What Did the Democrats Know and When Did they Know It?

[donsu]

http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh12052005.html

The Lies of John Edwards


The apology of John Edwards, former Senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for voting for the Iraq war in 2002, has been widely praised. But his apology is based on a lie, one that other Democrats are likely to embrace and one which will serve their ambitions but hide the truth. We should have no illusions about this, for to believe otherwise is to set ourselves up for the continuation of Bush's war by a Democrat.

Edwards declared in an op-ed column in the Washington Post on November 13, 2005: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war." Sounds simple enough. "Had I known then what I know now, etc." Poor John Edwards was deceived. But was he? How was it that 21 other Democratic Senators and 2 Republicans were not deceived and voted against the war?

Part of the answer arrived in another op-ed the Washington Post one week later, November 20, 2005, by another former Senator, Bob Graham, entitled: "What I knew Before the Invasion." Like Edwards, Graham was a member, in fact the chair, of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in the period leading up to the war and on October 11, 2002 when the vote on the war on Iraq was taken. In a nutshell, Graham tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Graham begins like a good, loyal Democrat, telling us that his colleagues were deceived, at least "most" of them. But he then tells us that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew better. Here are some of Graham's words:

-snip-

John Edwards was a member of that Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and he voted for the war. Who were the other Democratic senators? They were Senators Bayh, Edwards, DURBIN, Feinstein, LEVIN, MIKULSKI, Rockefeller and WYDEN as well as Tom Daschle, then majority leader, an ex officio member. I have capitalized those who voted against the war resolution and who should be hailed as senators of integrity. But Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller, all of whom with the exception of Feinstein, have presidential ambitions, voted for the war despite the fact that they had good reason to know the administration was Bushies were lying. (And let's not forget the Republicans on the committee: Dewine, Hatch, Inhoffe, Kyle, Lugar, Roberts, Richard Shelby, Fred Thompson and ex officio, Trent Lott.)
-snip-
-----------------------------------

and there is this:

Finally it is worth recalling that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate at the time the war vote was taken on October, 11, 2002. So this is every bit as much a Democratic war as a Republican one.
-----------

whose ever invasion this is, it stinks. bring the troops home now.

america is dead, the troops are killing for corporations.

[win_in_06]

1. Very interesting

:popcorn:

[Clark2008]

17. Hey - can I have some of that popcorn?

Since I was told to "get over it" in another thread in regards to the bad feelings I have toward Edwards...

:popcorn:

[second edition]

2. I would rather think that those who voted for the resolution did so

out of concern for our country and its citizens. Why do you feel it is necessary to go after Dems and give the Bush Administration a free ride on this. They are the ones truly got it all wrong.

[Wilms]

4. I would rather KNOW that those who voted for the resolution did so

out of concern for our country and its citizens.

But it seems to me that they had other things on their minds.

[donsu]

5. that will be the day I give the criminal bushgang a free ride

when you start hiding from the printed word, you become like the bushgang.

[keta11]

3. Very true, Sir

Many of these politicians voted for the war for political expediency. I wonder why its so difficult for politicians on our side to argue when it matters that sending Americans to go kill and be killed for spurious reasons is not being "strong on national security" or not being a Democratic hawk.

How immature is thinking that voting for this idiotic war is being strong on national security???

[emulatorloo]

6. Is counterpunch a GOP publication,or do they just flip Rove Talking Points

with a little lefty flair on their own?

[donsu]

8. well, if you go and read Counterpunch you will see for yourself that

it is not a GOP publication.

[emulatorloo]

10. just being sarcastic --

but you gotta admit that many times thier articles read like Rove-From-The-Left.

[MH1]

12. Well, it's not a Democratic publication, either

I've read it before. I'll pass this time, thank you.

[savemefromdumbya]

7. The different climate

I expect that they thought it would be political suicide to oppose the war in those days. Also, that's why the 2004 campaign was focussed on military matters. How many Congressmen/women read ALL the papers before they go to vote?

[donsu]

9. many times they don't even fully read what they vote on

they have admitted that.

[MH1]

11. Well, Senate and House rules allow for bills to be brought to a vote

without anything resembling sufficient time for reading. And with republicans in control, usually they craft the bills in isolation from the Dems, and then give it to the Dems right before the vote.

So when you make that statement, which is true, you should add the context.

[FrenchieCat]

14. That's an excuse for Dems giving the Prez a blank check....

When it's about War and Peace, it is important to read what one is voting on.

However, Edwards, who as the article said, sat on the Senate committee knew which resolution was which.

Two days before the vote, everyone knew the distinctions between the various options available. It was being advertised via the Internet everywhere!

[MH1]

15. I was referring to the poster's GENERAL statement. n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

28. that's worrying

you wonder whether policians are the right people to make these decisions?

[FrenchieCat]

13. John Edward's knew exactly what he was doing, he Co sponsored

not the Binden/Lugar nor the Levin IWR, but the Lieberman IWR, which is the one that passed....the blank check one.

John Edwards had Presidential aspiration and thought being "Tough" and for this war was the way to go. He's sorry now, but it doesn't change his original motives: Political ambition.

Even in October of 2003, when it was already widely known that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and the Plame affair had gotten coverage, Edwards still felt that going into IRaq had been the right thing to do.

Read this interview in it's enterity http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295
,and then tell me what's up with Edwards on this? He only became sorry last month when it became clear that the majority of Americans are now saying that this war was wrong. Prior to that, John Edwards was not sorry.

These are the facts...and understanding those facts are important....because if Edwards thinks he can just become President after that big ass deliberate booboo, he shouldn't!

[Clark2008]

18. Brava!!

:applause:

[radio4progressives]

16. About Feinstein...

Though Feinstein didn't/doesn't have presidential ambitions, her's was even more evil (if that's possible) - her interests were the financial gains from the profits of the plethora of military contracts her husband's company invested in.

she has blood on her hands, and now she's trying to sing the same tune. it's just not credible.

and that's why the Dems have just as much to answer to as the Repugs.

[gratuitous]

19. There are lies and there are Lies

I, too, would greatly prefer to live in the perfect world where shrill propaganda and hysterical war fomenting was discounted for the noise and clamor that it is. Unfortunately, that world doesn’t much exist outside of the world of Alexander Cockburn and his publication Counterpunch. I would be greatly gratified to see Mr. Cockburn win public office and show us all how it’s done.

And by “it,” I mean the balancing act between private principles and public opinion. Heaven knows that a month before the 2002 election, there were plenty of other considerations to be taken into account when voting on authorizing Chimpy’s invasion of Iraq. One of those considerations, of course, was the election coming up in just a few weeks. Democrats had a precarious hold on a slim majority in the Senate, were totally shut out of deliberations in the House and the White House, and were operating in an atmosphere of near paranoia, mostly induced by the corrupt Bush White House.

Circumstances clearly outside the control of individual Democratic Senators had been contrived to make the whole Iraqi war resolution matter far more urgent than it actually was. With a very short time before the election, I would assert that Senators didn’t have the luxury of an extended conversation on what was right, what was politic, and what was expedient. They worked to make the legislation hold the administration accountable, but with the Senate firmly in Republican hands since the legislation’s enactment, it’s difficult to see how the Democrats can redeem their blunder.

It sounds to me like Counterpunch is overreaching for an excuse to put Democrats on the hot seat for the Iraq invasion. There is certainly culpability to be assigned, but the onus for this crime against humanity should more properly be placed on the Republican White House, which contrived events, its media echo chamber which bullied the public perception and opinion, and the Republican congressional leadership which worked so assiduously to demonize dissent and legitimate discussion.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. I have trouble with the source also

I prefer weighing the facts outside of their filter. But I do support weighing the facts. Most of us here feel Joe Lieberman bears much more responsibility for what happened with Iraq than John Kerry, true? I think it is fair to put some more responsibility on the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee than on floor members of the Senate. And I also factor in the relative current postions of different Democrats also.

[FrenchieCat]

25. I agree with all that you said....

except one thing....The choice was between doing what was right and unpopular or going along with a "popular" president at a time when he had high poll numbers from 9/11.

So it is granted that those who voted for the IWR in the affirmative due to political pressures took a calculated risk, and literally gambled politically on this issue, and now more than ever it appears that they lost, although at the time it may have seem like the "safe" thing to do....

So in the end, they got it wrong, and with that comes consequenses.

[gratuitous]

26. Absolutely

Subsequent events have shown that a wishy-washy approach didn't seem to pan out any better than other approaches -- although it's impossible to tell at the time what the outcome of any particular approach is going to be. I'm sure that for some of the "liars" like Edwards being excoriated in this article, a complex calculus of information and possible outcomes informed their eventual actions. Boiling it down to one single element or item seems disingenuous, if not downright dishonest.

I would hope that if I were in Edwards' position that I would do the right thing, "political" considerations be damned, and public opinion notwithstanding. However, I also know that I have many weaknesses, and if I were an elected official, those weaknesses would be ripe for the most vicious exploitation -- that, after all, is the stock in trade of the Neocon wing of the repressive right. Counterpunch might want to keep that in mind, although I know from personal observation that Mr. Cockburn and his associates are completely free of any weaknesses, blind spots or character defects; the rest of benighted humanity is not so fortunate as they.

[Leilani]

21. Edwards' political ambitions got in the way

of doing the right thing. That's been obvious for a long time.

What I wonder: Why is John Kerry always held to a higher standard than Edwards?

And in the same thought, why does Edwards always get a pass?

I'm always amazed at the different standards applied to different Dem politicians.

[radio4progressives]

22. Kerry is held to higher standard, correctly so.

Kerry's personal experience as United States Senator, for nearly two decades, and his personal experience with the issues involved in a war of pre-emption based on LIES and propaganda generating from the Pentagon goes back nearly fourty years.

That's why Kerry is held to a higher standard, and correctly so.

Edwards did not have the experience Kerry had, nor the insights to how well intelligence is manipulated throughout our history, these past several decades. Edwards was manipulated, but Kerry knew better and placed a bad gamble.

Cockburn didn't need to waste ink on Edward's vote in my opinion. He could have made the much more important point in how most of the new dems were set up, how those with less experience got snookered and those with more experience, even serving on the intel committee were co-opted.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I disagree that discussing Edwards' actions during the lead up to

and after the war and his now apology is "wasted Ink". There are too many who don't even know that Edwards co-sponsored the IWR, etc. Many support his presidential aspirations for 2008.

Certainly your point that Edwards was not experienced may be absolutely correct, which is why the mistakes he made (OR whatever the reasons were for him supporting the IWR and the War) demonstrates that he didn't have the judgment required to qualify to be president in 2004, and he won't be qualified to lead this nation in 2008.....

Many, in particular at DU, are using Edwards "so sorry" statement as though the man is just simply super dooper for having had the "guts" to say he was sorry to have been "duped".

Well, the point of the article is that he really wasn't "duped".

[Leilani]

24. I did not support Edwards because he did not have

FP experience.

Now, his co-authorship of the odious resolution, & his continued support for the war until very recently demonstrate 1 of 2 things.

Either 1) he wasn't ready for primetime, or 2)he was politically expedient. Either answer is not good news.

Perhaps the answer is 1 & 2.

[karynnj]

27. You can't have it both ways

Edwards is too young and innocent AND he qualified to be President.

I actually do believe that Kerry was looking for a way to avoid war - which was likely in the cards with or without the IWR. His comments from summer 2002 onward were consistant. He wanted Bush to go to the UN and he wanted all the remedies exhausted. Bush went back on things he said - in retrospect Kerry should have gone by only what was written. A serious concern is whether Kerry's innate honor made him blind to Bush's lack of honor. Kerry was not on the intelligence committee - some of the NO's from the committee have said their NO was based on material Kerry didn't see. (But it's clear from Kerry's floor speech that he was sceptical of the charges, but felt erring on the side of investigating them was better.)

Contrary to an earlier thread, I think Kerry's comments in the Georgetown speech were liberating to him, but were likely very very hard to say. His comment on responsibility was genuine. Watching the young Kerry talking to the Senators, I imagine that being on the opposite side this time has been hard. The fact is he was speaking against the war before it started. As President, I would not worry that in a similar situation Kerry would have gone to war. I also think his background had many things that would have made him great in ending the war.

Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, co-sponsored the amendment and at least as late as an Oct 2003 Hardball he was still for the war. Because of that, I do think that if he were President, Edwards would possibly have gone to war. His saying he was wrong includes thinking the war was right. I really need to hear what his philosophy on this is on when a country should go to war.