Obama vs Edwards Iraq War comprison video

[rinsd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Why is there no Obama footage from after he became a U.S. senator in that video?

Is it because he has voted with HRC 99% of the time on Iraq since then--and the lone time he voted differently it was actually to vote with the Republicans (to confirm Gen. Pace)? Why did the comparision end in 2004?

It is amusing. They appeared to have reversed positions. Obama was anti-war before he got in the senate while Edwards was nominally pro-war. Then, when Obama joined the senate 2 1/3 years ago and Edwards left they have had different positions on Iraq with Obama siding with HRC. Hmmm...but since Obama was correct in 2002-2003 that means his record over the past 2+ years is irrelevant. We should have faith that the obscure, local Obama of 2002 is the same as Obama the rockstar, Obama the U.S. senator, Obama the national figure, Obama the ambitious presidential candidate...

[FrenchieCat]

3. Keep singing that song

Obama was 100% correct, and Edwards was 100% wrong when it counted. Obama stood up when it was unpopular, Edwards stands up now that its popular.

Do the fucking math to compute who comes out a winner and who is sorry!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. When did the war stop "counting"?

Yes, Obama was courageous as an obscure local politician. The narrative on him ignores his record over the past 2 1/3 years and seems oblivious to what the lust of great power can do to people...the Obama of 2005, 2006, and 2007 is not the same figure of 2002. Perhaps he shed his courage on the way to rock stardom, the U.S. senate, national prominence, and at sight of the prospect of the White House. He would not be the first to do this. It is a faith-based initiative to ignore his record over the past 2 1/3 years because we "believe" he hasn't changed.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Well according to some, it doesn't count now.....and these are the same folks

telling me to "Move on", and "Get over" my opposition to those who cheered this war on....while they sat on the intelligence committee!

Please, you are on the losing end. Words do not speak louder than action, period. All John Edwards has done is "talked" about "bad war" since his 2005 November "apology"....that if you ask me was as politically motivated as his original wrong stance.

230 million people in this country, and he's the only white guy from the south y'all could find to win by default. Shit! Not good!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. What do you think? Does it count now? If not, when did it stop counting? 2002? 2004?

==Words do not speak louder than action, period. All John Edwards has done is "talked" about "bad war" since his 2005 November "apology"....that if you ask me was as politically motivated as his original wrong stance.==

Words are a form of action. Using your logic only what members of Congress do is relevant to Iraq. How can that be? A presidential candidate's words, or let's say, a 4 star general's words, are meaningless?

==230 million people in this country, and he's the only white guy from the south y'all could find to win by default. Shit! Not good!==

As far Edwards race and gender, I don't see how that should be relevant at all...is there something wrong with "white guys from the south"? Wasn't Bill Clinton a white guy from the south? Isn't Clark a white guy from the south?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Edwards is a white guy from the south without an national security experience

that shows him as nothing more than wrong on the issue of war and peace longer than he's ever been right.

Edwards' wrongness has cost us many billions in war cost by the time Edwards figured out how he was going to get that vote "behind him" so that it wouldn't "hamper" his next candidacy. That's thousands of lives, Iraqis and Americans. There is also the cost of our loss of legitimacy in the world.

Meanwhile, Edwards 3 years later apology cost him nothing, and in fact gained him so political brownie points and made him instantly elegible for a job promotion--

and NOW, Edwards' is soooo right (while it is in popular demand) to the point that he feels justified in wagging his finger in the face of Madame Speaker Pelosi who was against the war from the Get (and the difficult job that she has, a job that Edwards left so that he could run for higher office)....well, that's priceless!

[Justyce]

17. And Obama has nat'l security experience?

As far as I can tell so far, the main thing he has going for him is that he's a really great motivational speaker. Not much political experience, still a newbie....

[FrenchieCat]

18. Here's the difference.....

apart from how it is spelled out in the video which is the entire reason for this thread..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4x_KnWEDjs

It's called Good solid judgment! A quality we needed in a president. John Edwards sat on the "intelligence" committee, and he still couldn't get it right.

Look, none of the frontrunners have any national security experience, and I'm not too keen on the lack of this valuable experience at this time in our history, when it really is, once again, a minimum requirement that a candidate should have, IMO. The mess ain't pretty, and so it shouldn't be about who is the prettiest saying the prettiest things.

You know, I didn't pick our frontrunners, the media did.......so I don't have much of a choice except to go with whom had the best sound judgment under difficult circumstances as opposed to one with documented bad judgment but who said sorry the best and is now talking a lot of shit backed by popular demand.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. HRC has the same judgment Obama has and she has far more experience

It has been well-documented that they have voted together nearly 99% of the time since Obama joined the senate. The one time they differed was when Obama voted with the Republicans to confirm Gen. Pace and HRC did not.

==Look, none of the frontrunners have any national security experience==

HRC has been in the Senate for over six years and been in the armed services committee. That is not a ton of experience but it is thrice the national security/foreign policy experience Obama has.

==You know, I didn't pick our frontrunners, the media did.......so I don't have much of a choice except to go with whom had the best sound judgment under difficult circumstances as opposed to one with documented bad judgment but who said sorry the best and is now talking a lot of shit backed by popular demand.==

Richardson is surging in Iowa and NH. It is still early. Will you switch to him? He has a ton of experience in every relevant area.

If Edwards' actions are due to popular demand why are the others not echoing him? Principle? Are they silent on capitulation, silent on whether we should stand up to Bush after his veto because of some weird principle? What is that principle? ;)

[FrenchieCat]

23. Hillary was not on the intelligence committee, and did not co sponsor the

Lieberman blank check. She could have done the co-sponsorship thingie if she wanted to. She could have easily written an oped worthy to be up on the White House web page....but she didn't. I don't consider sitting in committees as "experience" at war or foreign relations; never have.

What Obama has is good judgment and articulated such at a time when it wasn't popular, and that counts for more than sitting in committees and/or saying sorry a lot.

I have reservations about Richardson based on some stuff that's out there......so I doubt I would switch to him.

Edwards is catering and pandering to the netroots, cause that's the only place that he could go since he is no longer an elected official. Each candidate has to have a built in base, and Edwards realized that the netroots Dean) could make the difference ($) for him. But at the end of the day, its all about using the base as an election strategy, and nothing more.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. White guys from the South need not apply?

We are the party of equal opportunity. White guys from the South have the same right as anyone else to run for president...Why do his race, gender, and region matter to you? Do you refer to HRC as a white woman from Arkansas or Obama as a black man from Illinois? Or do these things only matter in the case of a white guy from the South?

==Edwards' wrongness has cost us many billions in war cost by the time Edwards figured out how he was going to get that vote "behind him" so that it wouldn't "hamper" his next candidacy. That's thousands of lives, Iraqis and Americans.==

Edwards' 2002 position didn't cause anything. The IWR vote was 77-23. 76-24 wouldn't have made a difference.

==Meanwhile, Edwards 3 years later apology cost him nothing, and in fact gained him so political brownie points and made him instantly elegible for a job promotion-==

If apologizing for voting for the IWR is so great why has HRC refused to do so?

[FrenchieCat]

21. You're right...some politicians have no principles, instead it is just about

winning.

Edwards initial support of the war, prior to the war getting started, assisted in legitimizing Bush's elective war doctrine. I believe that has caused harm to our nation.

my problem with the White Boy from the South, is that one of the reasons that Edwards is called "electable" is because unlike the other Dem frontrunners, he does not belong to a minority group. There are too many people that will support Edwards simply because they don't "feel" that a woman or a Black man can win...and they feel that Edwards fits more into that "presidential conventional" mold that the status quo would best accept. Of course, I also believe that there is a larger majority that will look upon Edwards as being more "conventional" in terms of "presidential" bearings. However, if another southern White guy who was attractive was also in the race, Edwards might no longer be so "electable". That's my problem with that; he may win simply due to default, not on his own merits.

In terms of Hillary, she stated the same thing that Edwards stated in terms of, "I would have voted differently if I knew then what I know now...I was misled". The only additional think that Edwards is doing is walking on both knees apologizing everywhere he goes as though that apology is worthy of a job promotion! It would have been one thing if he would have apologized shortly after it was evident that the war had been started on trumped up evidence.....but, noooo...he waited three years after his vote and only after he lost an election.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. That is ironic. How can you determine Edwards is about winning and Clark wasn't?

Clark magically converted from flirting with both parties in 2001 to a progressive Democrat by 2003. Was that due to principle or a desire to win the presidency?

==Edwards initial support of the war, prior to the war getting started, assisted in legitimizing Bush's elective war doctrine.==

77-23 versus 76-24?

==my problem with the White Boy from the South, is that one of the reasons that Edwards is called "electable" is because unlike the other Dem frontrunners, he does not belong to a minority group.==

HRC belongs to the majority racial and gender groups (while women are generally in reality a minority, voting is an exception since everyone has one vote). Her status as a woman will likely be a net plus. The problem with her is all the baggage she has from her past and Bill's past, not her gender.

As far as Obama goes (whose campaign is now emphasizing electability. Will you now be consistent and refer to him as a black guy from Illinois?), he consistently outpaces HRC in general election polls but usually lags behind Edwards. Why? That could be due to a number of reasons, chiefly him being a senator for only two years, rather than his skin color. If skin color is the alleged reason for this then it undercuts the premise of the Obama candidacy: that he will do what Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, et al. could not do and unite the entire country. Obama supporters can't on the one hand blame his race for his general election showings relative to Edwards and then turn around and continue to promote him on the premise that he has a special ability to appeal to more people than our other candidates and then unite them after being elected.

==However, if another southern White guy who was attractive was also in the race, Edwards might no longer be so "electable". That's my problem with that; he may win simply due to default, not on his own merits.==

Why is his region such a big deal? We have several other white guys (and a Hispanic guy) running. They all lag behind Obama in general election polls. If Obama's race is the reason why he usually does worse than Edwards in GE polls, why does he consistently outperform the other white guys running for president? Why does he outperform the white woman running for president? To make your argument you are relying on including Edwards' region because that takes Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel out the picture. Kerry was from Massachusetts. No one said we had to have a southerner as the prez candidate in 2004.

==In terms of Hillary, she stated the same thing that Edwards stated in terms of, "I would have voted differently if I knew then what I know now...I was misled".==

If that is the case why does HRC still incur the wrath of the anti-war progressive wing of the party for not apologizing? If that wrath is so bad that Edwards had to stick his finger in the wind and try to undercut it, why don't the same political forces apply to HRC?

[FrenchieCat]

31. Clark didn't push that we should have a War in Iraq

in order to then make a conversion.....and therein lies the difference.

There are no southern white males running on the Dem side other than John Edwards, if you hadn't noticed. As John Edwards himself will lecture to you, if you ask him.

Edwards says his roots make him the most electable
By John Marelius
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

April 30, 2007

Former Sen. John Edwards made the case to Democratic Party activists in San Diego yesterday that his Southern roots give him the best chance to return Democrats to the White House in the 2008 election
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070430-9999-1n30dems.html

I rest my case.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Clark's position on the war made him an all-around progressive overnight?

Clearly in 2001 Clark was not a Democrat or a Republican. That suggests the obvious: he had no clear ideology. Then comes the Iraq war, which he opposed (although even he said he would have voted for the all-important IWR...). A grassroots campaign emerges to draft him to be a Democratic presidential candidate. The Republicans already have a candidate. He joins the Democratic Party, runs for president, and takes progressive positions across-the-board. He put on the Iraq war slipper and suddenly the heavens opened up and a shower of progressive positions on everything from affirmative action, abortion, to health care came raining down as the 60 year old Clark finally saw the progressive light. According to the story, all this was sincere. Maybe it was. Yet a Democrat changing his position on one issue is taken by you as evidence of him saying anything in pursuit of power?

==There are no southern white males running on the Dem side other than John Edwards, if you hadn't noticed. As John Edwards himself will lecture to you, if you ask him.==

Ok. Where did he say that?

==Former Sen. John Edwards made the case to Democratic Party activists in San Diego yesterday that his Southern roots give him the best chance to return Democrats to the White House in the 2008 election
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070430-99...

I rest my case.==

Where did he mention his skin color and gender?

Obama is now also emphasising electability. Will you start calling him a black man from Illinois?

[FrenchieCat]

42. See, what you are doing is what is called fabrication......

You don't know what Clark's position were prior to his running.....cause he never ran singing a different ideology song that suddently "switched" to progressive, after polls showed that he was wrong, and he lost an election.

So you are fabricating that Clark somehow had a revelation at age 60 (which would have been in 2005)to adopt progressive policies....you don't have a clue as to what he was thinking, and so your assumptions are just that, and aren't backed up by jackshit.

But what I do know is that Wes Clark showed that he was a humanitarian who cares for human lives long ago....and was not ever afraid to lead on such issues....as it was he who pushed for intervention in Rwanda and even presented a plan on how to do it. He did the same thing in reference to both Bosnia and Kosovo. He was instrumental in brokering a peace deal in Bosnia, after we watched nearly 200,000 die there. He fought the pentagon to allow for low altitude bombing in the Balkans instead of high flying bombers dropping bombs from 50,000 up in the sky. That would mean targeted attacks, i.e., less civilian casualties (and that is what enraged the Pentagon Knives and why he was retired early--so obviously he cared enough to lose his job). Plus, last I checked....wanting to save 800,000 Black lives and a million Muslims is not a Republican thing....if you knew what the Republicans were saying back during the days of Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo, you'd know what I mean.

Also, Clark did make his view clear on Education, even if it wasn't to the public. He testified many times before congress in reference to this. His actions on equal opportunity and affirmative actions of the past have spoken louder than his mere words, in reference to who he promoted within the army's ranks; both gays and minorities.

"General Wesley Clark has a long and distinguished record of service in the armed forces as both a leader and a force for justice in the military. His innovative social vision led him to tackle, as a base commander in the early 1980s, such complex and then-taboo problems as teenage suicide and spousal abuse in military families. Clark’s innate sense of fairness has led him to embrace Democratic positions on domestic issues.
http://www.draftwesleyclark.com/on_the_issues.htm

"in the early 1980s, he proactively tackled spousal abuse as an army commander with a forward-thinking assessment of the demands of the modern family. "(source - War in a Time of Peace, by David Halberstam)

"I saw first hand the racial prejudice, the civil disobedience, the intolerance… I've often gone back to that experience. It's something I've related to." Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark written in early 2001.

Wes Clark also received an award from the Audubon Society for saving an endangered species of desert turtle at one of the bases he commanded ...

And that doesn't include his work in desuading us from going into Iraq which started back in the early summer of 2002.

--------------
BTW, Obama is a Black man from Illinois, just like John Edwards is a White man from the Carolinas. Some things don't have to be stated......because they are understood. Edwards repeat himself on who he is because he believes that it is important that we know he is from the south. As far as him being a white guy, that is obvious. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

60. Let's use common sense. Why was he flirting with BOTH parties in 2001?

The man's positions were more progressive in 2003 than Howard Dean's! Was he two years earlier a closet progressive who just happened to be flirting with the Republican Party? If he was, that makes it worse. That means he was willing to set aside his beliefs in pursuit of political power. What is more likely, though, is that he did not have a clear ideology in 2001.

==BTW, Obama is a Black man from Illinois, just like John Edwards is a White man from the Carolinas. Some things don't have to be stated......because they are understood. Edwards repeat himself on who he is because he believes that it is important that we know he is from the south. As far as him being a white guy, that is obvious.==

Some things don't have to be stated but Edwards gender, skin color, and region is something that has to be stated? Obama's skin color and gender do not need to be stated. I wonder why it matters in Edward's case to you and not in Obama's. They are both male so that takes Obama's gender off the table. Why does Edwards skin color matter while Obama's does not?

[w4rma]

46. Are you racist against white people and biased against southerners, FrenchieCat?

If not, then why do you bring up ethnicity at all?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

61. Edward's skin color matters while Obama's does not

I wonder why...

[Colobo]

4. And still, your man is still third in the polls...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. And Kerry was tied with Sharpton in November of 2003

Let's see what happens when the actual voting occurs and as people learn of the record of Obama. Right now he is a blank screen onto which people can project their hopes and beliefs onto. He is campaigning as a "different kind of politician" who will unite the country (hmmm...where have I hear something like that before?). If people start to perceive him as another regular politician once they know him he will suffer.

[LBJDemocrat]

51. Obama

I admire his being right about the war from the start, but who's to say he's just not a convenient puppet for Wall Street? His speeches and The Audacity of Hope are awfully vague when it comes to economic policy. He uses the word "but" often when discussing trade policy. He tells us that WE need to understand that businesses support free trade because they want to experience growth? What kind of nonsense is that?

I'm afraid that Obama may be the centrist candidate of 2008 as Bill Clinton was in 1992.

And I don't find much interesting in his speeches. He sounds like a self-help guy. "We need to get away from the smallness of politics." Right. More bipartisanship. Woo! */sarcasm*

[rinsd]

5. Yes because John Edwards only voted with her 90% of the time...when he showed up

Most of the time when he did not vote as Clinton did, he sided with Republican attempts to stymie war oversight and control by Democrats.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/05/compare_and_contrast_hillarys_and_edwards_votes_on_iraq

While the two voted together the vast majority of the time, there are several striking differences here that are definitely worth our time.

While both were initially supporters of granting President Bush the authority to invade Iraq, John Edwards was actually to the right of Hillary for some time. Edwards voted against liberal efforts to: Limit the war authority for just one year, after which the President would have had to seek it again; Call for tax increases to pay for the war effort; Force the creation of a report on the possible manipulation of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War. On those votes, Hillary voted the more liberal position.

Then things changed in late 2003: The two switched places, most notably with Edwards voting against the $87 billion appropriation — with Hillary Clinton making up the more pro-Administration half. And as the Presidential campaign progressed, Edwards' attendance for more Senate votes suffered a severe drop.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. What about the record since July of 2004?

[rinsd]

11. You'd have to ask TPM. Though looking at this he seems to have missed a ton of votes

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

[FrenchieCat]

12. says....

Edwards' attendance for more Senate votes suffered a severe drop.

After that, Edwards was busy running for President.

"on June 25, 2003, headlined, "Edwards Should Do His Day Job." In it, we noted that Sen. Jesse Helms used to be called "Senator No." And we added: "Four and a half years into his first term, John Edwards is becoming known as Senator Gone."

The reference was to Edwards' frequent absences from the Senate floor as he traveled here and there (mostly there) pursuing his presidential ambitions."

[zulchzulu]

34. Is that Grape or Orange KoolAid that you're drinking?

You wrote:

"...while Edwards was nominally pro-war..."

Nominally? Does "nominally" refer to being on the Senate Intelligence Committee and seeing firsthand that the Bush "intelligence" was inaccurate at best, yet went ahead and beat his chest with co-sponsor Joe Lieberman to bring about the Iraq War Resolution, which was Bush's chance to go into Iraq? Vociferously would be a more ccurate definition.

Obama has supported the supplementals that help fund the troops as well as Katrina victims, but it is rather disingenuous to say he has "sided" with Senator Clinton.

Edwards can catcall from the sidelines now that he's not a player. Would Edwards NOT have confirmed General Pace? It's hard to tell what he would do since, like someone has said, he's been for everything at least once...therefore I assume he's been against everything at least once...

Trash Obama wih half-truths all you want. You just sound envious and desperate.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Obama's voting record is identical to HRC's

==Obama has supported the supplementals that help fund the troops as well as Katrina victims, but it is rather disingenuous to say he has "sided" with Senator Clinton.==

He has voted with her on every Iraq issue (99% of the time) aside from confirming Gen. Pace, where he sided with the Republicans while HRC voted against Pace. Their plans for Iraq are similar as well (keep a "residual" force as HRC says or a "limited number" of troops as Obama says).

==Edwards can catcall from the sidelines now that he's not a player.==

That is ironic. We have seen the "he can do whatever he wants now because he is no longer in Congress" argument used by many against Edwards. It is ironic in the case of Obama supporters since the main rationale for his candidacy is what he did "from the sidelines" when he was an obscure local politician.

==Would Edwards NOT have confirmed General Pace?...==

Who knows, since as far as I know he never commented on it. What we can do is look at the issues he has spoken on since 2005. For some reason there are those who prefer not doing so in favor of freezing time in 2002 or 2004.

[zulchzulu]

63. Edwards' voting record is to the right of Lieberman...

You want comparisons...?

[FrenchieCat]

2. Damn........now, that's damning! n/t

[rinsd]

8. Check out post #5.

[Cameron27]

15. He's cross-posting the same crap lol:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3283038&mesg_id=3284123

[venable]

24. He's cross-posting the same good points

as they have relevance in any number of the get-Edwards threads.

My sincere and humble question: If Edwards is now one of the most eloquent voices against the war, should he not be admired for this?

the usual answer that this question gets is that he only is blowing in the political winds, which means that there is nothing he can say or do - even an unequivocal "I was wrong" - without being called a bloodthirsty whore who will do whatever it takes to get elected.

This doesn't seem fair, especially to those who happen to believe he is a good and decent and inspiring leader.

[Cameron27]

30. John Edwards was one of the most eloquent

voices sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committe who fanned the flames for the IWR with his speeches. He had direct evidence that Saddam had no WMD at the time he co-sponsored the damned IWR, but he did it anyway. I will not admire John Edwards for being against the war now, when he should have been a voice against it in 2002.

Who is he leading venable? The country was going against the war before he announced his presidency. Where were his anti-war petitions, and suggestions to "paint posters" when it mattered; when the country was still FOR the war.

Why wasn't he on a soapbox sounding the alarm that the intel was cooked, that the committee he served on knew it, and that the push for war was a sham and a lie.

I don't want to hear about what Tenet or *the Clinton people* told him, he had a 90 page NIE document staring him in the face, with enough evidence to vote NO.

What isn't fair is that he wasn't honest with the American people when it counted.

[venable]

38. You're buying Durbin's story

I'm not.

I do know that Tenet told Edwards the threat was real, unmistakably real. On that basis he did what he did. He was wrong. He says so.

[Cameron27]

40. He HAD the NIE documents ...

Tenet was spinning all over the place, to everybody, not just to Edwards, but what Tenet said or didn't say doesn't matter. The threat was unmistakably unreal since the NIE not only contradicted the WMD evidence, it also the proved the Niger yellowcake story was false.

For godssakes, Edwards had enough staff to research every point made in the NIE, and compare it to what Tenet was spewing. He could have conferred with senior Democratic leaders on the committee who were frantically waving the red flag. He didn't have to *step up* and co-sponsor the damned thing. He could have voted for better, alternative resolutions. But he didn't.

What Durbin knew, Edwards knew. If he lacked the judgment to disregard all the contradictory evidence and swim with Tenet, he's a fool.

Who the hell are you venable, and how do you have so much inside information on John Edwards?

[venable]

47. it's easier to analyze this post facto

than it would be to see then with the clarity of we have now, looking back.

I would guess that what is clear now, was less so then.

I also just don't buy into Durbin's assertions that everybody knew...

I would guess it was more llke: 'If This is more accurate than That, then it would be more likely that So and so is true, but maybe not because there is also Such factor..."

You choose, in this circumstance, who to believe, or who to give more weight to. I chose Scott Ritter, but that's because Tenet didn't tell me to my face what he believed.

Who am I? Since you ask so nicely ("Who the hell are you venable..."), I'll tell you: Just someone who has or had enough of a channel to Edwards to be able to send emails during that period, and have one answered with an account of how he had become convinced that he had to step up...because he was told by Tenet. He chose to believe him.

And anyway, you say I seem to know so much about Edwards, yet you say such things as: "What Durbin knew, Edwards knew." How do you know that? Because Durbin said so?

[Cameron27]

49. It's not a question of believing Durbin.

Senator Graham was saying the same thing about the NIE. So was Peter Zimmerman, the scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations committee.

The Senate Intelligence Committee received that 90 page document. John Edwards as a member of the committee had direct access to the document. So, yes, what Senator Durbin, Senator Graham, and Peter Zimmerman knew, John Edwards knew. Unless he never bothered to read it.

8:00pm) October 1, 2002: CIA Delivers National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to Congress

The CIA delivers the classified version of its 90-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) to Congress. It is available for viewing by Congresspersons under tight security in the offices of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. But no more than a half-dozen or so members actually come to review the NIE, despite the urgings of Peter Zimmerman, the scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations committee, who is one of the first to look at the document. Zimmerman was stunned to see how severely the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department and the State Department undercut the conclusions that were so boldly stated in the NIE’s “Key Judgments” section. He later recalls, “Boy, there’s nothing in there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they can’t believe there actually are major WMD programs.” One of the lawmakers who does read the document is Senator Bob Graham (D-Fl). Like Zimmerman, he is disturbed by the document’s “many nuances and outright dissents.” But he is unable to say anything about them in public because the NIE is classified.


http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=com ...

You were someone "who has or had enough of a channel to Edwards to be able to send emails during that period, and have one answered with an account of how he had become convinced that he had to step up...because he was told by Tenet. He chose to believe him."

You're basing everything you believe in on ONE answered email? Not on the facts, the written evidence of what the NIE contained, but on an email. That tells me all I need to know.

[venable]

53. Yes, you present this case, and others present others

and so one has the conflicting, conflicted state of things at the time, a time not illuminated by later events.

did I say there was no dissenting opinion? No, I did not. So, presenting it merely establishes it's reality, which I had not denied.

My argument has been that reasonable, good-willed people could reasonably have believed the CIA director. I didn't (I believed Ritter), but Tenet didn't speak straight to me.


"You're basing everything you believe in on ONE answered email? Not on the facts, the written evidence of what the NIE contained, but on an email. That tells me all I need to know."

Yes, that's the foundation of my belief in Edwards' process and thinking, and for this I do not apologize. I'm not an idiot nor am I gullible. Since that tells you all you neeed to know, I'm guessing there's no reason to further pursue this conversation.

[Cameron27]

16. k&r

Great find rinsd! Quite a difference in our candidates.

[venable]

22. if you don't believe Edwards is against the war now, you should not support him

If you do, you should consider him.

Many ardent anti-war forces consider Edwards the best hope.

Wonder why?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. They know why. Edwards wants to end, not just de-esclate the war

There is a reason they keep talking about things that happened 3-5 years ago instead of comparing the various plans to end or de-esclate the war that our candidates are proposing to carry out if elected.

[FrenchieCat]

26. Plu-EAze.......Speak for yourself.....

I am very capable of articulating my own thoughts....and don't need you translating.

I don't believe John Edwards is as sincere as you do. I believe that his overarching priority is to become President.....and everything else is an instrument/tool to that end. I think he'll say and use whatever he can to get there, just like he did in the courtrooms, channeling unborn babies and shit. I think he's doing the "Persuade the Jury schtick" that he's so very good at (he made his millions for a reason...wasn't no accident)....and of course, its working. After all there is a ______________(fill in the blank) born every minute! So he'll get plenty of votes. He just won't get mine cause I can see through him, pretty as he might be. That is all.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. How was post #25 a 'translation" of you?

That was a general comment on the fact that we have a parade of people who constantly talk about 2002-2004 but never look at 2005-2008. It is clear why they do this...

==I don't believe John Edwards is as sincere as you do. I believe that his overarching priority is to become President.....and everything else is an instrument/tool to that end. I think he'll say and use whatever he can to get there, just like he did in the courtrooms, channeling unborn babies and shit. I think he's doing the "Persuade the Jury schtick" that he's so very good at (he made his millions for a reason...wasn't no accident)....and of course, its working. After all there is a ______________(fill in the blank) born every minute! So he'll get plenty of votes. He just won't get mine cause I can see through him, pretty as he might be. That is all.==

That is fine. I am perplexed, though, by how you and some other Clarkies can conclude this about Democrat John Edwards while concluding that a guy who flirted with both parties in 2001 was sincere when he reincarnated as a progressive Democrat (the Dems were the party that offered him a chance to be president. The flirtation ended and he happened to join that party) in 2003. Obviously, someone who made it to being a 4 star general has no ambition. ;)

[FrenchieCat]

29. I figured as was part of the "they"........

and so I must be, cause I know that I haven't forgotten how we opened the pandora's box....and I mention the 2002 occurences quite often, in particular as the actions that took place then still affects us now......as it is not yet over.

Obviously it isn't clear to you why "they" do this.......but if you want to buy a clue, the first one is that it ain't about John Edwards. It is also not about ambition....since they all have that. It's about how one uses the means to their end.....not the fact that one wants to get to that end.

But see, what I find ironic about you is that you can make certain liberal pronouncements as to the motives of others, but somehow, Saint John is simply just pure Godly virtue, and "They" who say otherwise are just plain ___________________(fill in the blank). Makes me want to :puke: !

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Ok, fair enough

==I mention the 2002 occurences quite often, in particular as the actions that took place then still affects us now......as it is not yet over.==

Sure. No one is saying we should delete that from history. It is simply rational, though, to look at the record after 2002 and their plans going forward as well. One resolution in 2002 should not preempt the positions of the next five years and the candidates' plans to either end or de-escalate the war, depending on what the candidate in question is advocating.

==Obviously it isn't clear to you why "they" do this.......but if you want to buy a clue, the first one is that it ain't about John Edwards.==

Yes, it is about Hillary Clinton. Without 2002 Obama and HRC suddenly have the same record on Iraq. Even with 2002, their plan for Iraq going forward is essentially the same, but under the convenient "2002 forever" standard we aren't even supposed to look at that because being correct in 2002 pre-empts all things.

==It is also not about ambition....since they all have that. It's about how one uses the means to their end.....not the fact that one wants to get to that end.==

Ok. I see. Being part of a 77 vote majority for war is unacceptable because you abetted the war. Possibly pretending to be a progressive on every issue under the sun in order to win the nomination of a party you did not support two years prior is perfectly legitimate. All-around deception is acceptable while deception on war is not because it is such a grave thing. Fair enough. I can understand this, although I disagree. The difference under this thinking is of degree. It also rests on the assumption that a 76-24 vote (or even a 73-27 vote if HRC, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd all voted against it) would have prevented the war somehow.

When I have written about Clark in this thread I was playing devil's advocate and applying the thinking some Clarkies apply to Edwards to Clark. Clark's story is more questionable than Edwards because it requires more leaps of faith and overlaps with more political conveniences (i.e. he happened to join the party with no presidential nominee) yet Clark is deemed to be sincere while Edwards' shift on one issue is a sign of his willingness to do anything in pursuit of power.

Personally, I like Clark, as I have said a few times, and hope he runs.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Funny you should say that Clark is deemed more sincere....because

Clark was called a Republican too often to remember. he was called an opportunist too often to quote.

Folks learned about Clark, and that's how they learned that he was sincere, and that many of his actions post his run reflected the ideals of a true Democrat. Clark was voting Democratic long before 2003.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3284035&mesg_id=3284508

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. Naturally Clarkies will deem him more sincere

Clearly, in 2003-2004 many lifelong Democrats had qualms about whether Clark really was a Democrat and a progressive.

Post his run...There is that Clark statute of limitations again. ;)

Clark did vote for Clinton and Gore (and Reagan, Reagan again, and Bush I) but in 2001 he spoke at fundraisers for both parties. Why? Both parties were courting him to run for office in Arkansas...

[Cameron27]

32. All I hear now is rhetoric.

All I have concrete evidence for is his record. Whether he's genuine or not, no one knows, not even you.

I'll never consider supporting John Edwards in the primary. I'll support him in the general only because he's a Democrat.

Do I wonder why "ardent anti-war forces" consider him the best hope? Well I hear he was a very persuasive trial lawyer, who could sway the most obstinate jury to his side. I'd say he's using his skills well.

[venable]

37. so it's a snow job?

so many gullible people?

so many gullible progressives?

I understand you don't buy what he's offering, but can you allow that reasonable, intelligent people could?

The problem I have is when people just say he's a con artist. This means there is nothing he can ever say or do that's not part of the con. As a supporter of his, I find this unfair and unproductive.

[CTLawGuy]

50. short memories

NT

[venable]

54. long memories, observant to realities today, and open minds

and a desire to bring the troops home NOW, which is why many support John Edwards for President.

[CTLawGuy]

55. that's unfortunate

all our candidates want to bring home the troops as fast as possible but it's sad that people want to reward the man who did a lot to help start the war just because he blusters more about it from the sidelines than other candidates....

[venable]

57. yes, a lot of our candidates are for this

but I happen to find Edwards dogged insistence to be particularly inspiring.

I'm fully aware of his IWR vote, of course, and it is even with that mistake in mind that I support him.

I will, finally, support whatever anti-war candidate is nominated - with the exception of Lieberman, and I think I can be confident I will not be faced with that circumstance.

I also believe Edwards has the best, most diplomatically and least knee-jerk view of Iran. My guess is that one of the consequences of his IWR vote is that it has made a man who will fight long and hard to keep us off the battlefield unless there is truly no other option.

I am not rewarding his IWR vote. I am seeing it in a larger context. Others don't need to do this, but I do.

[CTLawGuy]

58. if you can stomach that, then ok

but remember he is cleaning up his own mess (or one he helped create). I think for the sake of future IWRs we must keep IWR yes voters out of office until the war is finally over.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[illinoisprogressive]

36. Edwards is anti war now. I have mixed feelings about him.

There are just these things while in the senate and some of the stuff now. I want to like him. But, I keep having doubts about him.
I am not judging him one way or other as I have not made up my mind which is the real edwards.
He's hard to pin down. But, I cannot shake this feeling of doubt.

[venable]

48. at least you're honest, and making an effort to determine who he is

which is all that any candidate should be able to ask of a citizen.

If you end up not caring for him, at least you gave him a chance.

[question everything]

43. You cannot have it both ways

On a different thread from yesterday you said that Edwards did not have to vote yesterday.. similarly, Obama did not have to vote in 2002.

You really cannot know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate then.

Remember, in contrast to DU, most Americans supported Bush then and supported the invasion - based on what was presented to them.

As a matter of fact, had this war ended up in "victory" - i.e. removal of Hussein and establishing a stable peaceful country where everyone hugs and kisses every one else - Bush would be riding high and we... I don't know where the Democrats would be. Perhaps, since the war were not in issue we could concentrate more on domestic issues.

[FrenchieCat]

45. The war was wrong....it couldn't NOT have turned out dandy.....

as was noted prior to its start by many experts. To think there would have been a Quick victory possible, a cakewalk sort of speak is thinking exactly as the neocons thought....and they were WRONG from the jumpstart.

Inviting an elective war in the Middle East against people that hadn't attacked us wasn't going to "work" ever. There was no legitimate rationale to attach to such a doctrine, which appeared to be the problem.......why the threat of Nuke WMDs had to be used, cause nothing else would do it. This policy harmed the way the world sees America. That was profound and will take years to undo.

YOu are right though, that the Democrats who voted for it did think that if they'd hurry up and get this vote past them and got back to the domestic issues, everything would be OK. They were also very "wrong". And there are many of us that attempted to tell them this.

The difference you miss is that what Obama was saying at the time that he said it was not popular by any means. Further, Obama clearly stated on Charlie Rose footage in that video (that maybe you didn't watch) that he would not vote for it (he said that prior to the vote). Why would he have said that he would not do something that you are now saying we can't tell what he would have done? According to him, he could tell, and so how can you argue that? :shrug:

Meanwhile, what Edwards has been saying recently has been backed up by 20 different polls as being the majority view.

and so, the two circumstances are not the same and it isn't "Having it both ways" at all in reference to the meaning of each vote, and the meaning of what those not voting said.

[w4rma]

52. And yet Obama and Hillary supported the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

[CTLawGuy]

56. flat out lies

there's only one IWR and Edwards shat the bed on that one....

and the funding bill, HARDLY, HARDLY an equivalent to the IWR, was OPPOSED by both Hillary and Obama.

The IWR gave Bush a blank check to invade and occupy a sovereign country, becuase of it 3500 soldiers and countless other people are dead.

This funding bill gave our troops 3 months worth of funding, and not passing it would NOT have gotten our troops home in those three months.


I will not allow you to post blatant lies without rebuttal. And frankly you aren't doing anything for your credibility around here.

[question everything]

59. And when are you going to post Clinton's support of the IWR

video from the same time?

If you are going to trash senators who voted in favor of the IWR, trash all of them equally.

Personally, I find this whole "trashing" disingenuous. As I've commented several times - based on the information provided by the White House, and so soon after 9/11 most voters - except on DU - did support the war.