John Edwards supported the Iraq war more than Bush did.

[Renew Deal]

Don't believe me? Read for yourself.

October 8, 2004: Edwards doesn't regret his vote.
``The vote on the resolution was the right vote, even in hindsight,'' Edwards, a first-term U.S. senator from North Carolina, said in an interview aboard his campaign plane on Oct. 8 (2004). ``It was the right vote to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein,'' he said.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=apXyrHjc4RSs&refer=us

Edwards in his own words on 10/10/2002

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:102:./temp/~r107fy9gkN:e858562:

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament

GPO's PDF
programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

Edwards in his own words 9/12/2002.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:1:./temp/~r107rEccrc

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, 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. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We

GPO's PDF
know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.
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.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq .

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I Wish I Had The Pop Corn Icon

Go Obama...

[Debi]

5. Here ya go

:popcorn:

[MADem]

15. You have it, it's under smilies lookup table/message options when you hit reply! NT

[autorank]

133. Am I spelling "Litmus Test" correctly?

:popcorn: Nice to be on the sidelines for a change. Anybody want a Coke?

[The Count]

147. yeah, cuz the war is such a fun, light subject - glad you have

no one dying there - so you can afford to be amused....
All you popcorn people must not have family in danger there. Bully for you!

[The Count]

155. No coke, but some butter for your popcorn:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2931869

[lfairban]

196. Who knows?

Once pH meters got so cheap, most people quit using litmus paper entirely.

Look at it this way: If we are going to say the Republicans are dumber than a rock for getting us into Iraq and should thereby be thrown out of office, upon what possible basis are we going to excuse collaboration by members of our own party.

That means no Edwards, no Kerry and no Hillary in '08.

[bigtree]

2. you're right, of course

he also said he was wrong.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Yeah , Because The War In Is No Longer Popular

eom

[bigtree]

7. I know quite a few folks who have changed their position on th occupation

not because it's unpopular, but because of the catastrophe it's become.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. It's Unpopular Because It's A Catasphohe

How many American senators regretted declaring war on Japan?

[bigtree]

17. I don't know what you're getting at, but, I really don't need convincing

Fact is, the majority of Americans have come around from their support as well.

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

148. You Couldn't Be More Wrong If You Tried, Sparky....

I have been three years longer than you and racked up sixteen times as many posts!!!!


I purposely unhid my profile just for you....


Kisses

Brian



on edit- almost twenty three times as many posts....


the war is a fucking catastrophe and I'll never be convinced that most Democrats who voted for it, didn't vote for it out of political expediency.

[mike_c]

26. yes, but that's a bit beside the point, IMO....

The war against Iraq was wrong from the beginning. Edwards' speechs on the topic make clear the degree he was triangulating for political benefit from his support for the invasion.

[bigtree]

56. or, he believed what he was saying

give me the quotes, please, which represent the 'posturing' you claim. I'm not just playing possum with you. I'd like to see what you are asserting demonstrated by his actual words. I don't think it's enough to just claim he supported the invasion for political reasons (politics from politicians isn't a rarity). Where can you show Edwards supported it without more conviction than politics, using something other than innuendo?

[mike_c]

91. if he believed it then he swallowed obvious lies hook, line, and sinker....

I mean, read the speeches in the OP. The quotes you seek are all there. The information to repudiate statments such as:

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

is well known now and was accessible to anyone who looked for it in 2002.

In fact MANY disagreed with those statements, including many within the U.S. intelligence community. For example, Scott Ritter reported:

"...no evidence was put forward to sustain the allegations that are being made. Iraq was accused of having weapons of mass destruction programs, reconstituting chemical, biological, nuclear, long-range ballistic missile programs. There was an inspection process in place that had access, full access to the facilities in question, and no data was derived from these inspections that backed up the Bush administration's allegations. And yet, Iraq was told, it’s not up to the inspectors to find the weapons. It’s up to Iraq to prove they don't exist. Iraq had to prove a negative. And they couldn't. We now know that in 1991, Saddam Hussein had destroyed the totality of his weapons programs. There weren’t any left to find, discover. There was no threat."

Seymour Hersh said:

"...the notion that everybody believed before March of ’03 that Saddam had weapons. This is just an urban myth. The fact of the matter is that – and my personal experience — and this, I ran into Scott when? In about 1998, 1999? And in talking to people who worked on the UNSCOM and also on the International Atomic Energy Agency, which did a lot of very first-rate reporting. And you know some of the people who wrote some of the reports, former intelligence agents from Britain, among others, they were pretty much clear by 1997 that there was very little likelihood that Saddam had weapons, and there were many people in our State Department, our Department of Energy, in the C.I.A., who didn't believe there were weapons. And I think history is going to judge the -- what I can almost call almost mass hysteria we had about Saddam and weapons."

I could go on all day-- the information is all out there if you're willing to look for it. Look for what was known about the condition of Iraq after more than a decade of genocidal economic embargo. Look for Hans Blix's and Scott Ritter's statements about who really disrupted the UNSCOM inspections, Saddam Hussein or Clinton/Bush.

[bigtree]

105. the posturing you speak of isn't there

either he believed Bush or he didn't. Edwards didn't have his own intelligence agency. He was fed the lies by those who we entrust with our security.

You've provided nothing here that proves insincerity on Edward's part. He believed what he related in that speech, in my view.

You went off on a tangent trying to convince me Bush was wrong. That's not what I asked. The charge here is that Edwards was "triangulating for political benefit." Your words. I don't accept that.

[mike_c]

109. then you're simply refusing to face the truth and nothing I can say...

...is likely to convince you otherwise.

It's not enough to simply say that "Bush was wrong." Edwards was wrong too, and he didn't need a "personal intelligence agency" to point that out. The information was widely available. Are you suggesting that *I* utilized some personal intel agency? Or what about the many dems who voted against the IWR? Were they betraying America by covering for an Iraq that was bristling at the U.S. borders with weapons of mass distruction? What could they have been thinking if John Edwards, Kerry, etc were simply believers in the stories the administration foisted upon them?

[bigtree]

114. I think Edwards was wrong in his judgment. Did you miss that?

I just don't think it can be shown, other than by innuendo, that he acted out of political expediency rather than out of conviction.

But, he was wrong in his ultimate reasoning. He has said so.


edit:

Also, it's intellectually dishonest to lump all of these folks you list into one view. They all stated their reasoning for their votes and intentions in their floor speeches, before and after the IWR vote. It makes no sense at all to lump their views into your own narrow interpretation. They had very divergent reasoning which was detailed and nuanced. That's how Congress works. These legislators are entitled to be judged on what they say, and to not be lumped together under our own bias.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[The Count]

149. judged by what they say, and especially what they do. Only lumping him with Joe

as both of them co-sponsored this horrible act. Their degree of guilt is higher than anyone else's(in congress, that is)

[The Count]

154. If he believed it. it's even worse! A cynic or an idiot? What to chose?

[XemaSab]

81. It's not just that it's become a catastrophe,

It was the wrong thing to do at the time.

[bigtree]

90. that's not an unfair judgment at all

[Tom Joad]

101. Anyone who did not know it would become a catastorphe was a

damn, idiotic, fool.

Won't mention John Kerry by name though.

[bigtree]

119. of course, John Kerry spoke out *in opposition, extensively, about what Bush ultimately did

before and after the invasion.


edit: *

[Tom Joad]

128. and voted *for* the resolution most of us knew Bush would use as

a pretext for the criminal attack on the people of Iraq.

[bigtree]

132. As pretext? I don't think Bush used the IWR as pretext. It was show.

He used 9-11 and WMD as pretext.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Tom Joad]

140. It gave him the figleaf of congressional support. I did use the wrong wording.

Yes, the propaganda was that we had to attack Iraq because of WMD and 9/11.
What bush did is then say that he had congressional backing to do so, citing the resolution war criminals in Congress supported.

[The Count]

152. I don't want kerry either. At least he didn't sponsor the IWR. other than that

both of them are just as bad (especially with staying quiet on the 2004 theft). Finger pointing ain't making your boy look any better. So far, he and Joe are just as as desirable to me.

[america_in_08]

170. The problem was not going to war it was the handling of the war.

Many American are still for fighting the war off of America soil. Regardless of who voted to go it is the Mishandling of the war by Bush's administration.

Many feel the war was the right thing to do, but it has been so badly handled and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice are all the people with the disaster on their hands.

I do not feel badly at the Senator's who voted for the war, I feel the total responsibility was and is on the Bush Admin.

Senator Edwards could have jumped up and down for it, and that is fine, he wasn't in charge of what happened when we got there.

[rebel with a cause]

172. Going to the war was wrong!!!

Iraq had done nothing to us. They were doing what was being asked of them. To have the mindset that we should kill innocent people in some other country in order to keep anyone from perhaps attacking us, is not only wrong, it is criminal and it is the premeditated murder of thousands. May God have mercy on the souls of anyone that thinks this is the right thing to do.

[america_in_08]

187. I think war in Iraq was wrong, but many Americans

don't see it that way. Bush's admin led the congress down a primrose path. I will not hold them responsible for Bush's admin push, contortions and everything else the republicans did to present the war as necessary.

Whether I think it was wrong, doesn't change the fact that many Americans were glad and believe that Iraq was helping terrorists and wanted the fight to be there not here.

[pocoloco]

16. How does that cleanse his hands of the blood?

How could anyone that could not see through bush* think he was smart enough to run the country?

[bigtree]

19. I don't know. I won't defend his support. I'm just stating the fact of his reversal.

He'll have to do the convincing (if there is to be any) on his own. If he becomes our nominee, however, I will support him.

[The Count]

108. Powell also reversed himself. earlier, more vocally than edwards.

is Powell now innocent? Should we elect him as something?
or at least, start worshiping him yet again on DU, as some used to?

[bigtree]

117. you should find someone who calls them 'innocent' to argue that point with

someone who believes 'we' should "start worshiping him yet again on DU."


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Fovea]

144. Not a useful comparison, IMO

A freshman Senator from Carolina does not get the same sort of intel that the SoS gets, even an SoS who is being
worked around by the rest of the cabinet, virtually.

Yes, our congress people were chumps. Some of them might have even been dishonest.
The question is if they have the courage to amend their mistakes.

Let Hillary come forward now, and show some political courage by
renouncing her support of the war resolution.

Or does she continue to believe the war to be a good idea?
John Edwards has shown the wisdom and statesmanship to amend his errors and acknowledge them.
Don't you wish the same were true of Lieberman, or Dubya?

[Pithy Cherub]

145. That was NOT Courage!

Classy because better late than never is the right way to go. Courage is standing up in the face of opposition on principle when the situation was presented - that definitely was not Edwards! Edwards actively chose to be bi-partisan, embrace and support his lying president bush. Courage had nothing to with it.

[Fovea]

183. My take is that having to admit a mistake

in Karl Rove America does take courage. Nobility and wisdom, as well as courage come in various sizes. While this is not Kucinich scale bravery, it is more than some Dems currently looking toward 08 have shown.

Bi partisanism is the curse of the Democrats. Has been since '92. You can't have bi-partisanism with the party of Rove. Many Dems seem to be seeing the absurdity of it, I think Edwards is one of them.

[Pithy Cherub]

189. Since Edwards is proven Courage-lite

why give him the nuclear football when his judgment has been off-the-charts awful on critical national security issues. He's a decent enough guy that's playing out way of his weightclass with an extraordinary deficit in national security. Edwards is not presidential timber even after a classy apology after the Worst. Ever. made-in-America Debacle he co-sponsored after already authoring portions of the Patriot Act. Really bad judgment and an inability to stand on Principle is a dealbreaker for me.

The fact that he regrets his actions is not a platform to say now make me president after joining Bush on the Titanic when people clearly told him it had hit the iceberg already. So now he wants to grab the tattered rags of his Honor and run for president as if just saying he's sorry makes it alright for him to be president. That's not even logical. :crazy:

There are many other ways that he can atone and live a life of meaning and service, just not as president. That vote nullified him.

[The Count]

150. Freshman? Intelligence committee - read his speeches: I KNEW" is the

leit motif with him - whether he's speechifying or preening in front of Tweety.
So, he's a freshman when it comes to sponsoring a disaster, but "experienced' now?
Hillary has her own responsibilities here - and i don't want her as a candidate either. But AT LEAST she didn't SPONSOR the damn thing!

[Renew Deal]

18. Not even on the eve of the election

He put his finger up and oh, look at that, the winds changed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. He's Not The First Leader To Make A Politically Calculated Decision

But the Democratic party needs a clean break and that means nominating someone who opposed the war from its inception.

[bigtree]

24. does that apply to everyone who has changed their mind?

Is there some proof you have that he changed his position out of political expediency?

[Renew Deal]

28. Yes

It got unpopular and his position changed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. You Said The War Was A Catastrophe

The only thing that changed between his support and opposition to the war is that it's going poorly...

[Tom Joad]

110. So J. Edwards only supports "successful" criminal US aggression.

[bigtree]

116. That wasn't the entirety of his reasoning for changing his mind

sounds clever though. sharp and cutting.

[Tom Joad]

123. And Edwards has proven himself to be a dull & opportunistic.

What the hell was he thinking? Not only supporting criminal aggression... but believing W. Bush could do it "successfully"?

[bigtree]

130. that's the question for Edwards, I believe. How could he believe Bush?

It was one thing to vote for the IWR rag. It was another to actually step forward as Edwards did, to embrace Bush's entire reasoning.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Tom Joad]

141. Another fatal embrace, imo. eom

[Erika]

208. Edwards spit out the lies of W

Why are you trying to eat him alive? He's the most promising hope we have?

[The Count]

65. Whatever the reason, it speaks to judgement. How do I know that if elected

he won't cave in to the Neo-cons the way Jr did (and Clinton didn't).
He co-sponsored the IWR - how trustworthy is he to not start new wars? he said he would have started this one!

[bigtree]

71. I agree that it speaks to his judgment

[rebel with a cause]

156. OMG

I am so thankful that others are saying what I think. I may look over someone mistakenly following the wrong guy, but I can't over look the judas goat that helped lead them. By the way, my senator - Durbin and my congressman- Costello both voted against giving bush the power to take us to war. I would say that means Illinoisans are smarter but there is hasbert and his fellow repug slugs. :grr:

[Pithy Cherub]

73. When did he correct his monumental lapse of judgment

and lack of leadership - that would be November 2005, A FULL YEAR, after losing an election and prior to position himself for a presidential run now. A total lack of cognitive ability on something so important is a disqualifier for leading the nation when sound national security credentials are required.

[bigtree]

75. it's clearly going to be a determinate for many primary voters.

[The Count]

106. besides primaries, strategery - what about responsiblity, integrity?

can you guys think in human terms for a change? Causing death - is it to be rewarded how?

[bigtree]

112. you want to lynch him, or are we still talking politics?

I personally don't need the moralizing lectures. I'm trying to contribute to the political debate.

My point is, that, everyone will be challenged to express these convictions in the primary election when considering these candidates. I the general election, in my view, there will be no point in enabling a republican to win by withholding support for Edwards if he's the eventual nominee. There is so much more at stake than this one issue, in who we elect president, no matter how important or grave it may be.

I would be satisfied (but, not sanguine), in the general election, to vote for Edwards over ANY republican. I will never abstain from voting, nor, will I give my vote in the general to any candidate who obviously isn't going to have a chance of winning.

[The Count]

118. I wasn't talking politics, and war is not "one issue". it's life and death.

Mostly death for many. I don't want another Lil'Boots, no matter from what party. I'll do my best to avoid that.

[bigtree]

121. Of course it IS just one issue in the choosing of our president

there's the Supreme Court for one . . .


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Debi]

3. Any links to speeches made by other Democratic Senators

who may be running for President?

Edwards isn't the only one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Won't Support Any Of Them In The Primaries

eom

[Debi]

9. Good! n/t

[Inspired]

38. Hey Debi...

I see you are from Iowa...me, too. West Des Moines. Can you please tell me what our Governor has done for Iowa that makes you support him for President? I'm not being sarcastic...I really want to know why. I want to learn.

Is it because he wasn't in a position where he had to publicly declare his support, or lack of support for going into Iraq? Therefore, he has no baggage to carry on this topic? Or has he done great things in Iowa and you think he can do great things for our country?

[MaggieSwanson]

48. Uh oh.

:popcorn: :popcorn:

:evilgrin:

[Debi]

55. I (heart) you Maggie!!!

I promise to behave *outside* of the Iowa Forum!!! :hug:

[Debi]

54. Please view my entire sig line

I won't be supporting Tom Vilsack in the caucuses.

I have serious concern for his leadership abilities (CIETC/IWD/Board of Regents - which also seems to include appointing cronies rather than those who would be qualified to do the job). I don't think he listens to all points of view on issues - rather he selects who to talk with and blocks out those with opposing viewpoints. I also don't like his bending to political winds (English as Iowa's official language - Worker's Compensation laws) signing legislation that is in direct opposition to what he alleged he believed in - and in direct opposition to those who got him elected.

I also just have a personal dislike for the man.

You'll have to find a different Iowan to support Vilsack, I won't be doing it.

On Edit:

:hi: You should hang out in the Iowa Forum - great people to talk with and you get all the news on candidates and goings on politically and otherwise! Hope to see you there.

[Inspired]

122. My bad.

I should have read the entire sig line. Duh, it is obvious to me now.

My question isn't valid at all directed to you. I really did want to engage in a discussion about Visack's abilities to lead our country but I guess I chose the wrong person/place to do so!

Again, apologies!

[Renew Deal]

21. I got off that boat in 2004.

American's don't want the wishy washy voted for it before I voted against it of Edwards and Kerry.

[Renew Deal]

20. We can find them if we need to.

;)

[The Count]

67. Maybe not, but he's one of the few Dems co-sponsors of the IWR (with Joementum)

[Debi]

77. Does that make those who *only* voted for the IWR

less baaaaaad? :shrug:

I remember being at a house party for a candidate in 2002 and Edwards telling the crowd that he was on the Intelligence Committee so he knew more that we did (which somehow made it okay for him to support the whole darn thing??? :shrug:)

I do think members of Congress did have more info than the average citizen did (good or bad info - they still had more of it). I also think several members still knew better.

He also helped write the USA PATRIOT ACT - :eyes:

[The Count]

82. Patriot Act & IWR - the 2 things he was most proud of - bragged in all press

releases about that.
And I still want to hear the end of that fairy tale about all the votes being counted in 2004. Neither Kerry, nor Edwards came clean yet about that stolen election. That in itself disqualifies those two in my book.
As for politically abusing New Orleans for effect...like W at Ground Zero. I don't remember Edwards flying anything or anyone in or out of there during the hurricane - why is that rich white man using Ward 9 again as backdrop again?

[Drum]

8. Ouch. nt

[MOB]

10. He was also the first in '03 to admit he was wrong

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. Which By Then The War Was FUBAR

eom

[Renew Deal]

22. Prove it.

Because the Bloomberg quote is from October 2004.

[MOB]

37. You are reading too much into '04 quote

[rebel with a cause]

158. Yeah, I must have slept through that apology.

because I sure don't remember it. And my coma didn't happen until 2006, so it couldn't have been during it.:shrug:

[EstimatedProphet]

193. He did apologize in 2006

I heard it with my own ears. It was in a speech at Mount Union College January 26th, 2006.

[The Count]

103. 2003? What did he admit in 2003?

[rsmith6621]

12. And So Did Hillary Clinton.....

...........And she has yet to say SHE WAS WRONG!!!!!

[William769]

36. Trying to deflect from Edwards will not work.

There have been more threads about Mrs. Clinton than anyone can count. This is about Edwards.

[rsmith6621]

41. Politics is All about deflection...

silly goose..

[Kahuna]

14. Rut roh...

:popcorn:

[jgraz]

25. Saying "I was wrong" and "I take responsibility" is weak

Like all the pro-wars Dems, Edwards needs to explain why he believed the BFEE's lies and trusted them with this authority when so many other sensible legislators (e.g. Feingold, Boxer, Wellstone, Sanders, Kucinich, etc, etc, etc) knew before the vote that this whole resolution was a crock of shit.

In other words, he needs to convince me that his vote was something other than craven political triangulation before he gets my support in the primaries.

[derzocrat]

Flip-Flop!!!

Once a politician incorrectly supports a bad war they can never redeem themselves? Sorry RFK, you may as well not even try to get the nomination...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Nice Red Herring....

One can not compare the debate between our entrance into Viet Nan and our invasion of Iraq.


Those who supported the IWR did it against the weight of great evidence it would be a catastrophe.

[jgraz]

83. Of course I never said anything remotely like that

He could redeem himself if he can somehow come up with a plausible explanation for his vote. Vague mea culpas carry zero weight with me.

[bigbrother05]

69. As I recall, * "promised" to seek a 2nd UN resolution

We now know he was lying, most of us here thought so before hand, but Edwards made it clear that his hope was that the resolution would bring pressure on Saddam to comply. There were strings in the resolution that the bushistas agreed to, but violated when they pulled the inspectors out. Fool me once, ...

Saddam did comply, so the resolution was successful, but the bloodlust of the Chimperor and his NeoCon hordes was too great to accept victory. We went to war in spite of the resolution, not because of it.

Not in anyone's camp for the nomination, still too early to sort out the posers from the real deals.

[treestar]

27. Well in all fairness

Who had the courage to oppose the Chimperor in 2002? Only Feingold and a few others.

If it seemed the will of the people, and it probably was then, why blame the individual politicians? We as a people (not all of us individually, but certainly the majority) were still clamoring for our revenge though not calling it that and inventing other excuses to camouflage it as something else.

[Renew Deal]

29. 23 Senators

And around 100 House members.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. My Ex -Senator Who Is From A Purple State Opposed

Bob Graham.

John Edwards is no Profile In Courage.


The Democratic party needs a clean break and a fresh face.


No Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Biden , Kerry , etcetera who voted for IWR.

[Liberal Veteran]

31. And so the circular firing squad reconvenes.

How many times does it have to be repeated that the democrats are not our opponents?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. John Edwards Seems Like A Good Guy.

I just don't want another IWR supporter as our nominee...

[Renew Deal]

42. In this case Edwards shot himself.

I just compiled the quotes.

[Liberal Veteran]

45. Of course leaving out anything that may have been said since.

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, but don't expect me to rally behind your cause.

I'm NOT going to play the "let's eat our own" game.

[KoKo]

In the last sentence at the end of links he implies Saddam responsible for 9/11....

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq .

[Renew Deal]

131. Edwards knew it was a disaster by October 2004.

He had more than enough of an opportunity to change his opinion. His regret or whatever you want to call it came way after it mattered. And 2008 is going to be no different than 2004 when Edwards needs to explain his early support of the war. In Edwards case, he was one of the main cheerleaders.

[KoKo]

168. Yes....that's what bothers me the most about him...his statements are very

"lawyerly concocted" until one sees that he "implied" that Saddam was part of "9/11." That's what's always bothered me about Edwards. He see "opportunity" couches his positioning in "lawyerly rhetoric" that could seem to "go down the middle" ...but always smaks of DLC.

He does some good things talking about the "Middle Class" but so does Lou Dobbs and I don't agree with what Dobbs says because he's "Positioning the Issue" for the Think Tanks...and I worry that Edwards does the same.

He "WAS" my Senator...BTW...so I've had a chance to watch him from a NC Prospective. He leaves lots of "questions" as to how he would "govern" if he was President. I hope that he can come out of the "caution box" and say what he "really thinks" at some point. Until then...it's GORE for this voter.. And, I'm glad Kucinich had come in ...just in case it's Hillary or Nothing. :-( Tough Choices....and it's still too early...but Media is Jumping the Gun............

[citizen snips]

85. It has been posted a million times in GD:P fourm.

[LiberalArkie]

32. I can not vote for any of those that were trying to be bigger conservatives than

the Republicans. "Please take a poll and see if I should say this or that but don't ever ask me to be myself". I am so tired of politicians, I would rather vote for KKK Duke than most of them. At least you know where he stands on the issues. When are we, as a nation, going to get rid of private funding of election and the PACS, and the lobbyist's so we can have real Americans in public office.

[hlthe2b]

33. Seems we attack our own far more than the RW can conceive...

Don't like Edwards? Don't vote for him, but you have selectively picked those statements without including his numerous discussions (mea culpas) of how wrong he was. So, to say he was more PRO-WAR than Bush*? That seems a little OVERKILL... Again, Don't like Edwards? Don't vote for him, but at least don't demean him in such an unbalanced way. Those are RW tactics.

And, on a personal level, I am sorry to reply so strongly to you Bleachers. Normally I find we agree on most issues. :shrug:

[Renew Deal]

43. From 2002-2004 Edwards better articulated the reasons to attack Iraq than Bush

I'm surprised he didn't say anything about mushroom clouds. Edwards could have given us the mea culpas in 2003 and 2004. Now, he's just old and tired.

[hlthe2b]

44. Arguably Edwards articulates EVERYTHING better than Bush*

So, I guess ya got me there--LOL!
Edwards doesn't strike me as old and tired at all, but I'm not promoting him (nor anyone else right now). I'm watching with interest, but am keeping an open mind at this point.

[Schema Thing]

136. Yes, which is why we must not elect someone simply good at articulation

important as that is.

Articulating bullshit and lies well is NOT a good thing.

[wakeme2008]

40. Good post Bleachers7 (and a Nom)

If Edwards becomes the Dem candidate then the RW will be replaying the October 8, 2004 quote over and over. They will paint Edwards as a Flip/Flopper. But he did this to himself and now has to live with it

[stray cat]

46. And I for one would still vote for Edwards in 2008

Options are rather limited if that vote is the litmus test. Vote for a republican governor for president over a democratic senator for a clean voting record on the resolution.

[Digit]

59. I also would still vote for Edwards

He still remains the best choice.

[Renew Deal]

124. You are correct

The choices are limited. Even Kucinich is tainted by giving his caucus supporters to Edwards in Iowa 2004.

[Liberal Veteran]

47. Let's also crucify Senator Byrd....once a racist, always a racist, right?

How dare that flip-flopper run for the Senate when he was for racism before he was against it! Admitting that you were wrong is bad!!!

:sarcasm:

[SoFlaJet]

49. what people always forget to remember

is that the congress was being told about credible evidence that Iraq was going to pretty much either nuke us or use chemical weapons...what the democrats voted on was a lie.

[William769]

50. you are absolutely right.

But of course you have to figure in the holier than thou crowd.

[MaggieSwanson]

51. Over 100 members of Congress

saw right through that pile of crap, though. So did I, and so did my friends - we started protesting before the war began.

I have deep suspicions about the leadership qualifications of those that supported the IWR.

-M

[SoFlaJet]

57. yea I did too

and so did most of the Randi Rhodes listeners down here in south Florida at the time-and the posters here at DU...one more thing they had a lot of nerve using the war vote as a political tool-it was very shortsighted and may just cost the GOP a decade in the minority-and they deserve every second spent there...

[citizen snips]

63. yep

Edwards was not the only who they lied too they also lied to the UN.

[Pithy Cherub]

76. Those who chose to believe Bush's presentation

underscore their lack of critical thinking skills. A bunch of others elected folks and one lone republican senator figured it out. I didn't get "briefed" but figured it out way in advance. The Smarter pols did NOT issue and sign a blank check IWR resolution.

[Lex]

52. EDWARDZ IS A FLIP-FLOPER! THIS IS HUGH!11111!

He was for the war before he was against it. He is SCREWN, I tells ya.

:eyes:

[Liberal Veteran]

53. Lets cast aparagus on him!!!!

LOL

[citizen snips]

68. oh please

he has stated that 40,000 troops should withdraw how is that flip flopping?

[Lex]

87. Ummm

it was sarcasm.

[citizen snips]

89. my fault

[pettypace]

58. I appreciate the info on Edwards

I didn't realize how vehement his support for the IWR was. I can still recall watching CSPAN replay Mr. Kerry's remarks on the vote back in August 2004, and how taken aback I was on his hawkish arguments.

Clearly, the Kerry/Edwards ticket 'stayed the course' on their support in order to put themselves in the best position to secure the White House. In that and only that context, I will give them a pass.

I find it particularly striking that these two remain the only Senators out of the 28 Dem yea votes that have publicly lamented the vote. I suppose when you lose a general election, one is then forced to play the other hand.

[The Count]

60. We still have a war because we had a pro-war ticket in 2004.

had we had anti-war candidates, the Murtha/Lamont dialogue would have started in 2003, the dem convention would have brought it up. But they stayed with war supporters, just as now Reid will enable escalation.

[The Count]

61. "I would have started the war, had I been in office" Co-sponsored the IWR!

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /



And to the defense "but he changed his mind now" - all that tells us is that he's less stubborn that bush. Not that he has better judgement. Which we sorely need in the next POTUS.

Please note,
HE DIDN'T JUST VOTE FOR IWR, HE CO-SPONSORED IT


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:102:./temp/~... :

And of course this:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored.

[Lex]

84. . . . based on what he was told the intel was then

not what he found out later

[Schema Thing]

137. BAH! He heard good, precient warriors and statesmen testify against going to war before congress

He chose wrong, and he did it for the rankest of political posturing. He knew he wanted to be president back then.

He and Hillary are pols first, patriots second, imo. Two peas in a pod.

[seashorelady]

192. Very good point Lex

[citizen snips]

62. but that is not the status quo

Edwards has become a big critic of the Iraq war.

[The Count]

64. So is that senator from Oregon whose term expires next year - Gordon.....

There'll be lots of critics by the time new election roll over. Some GOP-ers. Not all of them co-sponsors of the IWR!

[citizen snips]

66. Edwards has been a long time critic of the war

this is not some last minute thing near an election.

[The Count]

70. How long? he co-sponsored the damn IWR!!!!!! he and Joe!

[citizen snips]

72. over a year

or at least I think that was his first announcement claiming that he was against this war. You should read this op-ed piece he wrote in the washington post.
http://oneamericacommittee.com/news/headlines/wp20051113/

[The Count]

74. Over a year? Okey dokey then. All the blood up to that moment is washed off his hands...

ooopsie! I killed a few thousand of people with my actions! Sorry??? Powell remains stained in blood - even if he was far more vocal than Edwards and for longer time in his Mea Culpas.
Just ask Lady Macbeth about that damned spot.
Unless you find a way to resurrect the dead - and then we can call the whole thing off....

[citizen snips]

79. what's the point in arguing with you?

The republicans had majority in the congress anyway they are the ones solely responsible. But your statements are uncalled for. Go take zealotry somewhere else. Point-counter point not point-no point at all.

[The Count]

88. The biggest mistake of the century - this war he co-sponsored

I believe that warmongering is a crime - murder really - and saying 'oops" doesn't entitle one to a clean record and the title of "war critic". I find this offensive to the dead. And to those who risked something in telling the truth when it was an act of courage.
It was an unnecessary war - the mistake of the century - and you're asking me to vote for one of his architects? Just based on "oops?"
Sorry I don't converse "strategery" as fluent as you are. We are from different dimensions, really.

[Lex]

92. SO DON'T VOTE FOR HIM.

There, that's your solution.

[The Count]

153. Not good enough. I'll actively camaign against him&the rest of the warmongers

I am sick and tired of the killing!

[citizen snips]

98. I did not ask you to vote for him.

I am trying to tell you that he is NOW against the war that is all I am trying to say. And you refuse to acknowledge that.

[Tom Joad]

115. While the apology is nice, why couldn't he see what millions around the globe saw.

that further aggression against Iraq was wrong. Dead wrong.

There are some deeds, some misjudgments that should disqualify someone as President. This should be one of them.

Would the world survive another of Edwards misjudgments?

[Renew Deal]

126. He could have opposed it October 8, 2004 and didn't.

He should have known by then.

[Renew Deal]

125. I don't want to spend all of 2008 what Edwards position is, was, or might have been

That ended in 2004. America wants someone who agrees that the war was a mistake. Edwards is not that person.

[citizen snips]

165. you know what Edwards position on the war is.

you just refuse to acknowledge it for reasons I don't know. I would like you to tell me the status quo for the democratic platform on the war.

[rebel with a cause]

161. Uhhhhhhh

So has almost every one else, ever repugs who have spent the last six years as yes men to the non elected president.

[PsN2Wind]

78. So you're saying that Dubya

would not have started this fiasco had not Edwards forced it upon him.
Must be time to get out the knives and start cutting up our candidates. Can't let them go into a campaign without being bloodied by their friends.

[Lex]

86. Exactly. It's ridiculous to say that it's all Edwards fault.

And laughable.

[The Count]

93. "ALL EDWARDS FAULT?" No. There's enough fault to go around. To all accomplices.

I don't want rewards to any of them. No medals, no praise, no nominations, no elections. Justice.

[Lex]

95. Well, good. What you "want" has been duly noted.

:shrug:

[The Count]

100. By whom?

[Lex]

102. By everyone who cares.

[Tom Joad]

113. If there were justice in this world, Bush would be tried for war crimes

and crimes against humanity.

And every congressperson who helped him would be charged as an accessory.

[Renew Deal]

127. Edwards is already done.

He has nothing to add since 2004.

[uppityperson]

80. Thank you for showing that he makes mistakes and can learn when shown new info

Nice to know that about someone running for president. I hate having a ruler who is stuck and cannot learn.

[The Count]

94. But how many need to die for his "learnin"? How about getting a responsible,

moral, competent POTUS who doesn't make this kind of....mistakes. You know, the kind that cost thousands of lives...
I'd be curious to know: what was the new info Edwards was shown in 2005(as private citizen) that he lacked in 2003 - when he was a Senator, in the Intelligence Committeee)? Other than polls that is?

[Lex]

97. Yes, no good Presidents ever make the wrong the call.

Nice argument you got there.

[The Count]

99. Starting disastruous wars for no reason? No longer a good President at this point

[Lex]

104. So if he gets the nomination, you're saying you wouldn't vote for him?

[rebel with a cause]

162. I would vote green for the first time in my life,

And this is after arguing with others who did so in the past two presidental elections. The reason is that I get the same sick feeling in the pit of my stomach about edwards as I did about bush in 2000. My sixth sense tells me there is something there to be afraid of. Now my feelings could be wrong, but they never have been before this.

[Lex]

179. In that case, then you need to go to "Green Underground"

and be done with it.

[Erika]

207. and the sooner the better n/t

[Renew Deal]

129. No, but the wrong call can keep you from becomg president.

That's Edwards.

[uppityperson]

111. That would be nice and I'd like to know also.

Choosing between someone who has shown they are capable of learning and someone who hasn't, the first has my vote, dependent on many other things also of course. Edited to add, perhaps he, as others have, learned how much they were lied to and manipulated and actually feel bad about what they did. Rather than continuing (thank you Maria Cantwell) to say "stay the course" at least he can say otherwise and I believe it comes from his mind and heart and not polls. I'd like to hear more also though.

[Tom Joad]

96. DLC POS fool.

[Schema Thing]

107. er..uhmm...:points off in other direction: Hey look, poor people!

[The Count]

120. black poor people - NOLA. I did nothing for them, but I look good announcing

my candidacy here. Ground Zero did wonders for W, NOLA is my copyrighted disaster to mooch off.
Yup. poor people. This war sure did help them a lot.

[Lex]

134. Educate yourself

or you look ignorant saying John Edwards has done nothing in the area of poverty relief.

Start with google.

[Schema Thing]

135. Why you cynical bastard!

me on the other hand, I'm skeptical ;)

And where John Edwards is concerned, I'll remain so. He should NOT have been so completely wrong on Iraq, he SHOULD have taken the lead in cleaning up the Patriot Act.

He's just got the speechifying part down, he doesn't have the stuff, the vision... to lead.

[Joe Chi Minh]

138. Who gives tuppence if he voted for the war! For all he knew, for all anyone

knew, his career in the service of the American nation could have been nipped in the bud by the neocon liars and their perjured MSM.

All credit to those who voted against the war, precisely because the circumstances had been engineered to be extraordinary, but those brave souls would not have been so close to achieving such great things for the people of your great nation as Edwards and Kerry hold out the promise of, to this day. In fact, we know that formally they were indeed voted by the electorate to the Presidency and Vice Presidency, though those offices were usurped - as Gore's had been the time before.

It' a wedge issue favoured by the Neocons, so DUers shouldn't parrot it.

[The Count]

146. War is a 'wedge issue"? Like the flag burning? Okey dokey. Silly me, i thought

it mattered that thousands were dying for nothing...Thanks for the education. I got my priorities straight now - it's his career that mattered and the party machine already rewarded him once for this foresight in 2004, and the MSM is trying to get this past us again. Gotcha. I get why it's Chris Lehane doing his praisin' too.

[Pastiche423]

139. Edwards

co-sponsored the Iraq war AND wrote a portion of and voted for the Patriot Act.

Isn't that what the Democratic party stands for?

No, you say? Then why support the opportunist?

[Lena inRI]

159. Touche Pastiche. . .

I couldn't have said it better!

Edwards goes whichever way the wind blows.

The Democratic party has people of consistent convictions, unlike Edwards. Let's hope these heavyweights jump into the ring next year.

GORE = CLARK 2008

:kick: :loveya: :kick: :loveya: :kick:

[citizen snips]

167. Link?

[1932]

201. Did he author the sunset clause?

[1932]

142. JFK ran to the right of Nixon in '60 on communism.

But when he was president, he stopped supporting right wingers in Latin America and wouldn't support the Bay of Pigs with air cover dooming it to failure.

When Nixon became president, he crushed the moderate leaders who came to power in Latin America because of JFK's Latin American policy.

[LoZoccolo]

151. Not correct.

Interventionism is a liberal philosophy, while isolationism is a conservative one.

[Disturbed]

157. Did anyone view the debate tween Cheney vs Edwards?

I viewed it and was real disappointed with Edwards. He was weak!

I don't think that he will secure the nomination for Pres.

[1932]

178. You're in a small minority

Every focus group I saw had Edwards winning.

[Laurab]

197. I agree with you

I expected him to do much, much better. I wasn't impressed with him then, and I'm still not impressed with him. I was impressed with Kerry in his debates, but Edwards - not at all, and I expected to be. He, like Hillary, IMO has done NOTHING to make him presidential material.

This country is in such a mess - we need more than a mediocre candidate. I'm not sure yet who it's going to be but I do hope it's neither Hillary or Edwards - and I don't dislike either one, really - we just need strong leadership, as well as someone who can actually WIN.

[LetsGoMurphys]

215. I was disappointed that he did not correct Cheney

when Cheney said that they never met before when in fact they had.

[Renew Deal]

223. I agree

He wasn't sharp enough on the issues and wasn't tough enough.

[wuushew]

160. I don't see how that statement invalidates post #142

Nixon and Kennedy differed on foreign policy regardless of whatever particular labels you ascribe to them.

[rebel with a cause]

164. And they were both wrong for Latin America

In my humble opinion. But Johnson was perhaps more wrong than either of them. Again, in my humble opinion. :hide:

[1932]

176. I thought that too until I read The Pinochet File.

Could I convince you to read it?

Also read Richard Parker's biography on JK Galbraith.

[rebel with a cause]

182. If I can get it online, I might look at it.

My statement was based on the Dominican Republic and what was done there. The history of interference from the U.S. went back much further than JFK and continues today, and includes both R and D presidents.

[LoZoccolo]

174. Agreed that they differed.

Kennedy was not to the right of Nixon, however.

[1932]

175. Not exactly. Some interventions can be liberal. Some are imperialist.

Do you really think ALL interventions are liberal?

[LoZoccolo]

180. No. But that wasn't my argument.

Try and figure out why this is so.

[1932]

199. Is this another one of your "I don't say what I mean" Socratic winding paths?

Why don't you just make your argument?

[LoZoccolo]

202. Why did you switch terms - "interventionism" vs. "interventions"? n/t

[LetsGoMurphys]

214. correct n/t

the last to agree to American intervention in WWII were repubs.

[Catchawave]

163. Breaking! Bush gets a Free Pass on DU !

Sorry Bleachers7, can't help but notice the lovely Edwards Announcement as the top story on the DU Home Page, then find this sh*t.

So, who's your candidate again? And can s/he pass your smell test too?

DU has jumped the shark, thanks :cry:

[citizen snips]

169. it's all muckraking

Edwards is articulating a good plan to withdraw from Iraq but some people still want to dwell in the past and refuse to acknowledge Edwards' plan pull out the troops from Iraq. Try not let it upset you Catchawave this should inspire us to work harder for Edwards.

[Catchawave]

171. I should know better Matt

:hug:

I also hate to see Edwards so unfairly slammed, when Bush gets a pass for creating this Iraq mess in the first place. I could probably pick apart every sitting Dem in Congress right now, but then I think of John Edwards crawling up on a medical examiners table to say goodbye to his son, then DU isn't that important in the big scheme of things after all.

Thanks for the head check :hi:

[citizen snips]

173. no problem

I am not saying you did anything wrong.

But you will not see me muckraking other democrats but some people like to go for the low blow.

[rebel with a cause]

184. bush is not getting a free ride

He is the worse of the worse, well one of the worse of the worse. And I am sorry that Edward's lost his son but that does not make him a good candidate for president or even a good man for that matter of a fact. Not saying that he is not a good man, but having a son die does not prove you to be one. the senior bushes had a daughter to die, does that prove anything. You can like who ever you like, but you can not limit that others say or think about him. I haven't picked a candidate, but you can say what you think about the guys I do like. The truth is that I can say some bad things about the guys I like. Heavens sake, I can say some bad things about myself and do so regularly.

[Catchawave]

190. I beg your pardon?

You said:

And I am sorry that Edward's lost his son but that does not make him a good candidate for president or even a good man for that matter of a fact. Not saying that he is not a good man, but having a son die does not prove you to be one.

This is not what I implied. I was using his strength as inspiration in dealing with a sucky thread. That's all. Just prospective as to what's important and what's not. :banghead:

[rebel with a cause]

191. Sorry about that, I judged you by others in 2004

Who have used that as an argument for his being electable. I personally do not like him, but that is me. Why, because of what has already been written here and other things I know about him. That does not mean I begrudge you the right or desire to like and support him. What I was getting at in the other part of the post was - if you like someone, then just let other's criticism roll off your back like water off a ducks back, but you also should look at everyone (even those you like) with a critical eye. When one (not you personally)cannot admit faults in others, that tends to lead to unaccountability. That is what we have had with this unelected president and his followers. You didn't dare say anything about his misdeeds to some people in my area, simply because he had been an alcoholic and they felt this gave him a free pass since he had overcome the addiction. Oh, and also because he was a "Christian." Gee, the Christan war president. I wonder what went wrong. :think:

[Erika]

206. Amen

John and Elizabeth has a thousand times the depth of anyone else running.

[Renew Deal]

221. He said it, not me.

These are Edwards own words. He co-sponsored the war resolution. Didn't regret it when it mattered. And then spent 2004 explaining the hypocrisy. He shouldn't run in 2008, and if he does, we shouldn't forget what he did.

And I don't have a candidate yet.

[thatsrightimirish]

166. to be fair

It was Kerry's position in 04 that his vote wasn't a mistake. It's not like Edwards who was on the ticket with him going to have a different position.

[Lex]

177. Yeah, I guess all these people hating on Edwards didn't vote for Kerry either.

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

222. I don't support Kerry for the same reason.

Kerry shouldn't run either.

[burythehatchet]

181. I don't have a litmus test but only DK has (always) had the correct

position.

[neebob]

185. Thanks, I had no idea

and I always appreciate being better informed. :)

[mistertrickster]

186. Thanks . . . we did not work our asses off in Nov to put in a "centrist," nt

[jgraz]

188. Hear hear!!!

:applause:

[Erika]

209. So let's keep Hillary out

Edwards is evidently scaring the hell out of bushbots and their friends.

[mistertrickster]

218. Agreed. Edwards did say he was wrong. Haven't heard that from Hillary. nt

[EstimatedProphet]

194. He has apologized, which is more than a lot of them

which also makes me like him more.

[illinoisprogressive]

195. Why are Dems slamming Dems?

I am not an Edwards fan. I like him well enough but, he just doesn't make me want to vote for him.
That said, I don't begrudge anyone who does support him.
We all have our candidates that we are for and will defend. But, why must we to other dems.
Okay, Hillary is fair game but, she's really republcan lite.
However, we are on the same side and we shouldn't put each other down or slam them because they are not for who we are. It's like I support Obama and think him the best candidate. However, if someone is for Edwards that is cool
I won't put down Edwards as a such and such because I don't support him. If he does something wrong, call him on the carpet but, I reserve my put downs and insults for republicans. Right???

[Erika]

211. Edwards is fantastic

Love him and his wife.

[zulchzulu]

198. Your assessment goes a tad too far...Bush wanted the war more than the Devil

I'm not a big fan of Edwards, but your assessment he is/was more for the war than Bush is just a tad off the mark. Yes, he supported the IWR and was hawkish on the war for a time, but to say he wanted the war more than Bush is, if anything, very innacurate.

Bush wanted the war even before he was appointed President by PNAC's errand boys.

[NCarolinawoman]

200. Edwards said that Washington shouldn't rule out the use of military force in Iran.

This was written up in the Jerusalem Post on June 8th of this year. I first read about this in my local paper here in North Carolina. Is he pandering to the Jewish lobby or he is in over his head again?

Here is the link:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

I heard General Barry McCaffrey say on Hardball that doing such a thing would be insane.... We would have a billion Muslim people hating us.

[The Count]

203. Noo...The "long time war critic" said that? here it is folks - a trigger happy

fast talking opportunist. Updated version of busk. Just as dangerous.

[nicknameless]

216. Thanks for posting that link.

Edwards was one of my top choices ... until I read that.

FWIW ... and apparently it's not worth much, here are some words of regret he had about Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html


Damn

[Danger Mouse]

204. Oops!

There goes my support for Edwards! ...the douchebag.

[laureloak]

205. Let me guess. You're a Clark supporter, right?

Geeze, will this silliness ever end. If you have a favorite candidate built him/her up, but STOP ATTACKING OTHER DEMOCRATS!!!!!! You're just providing fodder for the other side.

[Erika]

210. Yep Agreed 100%

I love John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[Quixote1818]

213. Another Erika post taking a jab at Wes Clark

What a surprise. :eyes:

I like Edwards as well, but the OP is nothing but cold hard facts. You can dismiss them if you like but perhaps you should be as forgiving to Clark as you are Edwards? Clark was against the war at least, yet you still attack him for being a liberal voice on FOX News. Why not be as forgiving to Clark who is actually much more liberal than Edwards?

[Tom Rinaldo]

212. Let me guess. You always jump to that assumption don't you?

The person who started this thread is no supporter of Wes Clark. Not even remotely. He thinks Clark would make a poor candidate, and has said so on numerous Clark related threads.

I was wondering how long it would take an Edwards supporter to blame this discussion on Clark supporters. It actually took a little loneger than I expected.

By all means, build your own candidate up also, but not by attacking supporters of someone else. I think I recognize maybe one person on this thread who happens to support Clark. I'm not saying no others do, I don't know everyone on DU, but obviously you don't either if you blamed this thread on a Clark supporter.

[Renew Deal]

219. Not in 2008,

Just ask some of the Clark people. I did support Clark early in 2004. I'm thinking about 2008 and the last thing I want is a rehash of explaining people's war support. Edwards has nothing new to run on. He is old and tired. He shouldn't run.

Also, how am I attacking Edwards? These are his own words. Truth hurts I suppose.

[maine_raptor]

217. Hey Bleachers7, you want some salt on that

side order of "eat there own"?


Jeesh............:wow:


Do you also throw baby out with bath water, too?

Ok, Edwards is not "perfect", but he's a damn sight better that alot of them out there right now.

[jsamuel]

220. This is one of my top concerns regarding Edwards.

[Moderator]

224. locking...

This is flamebait.