that is not leadership. Accepting responsibility is a good thing and not something I expect from Bushco.

[DemDogs]

325. It is courageous and moral and strong

Elements we need, as a party and as a country.

[Skwmom]

148. What is so honest about changing your stance on the Iraq

War (a war you voted for to further your own political aspirations) once the polls show Americans are turning against the war? If the polls showed most Americans in support of the war, do you really think Edwards would have written this? What does Edwards know now that he didn't know months ago?

[imlost]

306. I second this statement

"War (a war you voted for to further your own political aspirations) once the polls show Americans are turning against the war? If the polls showed most Americans in support of the war, do you really think Edwards would have written this? What does Edwards know now that he didn't know months ago?"

Edwards did what he did because of what he perceived to be the "popular" stance, what he thought would get him elected. I'm sorry but he was wrong and he failed us. I can support him for accepting his "mistake" but it is not enough of a remedy for me to say I would support him as a future presidential prospect. I strongly question his character, therefore I question this Op-ed piece. I will continue to question anyone that voted with our idiot President on these issues.

[wisteria]

202. I agree, He and Kerry made a good pair! n/t

[kster]

3. K&R..nt

[benny05]

5. What does K & R stand for?

Not familiar with that one...

[Warren Stupidity]

13. kicked and recommended for the greatest page.

[DemDogs]

246. Halliburton sub Kellogg Brown and Root?

Kellogg is the first name, I may have the other two backwards. They are the ones who got the $200M tag from the UN for misusing Iraqi money -- and UN said the US Govt should pay it back.

[NanceGreggs]

4. Can I get an AMEN, folks?

This guy's the real deal. 2008, anyone?

[quiet.american]

6. AMEN. N/T

[liberalpragmatist]

9. I'm increasingly on board with that idea

Of course, I'm not sticking to anybody yet. I quite like Edwards, Kerry, Wes Clark, and Russ Feingold. I'm interested in Mark Warner and I also like Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh but am not happy with her war position and would not vote for her in a primary as it stands right now.

[sarahlane]

96. If it makes you think a bit more about Edwards...

Jon Stewert really likes him, so does Kucinich. Matt Lauer tried to bash Edwards on the Daily Show and Jon said something like, "Wait a minute you can't say things like that about my guy".

[venable]

121. add Bill Maher to the list

of Edwards supporters/admirers

[AmericanDream]

75. Amen. n/t

[Catchawave]

274. Amen ! n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Ah close, but no cigar.

John is still barking the 'must succeed' 'cannot afford to fail' neoliberal strategic retreat on Iraq.

"The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now."

No John, they are BOTH urgent questions. Those responsible for the fraud and deception that got us to 'here' are in urgent need of being held accountable for their actions.

"We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. "

So like his buddy Kerry he is talking about a prolonged occupation tied to a mythical successful outcome where Iraq is not a failed state. Like Kerry's plan, this nearly identical plan's fatal flaw is the linkage between our withdrawal and Iraqi stability.

[Mass]

8. Kerry, like Feingold, is speaking of a window of 12 to 15 months.

We know this is not feasible because Bush is in power, but there is a target date.

But at least, this is a step in the right direction. I wished that Biden and Clinton made this step.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Dying for mistakes.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
- a younger more perceptive more courageous John Kerry.

The Democratic leadership is rethinking their Iraq stance, and moving from the post-911 cowardly me-tooism that denied their role as an Opposition Party, and most likely cost them the election. I encourage them to do this rethinking, however they simply have not thought enough about why they are changing their minds.

Consider that Mr. Edwards admits that his vote on the IWR was a mistake. What does that mean? It means he thinks the IWR was wrong and is at least tacitly admitting that we went to war on the basis of fraud and deception. The obvious implication is that our actions in attacking Iraq were unjustified. We committed an unjust war, an act of aggression that was deliberate and in being deliberate and unjustified, was a war crime by international standards. Mr. Edwards needs to ask himself if the burglar gets to decide when he should exit the premises he has invaded, if the rapist gets to decide on a timetable for his withdrawal. Our first ethical obligation is to stop committing the crime we are committing by continuing our illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq.

I recognize that the Democratic 'leadership' is not ready yet for this sort of truth and reconciliation. But I return again to the quotation from the young John Kerry. The war was a terrible mistake. How can we ask our soldiers to die for the idiotic blunders of the Bush administration?

[wtmusic]

16. Not to mention holding the Bush admin accountable for war crimes

Maybe he just forgot to bring up that important issue.

[ray of light]

30. You're confusing "mistake" with Bush's CRIMES

"FAKE FACTS" that Bush gave them. THey did not KNOW they were fake.

A mistake is like what is continuing to happen in Iraq and like what happened in Vietnam. Just a little "woops, We miscalculated!" Like Bush said.

VS...

Setting up the EVIDENCE that Congress was voting on and then telling COngress, "THIS IS NOT A VOTE FOR WAR."

Here...CHECK the proof!
Here is a link:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/2...

And here's the money quote:

"Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."

According to the President's own words, voting for the Resolution was not voting for war. The President voted for war in March 2003. He made the big decision. He made the wrong decision, after being told by the weapons inspectors that Saddam was beginning to comply, and no weapons were being discovered.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x574
And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. I don't disagree.

I used the term mistake mostly to resonate with the young John Kerry's rhetorical question of 30 years ago. John Edward's vote for the IWR was a mistake. The Democratic Party's cowardly me-toosim since 2001 was a mistake. The deliberate fraud and deception of the Bush administration, and its aggression against Iraq were not at all 'mistakes', they were and are, as you clearly state, crimes against humanity.

[ray of light]

88. Warren, I was a lot younger back then but when I think about the IWR

I think of it as a person who underwent such an extreme mental change from just 2 years before 9-11.

Like it or not, 9-11 changed us. We began the "What if" mentality and we began to think about if America would be safe for our kids. It was a much more panic stricken era than what we had from the 90's on. Even with Reagon and the cold war, things seemed really sci-fi, but after 9-11 everyone's mentality changed.

In the cold light of day four years later, we have seen the light ourselves. We've seen the complicit media and we've come to realize this regime is so much more corrupt than we ever imagined 4 years ago.

Ok..I'll call it back then, "The Days of Innocence" because ALL (most)of us chose to believe that our pResident would not do such a evil, horrible, dishonest, criminal thing. We trusted him; he proved us WAAAAY more than wrong; and we are guilty of making a mistake but mostly we are guilty of hiding our heads in the sand and just 'trusting' that the guys in the W.H. were honest and knew what they were doing.

[ginnyinWI]

161. Iraq is not Vietnam

As horrible as it is right now, there are certain differences, and is the reason that Kerry is not saying exactly the same thing about Iraq as he did about Vietnam.

The difference is that Vietnam had no viable political solutions going on. It was Vietnamization or nothing. Iraq has political solutions in the works, as bad and as tenuous as they are, granted, but they are slowly moving forward politically. That's why he said wait until the elections in December, then begin to draw down troops gradually so that the Iraqis will step up and take over. The big difference between this policy and the WH plan is that * says we will leave after they step up, and Kerry says we tell them we are leaving which will force them to step up.

It might work, or it might still result in a civil war, but it is worth a try. The result of suddenly leaving Vietnam threatened to let the north take over again, but the result of suddenly leaving Iraq would probably lead to escalated violence and death in a civil war we helped create. We need to give them fair warning before we leave.

[Warren Stupidity]

232. You and the two Johns are deluding yourselves.

All that has happened is that we have become the proxy militia for the shiite faction in the civil war that is already in progress in Iraq. There is no viable political solution in Iraq while we remain the controlling force. We broke the system of control that was in place, as hideous as it was, and in doing so we started the factional conflict between sunni shiite and kurd that is now in progress. What exactly do the sunnits have to gain from joining in the shiite theocracy established under the constitution? Why would the kurds, who are largely secular muslims, pay anything other than lip service to the shiite dominated theocratic regime we established?

Kerry and Edwards and the rest of the neoliberal war hawks who have now repositioned themselves in recognition of the failure of the original war plan, get my support for moving towards reality, but they have not completed the journey. They still believe, as you do, in some mythical successful outcome that our unjust invasion and illegal occupation can bring about through force of arms. As long as they link our occupation to that outcome their plan is doomed, and their plan will continue to result in our killing tens of thousands of Iraqis who are entirely justified in opposing our occupation, and in the deaths of thousands of our solidiers who have been put in harms way for unstated and immoral reasons.

[ginnyinWI]

279. no I don't believe in some mythical success

This thing was a mistake from the beginning and the chance of anything good coming from it are slim. Except maybe that the Dems will regain power now--but of course that is not worth all of those lives.
A traditional liberal hawk believes in interventionism for humanitarian reasons. In other words, once the WMD rationale dissolved, they still thought there were moral reasons for the war--bringing freedom to the Iraqi people. But I don't think Kerry can be counted as such, because his vote was to disarm Saddam Hussein--his vote was to protect our national security. I am not as familiar with Edwards' views, but I know there are other Dems who are really hawkish on war for the above reason.

But I don't think it's a good enough reason, unless it is to prevent an immediate genocide such as what happened in Rwanda. Otherwise I believe that methods other than military should be used.

But back to Iraq: I don't see Kerry linking our occupation to any outcome. Instead, he is saying we need to give the Iraqis fair warning that we are indeed leaving, in order to give them a chance to get themselves together and defend their own country. He is saying that we have no military solutions that are going to work, and it is the Iraqi government that has to formulate their own political and/or military solutions. That's what I got from that last speech he gave on the subject. He's no liberal hawk, because he doesn't advocate bringing democracy at the point of a bayonet. On foreign policy, he's always about protecting American security interests, not nation-building per se. That's why he voted for the IWR--from what the Congress was told he made the call that it military action would be needed if worst came to worse. But we know what happened next--how Bush took it and ran straight to war.

link to that speech: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=248663

[Dogmudgeon]

10. Cigars aren't good for your health

We stuck ourselves in Iraq, and "we can't just pull out" for a number of reasons. All of them are illegitimate except for the possibility that if we pull out, Iraq will turn into one vast killing field.

I'm willing to accept that excuse for a very short time. We ought to find out whether it's really true. If it isn't, we get out now.

If it is, we go cap-in-hand to the international community and humbly request that they clean up our mess by taking over for us and instituting immediate peace talks. All on our dime, of course.

The whole idea is to get as few people killed as possible. Whether that means an immediate and humiliating bug-out or some kind of transition, we ought to do it. I don't think JE is that far from such a point.

--p!

[Warren Stupidity]

12. "if we pull out, Iraq will turn into one vast killing field"

It already is that. Six months is a legitimate timetable. 12-18 months is just an excuse for more of the same.

The post-occupation civil war will occur regardless of our timetable for getting out. It will also not be a civil war as it will draw in shiite and sunni and turkish and kurdish factions from the entire region. What we have done, quite unwittingly, is to at long last destroy the colonial era structures left over from WWI and the pre-WWII era. Once it is all sorted out there will be a greater Iran representing the shiite elements, and some sort of sunni state, and as always the kurds will be slaughtered and their national aspirations put down.

[wtmusic]

15. Thank you -- and what would be truly refreshing

is to hear a pol say just that.

But they won't. They'll let it drag on and on until the last one out gets out by hanging onto a helicopter skid, and everyone will be claiming it was a withdrawal with honor, when there wasn't a shred of honor in the entire enterprise.

[disndat]

42. Pulling Out

with international force and control paid by Iraqi oil revenue. You can be sure that the 'killing fields' will soon end. It's rally all about the oil that the Bush Crime family is after from the getgo. The Bush gang wants imperialism in Iraq, not democracy for the Iraqis..

[Inspired]

21. Ladies and Gentleman, may I introduce

the next President of the United States.

Kick and recommended.

:kick:

[Clark2008]

310. Oh, Lord, no.

Please - haven't we had enough of pablum with no FP experience?

YET?

[mike_c]

27. that's my only problem with this statement...

...but I suppose few politicians are at the "Vietnam end-stage" yet. Maybe if the sentiment can be swung strongly enough on an antiwar trajectory the madness can be ended before it goes that far. This is at least a significant step in the right direction, IMO.

[Pithy Cherub]

14. I applaud former Senator Edwards for taking responsibility.

That was critically important to publicly state he was wrong and in such a clear and unambiguous fashion. That horrible vote is one he will live with for the rest of his life. That op-ed had to have been difficult to author. For those steps Edwards deserves credit.

The deserved focus on Iraq and exit strategy, skips the accountability necessary to take the nation forward. Clearly, it is stated that the intelligence was manipulated to fit a political agenda. Hopefully, Mr. Edwards will have sufficient opportunity to speak passionately to the repercussions and political ramifications that should occur for manipulating a country into war.

While not a fan of Mr. Edwards presidential aspirations, I sincerely thank him for being forthright and taking responsibility. That is a model of behavior all Democrats can agree upon.

[MelissaB]

17. Hi benny! Thanks for posting this.

:hi:

:kick: ing for John saying he is wrong. Is this not what people have been waiting for...politicians saying they were wrong to vote the way they did?

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Much better late than never. I am glad to see this.

I would rather have seen this before the 2004 Election though. Edwards was still justifying the invasion then at a time where many Democrats who had voted for the IWR at least were saying that their vote was not intended to justify an invasion under the circumstances Bush invaded under. I do believe Edwards is being sincere, and it is important to admit a mistake, but it would have shown more courage to admit that mistake before it became so politically compelling to admit that the war was wrong to begin with. Yes it is reassuring to see Edwards being able to admit a mistake, unlike Bush for an obvious example, but it doesn't fully clear up my misgivings about his judgment given that he remained gung ho about the invasion as long as he did.

And I do not make a habit of giving Edwards a hard time over this. I supported Kerry/Edwards all the way. I would work for Edwards if we became the 2008 nominee. But if people are going to give Edwards positive attention for his admission now, I feel these comments are also justified.

[bonito]

19. Kicked and recommended.

[rox63]

20. Thanks for posting this, Benny

I'm so glad that more Dems are admitting that the war is wrong, that they were lied to, and they would not have voted for it if they'd known the truth.

Kicked and recommended! :hi:

[chimpymustgo]

22. Leadership and courage. There is a great deal of pressure in the

"mainstream" DNC leadership to NOT break with the status quo on this. Go JRE.

Hillary, your move.

[mike_c]

23. BRAVO!

This is a significant statement, and a firm call for rapid disengagement. It's about freaking time. I've been very critical of the dems who voted for the IWR and later supported the war against Iraq, even when it became apparent there was no real mission other than imperialist conquest. Now it's time to recognize one such dem who is in the process of revising his views, and accepting responsibility for his pro-war statements. Yes, John Edwards, you were wrong. It takes a lot of courage to admit that. You've gone a long way toward earning my respect back. Thank you for standing up for ending the madness in Iraq!

[autorank]

24. I love this guy! Damn, another "truth teller."

John Edwards :yourock:

[confludemocrat]

25. "and what many of us believed and argued"

He voted because he chose to believe there were WMDs. That this admission of wrong contains this acknowledgement-that was not all based on trickery by Bush, but on a choice against arguably and reasonably serious doubts-is key for me. I would vote for him. OK Kerry, now step up.

[Mass]

28. Kerry has been saying all that in a speech at Georgetown on Oct 26

and several times since.

He has proposed a bill in the Senate last Thursday repeating the same elements.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[sarahlane]

54. Really?

I knew Kerry has talked about pulling our troops out of Iraq in the next year or two. But I have never heard him admit he made a mistake in voting for the war. Link??

[Mass]

58. Go to his web site - read his speech.

[sarahlane]

71. I read his speech...

I am glad that he admits he was lied to and takes responsibility, but Edwards took it like a real man and said "I was wrong" rather then blaming it all on being lied to like Kerry did. BTW, you obviously are an RFK fan. My favorite quote of RFK's is "Tragedy is a tool for the living to gain wisdom, not a guide by which to live".

[Mass]

79. OK, you like Edwards better than Kerry.

But note that two lines after, he also talks about being lied to.

"The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. "

In which he is right, because the real crime was made by Bush.

[wisteria]

209. Edward's does place the blame on the intelligence on this

administration. I fail to see a real difference in their apologies. They're both good men.

[blm]

312. I think no one is served by implying one is a lesser man than the other.

I believe John Edwards would agree with me on that.

He would find no glorification of himself in your attack as if Kerry were somehow a lesser man.

I think Kerry's 40 years as an adult in service to his country has more than proved his humanity as well as his courage in many difficult and dangerous situations.

[YvonneCa]

151. Go to C-Span...Click on Iraq...scrolldown to watch...

...video of Kerry's Georgetown Speech. Watch it all, especially the Q&A at the end. Good stuff!!!:patriot:

[confludemocrat]

61. Edwards gives a real acknowledement--no Kerry hedging and parsing

I may be reading too much into Edwards' words here, but I think he acknowledged, unlike Kerry, that WMDs were what he chose wrongly to believe and argue and did not leave that out of his mea culpa as Kerry did:

"The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that (I ignored my better judgment that I would not get the truth from this bunch ) we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure ( as if one could know the "full" measure of their duplicity ) the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” (when was that phrase used prior to Woodwards book?) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise."

there are so many "outs" he gives himself here it strains credulity. If one reads his IWR speech he states WMDs as a certainty, when they were nothing of the kind

and later continuing in the same absolving-himself vein about how our options are not what they should be (thus preparing to stick with the "complete the mission BS" he needs to jettison also):

"The reason is simple. This Administration hitched their wagon to ideologues, excluding those who dared to tell the truth, even leaders of their own party and the uniformed military."

as if he didn't know they were ideologues of the most heinous kind when this march to war was proceeding apace

[Mass]

67. Kerry: "I accept my share of the responsibility."

One is making a long speech - The other one is writing an editorial. Dont expect the same style.

You dont like his style, sorry for you. But dont lie about what he said.

In addition, Kerry is right: BUSH LIED. Not saying so is absolving Bush of his faults.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[globalvillage]

109. Sen Kerry got NAILED by the Dem leadership for this statement.

Senators reject Kerry's claim Bush misled U.S.
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Senate leaders from both parties heading an inquiry of intelligence information on Iraq yesterday repudiated Sen. John Kerry's accusation that the Bush administration misled the country into war, and accused him of political posturing.
...

"I will not let off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally. I believe I can hold President Bush accountable if they have misled us," Mr. Kerry said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20030623-122726-4425r.htm


He said 'lie' and it got him in a world of shit with both Dems and Repugs.

Damned if you do...

[confludemocrat]

302. What was deleted here was a remark by me after being told I lie above

in the previous post by me before the deletion that Kerry never called Bush a liar, but Kerryites (shoulda said a Kerryite, I guess) will call another DUer a liar for an opinion. I told my interlocutor they should be ashamed of themselves. Another poster told me that Kerry called Bush a liar once and got nailed for it (see just above), essentially since he never repeated it, my point was made for me, although technically I was mistaken. There was ONE instance. Why am I not surprised Kerry never called Bush a liar again!

I've had posts deleted that said Kerry voted for and supported the war in Iraq, now we see Edwards admitting that he "voted for the war", which is what he did.

[karynnj]

171. I actually had the opposite impression -

Contrary to your snarky parsing, Kerry's words seem very sincere. Slam dunk case has been a colloqueal phrase well before Tenet used it and it's silly to quibble on "full" - there's been enough known. Edwards seems more a slick political decision.

Edwards was a sponsor of the resolution. He was on the intelligence committee which should have asked more questions and he spoke positively about the invasion after it happened (and after far more information on WMD was known).

Kerry was clear that he was very unhappy with the amendment and prefered the Biden/Lugar alternative rejected by Bush. He did feel that the amendment at the point they had to vote on it narrowed the grounds for invading to WMD and to Iraq vs the whole ME. He also said he felt they had pushed Bush's position toward working with the UN. He cites several (public) Bush/ Powell promises.

After the inspectors were in and they found nothing and even destoyed missiles - there was no way that Bush SHOULD have invaded Iraq under the IWR. Kerry urged Bush not to invade and to let the inspectors have more time in an op-ed in late Feb/ early March. When Bush invaded, Kerry denounced the invasion - and said the US needed regime change.

In 2004, Kerry probably should have answered all questions on the IWR vote by saying he would not have invaded as long as the inspectors were making progress. (It's not answering the question asked, but the question asked was being interpreted as would you go to war by many.)

Kerry for the last 2 years was far less pro-war than Edwards. Kerry was the Senator who led the effort to get the intelligence part 2 with his letter mentioning the DSM. Clearly Kerry is angry he was lied to. Kerry has the only plan with any meat on it that gets us out in a year or 15 months. He was second only to Kennedy and Feingold in talking withdrawal.

[wisteria]

211. Your delusional if you think Kerry was hedging in his speech and

his apology.

[confludemocrat]

297. If you think he does other than that regularly I, you astound me.

Especially on this issue. Carefully couched, well-parsed phrases utterly uninspiring are the guys stock in trade. The haughty blue blood get's a gentleman's "C" for his Iraq confession, devoid as usual of any real heart.

[confludemocrat]

304. see post 250 for still another measure of how JFK falls short n/t

[ray of light]

32. He already did waaaay before Edwards came out with this.

What? The MEDIA didn't say so.

Gotta wonder why the media still wants people to think bad of Kerry so they don't tell you the good stuff he says and does and they certainly go out of their way to build up the bad guys.

Oh..but wait...I think the media is pushing for a Hillary/ McCain in 2008. Wonder what their motives are...

[sarahlane]

52. Ray of light is wrong, Edwards said it was a mistake during the primaries

During one of the nationally televised primary debates Edwards was asked if he felt he made a mistake in voting for the war. He said, "Yes I did make a mistake and I regret it." For the past year he has mentioned that he regrets his war vote. Edwards came out before the election was even held, the media didn't publicize it and apparently many people either didn't watch the debates or weren't paying attention.

[ray of light]

97. Why is he saying it again then?

And why is it on the front page of D.U. as if it's new news if it's old stuff.

Frankly, I don't care if Edwards said it first. What I care about is that every democratic candidate starts saying, "We were lied to and we would NOT have voted for this had we only known this administration was full of evil liars!"

I believe you may be right that Edwards said it during the debates, but I also don't believe it belongs here on the front page of D.U. as if it's new if it's not!

[fedupinBushcountry]

137. delete

[karynnj]

172. Could you give us a link

to the primary debate

[venable]

84. Edwards has been out in front of Kerry on this, as on most things

and he is way out in front of Hillary

[wisteria]

214. Edward's is a nice man, but to think he is way out on things

is just plan inaccurate. He had plenty of time before Kerry's speech two weeks ago to write this piece. What took him so long?

[wisteria]

215. Instead of disputing who is on first and who is on second, maybe

we should ask, where is Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, oh, and how about Leiberman.

[venable]

242. agree

where are these others?

I think HRC is going to have an unpleasant morning, trying to figure out how she can maintain her hawkishness.

[Raksha]

60. This is my belief too...

i.e. that many of the Democrats who voted for the IWR did indeed have serious doubts, which they chose to ignore in the interest of political expediency. I suppose at the time they felt pressured to jump on the bandwagon. That was wrong, of course, as I'm sure they are all quickly coming to realize.

Re >>He voted because he chose to believe there were WMDs. That this admission of wrong contains this acknowledgement-that was not all based on trickery by Bush, but on a choice against arguably and reasonably serious doubts-is key for me.<<

As I said in an earlier note, I'm willing to allow them the fig leaf of saying they were fooled by Shrub's fixed intelligence, as long as they are willing to admit they were wrong in voting for the IWR in the first place.

[Tom Rinaldo]

186. 10/03 Edwards: knowing there weren't WMD wouldn't change his War support

I posted about this above in post #184 about Edward's 10/13/03 Hardball interview.

[confludemocrat]

303. Thanks for that, so he has a lot to make up for n/t

[DemDogs]

321. To which Edwards would say "I was wrong"

Listen, if you want people to admit their mistakes, you better quit beating them up for saying so.

[Tom Rinaldo]

326. Actually what he said is this:

"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003."

And I just pointed out that in October of 2003 Edwards said, had he known that there were no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the IWR vote, that wouldn't have changed his position on the war. At a time when Edwards literally knew that there were no WMD's in Iraq, with the U.S. already inside Iraq occupying that country, Edwards still didn't second guess his support of the war. Therefor some realization other than the fact that Iraq didn't have WMD, that Edwards arrived at sometime after October 2003, must have resulted in his changed position.

I'm glad he changed it, and I'm glad that he admitted that his earlier position was wrong. I said that in earlier posts, and I also said that Edwards making this admission would make it easier for me to support him in the future. That doesn't mean that his prior judgment can not still be a valid basis for concern if he wants to run for President. I judge candidates on their character and judgment, among other things. Today Edwards scored positive on both of those counts, and it is duly noted. That doesn't make his prior judgment irrelevant however.

Had Edwards not pinned his apology to an explanation about being misled about WMD in Iraq I probably would not have said anything beyond being glad he changed his position and admitted his mistake.

[mikelewis]

29. Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes.....

A resounding yes. K & R

[Clarkie1]

35. What other senators have taken responsibility for their mistake?

Who else has said, "I was wrong, I take responsibility?"

I like what Edwards is doing on poverty issues, and I applaud him for stepping up to the plate today to admit a mistake. It's something politicians rarely do.

I would not vote for Edwards to be our next presidential nominee, because I don't believe he has the international and foreign policy expertise we need, but he did good today.

[Mass]

36. Kerry, Daschle, at the very least.

There may be others, right now I am not sure.

[Clarkie1]

37. Do you have a link? I would like to know the exact words that were used.

[Mass]

39. Go to Kerry's web site. His speech is there.

[Clarkie1]

40. Kerry: "I accept my share of the responsibility."

Good to hear.

[sandnsea]

41. and...

"And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not."

[YvonneCa]

152. Go to C-SPAN...Click on Iraq...Scroll down to watch...

...video of the Georgetown Speech. Watch it ALL..Especially the Q&A at the end.:patriot:

[stray cat]

57. I'm curious would you vote for a governor?

I like the idea of a governor but they often have less international experience than a senator. I agree Edwards is light on foreign policy experience but I'm not sure most candidates have all that much anyway.

[Clarkie1]

133. Given the complexities of the international situation today post-9/11

and the mess * has made, Clark is the best choice for bring the country together and the world together.

That's my top priority.

I would vote for neither a senator nor a governor in the primary, unless Clark doesn't run.

[AmericanDream]

98. Edwards has more foreign policy experience than clinton did...

[Raksha]

38. Omigod, I had tears in my eyes when I read those three simple words:

"I was wrong."

For close to three years now, I've been waiting for one of our so-called Democratic leaders to have the guts to speak these words! John Edwards is SO right: "The foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth."

It takes real courage, real moral leadership to admit to a mistake in public, especially a mistake of this magnitude. But unless you admit to it, you can't begin to correct it. Hopefully, John will give the rest of the Senate and House Democrats the guts to follow through with their spinal transplants.

[globalvillage]

50. I really don't think he's alone in this.

But I do agree and applaud him for speaking out.
This from Senator Kerry in '03 (and several times since). Others have as well. It's just not been reported.

"Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[AmericanDream]

53. But his admission is the most candid... he utters "I was wrong."

[globalvillage]

64. OK, but

"I was wrong." and "I made a terrible mistake." are different, how?
:shrug:

[venable]

95. "I was wrong' is not about other people

whereas Kerry's statement is saying that his goodwill and the benefit of the doubt was misplaced...but still it somehow resonates with Kerry's goodwill...

it's a small difference only, but "I was wrong' is less self-interested, and not at all equivocal.

Edwards tell us that the administration did not tell the truth.

But he doesn't use them as an excuse.

He states, simply and bravely for a politician: "I was wrong'.

The beginning of wisdom.

[ray of light]

107. Sorry...the're not any difference between I was wrong v I am responsible

for my actions!

In fact, if my own child came up to me and said, "I was responsible and I won't do it again." then that would mean the same thing to me PLUS more because it means the person is willing to be grown up about it.

I was wrong is great. But it's also like a kid saying "I'm sorry."

I'm wrong.
I accept responsibilty.

They are all terrific and instead of beating up Kerry why don't you turn your anger towards the Republians who continue to obstruct justice.

I think your focus on wanting your specific words is not as important as turning those words--ALL of them--towards Senator McCain, towards Frist, towards all of those and making THEM take responsibility for their votes and their continued siding with the pResident.

[AmericanDream]

110. Actually....

Kerry said "I take responsibility for my share" and not that he takes responsibility for his actions... so don't change his statement. I think they are both good, but I find "I was wrong" much more forceful and clear. By saying that, Edwards takes the "total" responsibility for the consequences, while Kerry didn't necessarily do that as he implied that his vote was only part of the problem.

Man, how I wish, we could get over this petty stuff and acknowledge that they both are on the right path now.

[ray of light]

112. Semantics...

"Man, how I wish, we could get over this petty stuff and acknowledge that they both are on the right path now" You said.

And I most certainly agree!

Though I disagree with what you consider more forceful. I think this whole thing is just a matter of preference and prevents all of us from booting out the thugs and does a huge disservice to everyone one of them.

I mean...My god!!! We're all fighint over stupid word games with 1 billion different interpretations all based upon personal experience!

It's no wonder why the republicans find us easy pickins

[globalvillage]

119. TRUCE!!!

I say John was more correct than John.
How's that?
Thank God they have the same name. It does simplify things.

[ray of light]

123. hahaha

[venable]

128. peace

agreed
they are both on the right track
and the administration must be called to account

[ray of light]

130. Peace. Pax, truce and all that great stuff!

I refuse to smoke a peace pipe though!

[karynnj]

174. His vote WAS only part of the problem - BUSH led us to war, not

Kerry, not Edwards - BUSH

Man, how I wish we could get over this petty stuff and acknowledge that they both are on the right path now. In fact, as K/E they were on the right path since at least Sept 04 when Kerry proposed most of what Edwards peoposes here: (elections, diplomacy involving the interational community, training and reconstruction using Iraqis) in his NYU speech or even earlier when Kerry urged Bush to give inspections more time before the inspections.

[DemDogs]

239. When did anyone else take personal responsibility?

I think it is a big deal. There is a difference between I was wrong and I take responsibility for my vote . . . and I was mislead and my vote was wrong. LINK? please to any potential 2008 candidate taking personal responsibility, not just saying my vote was wrong.

[karynnj]

173. This is crazy

If you say you you made a terrible mistake or you say you were wrong, it means the same thing. Also Edwards, for at least some time in 2003, felt the war was the right thing to have done. Ignoring that Bush kicked the inspectors out to invade. Kerry urged Bush to not invade but let the inspectors continue when Bush made his ultimatum and he denounced the invasion immediately and called for regime change here (by elections).

[Tom Joad]

44. How wrong is it to have trusted GW Bush?

I appreciate that he now admits he was wrong. Yes, Edwards was wrong and thousands died.

Still, it would have been helpful if he explained how he could trust a man of such obvious lack of integrity. More importantly, why he could explain why he ignored the millions on the streets who knew better from the beginning... and why he still refuses to listen to them, and instead pushes a plan for "success", instead of simply calling for a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

[AmericanDream]

46. He trusted the partial intel given to him, which he didn't know was fraud.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

335. I knew it ws a fraud...

why didn't he? :shrug:

[Raksha]

77. Your question: How wrong was it to have trusted Bush?

Obvious answer: VERY wrong! Flat-out stupid, as a matter fact. It's hard to believe so many people could be smart enough to get elected to the U.S. Senate and still be that stupid. And just for the record, I don't actually believe they were, but I'm willing to let them say so if it helps them save face--and most important, if it helps them commit to a definite timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

[computerfreak77]

264. Did Edwards say anything about the Downing st. memo?

No. Maybe he was waiting for the Gallup war approval to be a little lower.

[AmericanDream]

45. A politician who accepts responsibility.... we need more of these! n/t

[globalvillage]

48. Thanks for posting.

And thanks, John. It's good to see all the Dems working together.

[Noisy Democrat]

49. Edwards follows Kerry

Which is fine with me, since I think they make a good team. Kerry made all these points in his major speech on October 26th, and introduced legislation in the Senate to force a change in our Iraq policy. Good to see Edwards getting on board with the "We were wrong -- now we need a change" program. I'm glad to see the guys are on the same page with this one.

[AmericanDream]

51. He said it at UNC-Chapel Hill ever before Kerry made his speech

At one of his events as the poverty director there, he was asked by the media about the war and he said it was a mistake... he said the same thing in Iowa MONTHS AGO... but the media wasn't covering it. My friend was at the event in NC and I was present in Iowa. And, that is why I believe he decided to go this way through an editorial, to make his position known to a broader audience. Edwards isn't following anyone here.

[Noisy Democrat]

56. Is the speech anywhere online?

Did Edwards lay out his proposal for how to deal with Iraq there too? I'd be very interested to see what he said. I admire Edwards, even though I'm more of a Kerry supporter, and I genuinely am glad that they seem to think the same way on this issue.

[AmericanDream]

68. Did you read my post? It was a poverty function and in the Q & A afterward

he was asked about Iraq and he said it was a mistake and the challenge remained how we can correct that mistake. He wasn't giving a speech about Iraq itself. The event was, unfortunately, not recorded, like the rest of his poverty center events ... thus, there isn't a transcript or a video... and I think that must be why it did not get to a lot of people, like yourself.

Nevertheless, I'm glad to see the dems are getting to the same page.

[venable]

70. Yes, he did say it before Kerry, a number of times

and here he is putting it out front. I'm very, very pleased with his courage.

[Noisy Democrat]

72. I was talking about the plan

Not the admission of a mistake. It's fine with me if Edwards said that part first. I'm just glad they're both saying it. Some people have been saying Edwards is also the first to talk in this way about getting us out of Iraq, and in *that* respect, Kerry has been taking the lead.

[AmericanDream]

89. Edwards talked about these same ideas during the primaries..

Edwards talked about these very same ideas during the primaries too if you'll go back and read his speeches. In fact, he even talked about some other ideas that I thought were very good but not mentioned in this article.

Neveretheless, let's forget who came first and rejoice that they are all on the same page... the ones to be watched are those who still haven't admitted the mistake, namely: Biden, Clinton, Bayh, etc.

[Noisy Democrat]

104. OK

I'll go back and look for Edwards's primary speeches. I wasn't following him back then at all. I've collected a few of his old speeches (I collect speeches) but not many.

I agree about the others, for sure. Well, all 3 of them are on my list of people I would never in a million years vote for in the primaries anyway. But their silence on Iraq only makes things worse. OTOH, think how icky it'd be if they were trying to *lead* on Iraq, when there are so many other reasons why they're annoying.

[sarahlane]

59. Kerry followed Edwards!

You guys need to get your facts straight! Did everyone seem to forget that during a debate with Kerry during the primaries Edwards admitted on national television that he felt he made a mistake in voting for the war. Please stop saying Kerry was first because it is untrue.

[Mass]

63. Actually you are right.

Good to know knowing he sponsored the bill first.

[jenndar]

65. Check this out:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[globalvillage]

69. Does it really matter? This from Sen Kerry in 2003.

They both said it. They both continue to say it.
Let's hear it from everyone else.
Kudos to John and John.

"...my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml



<snip>
Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[renie408]

86. It doesn't matter until people cannot stand to let another politician...

do something good and right. You can't say, "John Edwards (Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, whoever)did this good thing." without somebody on here having to jump in for their 'boy'. As if there isn't enough good to go around. It reminds me of my kids. If I say that one of them is smart or sweet, the other one acts as if they feel like I am cutting them down.

[globalvillage]

92. They are both good men

who have admitted a mistake and have proposed alternative ideas to bush*'s evil 'plan' for Iraq.
I say John and John, in whatever order you wish, deserve a great deal of credit for that.

[AmericanDream]

94. Amen n/t

[renie408]

99. I agree100% n/t

[YvonneCa]

154. Agreed...they are BOTH doing the right thing now for the country..n/t

[Noisy Democrat]

102. I think the reason is

that naturally, people want to see their person as leading. And if they see their person being ignored while someone else gets applauded for the exact same ideas, or credited with being "first" with those ideas, it rankles.

If it turns out that Edwards has been proposing this plan on Iraq for over a year and a half, I'll stand corrected in my belief that Kerry came out with it first (unless I do further digging and find out Kerry was saying it even earlier, of course).

[ray of light]

126. Sarahlane, my apologies...it's all semantics...'who was first'

because frankly, I thought this discussion was regarding speeches given within the last two weeks.

And this is how easy it is for people to misunderstand or give different interpretations to the same words.

JE did say something last year. You are right.

And JK put out an Iraq plan within the last week followed by JE renewing his statement and agreeing with JK's plan put out this week.

There is just a lot of confusion over who has 'new' regrets, I guess.

[venable]

66. Edwards has been saying it as well.

In fact he's been saying it in public now for well over a month.

[Inspired]

108. Edwards follows his heart. eom

[DemDogs]

244. Look at The Nation piece - Edwards didn't follow

Two things: Edwards said what Kerry won't ever say: I was wrong.
And Edwards told The Nation reporter this by mid-October, before Kerry's speech.
Here's the particulars:
Nation piece about conversation in Chapel Hill at Opportunity ROcks tour in "mid-October" when Edwards says he was wrong. <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051128/moser>
When is "mid-October"? Look at the OpportunityRocks.org site and see that his Chapel Hill event was October 17.
<http://www.opportunityrocks.org/blog/20051017/>

Last time I looked October 17 was before October 26. Glad to see Kerry do it, but let's be clear: Edwards was not "following" Kerry.

And Kerry is still not doing what Edwards did, admitting his own responsibility.

[justgamma]

55. Get Haliburton out of Iraq

That's the part I like. Get the contractors out and put the Iraq people to work. This is the way it should be. It would be a first great step.

[sarahlane]

62. Exactly!!!

This was one of the best points made in the speech. We need to give Iraqis the job of building their own infrastructure. Edwards has also mentioned taking the Iraqis in training and train them in Turkey so we can speed up the process and keep them out of harm's way.

[Noisy Democrat]

76. These are good ideas

When Kerry made these proposals -- get the cronies out, get more infrastructure-building work to the Iraqis, and train Iraqi security forces outside of Iraq -- back in his national speech on Sept. 20, 2004, I was thrilled. If Edwards is helping to spread the same ideas now, that's wonderful too.

[AmericanDream]

85. Once again... he's been saying all this for a long time...

you don't seem to be an Edwards follower so you must not know that he has been saying this stuff for a long time without getting any media coverage. At local and state level events, that is. So he is not spreading kerry's ideas... but his own, that happen to have similarities to kerry's. Can we get that straight?

[Noisy Democrat]

100. Now, seriously --

I just cited a Kerry speech that laid out these specific ideas about Iraq on September 20, *2004*. It was a major event, a turning point in the presidential campaign. A lot of that speech was based on ideas Kerry had published back in April, 2004. So now I'm sincerely curious -- are there *any* sources for Edwards having said all this stuff in the spring, or even the summer, of 2004? Or late 2003? If Edwards helped Kerry with the September, 2004 speech, OK. They were on the same ticket and working together for victory -- though not back in April, of course.

I definitely believe both men are capable of thinking for themselves. But to credit Edwards with independently developing ideas that he heard his own running mate deliver in September 2004 seems odd, unless we have reason to think that Edwards threw in some of those ideas himself back during the campaign, which as I said, I could believe, since they were working together and both wanted to win. So that's why I'm curious about Edwards speeches going back to early 2004 or late 2003.

[Noisy Democrat]

105. OK, I saw your message above

I'll google for Edwards speeches from the primaries. Thanks.

[sarahlane]

127. Edwards was stating these ideas back in late 2003

When Edwards was running for President he was the first one to talk about training Iraqis elsewhere. I'm glad Kerry adopted his ideas.

[Mass]

131. Kerry was too.

We can go long like that, in a very useless dialogue.

Do you have any link of these plans. I dont remember them and would like to see them again.

[venable]

80. Hillary's hawkishness

looks particularly unseemly now


Courage like Edwards' makes her irrelevant.

[globalvillage]

82. I was thinking exactly the same thing. n/t.

[Noisy Democrat]

87. Yeah, I think Hillary is

doing some kind of combination of sitting it out and being hawkish -- e.g. I keep hearing rumors that she's in favor of permanent bases in Iraq, but she doesn't exactly come out and *say* that, but neither does she say anything to the contrary, even as Kerry has been calling for "no permanent bases in Iraq" for over a year now. I heard a rumor that Hillary thinks she can just keep quiet on Iraq. I don't know if that will work, though. I think she's going to be increasingly perceived as pro-war, and from the tiny scraps of info I've seen, that sounds like an accurate perception.

[AmericanDream]

91. Clinton? Biden? Bayh? The time is now! n/t

[longship]

106. Another principled Dem mea culpa.

Oh Hillary!!! Hillary Clinton!!
Where are you??

[IndianaGreen]

194. Mea culpas are good

Denials are bad, i.e., Hillary.

Prowar is even worse, i.e., Lieberman, Biden.

[longship]

259. Pro-war == Hillary.

She wants to send *more* troops. Can hardly get more pro-war than that.

[RazzleDazzle]

111. Good

I do wish, however, that he hadn't waited until it was quite so obviously freaking safe to do this. It makes me feel manipulated when I get down to this, which is all too easily something the Bush admin would say while trying to pull the wool over our eyes and DO just the opposite:
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

better late than never, for sure, but the need has been so critical for so very, very long. You're late, John.

[AmericanDream]

116. He said it in Iowa 4-5 months ago.. no one was listening. n/t

[RazzleDazzle]

141. Got a link?

It would mean a lot to me if he said "I was wrong" 4 - 5 months ago.

[AmericanDream]

145. I attended the event... it was probably on c-span, but I don't have a link

[The Witch]

114. This is a realistic plan.

It'd be nice if they were all gone tomorrow, but ain't gonna happen. I like his idea of showing that for every Iraqi batallion that is fully trained and equipped, a proportional number of our troops will go home. That is fantastic diplomacy.

[Rose Siding]

117. The armed forces aren't the only ones who didn't get it wrong

I'm into forgiving those who admit mistakes. But it's hard to understand why those whose judgement was faulty, when compared to so many other Democrats, offer advice now with such confidence.

John's doing some great work with his poverty program. I just posted a lovely article about him, earlier today-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x172389

Whether or not one accepts his mea culpa, this assertion is troubling:

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

Not to be too nitpicky - and I know most all the dems are saying something similar - but this always bothers me. If the US invasion was wrong, and the US takes responsibility for that, how is it that other countries have somehow attained responsibility along with us?

The first 2 parts of his plan - ditching the American contractors for Iraqi companies (if there are any left), and a draw down of troops - are sound. And while it's incredibly frustrating that years into this morass, these most obvious steps comprise two parts of a three part plan, it's a sure bet that taking a swipe at the Big Contractors is a bold move for any national pol.

But John's third step is unrealistic...

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Not only has bush deluded himself into believing he HAS a unified front, it's silly to think he could accomplish such a feat. So, since we're venturing into "in a perfect world" territory, why not complete the journey? Why not go ahead and recognize that the US is in not in any postion to "create" anything in the region. Iraq's neighbors detest us because we are a noisy and constant threat to them and ever more countries in the region are struggling with instability as a result of whatever their relationship is with us!

If by saying "the president needs to create a unified international front", Edwards actually means humbly enlisting the aid of a third party (the UN, Germany!, Switzerland! or a new NATO like org) to head up Operation Put Humpty Together Again, providing whatever support they need, and then getting the hell out of the way, then never mind.

[usregimechange]

118. Yes! Good for him!

[usregimechange]

122. How do we have this already? It is Sat at 7pm???

[AmericanDream]

125. He posted it on his own blog as a preview for his supporters/readers.. n/t

[ray of light]

136. Everyone can we call a truce and call them both great men?

This is what I posted somewhere earlier and I still stand by it now!

"I still like (Kerry and) Edwards. He and Jk would be a great Pres/and Vp

My only regret is that they didn't let Edwards get a lot tougher as clearly he could have!"

[Inspired]

147. Thank you

[ray of light]

182. Hi Inspired!

Welcome!:hi:

[Mass]

150. Thanks

[YvonneCa]

157. Absolutely! n/t

[Faygo Kid]

153. The die is cast. The gauntlet is thrown. Bush's lies, or USA?

The USA of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, King, and most recently Rosa Parks, is stirring. The USA of great achievements, abysmal faults, and yet a magnet at Ellis Island is waking up. The USA that has been a beacon to the rest of the world, the USA we fight for at DU, is waking up. And it is a fearful giant, my neocon, Limbaugh-addled friends. Your day is over. Thank you, John Edwards. You are one of the first voices to follow the People.

[ray of light]

156. Yes, the gauntlet IS thrown. Let us empower ALL people to fight

together to destroy this evil empire.

Let every Democratic leader and every courageous man, woman, and child help us hold tight to our righteous anger and hold this man and this current Republican party accountable for what they have done.

Let's oust them in 06 and let's take back the Congress. Let's squeeze the juice out of this lame (and lame duck) pResident and leaave their rotten scent to permeate the air for the next generation of progressives to remember a really long time.

[Faygo Kid]

164. I'm with you. We owe it to our progeny.

We march together. Thanks. Not the most brave, here, but I am ready to roll.

[milkyway]

155. Unfortunately, the "Let's train the Iraqis faster!" solution Dems keep

offering is a pretty empty statement. It's basically been what bush has been trying to do, without any success in a couple of years. What makes Edwards think the Iraqis will suddenly become a suitable replacement for the best military in the world?

This argument is kind of like when a politician says he'll cut taxes and increase services at the same time. How? "I'll cut waste!" It sounds good, but meaningless in practice.

By summer of next year, bush will do what the leaders of a failed military adventure have done throughout history: declare victory and leave. He'll tell us we can start leaving because the Iraqis have been fully trained and are ready to take over for our military. Good luck. When Iraq devolves into civil war soon afterward, the bush apologists will be left to blame the failure on the Iraqi security forces to live up to their responsibility.

So what is the solution? There is none. All we can do is try to mitigate the damage caused by Cheney and the neocons. The first requirement is that bush be removed from power. He is an extremely inflammatory figure in the Muslim world, with no credibility. Secondly, Edwards makes an excellent point that Iraq must work for the Iraqis, not Haliburton. Finally, the U.S. must not have any permanent military bases in Iraq.

And when should we leave? There's reasonable arguments for both leaving today, and waiting until we can. My instinct would be to leave right now, but even Juan Cole has written that would be a disaster.

Politics will lead bush to throw in the towel next year. Then we can start calling him George "White Flag" Bush.

[ray of light]

158. I disagree. Bush has NOT been trying to do it. He's been faking it.

Like he fakes everything else in his life.

[stepnw1f]

159. I Just Hope People Hold Bush Accountable

It is a Noble and Meaningful gesture, but please, please let the fucking criminals burn. If they don't, our country will never truly right it's wrong. You want to get the WORLD to trust us and help with Iraq, then we better hold the Bush Administration and his minions accountable.

The World expects no less, and the people who support this Right Wing cult must be dealt with in full light of the public. No more curtains and no more bullshitting. Reagan and Bush Sr. got away with hell, and until we deal with their type, things will repeat and just get much worse, finally the people will lose interest in U.S. Democracy.

Understand what this means.... there is plenty more to lose if this bunch of bandits is not dealt with to the full extent of the law. And transparency of our system will have to happen in order for our Republic to survive. That means all crimes committed by this cabal must be exposed and dealt with in full public view. This is why Bush was successful after Reagan and Bush Sr. They got away with their crimes and muddied the waters of justice. Out of this the Religious right grew with hysterical paranoia of the Left.

Do not for a second believe the other side that wishes to undo our system, is not fully aware of this very moment in our history. They are fully aware of how fragile our system of Democracy is. Look at how our voting system has been privatized. Who owns the machines? If these bastards are not held accountable, OUR system will die. Honesty and truth is what binds a Democracy...

So thank you for the obvious John, but your timing was a little disappointing, just after Bush spreads the blame. Perception is a wicked thing. So, do not stop, ... Fight ON!!!

[ray of light]

160. Look, I think all of D.U. Kos, all of cyberspace needs to UNITE

and quit bickering over candidates.

We have so much to do if we want to get rid of these criminals and get progressives elected.

We have to start UNITING and stop squabbling like kids in a play yard.

I don't know about anyone else here, but I believe if we UNITE we can take back Congress in 06 and we can make each and every Republican regret their obstruction and their bullying because we take it back in 06 and we'll let their crimes heat up for 2 years until 08! We'll FIGHT the fraud. We'll SHOW Americans INTEGRITY!

AND we will find a way to charge BUSH and CHENEY with War crimes.

But...while we're busy fighting on D.U. and kos over silly semantics...I guess that stuff will have to wait until another day...

[stepnw1f]

163. Accountability or Nothing At All

Nobody, especially me, is saying anything about candidates. I want a DEM in for God's sakes and aint as nitpicky as some. I just want accountability of the Bush Administration. They cannot be allowed to smear Democracy the way they have and get away with it. It's much more important than pride. I have really thought about how important this is.

[ray of light]

167. Do you volunteer for your local grassroots?

We need your help!

[stepnw1f]

Yup...

where are ya

[ray of light]

177. I will pm you...

[DallasNE]

162. A Thought For Sen Edwards And Others

Just A Thought

Sometimes the effectiveness of a political party's message can be best determined by looking at the message the other party comes back to over and over.

When I look at what the Bush administration keeps coming back to over and over it is the message that "everybody thought Saddam had WMD", including most Democratic Senators. Neither our Senators nor the DNC has done an effective job of countering this message. That must change. And Edwards has taken a step in that direction. But he also sidestepped part of the message. Here then are some of my thoughts on points to be address.

THE SENATE RESOLUTION

The purpose of the Senate resolution is constantly misrepresented by the Bush administration. Edwards and Democrats need to go back to square one on this issue and define it truthfully. That includes where in the chain of events this Senate Resolution came into play and what it was meant to cover.

What was the Senate Resolution and where does it fit into the time line? The resolution was passed prior to Bush going to the UN for a resolution to return an UN inspection team inside Iraq. The use of force language was there in case Saddam refused to abide by the UN resolution. That's it. It was nothing more than that.

Saddam, after a couple of attempts to thwart the inspectors, caved and allowed Hans Blix complete access to all presidential palaces and one-on-one interviews with Saddam's scientists. At the time Bush told the UN inspectors to leave Saddam was in full compliance with UN Resolution 1441.

After Bush had the inspectors pulled, he claimed that Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in. (Everybody's jaw dropped when Bush made that claim).

To his credit, Bush did attempt to get a second UN resolution to invade Iraq but the UN would have no part of it and Bush stopped trying. Bush didn't even attempt to get a second Senate Resolution declaring war against Iraq even though the purpose of the earlier Senate resolution had been fully satisfied. It would not be a stretch to say that Bush had no authorization for the invasion of Iraq. After all, the purpose of the original resolution was to get the inspectors back in with full access or face war. Saddam not only let the inspectors back in but was in full compliance with UN Resolution 1441 at the time the invasion was ordered by Bush so he should not have faced war under that resolution.

There should be no embarrassment to our Senators to state that they needed to know what had become of Saddam's WMD that the prior inspectors had not destroyed and that the Senate Resolution was a necessary step in getting the UN inspectors back into Iraq. Instead, the Senate Resolution was twisted to be an open ended authorization to war rather than limiting the authorization to a threat of war should Saddam not comply fully with UN Resolution 1441. The truth should not be hard to sell.

[stepnw1f]

165. Thank You and Welcome!

This is why I am puzzled by statements on DU about apologies necessary. I guess there are those here that truly need it because they have lost faith in our own leadership. I can't blame them... but come on!!! Bush and his Cabal need to be held fully accountable!

[DallasNE]

179. Thank You

I'm not sure how much I will post here, but thanks for the welcome.

I do post on Slate using the same nic.

[ray of light]

168. very good! welcome to d.u.

:hi:

[venable]

169. GREAT POST, with one clarification

which is that you give credit to bush for going back to the UN a second time.

Pretty sure this was only because Blair told him that if he didn't do it, he (Blair) would have to jump ship due to his own political pressures.

Bush went back to keep his one ally, without whom the public's weak support for the war would have vanished.

Small point, but don't want w getting any credit whatsoever for his pre-war behavior.

[ray of light]

176. Good point. AND btw...lost before...WELCOME to you too!!!

:hi:

:toast:

[venable]

238. thanks, Ray of Light

good place, this.

[DallasNE]

276. Bottom Line

When Bush did go back the second time Hans Blix had already reported back that no WMD had been found. With that news the UN had no heart for war so Bush dumped the UN like a hot potato and the rest is history.

One last point. Bush only provided the 92 page Defense Intelligence Estimate to the Senate a bare 48 hours before the Senate voted on the war resolution. Worse, only 6 Senators were given copies of the complete report. The other 94 only had the 5 page summary. It was a complete "trust me" operation and with George W. Bush that is a huge mistake.

[karynnj]

318. A note of sanity! Your post is fantastic

I am amazed how many people are willing to accept the Republican re-writing of history on this resolution. It was designed as lose/lose for Democrats and it suceeded. What's more tragic is that Democrats have used it against other Democrats.

How many Democrats (or Republicans) would have voted in early March to go to war? Probably very few - the inspectors were destroying missiles. Bush chose at that point to go to war for reasons not covered by the IWR.

[mb7588a]

175. They're all playing catch up to russ feingold now.

It mattered when the vote was held, not today.

But I gotta admit, I like Edwards for this. It takes balls to admit you were wrong.

[Catchawave]

180. Hi Benny ! Great post, thanks....also

Did you see the DU post in Editorals/Other Articles (which I crossposted to the DU JRE supporters forum too) ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x172389

Nice piece by The Nation. Please share with JREG :hi:

Miss you guys at JREG and OneAmerica, I'll be back soon :loveya:

[benny05]

248. Pieces about JRE

Back at ya, Catchawave! :hi:

The "Cornbread and Roses" piece is on JREG, under the John Edwards and Family Forum. I've noticed that article has garnered some attention for Edwards (at least 30 blogs have parts of it posted--especially the regret), many critical of his comments (too little too late, which I don't agree with, but that's some of the general feeling).

In a sense, I believe this editorial by JRE is response to those critics. But he took it one step further: he gave some ideas about what to do to show some moral leadership in the world, which our current administration refuses to do.

I wish more politicans would say they were misled and made a mistake on their votes; it is honest and just to say so. Further, I agree with JRE that we need work on progress instead of just blaming W. We need to get ourselves out of Iraq: with a plan, not just naming dates about when, because with all of the trouble we have caused, the least we can do is hope their government will be stable enough whereby the Iraqi's won't fall backward.

Hope you visit JREG and OAC again soon. JREG, thanks to our great news moderator, often posts first about the Senator's comings and goings, including that Edwards is en route to India and United Arab Emirates (joining Bill Clinton there) to give presentations about global commonalities related to work, opportunity, etc. See http://tinyurl.com/cz6h4.


To the Senator, you deserve a standing ovation for taking this step of moral responsibility. :applause:

Benny

[Catchawave]

282. Another great article !

Thanks! I'm trying to keep the DU Edwards Supporters forum updated, so I may just use JREG links from now on. You guys :yourock:

[FrenchieCat]

183. Those who voted for the IWR should not have.....not in the final version

that it appeared. I knew it, and so did more than one Senator.

They also shouldn't have voted for the Patriot Act. That was wrong as well....and I don't hear anything about that.

They were wrong but felt political pressure. That's why those who voted for the IRW did so....not because they thought Bush was going to do the right thing.

In 2003, the story about the Forged Niger documents was in the papers. So by July 2003, wayyyyy before the real primaries even started, it was known that this intelligence was no good.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/16/fbi.niger/

and the Aluminum tube story and the doubts about it were out long ago too.... :shrug:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/aluminumtubes.html
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/IraqAluminumTubes12-5-03.pdf#search='aluminum%20tubes%2C%20iraq%2C%202002'

The Senators, in particular the ones on the various committees all knew that Bush was gonna take us to war.......and they voted for it.

Colin Powell showed the U.N. Cartoons, and the Senators bought it? Yeah....OK. Lotsa people didn't....at the time, so what was up with that? :shrug:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200302\FOR20030205h.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/archives/03/02/07_0751a.html


It's great to see for Sen. Edwards to say he is wrong now, since the majority of the country says so as well....but, come on, it was always wrong, and many of us always knew it.

So in my opinion, this ain't such a "big" thing, for Edwards to finally come clean. Politically it's best to say "I'm sorry" ....cause better late than never, but it doesn't make one a leader. Sorry.

I'll always remember his words then....even if he now has decided that he made a mistake.

"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.
snip
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."
Statement on the floor of the senate 9/12/02

"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.
snip
Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

What I will say is "thank God for small favors". :eyes:

[venable]

187. you are pointing out what he believed

and simply showing us all the times he expressed what he believed.

He believed what he believed because he was told by Tenet that there was a mushroom cloud looming. Tenet told him. He believed it. So might have you, or I. We did not have that very influential voice in our ear, so we could listen with our own ears. Had we had Tenet's voice in our ear, we might have believed and said the very things you mock Edwards about.

Each iteration of that belief does not show intransigence. It shows that he was under a certain impression, because the CIA chief told him it was the case.

[FrenchieCat]

208. So why was Graham under a different impression?

and Kennedy, and Boxer, and Feingold, and ....were there about 20 others?

Did he talk to those guys? Cause they were certainly talking!

Plus, if you read the words, Edwards is talking about Geopolitics which has little to do with a mushroom cloud.

Edwards said "Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

and here he refers to Israel...."Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us."

[AmericanDream]

188. Btw, wasn't it clark who went and praised Bush for this war?

[Tom Rinaldo]

190. No. Try Afghanistan. That comes closer, & don't attack without facts n/t

[AmericanDream]

193. Actually, here are the FACTS: Clark was cheerleading the war

Clark said that Saddam "absolutely" had weapons of mass destruction, adding, "I think they will be found. There's so much intelligence on this." In the April 10th London Times, Clark predicted that the American victory would alter the dynamics of the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express." Clark praised the Anglo-American alliance, saying that Bush & Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

Clark called for victory parades down the Mall, and in another column, cheered the spectacular display of coalition force: "American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try!"

source: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Wesley_Clark_War_+_Peace.htm


"If you look around the world, there's a lot of work to be done. And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill - people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe."

That excerpt is from a speech Clark gave on May 11, 2001 for the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas.

So, give me a break on that DINO hawk.

[FrenchieCat]

218. Actually, nope....you've got this wrong....

First --Please provide the link that has Wes Clark saying "Saddam absolutely had weapons of Mass Destruction".

You will note that even the Issue2000 link does not have an actual link... and since they aint' my daddy, I ain't going for it.

This is what Clark wrote about Weapons of Mass Destructions on October 10, 2002.....one day before the vote in his Op Ed called "Let's Wait to Attack"....: "In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

In reference to the London Times Article in where he does praise the soldiers....something he does consistently, his calls for "parades" goes something like this...........

"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats.
http://www.seanrobins.com/national/other_2004/clark_2003_04_10.htm

In reference to his May 2001 speech at a Republican Fundraiser, Clark gave the same non partisan speech at a Democratic Fundraiser for Blanche Lincoln. The speech is only encouraging the continuation of a strong alliance with Europe and NATO...something he felt and still feels very strongly about. 2001, would have been less than a year after Clark had retired. It would have been before 9/11, and certainly before Iraq. It was after Al Gore conceded the election, and most who hated Bush....still didn't realize what a horrible President he would turn out to be. Clark is attempting to send a message......on NATO; not how wonderful Bush and his ilk were:

That paragraph you mention....as did the RNC via the Corporate media....says the following: "We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe. We've got -- (applause) We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans, where we still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well I, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United States and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest. We let them carry the economic ball; we're doing the security ball. Look, in politics they told me - I don't know anything about politics now; I want to make that clear. But they told me - I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you always got to protect your base. Well for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it."


So now that I have, if nothing else, provided you with a response to your accusations about Wes Clark....what about John Edwards? Did I take his words out of context? The ones I quoted, I mean. Please correct me if they are.

[JoZbean]

260. I had to know, it's really out there:

FrenchieCat said, "First --Please provide the link that has Wes Clark saying "Saddam absolutely had weapons of Mass Destruction".

General Wesley Clark Analyzes Weapons Hunt in Iraq

Aired January 18, 2003 - 08:14 ET


O'BRIEN: All right, but it's well short of a smoking case, then, isn't it?

CLARK: It is. It is. But this is more of the evidence that everybody's known for a long time. He does have weapons of mass destruction.

O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

CLARK: Absolutely.

O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where it all is. People in Iraq do. The scientists know some of it. Some of the military, the low ranking military; some of Saddam Hussein's security organizations. There's a big organization in place to cover and deceive and prevent anyone from knowing about this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

269. OK. He consistently said he believed Hussein had Chemical and Biological

WMD. The piece Frenchie quoted from also reflected that belief. It was nuclear weapons that Clark was always highly skeptical of, that looming "Mushroom Cloud" that Bush and Condi were so fond of talking about.

Still, nice catch. You were given a challenge and you came through, lol. Clark is also on record, long before the invasion, saying that even if it were proved that Hussein had some WMD, that did not establish the presence of an immanent threat, and without that threat there was no basis for war with Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

271. For the entire interview which took place after the IRW had been voted on.

Clark is discussing a particular event where casings for shells had just been found. He, like most everyone never doubted that Saddam had "CHEMICAL" Weapons....but Clark never said that Saddam had Nuclear weapon....nor did he buy into the mushroom cloud. That's my point.


CNN SATURDAY MORNING NEWS

General Wesley Clark Analyzes Weapons Hunt in Iraq

Aired January 18, 2003 - 08:14 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

MILES O'BRIEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: In Iraq today, we have weapons inspectors back at that site where they found those empty chemical warheads Thursday and the U.N.'s top weapons inspectors are due in Baghdad tomorrow for key meetings with Iraqi officials.
Is this all putting the U.S. a step closer to war?

Let's put that question to our military analyst, Retired General Wesley Clark, joining us from Little Rock, Arkansas.

General Clark, good to have you with us.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, FORMER NATO SUPREME COMMANDER: Good to be with you, Miles.

O'BRIEN: It's interesting, the administration says those empty casings are a troubling sign. Hans Blix says it doesn't amount to much at all.

What's the reality, do you think?


CLARK: Well, they're both right. I mean we've known for a long time that the Iraqis have had chemical weapons. Hans Blix says this doesn't prove anything, they could have been left there. He's right. The administration says this shows that there's a lot of potential there and there's trouble and the administration's right and this will add fuel to the fire and help the president make the case that it's necessary to go ahead and use force.

O'BRIEN: All right, but it's well short of a smoking case, then, isn't it?

CLARK: It is. It is. But this is more of the evidence that everybody's known for a long time. He does have weapons of mass destruction.

O'BRIEN: And you could say that categorically?

CLARK: Absolutely.

O'BRIEN: All right, well, where are, where is, they've been there a long time and thus far we've got 12 empty casings. Where are all these weapons?

CLARK: There's a lot of stuff hidden in a lot of different places, Miles, and I'm not sure that we know where

[JoZbean]

275. Wish your "point" had been clearer

FrenchieCat said: Clark is discussing a particular event where casings for shells had just been found. He, like most everyone never doubted that Saddam had "CHEMICAL" Weapons....but Clark never said that Saddam had Nuclear weapon....nor did he buy into the mushroom cloud. That's my point.

CLARK: It is. It is. But this is more of the evidence that everybody's known for a long time. He does have weapons of mass destruction.

WMD is WMD, regardless of what that WMD is.

You asked someone to give you the link, I produced it. Case closed, as far as I'm concerned. I supported Clark's entering the race and I supported his candidacy as long as he was in the running. I'd still be interested in following a second bid. I don't care if he believed they had WMD or not. A lot of people over the years have believed this. That doesn't make him a war-monger. To me, my reply with the link was simply pointing out that he did in fact make the statement that Saddam had WMD.

Edited for clarity on who said what.

[Tom Rinaldo]

220. I don't think anyone wants this thread turned into a locked flamefest

So I will not get into all of this with you here. You have started down the path of hijacking this Edwards thread into a debate about another Democrat. And you haven't even pretended to be civil about it. Most folks around here know a lot more about Clark than you probably give them credit for and your calling Clark a DINO hawk cheerleader for the Iraq war exposes your own lack of knowledge or personal attack agenda more than anything else.

If you want to attack Clark do it on a thread that doesn't mess with the discussion that people on this one would rather have about the implications of the Statement Edwards made. When people scream insults like you just have they are egging on a fight and a fight about Clark is not the reason why this thread was started.

I'll just leave the direct link to the entire 2003 London Op-Ed piece Clark wrote and folks can read the whole thing if they choose. I won't even say a word of spin. If you were posting on a Clark related thread you would have a fight on your hands. I choose not to go there with you on this thread. And I am on the East Coast and going to sleep. I suggest we drop this but if you continue you are fighting with someone who went to bed. Goodnight.

http://www.seanrobins.com/national/other_2004/clark_2003_04_10.htm

[FrenchieCat]

222. The reason is because I dared have my say about Edwards and his

saying he was sorry. Unless I posted a big Rah Rah.....I get a Clark attack instead of a response of Edwards based on my statements on Edwards.

It's like starts a thread saying the Sky is Blue. I come in and say....I think that the sky is really grey, and show a picture. Then someone starts attacking the sun, insisting that it's orange!
The subject was changed!

Some will say that I was bashing....but I was only expressing my opinion about Edwards and his motives then and now. I think that I am afforded that right, considering the topic of the OP. If others want to make Edwards' case to counter what I had said....that would have been lovely. To have dragged in Clark to deflect on my statement on Edwards was the true hijack of this thread.

I rest my case.

[ChiciB1]

289. Not To Belabor The Point....

If Clark had been a Senator, what do you think the odds would be that we would have voted AGAINST the War????

The fact that he DIDN'T vote for this war does NOT mean HE would NOT have.

There's NO WAY to know at this point in time. If I were to bet on it, I'd bet that he WOULD have voted for it! He is closely connected to the Clinton's and in case it hasn't been noted.... Hillary certainly isn't upset about HER vote!

[CarolNYC]

330. Well, what we do know

is that Clark testified before Congress in Sept 2002 against the invasion of Iraq, testimony that both Senator Wellstone and Senator Kennedy referenced in announcing their opposion to the Resolution....At least someone was listening...

As Ted Kennedy said, regarding Clark's testimony and writings about the invasion before the war, "We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril." Looks like he was right.

BTW, kind of a bizarre attempt there to link Clark to Hillary's position on the War, don't you think??

[AmericanDream]

225. My point for bringing up Clark simply was...

to show that every major dem figure (except the likes of feingold, boxer, kennedy, etc.) got it wrong about the war in Iraq at some point or another.

I'm not here to start a war. I won't mince my words in saying that Clark doesn't appeal to me one bit... but my purpose here is not to have a bash fest. But instead, to show that even someone Frenchie Cat admires had it wrong at a time.

As for screaming insults, what insults did I yell? Calling Clark a DINO hawk? Well, that is my perception of him and you are entitled to your own opinion in that regard.

Lastly, I don't know every single detail about Clark, but I know him well enough. It is true that I don't know as much as the true believers or the ardent supporters must... and same goes for Frenchie's attacks on Edwards... she does not happen to know Edwards as well as I do because I've been tracking him for a long time now. And that is why I feel her judgment is ill-informed on the matter of Edwards' motivation.

You might be asleep, but I had to clear the air for my own sake...

[FrenchieCat]

230. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR.....

....Did you know that about Sen. John Edwards?

See this post for evidential links
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2245122&mesg_id=2246357

[Clark2008]

266. Apparenlty, you don't understand sarcasm.

Clark back-hands the Bush Administratio during this entire article. However, because of his military leadership background, he absolutely believed that we should celebrate, get this, the RETURN of our troops.

I don't much care for "excerpts," particularly when the ENTIRE article clearly shows how much Clark despised what the Bush Administration had done.

[FrenchieCat]

206. Nope....

Clark never praised Bush of this war. If talking about the London Time Article, if you read it all, it is a prophetic critique. Of course, if you want to cut and paste it, and take it out of the context intended, then one could certainly interpret one of the sentence as a praise.

And if that's how you want to approach a defense for Edwards'words on the day of the IRW vote and the op ed written a few days afterwards, be my guest.

[AmericanDream]

212. Why would I defend Edwards' vote when he himself says it was a mistake?

[FrenchieCat]

221. No one ask you to defend his vote....

the issue is how does he admitting to this mistake now make him this great leader?

I stand by my post.....that those who voted for the IRW did so due to political pressure. They knew that the intelligence was faulty (ask Graham), and they knew where Bush was going to go with this.

Edwards' words show that he was a bit more gun ho than was required. He talks about the geopolitical implications of invading iraq as though that was a good thing.

I'm very glad that he's sorry NOW.....since over 1/2 of Americans feel that the war was a bad idea NOW.

Question is.....Is Edward's apology "political"? Or did a ray of light just shined on him and suddently reveal the truth?

[BigYawn]

185. I salute Edwards for admitting he was wrong and

I wish ALL democrats who voted for Iraq war
would do likewise.

[IndianaGreen]

192. Edwards: "It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002."

I'll bet we won't ever hear Hillary say that!

Edwards has publicly repented of his IWR vote, and he has provided his vision for extracting our country from this morass. Edward's exit strategy is a moderate one, and it doesn't differ much from the one that Kerry has already outlined.

I commend Edwards for his contrition, even though I know that his exit strategy is nothing more than a paper strategy. Nothing we do in Iraq can change the ultimate outcome: a virulent anti-Semitic and Islamic fundamentalist government in the midst of civil war. This is why I strongly believe that the only rational course of action is for the US to leave Iraq just as fast as we invaded it.

I suspect many moderates will cling to the exit strategy outlined by Edwards, Kerry, Feingold, Clark, and others. Many moderates still have faith in the "basic goodness" of American values and policies, a misplaced faith that is not supported by the historical evidence.

Assuming that the Democratic Party were to embrace a moderate like Edwards as the 2008 standard bearer, rather than commit hara-kiri with a dividing figure such as Hillary, the issue then would be who among the moderates has the best chance of having any measure of success in exiting Iraq. This is when experience and a proven record comes into play. The only two potential candidates having the breadth of experience, and the leadership skills to bring about an end to this war are Al Gore and Wes Clark.

[PurityOfEssence]

223. Does this help explain why so many of us love, respect and trust this man?

Courageous and decent people admit their mistakes. Cowards and domination-fixated primitives don't.

Junior, Deadeye Dick and Dirty Don think it's manly to never admit a mistake, and their concept of leadership is based on fear and bullying. Their understanding of human dynamics is less than rudimentary, and their morals show with every ham-handed move.

People will rally to John Edwards, and he has the diplomatic skills to bring us back into the world community. To the doubters: please give him a chance.

[davidthegnome]

224. Voice of dissent

I have no respect for any politician that voted in favor of the Iraq war. Democrat, republican, independent, I really don't give a damn. It's all well and good that now he regrets his mistake and "takes full responsibility for it". But this sort of statement, made by any politician, is much too little, much too late. Admitting that you made a mistake, Mr. Edwards, is not going to bring back my uncle, or the friends I grew up with. Admitting your mistake, Mr. Edwards, does not change the fact that every damn one of you knew the intelligence was shaky at best.

Accountability? Please. If we were going to hold politicians accountable for what they do with our votes, our children, our Brothers and sisters, our own damn lives and freedom, we'd have the vast majority of them in prison right now. It is, in fact, where the vast majority of them belong. I'm all for getting rid of the chimp and his under-evolved friends, but let's take the trash out of our own party too.

As for moral leadership... I get the feeling that no matter who we have running in 2008, we aren't going to get it. Just a new set of criminals patting each other on the back and using our tax dollars to further their own agendas.

I'm so damn sick of politicians, every last one of them. What they say is never what they really think. What I'd like to know, is where the hell were all of the politicans who should have been standing up and shouting in 2002? Where were they before this catastrophe began? Over 2,000 dead, of our own forces, and who the hell knows how many innocent people have died because of this God forsaken war?

No, until you get up off your ass and DO something it, Mr. Edwards, you'll not win back MY respect.

But oh... they're sorry. Well, that just fixes everything, doesn't it?

Well, I too, am sorry. I'm sorry for every man, woman, and child who had to lose their lives because some god damn "politicians" made a "mistake".

[wiley]

226. Amen!

And Clark said it in hearings way before it happened and all during the primaries. The media and the DLC shut Dean down because of his stance.

[incapsulated]

228. What that gnome said. n/t

[venable]

237. fine, dissent, but then what?

What's your point? Politicians are political? Politicians make mistakes? Mistakes have consequences? The consequences are very often tragic?

Then you and Senator Edwards agree this morning, whether you like that or not.

[PATRICK]

243. Sad but true

yet there is no one at all in the establishment who saw this as clearly as the people here who were deprived both of intelligence and the salesmanship lies afforded to Congress. It hampered us from having the winning info guns and tested our absolutely correct judgment never to buy a horse from the Bush Cheney stolen nag stable- ever.

Even though we were not in their august, poorly advised shoes it was hard sometimes to be absolutely on target against the mindless Miller barrage. Someone who can learn to respect the judgment of fearless intelligent outsiders privy to alternate, non establishment sources of info and analysis and can get out of the fog in Foggy Bottom can get out of Bush's always empty shadow is what is needed. The large establishment policy process and most institutions at the top of anything let us down terribly- including some "left wing" media and associations.

The fatal flaw was granting the "President" who was an absolute evil fraud from the getgo the benefit of everything that goes with the seat of power, including the reins of American traditional policy. Everything was subverted and pretty openly and yet the Dems felt compelled and justified in playing the traditional games. Individual issues, even war and the meaningless deaths, all spring from the monstrous gaffe of being in a myth covering a monstrous lie and not acknowledging it- even to themselves. if you have ever been in a position of responsibility akin to that situation you might see how hard it would be to recognize it takes total opposition, not partial cooperation against extremists controlling the lead. Some did and got nowhere. Some took their time or were safe in their painful experience and safe districts. ALL were automatically denied their effective voice in the broadest media forums- if not pre-emptively savaged.

It did not take much of an act of faith to mistrust and oppose everything Bush and Cheney propose, but that was absolutely necessary not to be betrayed by compromise. When the innocent die because of your compromised judgment that is pretty absolute too. No one escapes by trying to wisely mitigate and direct evil. So it is right to make the point and make demands of the "contenders" while remembering who the real enemy is who caused the moral fall and will perpetuate worse- the lying GOP greed and misery machine. Some contenders will NOT want to meet that responsibility and WILL be ready to perpetuate disastrous collaboration with the destructive RW poison. They must be vigorously opposed and dumped in the primaries as much as Lieberman was.

[kerrygoddess]

227. John Edwards - “The Right Way in Iraq”, Seconding the Call

John Edwards - “The Right Way in Iraq”, Seconding the Call
November 13th, 2005

Ron posted the first quips from John Edwards OP/ED in the WaPo earlier tonight. It’s great to see John Edwards step up to the plate and second the call that John Kerry made recently to bring the troops home after the December election in Iraq.

Edwards reiterates in his OP/ED what Kerry laid out first in his speech at Georgetown on October 26th, and most recently in the Senate on November 10th with his “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act.”

John Edwards says “A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq’s capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.” These are all basic points that Kerry has made repeatedly.

I’m also pleased to see that Edwards followed Kerry’s lead with a public statement about being misled by the Bush administration on the reasons to go to war in Iraq. After Bush’s abominable speech yesterday that was replete with lies about WMD’s and 9/11 references, we need more Democrats to step forward and tell it like it is, as well as throw their support behind a real plan to get us out of Iraq.

As I said two weeks ago, after Kerry’s Georgetown speech, we need more Democrats (and Republicans) to come forward on this… “Now the question remains… Who’s Next?”

LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1136

[FrenchieCat]

229. Here are the true leaders!

Senators who got it right and therefore have nothing to apologize for:

Senators voting Nay on IRW in 2002:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

They are the true heros and the real leaders with insight.

With all of that political pressure to vote for the IRW back in 2002.....these great Senators stood firm on the important issue of War and peace. Kudos to them! :toast:

Here are the list of co-sponsors on the Lieberman Bill which was the IWR that finally passed in the senate.
Senate Co-sponsors for S.J. 46 (Lieberman's Senate equivalent Joint Res.) :

Sen Lieberman, Joe (Author)
Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002
Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002
Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002
Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002
Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002
Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002
Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002
Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002
Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002

Along with Sen. Zell Miller (There's your FIRST clue this was wrong) and Sens. Evan Bayh, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman (There's your SECOND and FINAL clue this war was a stupid idea) co-sponsored S.J. 46 (107th congress) which was the equivalent of Hastert's H.J. 114 which was the "IWR" that was eventually passed by the congress.

Here are is a collection of facts and links about "the IWR", and its relatives:

The Bill page for H.J. 114 (joint Iraq war resolution that was passed by the 107th congress):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:

A human-readable text of the Res
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

House Roll Call (296 Yeas, 133 Nays, 3 NV)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Senate Roll Call (77 Yeas, 23 Nays)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Sponsor: Hastert. Cosponsors (136)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@P

Other similar proposals: S.J.Res. 45 (Daschle-Lott), H.J.Res. 114 (Hastert-Gephardt), S.J. Res. 46 (LIEBERMAN) were modified proposals.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.RES.46:

A more sensible version with check and balances was drafted by Al Hastings in his H.J.Res. 110, but it was not considered on the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00110:@@@P


http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2256

[venable]

240. agree, but

who is saying they are not true leaders, and that they did not step forward bravely when others were off the mark?

They did step forward. Others were off the mark. Edwards was one of those off the mark, tragically. Everyone here knows that. So does Edwards.


Read Edwards apology for what it is: He is agreeing with you. He sees that now. Don't like him if you don't want to. Don't support him. But I have to say your reaction to his mea culpa is not terribly insightful. He was wrong. You know that. He knows that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

250. Yup, can't change the past, but we need to anticipate the future

Edwards made a good statement. It was the right thing to say (with the exception of his having characterized the IWR vote as a vote for the War) and there are many politicians who cling to mistakes well beyond the point where it should be obvious that there was a mistake. So if you are asking, what do I want John Edwards to say now, well this is a good statement and I am glad to hear it, and give him credit for revising his position in the right direction.

Edwards gets credit for changing but not for leadership on Iraq. Leadership on economic issues and and the need to fight poverty, OK Edwards gets some credit there, and that is important. Not on Iraq though, and not even for leading on admitting he was wrong. As was pointed out above Rockefeller admitted he was wrong about Iraq over a year ago. Gephardt and Daschle both made high profile admissions that they were wrong about Iraq earlier this year. I am less concerned that Edwards was a co-author of the IWR than I am by the fact that he still defended the Iraq invasion as correct even after it was clear that no WMD were inside Iraq. That is a position Edwards took in late 2003, and it undercut Democratic arguments that Bush was wrong to send U.S. forces into Iraq based on the level of thereat that Hussein really posed to the U.S. Edwards more than voted to authorize Bush to use force in Iraq if needed, he supported Bush's actual use of force in Iraq even when the main argument used to advance it, Hussein's WMD, was proved to be false.

So I do welcome this statement by Edwards, and it does help clear the decks for the future, because anyone who can't learn an obvious lesson has no stake on leadership in the Democratic Party. I actively campaigned for Kerry /Edwards even knowing that Edwards had remained pro Iraq war later than most of the Democrats he ran against for the Presidential nomination. This apology would make it easier for me to campaign for him again if he ends up on the 2008 Democratic Ticket. It is a good thing, just don't ask me to praise Edwards on his leadership here.

[confludemocrat]

294. This key element was missing from from the Kerry speech of late

(speaking of looking toward the future):

"First, we need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation."

Who among these pols has used what is clearly an appropriate word here, imperialism? Or said unequivocally that the "contractors" read corporate mercenaries and war profiteer gangs need to LEAVE?

and your closing sentiments match mine exactly

[Skwmom]

231. Rockefeller said he waswrong and sorry in JULY 2004

What took Edwards so long? It's certainly not the 04 election - that's been over for a year. Of course since POLLS show that support for the war is slipping it is probably the POLITICAL thing to do.

July 24, 2004: Headlines: Staff: Iraq: Congress: Politics: The Southern Illinoisian: Sen. Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was courageous enough in the wake of his committee's blistering assessment of pre-war intelligence to say something truly outrageous in the terms of Washington society: He said he was sorry.

CLARENCE PAGE: CANDIDATES NEVER HAVE TO SAY 'SORRY'



What do President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Senators John Kerry and John Edwards have in common besides their fat wallets? Not one of them wants to admit he was flim-flammed abut the Iraq war.

At least Sen. Jay Rockefeller, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was courageous enough in the wake of his committee's blistering assessment of pre-war intelligence to say something truly outrageous in the terms of Washington society: He said he was sorry.

http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/467/2022639.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38650-2004Jul9.html
ROCKEFELLER: It was clear to all of us in this room who were watching that, and to many others, that they had made up their mind that they were going to go to war. And I believe to this day, and I always have and I’ve said so publicly many times in regretting my vote, that there was a predetermination, even going back to 1998 in a letter to Bill Clinton, saying, "The time for diplomacy has ended and now is the time for the use of military force."

[Oceansaway]

241. Great OP-ED story.........thanks.....

[zulchzulu]

247. Edwards stepped right into Repug talking point swamp...disappointing

By Edwards saying he "voted for the war", he walked right into the Repug talking point zone. I think it was a careless move.

Voting for the IWR was NOT a vote for the war. It was a vote for the UN. It was a vote for inspections in Iraq as a safeguard. It was a vote for accountability whether Saddam had been a danger to the US and the World. War was stated as a last resort in the resolution and certainly not unilaterally.

I've considered Edwards to have been a less than strong asset as VP candidate in 2004, but this takes the cake.

Sure, Edwards wants to get in the news and must do so on his looks and thin resume (outside of his lawyer record), but now his statement further harbors the lie that voting for the IWR was a vote for war.

[1932]

249. I agree and I disagree.

I agree that voting for the IWR was a vote for a process that Bush ignored, and that it's important that people feel the buck stops with Bush.

However, I also think that this Op-Ed piece is trying to take responsiblity for a vote and it would create a little bit of cognitive dissonance for readers if its argument were "I take responsibility for a vote for a process that someone else took advantage of."

[Tom Rinaldo]

251. I agree. Edwards knew the implications of his vote and those were

the implications he supported at the time. This is a clear cut taking of responsibility for what he did with that vote.

[1932]

252. Life is complicated. But when you have to reduce it to an Op-Ed...

[venable]

253. good point

I think that the point of w's abuse of IWR is the subject of another op-ed or speech. not the one in which he admits that he was wrong.

don't hedge. admit. proscribe.

[1932]

255. Taking unqualified responsibility for your own part is a good way

to highlight the way Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield (and others) are NOT taking unqualified responsiblity for their part.

[dogday]

254. I love a man who is not afraid to admit

that he did something wrong. Ok , its wrong, now time to convince everyone else you know that it is wrong and have them all admit to it. Better late than never.

[Leilani]

256. Call Me Cynical,

but I'm not ready to throw flowers or cheer "Bravisimo" yet.

Remember, Edwards & Kerry are rivals again, & it seems Southern John just topped Northern John with his mea culpa.

Profiles in Courage it ain't.

Courage is the backbone to go against the flow, & oppose the popular opinion. These two men took the easy & politically expedient road to war, unlike those who dared to vote "NO."

Now that the War is radioactive, it's quite convenient to have regrets.

I suggest these gentlemen go to Walter Reed & extend their apologies to the men & women who are missing body parts, or perhaps they could call on the 2000+ families who lost loved ones.

Does anyone know if Edwards has yet made a trip to Iraq? Trips to Iowa & New Hampshire are fun, but a trip to the war zone by the Commander-In-Chief wanna-be might prove more valuable. Call it a "Learning Experience."

Sorry, Kerry/Edwards, we've been there & done that.

Never Again!

[chimpymustgo]

257. Call me proud and hopeful. This is one more step toward getting this

country back on track.

Yes, this is courage - and to deny it seems sadly pinched and perhaps worse.

I hope we can work together, pull for each other, support ALL our good candidates. Tearing down one, doesn't burnish another. Just keeps us divided and in disarray.

We've got a great, long fight ahead. It will be easier, if we do it together. Let's celebrate the good things.

[venable]

258. never again what?

serious question.

[Leilani]

287. To never again support a politician

who enabled Bush to embark on this abominable war....especially for President/Veep.

[Lena inRI]

268. Nothing but an Edward's pre-2008primary-pitch. . .

Leilani, you're not cynical. . .you're highly PERCEPTIVE to see through the bull*. . .

Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaa! What child's play going on this thread started by Edward's himself. . .

who can't stand the sound of new blood circulating the buzz channels. . .Boxer, Reid, Warner. . .and he's gotta drown out AGAIN the Clark cacophony of praise that was cruelly marginalized in 2004 by the DLC powers that be.

Well, I, for one, vow NEVER AGAIN to vote ABB per oder of DLC as they roll out the same ole same ole crowd with the Bilderberg connections.

Time for NEW BLOOD that stood up to the Bush cabal BEFORE it was POLITCALLY SAFE AND COMFORTABLE to do so=Boxer, Clark, Kucinich.

Though losing my measly vote of confidence won't worry the likes of Edwards, I sure as hell don't have to laud him for this public admission of error.

It's the LEAST he could do at this LATE date!



:eyes:

[venable]

272. first of all, to say Edwards started this thread

pretty severely cripples your adamant position.

Are there not people here who might post it because they appreciate the gesture?

Ask Kucinich about Edwards. If you still have such disdain for Edwards, you'll be at great odds with Dennis.

As for Clark's deep wisdom on the subject: I have great respect for the man, but don't quite see him being in the same category as Kucinich and Boxer, both great progressive leaders.

And when you say 'the likes of Edwards' you sound a bit personally offended. Getting past that might allow you to see something in the man that you are not currently able to see.

Just a thought.

[Lena inRI]

305. Don't give me your cheap psychobabble, venable. . .

and stop throwing around the political insider talk that YOU know what Kucinich thinks of Edwards. . .

Offended! You're damn right I'm sick-and-tired offended by Edwards operatives who are starting ALREADY to force upon me this lackluster choice for President AGAIN for 2008. . .good grief. . .there are many other better choices for Prez in 2008. . .

I'm onto to the "push politics". . ."just a thought". . .yeah right!

[venable]

320. not understanding Lena in RI

I'm not an operative, just an admirer

not insider either, but pretty certain that Kucinich admires Edwards very much, but did...look into what he told his supporters in Iowa. That's not insider knowlege, that's knowlege of someone paying attention.

'psychobabble", if you mean that I point out the phrase 'the likes of Edwards' ...frankly, I'm not really sure what you mean, so maybe I'll just move on. Peace.

[Lena inRI]

332. Peace to you , too, venable see ya in '08. . .

:dem:

[AmericanDream]

327. Force upon you?

If you have a mind of your own, then no one can push anything on you... and your being offended by someone's defense of their candidate is just childish. It sounds like something bush would say.

He might be lackluster to you, but he inspires others. Just like Clark floats the boats of many on this board, but disgusts many others. As for Kucinish... she/he isn't being psychic. Jon stewart asked Kucinich if he liked anyone from the 04 bunch and he said john edwards and he are "buddies." So, calm down and take in the facts.

[Lena inRI]

331. "It sounds like something bush would say.". . .

for you to imply this about me is just how Bush would THINK.

"So, calm down and take in the facts." "Kucinish". . .like the fact you can't spell the name of your glorious Edwards' buddy. . . .bwaaaaaahaaaaaa!

[venable]

333. Uh, lena in RI

while you're mocking Kucinich now, you might consider that you were the one who brought him into the equation, favorably. Which way is it?

[Lena inRI]

334. Huh???

you're replying for AmericanDream, venable?

and where am I "mocking" Kucinich in this post of mine to AmericanDream?

As I said already, see ya in '08!

[AmericanDream]

336. When you start picking on my spelling errors ....

I know you have nothing much to contribute to the discussion.

[Time for change]

261. In politics, the courage to admit a major mistake is rare

This is just one of many reasons why I believe that Edwards would make a great President.

[computerfreak77]

262. Edwards makes decisions based on opinion polls

If Americans at any given time believe in a cause (right or wrong), Edwards will side with the majority. As soon as the tide changes, Edward's opinion will suddenly change as well. It's all about the polls.
It's the equivalent of a baseball fan who coincidentially was a Red sox fan in '04 and now is a White Sox fan.

[venable]

265. how do you know that's why Edwards has taken this move

is it not possible that he believes he was wrong, and the fact that it coincides with polls makes it even harder to do, for the simple reason that he will be accused of pandering - as you just have so accused him?

Is it possible that he voted for IWR because he believed Tenet, not because the polls were hawkish?

Is it possible that he does what he thinks is right?

For instance -poverty has zero poll value...Americans don't talk about it, and the fact is that people below the poverty line don't vote. Yet he has been speaking loudly about poverty for many years. Non-stop. The country is catching up with him, not vice-versa.

[AmericanDream]

280. And opinion polls told him to talk about poverty and the Two Americas.. bs

[michael_1166]

263. The world doesn't want

moral leadership from America. The only chance for America to regain some standing in the world is to show humility and to shut up for a change. Clean your house, and then come back to the table, but forget about being the leader, that's over.

[venable]

267. They don't want moral leadership from this administration

and the world doesn't want to be preached to by any country. But the US was founded as the City on the Hill...and so it can be again, and I, for one, see nothing wrong with that....so long as the effect is as a model and an inspiration, not as a dogma or a threat.

Humility is part of it,no doubt. And yes, absolutely, this country needs humility in the worst way.

Here's an example of the beginning of this particular wisdom: "I was wrong."

[karynnj]

319. and who is the descendant of the one who talked of "the city on the hill?

There is nothing uniquely special about "I was wrong".

[davidthegnome]

270. I think some of you

Are missing the reality of the situation. Do you really think Edwards or Kerry give a damn? Let's be honest with ourselves, just for a few moments. Someone raised an interesting point, which is that Edwards, Kerry, Bush/Cheney, etc. all have one thing in common... FAT wallets. If Edwards was truly remorseful for his mistake.. he would realize something.

He would realize that, in the most powerful Nation in the world, as a Senator, he has a responsibility. Not just to those who voted him in or contributed to his campeign, but to the entire world. Those who voted in favor have proved themselves unworthy of the responsibility that was given to them. How many times did the inspectors tell us there we no WMDs? How many high ranking military officials told us this? What of the sanctions? How much blood is on their hands? Not just the chimp's. Even Clinton kept the sanctions going.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of lives destroyed, and well, some of them are "sorry". If they were truly sorry, they'd get their asses to Iraq and fight the god damn war they started themselves. If they were truly sorry, they'd be down there helping people rebuild their homes, begging the forgiveness of Mothers and Fathers for their mistake that killed their children.

Sorry, but some flowery little "Oh, oops! I guess I was wrong about the WMDs. Vote for me." isn't going to change the reality of the situation. We can sit here calmly, at our keyboards, and throw praise at Edwards until we're blue in the face. But these blue-blooded millionaires don't actually give a damn. I hope none of you have delusions about that.

Give me a poor president... please... dear God... just once in my life... give me someone who still has a soul.

[venable]

273. boy have you missed out on who Edwards is

first of all to lump Kerry and Edwards in with Bush/Cheney...well, I'm speechless.

secondly, you want someone poor? Probably what you meant to say is that you want someone who understands poverty, and puts him/herself on the line, repeatedly, on behalf of the poor.

Look around and see if you can find someone who does that.

sheesh.

[ChiciB1]

286. I Agree With You

I find it disturbing that so many here are so "hateful" about Edwards.

After the election, he didn't just go home and mope.... he went out and starting working on "poverty issues" and HAS DONE SO every since!!

This harshness is very disconcerting!

[Inspired]

277. Hell will freeze over first

before a poor person will elected as president. That is just reality....sucky as it may be.

John Edwards is NOT a blue blooded millionaire. He is a self made man. He earned his money very respectably....by standing up for average Americans who were put in grave danger by incompetent individuals and corporations. Please google Valerie Lackey and tell me this man has no soul.

You choose to be disillusioned. I choose to be inspired.

[benny05]

281. Even WilIiam Rivers Pitt was inspired by this Op-ed

If you look on the recommended page, more people have recommended Will's posting of the Senator's editorial, when Will responded "YES, YES YES...Thanks, John. " So JRE's editorial has been recommended twice already!

I agree with you Inspired that JRE continues moving forward and inspiring many of us instead of riding out to the sunset not to be seen again or being stuck in the mud. His sincerity of helping others must be contagious if he is being invited to speaking engagements in India and United Arab Emirates this week on the topic of opportunity.

Speaking of opportunities, I hope those who haven't met JRE will take an opportunity to meet him in the near future and see that he is a diamond in the rough--and geniune. Benny


:kick:

[confludemocrat]

278. Thank you

I had second thoughts on saying i would vote for Edwards based on his carefully lawerly, only-a-shade-better at first glance confession (asking myself, was it not truly simply that it was because he isn't Kerry, whose record when examined with care is lousy, even though their "positioning" resembles each others upon closer examination).

And my thinking was sealed by your arguments and the post above that has "check this out" in the subject line.

I read the piece referred to and realized shit, these are a bunch of comfortable white guys however talented and accomplished they are but their influence brought us Kerry/Edwards. I've had it with their kind. Back to Nader and Cockburn where I belong.

[AmericanDream]

283. He WAS poor... achieving the American Dream is a bad thing?

Please, go read his book, "The Four Trials" and then form your opinion of him. I urge you to do that... I think you'll have a better appreciation of his life.

[high density]

284. John Edwards: Please STFU and go away

Thank you so much, Mr. Opportunist. I'm so tired of this guy's ego. I've seen him laughing about how Kerry/Edwards lost and I don't think that's very funny in the least.

[venable]

295. he does not believe that the loss is funny

and for you to think so is just flat out wrong.

think a little more about this.

don't vote for him. don't like him. fine./ but don't say he laughed about the loss. you have no idea.

[AmericanDream]

301. Yeah only an ego maniac would be able to say "I was wrong."

When did he laugh at the loss? Are you talking about the daily show interview? If yes, then he was laughing at Stewart's question of asking him about the election result as if Stewart didn't know what happened... if you didn't get that, you have little sense of humor and that's just sad.

[DemDogs]

322. That is an outright lie.

You have never seen him laugh about the loss. This guy and his family worked at least as hard as Kerry and his family to win in 2004. He hasn't laughed about losing.

[davidthegnome]

288. Despite my anger

and disgust, with politicians in general... my Mother actually liked Edwards. This is strange, because she has never particularly liked any presidential candidate before. Edwards appeals to people, he is handsome, rich, and a renowned advocate for the average man/woman. What I have a hard time believing, though, is that he truly feels any remorse for this. I just can't imagine, if I had been in his shoes, and made HIS mistake... how the hell could I apologize to the American people? How could I sleep at night, or live with myself, knowing that I was partially responsible for something of this magnitude?

A boy I grew up with, went to school with, a boy who came to my birthday parties and picked on my sisters... a boy who came to my graduation. He is dead, because of this war, his fiance will never see him again, his parents lay flowers on his grave, and cry themselves to sleep every night. I see this, I see the people coming home in casts, with missing limbs, I see the reports of the dead, the dying and the despairing every single day. But I'm supposed to take this apology as a grain of hope?

With respect to my fellow progressives and democrats, I cannot. Until our leadership can start putting it's ass on the line for these men and women who so desperately need it, I will remain a skeptic. I want to see them go to Iraq, and personally deliver apologies, I want to see them put their own god damn money on the line to help the orphans made by this war. I want to see them start shouting in the senate, in the white-house, damnit. Yes, I want something dramatic, for the sake of my friend, for the sake of my Uncle, for the sake of everyone who has suffered and died because of this war - I want to see something that will make a difference. Because, they damn well deserve it. Not only that, but they deserve justice, until our leadership can organize and do what it should have done YEARS ago, which is take some frickin' ACTION, I'll have a hard time believing in the sincerity of such apologies.

Time to impeach Bush and CO, time to put them in prison, as we should have done years ago. Time to demand a REAL investigation. And if these demands aren't met, then it's time to bend the government to OUR will, not the other way around.

Sorry, I'm dreaming... come back down to planet earth, David.

[benny05]

290. One of the steps towards healing

is to say, "I made a mistake". Having met John Edwards twice in person, he has an aura that I don't quite understand myself, except that when I am in his presence, he's like a magnet. People are just so drawn to him. His trim appearance helps, but truly, he is pretty honest and a quick study intellectually but also to people's feelings. His optimistic spirit glows when he is at the podium or allowing us regular folks to get our picture taken with him.

Like your mom, he was the first candidate I ever got behind; I did so by attending a couple events (one 350 miles from my house) and with what little I could contribute to his campaign. This year I donated some money to OAC because of his fight against poverty. Someone has to raise this issue and until Katrina, no one did but him.

I imagine JRE feels badly about the war, which is why he admitted his mistake. George Bush, On the other hand, keeps spewing the same balderdash of linking Al-quida to Hussein. W's speech to the troops on Friday was terribly insulting, futile, and a few other adjectives. At least Edwards will admit his mistakes and take responsibility.

We can't start the healing process on our side of the aisle until more Dems like JRE say, "we made a mistake to send them; let's press the administration more on an exit strategy" and bring our troops home as soon as possible--and take a more forward looking approach.

Benny

[Skwmom]

291. My experience - On the surface Edwards appeals to people until

they learn more about him. I lost count of the number of people that were leaning Edwards in 04 until they learned more about him. Show me one focus group who supports Edwards after hearing what the GOP will shout out if he were to be the 08 candidate. My money is on Edwards being the guy the GOP wants to go against in 08. He makes Hillary look like a dream candidate in comparison.

[benny05]

292. I disagree

They are after Hillary and cannot wait to get their gladiators out with her and to smear Bill Clinton again.

I still say meet the man, read his book, and look his other votes. He's sorry about this one and admits it was a terrible one to make.

[AmericanDream]

293. Skwmom, do you ever back off from making blatantly opinionated claims ...

about Edwards and presenting them as some sort of real life facts? Give me one person who learned more about Edwards and backed off... I haven't met a single such person. In fact, I've found the opposite to be true. He makes Hillary look like a dream candidate? That statement shows how misguided and overcome by bias you are.

Even those who ardently support Edwards' competitors like Clark, Feingold, Kerry, Bayh, Warner, etc... would easily know and claim that Edwards is a bigger draw than Clinton (the senator) any day.

[venable]

298. absolutely right

to know him is to support him.

that's the way it's played out thus far, anyway.

[venable]

296. wow are you wrong, absolutely wrong

Rove was absolutely terrified of Edwards.

He told Republican insiders, on more than one occasion, that bush could beat any of the primary candidates, but could not beat Edwards. He told Jeb Bush this, and he told a prominent Repub pollster. I know this from very sources extremely close to this.

sorry there is no link.


The Repubs are praying for no Edwards in 08, they are praying for Hillary.

You will know this by the way they talk about her.

[AmericanDream]

299. One source is the Evan Thomas & Newsweek report after the election...

[renie408]

308. Ding Ding Ding...

Right answer.

And, while it is no more significant than the 'personal experience' of the other poster, MY personal experience is that the more people listen to and learn about Edwards, the more they like him.

[renie408]

307. Well, gee, that might be significant

if your 'experience' was anything other than anecdotal or had any kind of actual facts to back it up. And I hate to be one of those people who says "Link??"...but could you offer a link on that whole "Edwards is the darling of the GOP" thing??

[benny05]

314. I may be wrong

but I think your comment was on another post above mine. If not, please clarify...thanks!

[renie408]

329. On my screen, it shows my post being linked back to the post

about "My experience". My post falls under yours because I replied later, but is not linked to yours. The replies to yours are indented.

[renie408]

311. What would be enough for you?

What would make you believe that he felt remorse? What do you want him to do? Amputate a limb on national TV? Set himself on fire? Self-flagellate while he walks through the streets in a hair shirt? Or due to your inside knowledge of the workings of John Edwards' personality, do you KNOW that he is, in fact, incapable of remorse?

What a weird thing to say.

[venable]

317. your experience is real

and that will not change, nor should it. Your loss informs your passion, as it should.
It is understandable that you would not accept or care about Edwards mea culpa.
He would not ask you to. He can only do now what he sees now he must do.

[robbedvoter]

300. I am very happy it's finally safe to be admitted . I knew it would

eventually happen. Too bad it took 2000 dead, 15,000 wounded with even more on the other side... But, truth is a daughter of time.

[davidthegnome]

313. I would say

That actions speak louder than words. You know, ACTION, something we see little to nothing of from our elected democrats. I think I pointed out very clearly what it would take to satisfy me. As for chopping off limbs and setting himself on fire... well, if all the other morons who supported this invasion would join him, I wouldn't mind.

[ultraist]

316. Thanks to Senator Edwards.

A powerful voice with a powerful message.

Edwards has been talking about this for a while and I'm glad to see he made certain that he was heard, loud and clear.

[Stockholm]

328. Damn impressive

He goes from clarity to clarity.

The Dems will have some really good candidates come 2008.