John Edwards - "I don't know what will happen if we leave Iraq"

[FrenchieCat]

On Face the Nation, John Edwards was interviewed by Bob Schieffer.


SCHIEFFER: Well, let’s just talk about Iraq, and let’s try to get past whether somebody ought to apologize or not. Let’s say that you become president and you’ll have the opportunity to do everything you want to do about this. What would you do’? I mean, isn’t there something to what the president says when he says if we just leave there that--that you’ll create this haven for terrorists, that they can operate out of there’? What’s going to happen if your recommendations are followed, I guess, is what I would say.

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: Sure. It’s a very fair question. I think no one knows what’s going to happen. What we’re doing is--what I’m doing is using my best judgment under very difficult circumstances. And, as president, the first thing I would do is say to the American people, ‘We cannot predict with any certainty what will happen.’..........

SCHIEFFER: When you say you just don’t know what--what will happen, can a person run for president making a statement like that, ‘I don’t know what will happen if we leave’?

Fmr. Sen. EDWARDS: It’s the truth. It’s clearly the truth. I mean, I think the American people know that. I have, I guess, enough faith in our people to think they can accept the truth.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face022507NEW.pdf

The American people can accept the truth that John Edwards doesn't know what would happen if his recommendations were followed? Couldn't he at least have contemplated or given his best hopes or a guess instead of just not knowing? :wtf:

I'm really supposed to think that this is ok?

Why do I want someone leading me if he doesn't know where he is going?

Just asking? :shrug:

[JI7]

1. there are a few ways i look at this

it's much better than the Bush and other republicans who will say if we leave there will be other 9/11s at home.

but i think it would have been better if he gave certain things that might happen and what he or we could do to deal with it.

such as in the event a civil war continues we should have United Nations troops under the UN(not usa) and perhaps a coalition of arab nation troops to help deal with things.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Exactly.....I'm just asking for more that "I don't know"......

Maybe he'll tell us later, but I don't agree with John Edwards that people will elect a president who has no clue and hopes that we trust his best judgment. It's not like Edwards judgment has been stellar to date.

[chimpymustgo]

55. Frenchie, did you see this? I did. And Edwards was just being stunningly honest.

It took Scheiffer by surprise, but then he clearly acknowledged his respect for Edwards' candor. And that's all it was. You don't know, Obama, doesn't know, Hillary doesn't know...even the great General Clark doesn't KNOW.

I wish you would stop trying to tear down John Edwards. Surely there's a better use of your time, energy and karma.

[Infinite Hope]

118. Amen.

Some ask for honesty and then condemn it when they get it.

[Clark2008]

121. He's not honest - he's a politician to the nth degree/

Why can't you see this?

[The Count]

77. We activists can afford to say "I don't care" - but the guy who sponsored IWR

then allegedly "took responsibility" can't say "I changed my mind, the hell with what happened with my first decision. And, BTW, I am better than Hillary, because I apologized.

[Tom Joad]

2. Can't say what will happen if we stay. Only it is likely to much worse.

Do you think the US should stay in Iraq??

[FrenchieCat]

5. I think that we need a plan to get out....and that when someone has such a plan

they should be able to articulate what their best estimation as to what will happen will be.

There may various scenarios that might play out...and he should have articulated those instead of saying he doesn't know.....far as I'm concerned, the American people will NOT think it's ok for him not to know.....

It's easy to say get out.....but coming out with being able to "know" what may or may not happen ain't good, IMO.

BTW, This is his plan:

"Now, what I would do if I were president today is draw down 40- to 50,000 troops out of the north and south, continue over time a redeployment--over about a year or so--a redeployment of our combat troops out of Iraq. I’d maintain a presence in Kuwait, probably redeploy some troops to Afghanistan, where we’d need some additional help, maintain a naval presence in the Persian Gulf. And while I was doing that, I would engage the Iranians and the Syrians directly, both of whom have an interest in a stable Iraq, particularly with America leaving Iraq.

I will say that I think it’s also the responsibility of the president, while that is occurring--or whatever path we re on--to prepare a plan, a strategy, to deal with containment in case this thing does, in fact, go in the wrong direction. Because it could. No matter what course we take, that could happen, and we have to be prepared for that."
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face022507NEW.pdf

[JeffR]

3. I'm iffy about Edwards, but it was a brutally honest answer

No-one knows or can know, and the fact that he didn't offer up some off-the-shelf bromide strikes me as admirable.

[FrenchieCat]

6. So you are saying that a President should'nt be able to give an answer

beyond "I don't know?" to his own recommendations?

Why make recommendations if you don't even want to guess as to the outcome. Isn't that what recommendations are for....to get something accomplished? :shrug:

[saltpoint]

4. Edwards joins most observers of the scene with this position, including

military folks.

The scene is chaotic. Thousands of people have left Iraq, some of them dentists, teachers, and so forth. What middle class, what professional class, what working class people will be left, and in what areas? In Sunni areas predominantly, or not? Even in the event of some negotiated settlement -- increasingly unlikely to be instigated by the U.S. under Bush/Cheney -- Edwards' answer is true to its mark owing to the vacuum created by U.S. occupation of a sovereign country whose people were wary of us to begin with and resentful of us now.

Our government has destroyed the physical and psychological infrastructure of a country and did so on lies and deceptions for no persuasive reason.

If Schieffer was gunning for a 12-step guide to instantaneous, assured peace in the Middle East, he may find guarantees hard to come by from members of both major parties.

[JDPriestly]

7. If the American have not noticed by this time that presidents

are not psychic and can't predict the future, then it's time they learn.

After all, Bush takes the prize for the president who has made the most wrong predictions about almost everything --- Iraq, Katrina, No Child Left Behind. The list of his bad guesses is extremely long. Maybe it's time for someone like Edwards to simply say, "I'm not God. God hasn't given me a sign yet. I don't know what will happen. I just believe that if I get our troops out, the Iraqi people can focus on getting their own country together."

Will Iraq become a breeding ground for terrorists who hate America? That would not be surprising -- whether we stay or leave.

If Iraq does become a breeding ground for terrorists, it will not be because we leave. It will be because we went in, because we invaded, in the first place.

Bush has done the damage. There is little anyone else can do but to get out.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I think that Edwards could have given his best estimation......

I don't buy that this was an OK way to answer. The question was.....IF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS were IMPLEMENTED, what do you think would happen in Iraq?

I don't think anyone was asking him to be a spychic.....but come on......giving it a try wouldn't have hurt.

[FrenchieCat]

8. I'm sorry.....

But if I look at a situation, and I'm trying to get the job to fix it best I can....and I bother to offer up a plan....and make recommedations and someone asks me what do I think is gonna happen if my recommendations are implemented...for me to answer, I don't knnow, and the people hiring me will understand this....I'm supposed to think that I'm gonna get the job?

Damn! That's precious!

[saltpoint]

9. A personnel director might hire on the basis of capacity for team play.

It matters.

[FrenchieCat]

13. I believe if someone wants the job of solving the problems that exist

He should not only have plans, but also have a sense of how that plan will solve the problems that exist. To say "I don't know" is not good enough for that job in my opinion. Better not to suggest a plan, if you don't know where you'll end up.

In September of 2002, Wes Clark was asked to testify to provide his thought as to what he though would happen if we went into Iraq....and although he ain't no psychic either, he was able to give his best estimation based on all that he knew. I'm sure if they would have asked for his recommendations and then asked what he thinks would happen if those recommendations were implemented, he wouldn't answer, I Don't know--He would explain one or two or three or however many ways it could end up.

"The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere."

"we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it."

"Then we're dealing with the longer mid term, the mid term problems. Will Iraq be able to establish a government that holds it together or will it fragment? There are strong factionary forces at work in Iraq and they will continue to be exacerbated by regional tensions in the area. The Shia in the south will be pulled by the Iranians.

The Kurds want their own organization. The Kurds will be hemmed in by the Turks. The Iraqis also, the Iranians also are nervous of the Kurds. But nevertheless, the Kurds have a certain mass and momentum that they've built up. They will have to work to establish their participation in the government or their own identity."

I'm trying to figure out why saying I don't know is better than listing the various ways that it could possibly go? What Am I missing? :shrug:

[saltpoint]

15. What if you were mistaken in believing presidential candidates did not

adequately contemplate future tensions in the Middle East?

Do you really believe that U.S. presidential candidates have not given this full range and consideration?

Really?

I do not believe you believe that, FC.

[FrenchieCat]

18. I'm going by Edwards' interview.....

Did you see it?

If not, you can watch it here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/25/ftn/main2511585.shtml

Further, it's not about what "I believe"....it's about what John Edwards believes. And it looks like he's not quite sure what will happen or he ain't ready to talk about it.

Acting like one doesn't have a real clue on an important question is not helpful, IMO.

[saltpoint]

20. Unless a fortune teller someplace has reliable info on the future of Iraq

I find no fault with Edwards' answer and in fact admire it for its honesty.

And by the way, I believe Edwards is a Democrat.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Well, I'm glad that this is acceptable for you......

It is not acceptable for me.

First he screwed up with his Iraq decision. Then he said sorry 3 years later. Now he is asking that I trust his judgment on how to get out of Iraq, but when asked he doesn't know how his recommendations will work.

Geeze!

I'm a Democrat, and this is hard to believe.

Honesty is good....but I find this to be ridiculous.

Would it have been a dishonest for John Edwards to at least let us in on what he "thinks" "could" happen, or is that too much to ask of a Democratic candidate running for the presidency? :sarcasm:

[saltpoint]

23. Nope. You're faulting a Democratic candidate for answering a question

asked by Bob Schieffer.

Give us the source, would you, of someone who sees the future.

If you can crack that code, all candidates, of all parties, can resolve to agree on regional strategic goals in the Middle East.

Might save a few lives.

Absent that, your criticism is the thing that's off-base. No one knows what's going to happen in Iraq owing to the severity of George Bush's calamitous impulse to attack it.

That's where things stand. Edwards said it out loud.

[mnhtnbb]

57. The only other thing Edwards could have said is, "Here's what I HOPE will happen/not happen"

All this criticism of Edwards because he responded truthfully, instead of the way we have learned to expect politicians to respond, is unwarranted.

Look at all the predictions Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice made about Iraq.

Nobody can see the future.

[saltpoint]

58. Nicely put.

We can't ask the Bush administration to be truthful about anything if we attack our own candidates for truth-telling.

[Jai4WKC08]

61. Yes, but can you imagine the sound-byte?

I think I must have heard "I voted for it before I voted against it" play a million times in 2004 GOP ads. I knew what Kerry meant when he said it, but I don't think the average voter did. The FACT that it was an honest answer didn't mean shit.

I can hear the same sort of replay of a statement like this one from Edwards. And it would be be worse, or at least as bad, for him because one of his biggest vulnerabilities to the freak show is that he doesn't know beans about foreign policy. So a quote of his saying, "I don't know what's gonna happen" is precisely the sort of thing to get played far and wide and it would stick with too many voters.

It may be early enough this particular gaff won't matter, but he'd better come up with another answer in case he gets asked this again.

[saltpoint]

63. Heaven forbid that presidential candidates should be imperfect.

If we don't demand flawless comportment in all theaters we should tear the Constitution up at once.

I think your concern about soundbites is misplaced.

"Sometimes money trumps peace" might be a better target. George Bush's various statements on foreign policy might have been a more worthy target, present circumstances in the Middle East being as they are.

[Jai4WKC08]

69. You're joking, right?

You think I haven't attacked "Bush's various statements on foreign policy"??? You ever read much of anything I post here at DU? Or been to my own blog, the last link in my signature?

Unfortunately, our nominee for 2008 doesn't get to run against Bush. Not directly. Attacking him still has its place, if only because the Repub front-runners (none of whom I expect to get their nomination, but nevermind) seem to be supporting the same approach. But it's not pertinent to the subject of this thread.

I'm not asking that any presidential candidate be perfect. Good thing, because NONE of them are. Nor have I ever said that any of them, even the guy I support most, is. But I truly believe, as strongly and passionately as I know how, that any Democrat who cannot inspire confidence on national security issues will NEVER beat any Republican in the general election. YMMV, but that is my opinion, and I will write about it as much as I wish.

[karynnj]

71. I agree with Frenchie that it is not an adequate answer

In addition to honestly saying that he doesn't know - he could have addressed the fact that we do know that the current plan is not working. He could have listed the safeguards built into his plan - I assume there will be some- that would deal with the more negative scenarios. Most other people, whether politicians or strategists have bothered to do this.

The question is a fair one and a more thoughtful answer would have been nice to dispell any thoughts that Edwards really doesn't know what he is talking about here. This is early and I hope that he or Obama become better at this. (otherwise, I hope one of the second tier candidates breaks through).

[madfloridian]

10. He is right. No one knows. But we can't stay.

We will have to cut our losses and get out.

Anyone who pretends to know...is not paying attention that it is out of control there.

[FrenchieCat]

16. I don't think that someone should say that they have a plan......

if they don't even want to guess as to where that plan will lead.

This is ridiculous.

I don't want someone who pretends....I want someone who can articulate what might and might not happen under the particular circumstances that he is recommending.

[AshevilleGuy]

12. Sometimes "I don't know" is the best answer available.

The real damage was done by invading Iraq in the first place. There is little the US can do now, since the solution must be political. Getting out MUST be done, and soon. I doubt if anyone really knows what will happen after that; how can they?

I teach college courses (when I can get a contract). When some student asks a question that I can not answer, I simply say that I do not know, and explain why I don't know. They almost always accept that, but if I tried to BS them they would know it in a moment, and my credibility would be shot.

[FrenchieCat]

14. So we are supposed to elect a President that will provide recommendations

for what, if not for solutions?

If you were teaching a course, and you provided folks with ways to solve a problem....but when they asked you if those things you were recommending were going to help solve the problem, would you really respond by saying You didn't know?

[AshevilleGuy]

19. Okay, for example

I teach economics. During a recession I would certainly recommend that the Federal Reserve loosen the money supply (make it easier to borrow money and lower interest rates). I would also advocate the government create jobs for the unemployed. That is, create more income for the consumers. These are easy policy choices; you would certainly not do the opposite.

But if asked how much unemployment would decrease I could not give an exact answer because that depends on many variables, the most crucial one being human behavior. People might spend their added income, or they might save it. There is no way to know exactly until it happens.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Could you give an estimation based on all that you knew........

or would you say you didn't know what would happen?

Maybe it is the Oscar champagne that I had, but the responses I'm getting from posters don't make sense to me. It's as though we are NOT talking about someone wanting to lead the United States...and as though our biggest issue is NOT Iraq right now.

I will think about this...but I don't think that Edwards' answer was satisfactory at all.

[AshevilleGuy]

24. In this case it would be easy

to say that unemployment would ease; it always has in the past when such actions were taken. How much it would, harder to predict - that is what keeps Fed Governors up at night, I suppose, even though there are decades of economic history to study, and formulas to follow.

But in the case of Iraq there are few if any historic precedents (Laos in 1954, India 1947, Vietnam, etc.). I don't see how anyone could know exactly what will happen there when we leave, but we need to do it.

[DarkmoonIkonoklast]

25. Is there, then, no room in leadership for humility?

   Are we so immature as an electorate that we will only consider trusting a leader who exhibits the unbelievable arrogance of god-like omniscience?

   Do we still, nearly a decade into the 21st century, require the infallible, all-knowing Father to lead us through life by the hand?

   When I was a youth, I was taught that one of the surest signs of maturity was the ability to say "I was wrong", to apologize without any particular hope of forgiveness, but to do so simply as the right, as the responsible, thing to do. Never mind whether or not the outcome could be predicted, admit your ignorance, admit your wrong, and move on...

   Are "We, the People" too immature, too irresponsible, to do the right thing?

   Or are we, as SOME would have it, above such humanity, too good for such humility?

[FrenchieCat]

29. Right....Humility!

"I'm sorry" and "I Don't know".

That will work! :thumbsup:

[Porcupine]

37. This isn't a college exam. It's real people dieing.

I'm not an Edwards fan. In fact I wrote one of the most scathing criticisms of his house and the attempted greenwash that followed. But he is right on this issue.

[FrenchieCat]

51. I disagree.....

Why even have a plan, if you don't offer scenarios as to what the plan will achieve, i.e., the results?

Does no one want to take a "chance" in being not totally on the Mark? Is that the new trend in politicians......don't ask, and if you do, I won't tell?

How is that leadership? Please explain.

(I didn't give a shit about Edwards' house, personally).

[Hippo_Tron]

26. IMO, John Edwards is dead on about this

Either the Malaki government will be able to ward off the insurgents or they will be overthrown, most likely by the Shia insurgents lead by Al-Sadr. If you want my guess, the latter is going to happen. But I can't say that for sure and neither can anyone else. Our presence is doing nothing but fueling the insurgency and staying there isn't going to give the Malaki government an easier time, in fact it will make it harder for them because the insurgency gets stronger from resentment of US military actions. We need to set a timetable of no more than six months and if the Malaki government can't defend itself by then it never will be able to.

At the end of the day, Iraq will have been better off under Saddam. Al-Sadr will be just as oppressive as Saddam but will also institute an Islamic Theocracy which means that women will be far worse off than they were under Saddam. Al-Sadr's government will also be friendly toward Iran which is bad for us.

[saracat]

27. He is honest.Would you rather have a lie?

No one can play God and see the future, particularly in Iraq which has NEVER been predictable through its history.What matters is we bring our people home what happens to Iraq is up to the iraqis and John Edward's can't answer for them!

[mtnsnake]

73. I disagree. Anyone knows what's going to happen if we leave, even Edwards

The civil war that happened because Bush invaded will break wide open after we leave. Edwards knows it, just like anyone else knows it. Anyone who thinks peace is all of a sudden going to break out after we leave is dreaming. Just the same, we need to leave, period, because we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

[FrenchieCat]

28. Ok...so running for President on "I'm sorry" and "I don't Know" is

:thumbsup:

Got it!

Thank you everyone!

[saltpoint]

30. A more useful thread might have been an examination of 08 Democratic

candidates' emphasis on minimum wage issues and poverty generally, not only in contrast to 08 Republicans, but also against the backdrop of LBJ's war on poverty, which the GOP widely dismissed but which nevertheless cut the poverty rate in the nation by almost half.

Not a perfect triumph but not bad, either.

[FrenchieCat]

31. So why don't you start that thread?

Since that sounds like that's what you feel like talking about obviously, since you are suggesting it?

Sounds like a winner! Go for it! :thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

32. Your chance was equal on that topic. Our party's emphasis on

poverty-related issues stands in very sharp contrast to the Republicans.

They're into tax cuts.

We could -- if this isn't too radical a notion -- demand accountability of Republicans instead of debasing fellow Democrats.

[FrenchieCat]

33. Geeze....

Debasing fellow Democrats?

Do you really believe that wanting to have a discussion on a political board about a political interview I saw on television this Sunday morning.....in where an answer bothered me, is debasing?

Fellow Democrats are competing in an election? Yes or No?

Can questions be asked based on what they say? Yes or No?

Can they be asked about a myriad of policy issues, or just issues you say are OK?

Foreign policy happens to be my main interest, as the Iraq War as drained our coffers, I believe the War to be in direct relations cause and effect to the Poverty issue.

Durbin Blames Iraq War for Cuts in Government Aid ; Group Releases Poverty Report About Illinois
http://www.builderonline.com/industry-news.asp?sectionID=30&articleID=443470

I'm not quite sure why you are attempting to tell me what subject is "worth" talking about?

No, I think posting about an interview where John Edwards talks of his plan for Iraq, but doesn't really want to share with us what the plan will accomplish was what I wanted to post about. If he didn't want to take the political gamble of proposing solutions and putting himself out there a little bit and demonstrating the confidence of understanding what the outcomes "might" be.....I don't think I'm the one doing the debasing. I think it is debasing to be asked such a serious question and not really having a good reasoned answer.......even if one qualifies the answer by stating....."well, Bob, I "hope" that my recommendations would allow the ........" , or, "I believe that it could do this, although there is no guarantees".

"I don't know" didn't do the "trick" for me. Sorry if that's debasing John Edwards, a very good Democrat running for the Presidency of the United States of America while we are stuck in two wars, and another being encouraged in part......

[saltpoint]

34. I was especially impressed by DarkmoonIkonoklast's post in your

thread, FC. On the subject of humility and self-examination in the public arena and in the private domain.

I thought it was one of the best I've ever seen on DU.

I'm very sorry to say it but I feel it went to the heart of what we should be doing as opposed to the intent and tone of your OP.

Just an observation, not a personal attack. More to the point, it is praise for a purpose.

You seem to be stridently negative, and constantly so, on these boards regarding Edwards.

IMO you aren't inspiring much respect for your candidate by slamming others' candidates.

That's an old rule.

Possibly you're too young for it.

[FrenchieCat]

35. I don't have a candidate at the present....who I would support 1st is not running as of now.....

But apart from that.....I posted an excerpt of an interview, I asked a question, gave my thoughts on it, and others did the same.

I'm not sure why there is an issue here? :shrug:

I'm not going to get scared or intimidated to ask a question about a response from a candidate if that response bothered me. You telling me that I am "slamming" and "debasing" the person because I even wanted to discuss this topic. Personally, I'm not quite sure why you are doing that.

We can agree to disagree without me being told by you that I should be talking on Poverty; that I am debasing a fellow Democrat; and slamming a candidate and lowering the respect that others have for someone I advocate for.

When you talk about humility and respect, it doesn't sound like you're showing that much of it yourself. Seems like you make up the rules for me, because somehow you are the "reasoned" one, and I'm just "too young"! So apart from everything else, you as patronizing as you might think me to be or even more so. Why you want to "Right me" in reference to the "Wrong you think" I have caused is a very authoritarian response from you.

Here, read my lips....."I'll agree to disagree with your opinion on the matter that I posted on in my op, in which you took the care to respond to".

You need not go on accusing me of having done terrible things to a fellow Democrat.

[saltpoint]

36. Just a suggestion, but you might want to re-read your response to

the post on humility by DarkmoonIkonoklast.

It was dismissive, disrespectful, vacuous, and petulant.

As you scold about respect, you need to cover your tracks.

I called you on your ridiculous and unfair assault on Edwards. You do it constantly. You do it monolithically. You prohibit a civil dialogue and you are not interested in issues Democrats must raise against Republicans. If you were, you'd do it. You don't play as a team player.

Team play matters. Some of us have been through one or two campaigns over the years. Would it kill you to affirm other Democrats? If you don't like Kerry, or Edwards, or Gore, or Kucinich, then support your guy in the primary. Don't denigrate others' choices. It debases others' experiences, some of which might be experiences you could learn from.

[FrenchieCat]

38. You really are very patronizing.....

You have determined how I should interpret a post and how I should respond to a poster for me.
I disagree with your determination as to how I should have responded.

You have determined that my post on Edwards was "unfair" and "ridiculous".
I disagree with your determination.

I do it constantly. Not really, although I do it often enough. so I disagree with your exaggeration.

I prohibit civil dialogue. I disagree....I have civil dialogues often.

I'm not interested in issues Democrats must raise against Republicans. I disagree.

I agree that I'm not on the Edwards election team. Sorry.
However, I am on the Democratic team after the primaries.

I affirm other Democrats when it is warranted, and I question Democrats when it is warranted.
I like Kerry, Hillary, Kucinich, Richardson, Gore actually. I don't care for Edwards much, although I don't "dislike" him.


But answer me this.....What would happened if I followed your recommendations? If they could be implemented...I mean?

No...don't answer! I'll just assume you don't really know. :shrug:

[saltpoint]

39. Just asking? Or blowing smoke? You could have a civil dialogue

any time you wished.

But it appears not to be your intent.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Here, go talk to this guy about debasing democrats......

and slamming them.

Seems like you should get involved in that thread.....and give out some more of your recommendations as to how he should act....in order to keep everyone happy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3134110&mesg_id=3134110

I'll see if I can find so more of these "ridiculous" threads that you missed.

oops! Is this one of those threads, or is this one legitimate as far as you're concerned?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3132038&mesg_id=3132038

[saltpoint]

41. I wonder if you would entertain for just a moment the notion that

your impulse was not to discuss the Schieffer interview.

It was not your intent to discuss Edwards' analysis of the Middle East or his post-occupation recommendations -- which by the way have been widely published, had you taken a genuine interest.

If you want a dialogue, FC, there are many people who would welcome it.

When you come in slashing into a room of disparate Democrats, and pretend that others' candidates are flawed and that yours is heroic, it stinks pretty bad.

You were called on your debasing strategy.

That' all that happened. No need to refer me to other threads. I've read that one. I responded to yours.

You're blowing smoke so you don't have to be engaged in a dialogue.

[FrenchieCat]

42. How about ......

these? good or bad or what? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3134149


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3134380

[saltpoint]

45. Edwards' work on poverty-related issues have resonance for millions of

U.S. citizens living in poverty, many dangerously vulnerable, and many homeless.

Like many Democrats, he is a leading voice in these areas.

Might you place your scythe on the ground for a moment and acknowledge his role, our role, against the tide of Bush Republicanism?

Isn't that a more individual and definitive example of being a Democrat these days? Or any days in recent memory?

And instead you peck and poke and pester Edwards over one response in a CBS interview.

Jesus.

[The Count]

81. Which "work" would that be? A front organization of 2 people created for election

purposes? Some photo ops in NO to announce he's running?
What's this "work" you keep talking about?
The only work this guy did for the past 5 years or so, was running for POTUS.

[FrenchieCat]

44. So let's not talk anymore......

You can leave the thread.

Thank you though for your input! :hi:

[saltpoint]

46. I might just stay. Thanks for the hospitality.

Always one of your hallmarks.

[JNelson6563]

52. Remarkable

I admire your civility in light of the nastiness aimed at you. I feel like I just watched an obnoxious child expertly handled by a very capable adult.

I just hope the hammer falls on the more obnoxious children on this playground before too long. As it is I do not ever refer to anyone to DU anymore and haven't since these kids first showed up for the 4 primaries.

Your posts are often a breath of fresh air OC. :toast:

Julie

[Jai4WKC08]

53. You never miss a chance to bash FrenchieCat, do you?

She raised a legitimate issue. Sorry your prejudices overwhelm your judgment.

[JNelson6563]

54. Close, I take issue with bad behavior

of course the two are getting to be virtually synonomous, aren't they? I don't think it's my judgement that's clouded here considering you seem to be missing what's wrong with this discussion. Old Crusoe did a fine job highlighting it all.

Julie--weary of keyboard commando ankle biters

[Jai4WKC08]

56. What bad behavior?

You don't identify what FC did that you consider "bad." You just make an ad hominem attack, calling her an "obnoxious child." In my book, you're the only one here who has exhibited bad behavior.

I've read back thru the exchange and I dont' find anything bad on either part. Frenchie thinks we should be able to expect more insight into foreign policy from someone who aspires to be president. Old Crusoe seems to think Frenchie should have written about poverty instead. She invited him to write about it if that's what's important to him, but she's writing about what's important to her instead. WTF is wrong with that?

Over the past couple years, I don't think I have ever seen Frenchie criticize Edwards or any other Democrat when she didn't provide specific reasons for her disapproval. But over the same period, I have seen you jump into dozens of threads where any Clark supporter criticizes another Democrat. Your main complaint seems to be only that that we have opinions and express them passionately, when you bother to articulate a complaint at all. I seldom if ever have seen you contribute substantively to the discussion.

I think if you are "weary of keyboard commando ankle biters," you should avoid mirrors.

[saltpoint]

60. Give those six letters in 'Crusoe' one more shot.

One of the announced or unannounced Democrats whose names we all know will be our standard-bearer in 2008.

Debasing any of those Democrats on what's supposed to be a pro-Democratic board is counter-productive.

The OP was called for doing just that, and it's not the first time.

That's the hinge.

[Jai4WKC08]

64. self-delete

wrong place. Sorry.

[saltpoint]

66. Could be a problem in your radio receiver. Edwards was asked a

question by Schieffer, answered it, answered it honestly, answered it the way many military strategists would themselves admit it should be answered, and the OP took the occasion to cast a Democratic candidate in a negative light.

I believe a fair analysis would have acknowledged that the interview was informative and handled nicely by Edwards, that it was in keeping with the concern all of us have about the future of the Middle East generally and the incompetence of the Bush administration particularly in resolving age-old tensions there.

No one knows what's going to happen, no matter how much you pay the fortune teller at the carnival.

Edwards got it right. The OP has it wrong.

[Jai4WKC08]

65. Well, see, I don't agree with that

I don't think it's "debasing" or "counter-productive" to hold Democratic leaders accountable for what they say and do. I think we must have an honest debate within our own party. And I sure as hell don't the the GOP will miss a chance to use whatever they can against our nominee, regardless of whether we discuss it before he/she is nominated or not.

Not that I approve of dredging up lies and smears. But actual words and deeds deserve to be examined fully.

I've answered a lot of DU attacks on Wes Clark over the last few years. I have never EVER had a problem with anyone who brought up a legitimate disagreement with his policies and opinions, or a discussion of any of the things he's done or said that the GOP will use (and have used already) against him.

Hey, sorry about the "Crusoe" thing -- brain fart. :)

[saltpoint]

67. Matt Fong. I am trying to recall that man's name from a ways back,

but if that's right -- I'll google it in a minute -- I believe he was the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate seat held by Barbara Boxer, and was favored to unseat Boxer until it was discovered that he had written a personal donation check to a hate group. This was 2 elections ago.

* http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/10/26/MN232.DTL

Hate groups don't play very well in blue California and Senator Boxer went on to win re-election.

Fong's association with a hate group is the kind of information that should be brought to light and revealed to the public. Edwards' comment to Schieffer isn't anywhere NEAR that. We need to pick our fights more judiciously, since one of our candidates is going to be at the top of our ticket.

_ _ _

Nevermind about the typo -- I'm by no means the best speller in town and my typing is erratic. And you don't even want to hear about the ice-cream-on-the-keyboard incident.

* Fong link added

[FrenchieCat]

68. You seem to attack DU posters personally who don't agree

with some things said and/or done by politicians running for office.

Why are you allowed to criticize DUers, but the same DUers are not allowed to criticize John Edwards? How does that work and why should it? According to DU rules, Criticism of Democratic politicians is allowed on these board, while attacking DUers personally is not.

Why are the rules not applicable to you? Why does John Edwards need this kind of protection this early on?

FrenchieCat--Weary of hypocrites who make up their own rules as they go along.

[k_jerome]

75. as someone who has had spirited disagreements with the author of the OP to put it lightly....

i have to say that i do not find this OP to be a smear or attack...it seems to be as close to legitimate critique as i see here lately.

[FrenchieCat]

85. Thanks.

[Clark2008]

123. To bad the candidate of his choice is a big phony.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

88. It's not ok by me

[Leilani]

43. Frenchie, this thread is very sad.

Dems don't like to discuss foreign policy.

They'd rather talk health care or education. Both of which are fine subjects to discuss, but there are problems beyond domestic issues.

Until Vietnam, Dems were THE FP party. Vietnam spooked them, they backed off, & now they treat it like a hot potato. Can you imagine Roosevelt not discussing what will happen if we attack Europe or Japan?

It is totally unbelievable, that in this day & age, a major candidate can say about withdrawing from Iraq, "I don't know what will happen," & everyone is satisfied with that answer. Especially since he was one of the Senators who led the way to the IWR, giving almost unlimited power to Bush & his neo-con crew of war profiteers.

Maybe John Edwards should talk to some experts in FP & military who can tell him what will happen if we leave according to his plan, which is no plan. I'm not running for President & I know that. Just like I knew what would happen if we went to war, & why I was so vehemently opposed to it.

Americans are opposed to this war, but they want some answers from their leaders on how to solve this debacle. If Edwards can't answer the questions, then he has no reason to run to be the Leader of our country.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Thanks Leilani....I thought I just had too much champagne....

I had found Edwards' answer somewhat lacking....and I think the interviewer did too...which may be why he asked again.

I thought about this...after the interview, I went to church....and after that visited my mother sho lives an hour away. But the whole time, this "void of detail" non-answer was gnawing at me. I mean...that's like being asked what would you do if you were president, and what would you expect the results to be. And someone answers....I don't know, cause I can't guarantee anything? Why would one want to vote for someone with that answer?

As you may know, I get pretty much called a traitor by some here everytime I have the audacity to question John Edwards' wisdom and jugdgment in what he says and does......
so of course, I had to think long and hard about whether I wanted the headache by posting this. I hate the fact that I have to be made to feel uncomfortable about posing (what I consider to be important) questions. Then I realized that I had the freedom of speech and that I had a legitimate issue on the soundness of his answer....and so I posted it.

[Leilani]

48. I admire your courage always

& amazed at how knowledgable you are, with an ability to back up everything you post, with links.

I understand your passion on these issues, & I, for one, want you to keep on keepin on. You speak for me, much more eloquently than I ever could.

The criticism aimed at you is discomfort with what you are posting. You stir the pot, bring up unpleasant truths, & some supporters of other candidates don't like that. They want only happy talk about issues they deem worthy of discussing. Maybe if we'd had a little more uncomfortable discussion before the war, there would have been a different outcome.

So don't let the dissenters get you down. We have 100,000 troops in danger, thousands wounded grievously, & we better find someone who has a few answers. If not, I fear the future. Iraq is the current problem, Iran is on the horizon.

We need a leader to help solve these problems. Someone who does know the answer to the questions, or at least has some informed opinions.

[citizen snips]

86. you forgot FDR.

[Clark2008]

124. Which is why they've lost so much after 9/11.

We already BEAT the Republicans on issues of education and healthcare.

We need to be a Full Service Party - Mommy issues and Daddy issues: education AND foreign policy.

[win_in_06]

49. Says a lot about Edwards handlers. This question should have

been anticipated and he should have had a better answer. I'll be he's ready next time, because it will definitely come up again and again.

[FrenchieCat]

50. You are right...which is why I think I actually do Edwards service

when I raise some of the issues that I do.

He can correct it quickly, and move on.

Maybe in the future I'll just collect all of what strikes me odd....and just save it up and use it for a rainy day.

I think this is better, since it appears that he listens to what the netroots has to say and adjusts accordingly is possible.

[The Count]

79. Yup. Cuz we need another empty head in which others pour their agendas

Especially another one who has no problem starting wars!


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 /

[Cameron27]

59. You're getting beaten up for asking a simple question.

You don't propose a plan without considering the consequences. On what basis did he draw up his Iraq withdrawal plan, what criteria did he use and how does he know if his proposal has the best possible outcome if he doesn't have a clear idea about ANY outcome.

"Now, what I would do if I were president today is draw down 40- to 50,000 troops out of the north and south, continue over time a redeployment--over about a year or so--a redeployment of our combat troops out of Iraq."

Ok, why that number of troops? Why not more--or less? What's the strategic value of your proposal?

"I’d maintain a presence in Kuwait, probably redeploy some troops to Afghanistan, where we’d need some additional help, maintain a naval presence in the Persian Gulf. And while I was doing that, I would engage the Iranians and the Syrians directly, both of whom have an interest in a stable Iraq, particularly with America leaving Iraq."

Again what kind of presence in Kuwait, and what do you hope to accomplish with that force; under what circumstances would you use the naval force in the Persian Gulf?

You just don't you fashion any type of foreign policy without preparing for wide ranging consequences. (unless your name is George W. Bush)

[The Count]

80. S'OK if he doesn't know stuff, he'll get good advisors" - where did I hear that before?

[AtomicKitten]

106. same thing here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3134200

It seems some folks have switched horses but kept their same debate style of personal attacks in lieu of substantive debate on legitimate points of discussion.

And while "I don't know" may be refreshingly truthful to some, it makes me grind my teeth imagining the field day the wingnuts will have with it in future TV ads.

[Cameron27]

122. Those folks sure picked

the WRONG person to target when they zeroed in on you :toast: Rest assured, they're not scoring any points, and I don't EVER want to see that gagged mouth avatar on you!

To the matter at hand, the "I don't know" tactic just won't cut it. Edwards' better re-think this approach because he's eventually going to get hammered on it. My opinion, of course.

[Auntie Bush]

62. He used his best judgment when he sponsored/pushed the IWR vote and

that didn't turn out to be good judgment. Why should we have faith that he now has better decision making abilities and incite? That decision was a huge blunder and it would be disastrous if he made another one of those decisions. I'm not picking on Edwards as that goes for all those who voted for war. In my opinion...all those that voted did it for political reason...jeprodizing all those lives. It was a selfish/cowardly decision! I don't like that quality in our possible president.

"what I’m doing is using my best judgment under very difficult circumstances."

[The Count]

78. This is the part where he...um...takes responsibility for it!

[FrenchieCat]

70. Now, Understanding two Americas!

JOHN EDWARDS ME

[mtnsnake]

72. Edwards has an idea of what would happen. He just doesn't want to address it

What Edwards should have said is, "Well, I know what will happen if we leave Iraq, but I don't know what to do about the aftermath of it."

Either that or he could've said, "Well, I know what will happen if we leave Iraq, but I just don't give a shit, as long as we get out."

Great question, Frenchie.

[fuzzyball]

74. You have just exposed Edward's lack of foreign policy expertise...

I agree 100% with you that a person who wants to be the
president and commander in chief better show what he will
do upon assuming commaner in chief position. I am perturbed
by JE's answer "I will withrdaw troops but have no clue what
could happen".

Bush's management of the Iraq war has been atrocious. I hope
the next commander in chief will be much more competent. But
now that US is so deeply involved in Iraq I don't think a
withdrawal is the answer. The shia majority with help of Iran
will simply annihilate Saddam's leftover sunni's. WE could be
looking at one of the bloodiest ethnic cleansing ever witnessed
in history and US will never be trusted again by any ally. We
have no choice except to stay and help stabilize Iraq before we
withdraw troops. I do like the idea of limiting our troops to
training Iraqi's and guarding the borders of Iraq. The Iraqi
soldiers must be required to take over security, with our help
only in major firefights, but NOT STREET PATROLS. I am sick of
our soldiers killed while patrolling streets.

From everything I have heard, HRC makes the most sense on Iraq.

[The Count]

76. Wow! I guess "taking responsibility" for voting (not sponsoring) IWR takes new

heights...I broke it, but the American people understand I can't do a thing about it...shucks!

[Adelante]

82. Gawd, what a stupid thread

The OP is valid and fair. We should all be doing as FrenchieCat has done here. Question our Democratic candidates when something seems not right. Instead it's "Hey! Look at FrenchieCat!" who is not running for the Democratic nomination. Why not discuss the issue she raises? Because the strategy is to shut people the fuck up whenever Edwards brings a question upon himself.

[Laurab]

83. These threads are so tiring - pick apart any little thing

from one of the dem candidates - jump on a sentence and attack it. Why can't we let the repukes do that for us?

I'm not an Edwards fan, btw - but this is just so very petty. Who the hell DOES know what's going to happen in Iraq? I'm not sure anyone does, no matter what plan is implemented. It's going to be a mess - that's the only honest answer anyone could give, aside from "I don't know".

I am quite sure that if you asked Mr. Edwards for more specifics, he would give them to you. I'm sure he has opinions about what he would hope would happen, or what he thinks might happen. Why, on a Democratic board is one sentence being taken and dissected, and is this going to be happening for the entirety of the campaign?

I don't understand why this is on the "Greatest" page, and I also don't understand why we don't leave this type of thing to the repukes. They do a good enough job without our help.

As I said, I'm not even an Edwards FAN, but if I want to see this crap, I'd be on Freepville's website.

I think pretty much everyone is aware you don't want Edwards leading you - I don't necessarily want him leading me, either, but it's not because of one sentence out of one interview, and I'm not going to look for every single little thing he's done that I can attack, and post it on here - for God's sake, we're aware you don't like the guy.

[FrenchieCat]

84. You are free to call this post crap if you so choose.....

and What is a small petty point to one, may not be such a small petty point to another....as this is a relative opinion to have.

Diversity of opinions should be welcomed on these boards.

I welcome your opinion although I disagree with it, as I don't consider my op as small a matter as you do.

[Joe Chi Minh]

92. Let them have their fun. Its's all about spin with these people, because

that's all Clark is about, and they can only imagine that Edward's honesty is massively incompetent spin!!! Honesty seems just a superior form of chicanery to them.

[Laurab]

95. Actually, I don't mind Clark, either

I wouldn't mind seeing him in the race at all, then I'd look at his plans, as I've done with all the others. What I don't understand is why some of his supporters have to regularly bash all other candidates. The guy isn't even RUNNING.

I admit that there is one candidate that I really don't want to see win the nomination (not Edwards), mainly because I think for sure we'd lose the election. I found myself jumping on the anti-bandwagon once or twice, and another poster kind of made me re-think it. I decided it's best left to the other party to bash our candidates - they do it quite well. Besides, there are so many repukes to bash...

[Joe Chi Minh]

119. How could you countenance supporting an avowed militarist-imperialist,

whose version of "Bring 'em on" - which I'm tired of quoting to deaf ears - was "so over the top", it made Bush's exultation seem almost diffident! And in the context of *'s imperialist adventures in Iraq - with Iran in the pipeline!

Do you all go ga-ga at the sight of a military uniform or the thought of a general? Does the thought of an imperialist US wielding a big stick - if not exactly talking sotto voce - turn you on so much? You must all have very peculiar ways of interpreting Clark's unambiguously damning, recorded words on a host of subjects. I'm baffled trying to work out how the English language can bear such different meanings to the ones I recognise in Clark's words.

[Laurab]

120. I didn't say I supported him, actually

I really don't know much about him - I've seen him on various shows, and he seemed like a decent guy. I didn't know about his version of "bring it on", and hell NO - the sight of a military uniform or and imperialist US definitely doesn't "turn me on".

I joined in '04 well after the primaries - actually, after the election, but I was lurking before then, so Clark has never been an actual "candidate" to me.

I must confess my ignorance - I only read up on people when they're actually RUNNING. Really, I was apolitical until * made that impossible for me. I haven't, and won't study up on Clark unless he's actually running, but I will say, some of his supporters on here scare me a little...

[AshevilleGuy]

93. Thank you, Laurab! Of all the reasons (or excuses)

to bash a candidate I never thought I would see Lack of Clairvoyance used to do it! Hey, if anyone wants someone with an answer to what will happen, ask John EDWARD - that is E-D-W-A-R-D, not Edwards, he is a psychic. He will give you an answer of some sort, and it will be "okay"... :)

But looking back through modern history, predictions about WARS have been singularly WRONG. World War I was predicted confidently by millions to be "over by Christmas 1914". After D-Day many said that "we will be home by Christmas"; no one saw the Battle of the Bulge out there. Pres Lincoln thought that the Civil War would be over after Gettysburg, if Union armies would just pursue Lee. Hitler was confident that the Soviet Union would fall within weeks of Barbarossa. Nixon was sure that Vietnam would be won by bombing Cambodia. I could go on and on, but it won't matter in this thread, this is a bash-fest.

The only reason to beat up on a candidate that was more trivial than this was in 1972, when Sen. Edmund Muskie was set upon because he ... CRIED on camera (gasp!). Some reporters or politicos had said something nasty about his wife, and he got so mad and emotional he showed tears. He was the front runner for the Dem nomination up until then! But this one silly thing doomed his candidacy and he withdrew shortly. I do not recall clairvoyance as being an issue that year.

[Laurab]

96. "Lack of Clairvoyance" indeed.

That is an incredible stretch for bashing, I agree! And thanks for the laugh!

Actually I think there have been other trivial things, I'm not sure how many actually derailed a campaign, but I'd like to think they came from the other party, at the very least.

BTW - welcome to DU! :hi:

[citizen snips]

87. Many different scenarios could play out.

But Edwards is right when he says the American people don't know what will happen if we withdraw which is what I beleive.

[FrenchieCat]

89. I think articulating the different scenarios would have been more fruitful....

as the question was not asking whether the American people know or don't know what would happen....

...but rather the question posed was what does John Edwards thinks might the results if he were to implement his own recommendations.

[citizen snips]

90. True

but I don't think it was that big of a deal because no matter what happens Edwards resolve will stay remain the same which is to end the war.

[Beaverhausen]

91. Does Obama have an answer to that? Does Clinton? Clark?

What do they say will happen when asked the same thing?

[AshevilleGuy]

94. But that is different, don't you see?

Those candidates are automatically forgiven for not knwong the future. Poor Edwards had just been absent when those free passes were given out, and he must PAY...

[FrenchieCat]

97. Actually, if someone has a question about what a candidate said.....

they should be free to post it. :shrug:

I'm not quite sure why my OP is being charecterized as a slam, an attack, or an unfair question.
It simply isn't.

[AshevilleGuy]

100. You are free to post it.

I just can't imagine why anyone would even think to fault someone for not knowing how a war is going to turn out. Predictions of that sort have always been notoriously wrong, and we are in totally uncharted territory in Iraq; there are no precidents - even Vietnam was different. Okay, it was easy to predict that the US would win in the invasion of Grenada, but otherwise not.

[FrenchieCat]

105. I do thank you for your opinion...but, My OP was not directed solely at you....

But the interview that I saw on National Television showed Edwards being asked IF HIS recommendations were implemented, what might be the result. It was not simply asking him to predict the direction of a war.

People who seem to be against Bush's surge seem to be able to estimate what they think would happen if that was done. People who were against Bush going into Iraq seem to be able to give their estimations as to what would happen if he pursued it.

So how come if Edwards bothers to make recommendations, his response that he doesn't know what their affects might be cannot be questioned? Why is that so unimaginable?

If my dentist made recommendation to me about certain steps I could take to save my teeth....and I asked, what would happen if I followed his directions?....I would hope that he'd have more to say to me than, "I don't know, and I'm sure you understand that."

I would hope that he would articulate the various things that could happen....and if he wanted to use "caution", he would simply give a qualifier to me that he could not guarantee any of it, but that the probability of some of my teeth being saved would be greatly increased.

What's the point of making recommendations about anything if one is unwilling to discuss how those recommendations might affect the situation that one crafted the recommendations for? :shrug:

[AshevilleGuy]

107. Predicting the surge results is easier than

predicting the results of our withdrawal. Surges have been done before there so they have some track records. Big withdrawals have not been done, so there are no precedents. There are dozens and dozens of variables: will one or several militias stage a surprise attack that changes everything? Will the 'government' there survive? Will Iran or Syria overtly come in? There are many more scenarios than that, and they are all based upon human behavior, which can not be confidently predicted.

Edwards does know that the soldiers he withdraws will no longer be in danger - that is probably what he is concentrating on. Then, political work can be done to TRY and help Iraq afterwards, but such attempts are probably limited in what they can accomplish. The US has already done enough there.

Results from work on teeth are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry; it should be fairly easy to predict long term results.

[FrenchieCat]

110. I think the question is what will happen in Iraq?

I think that our troops are important....however, at the time of the Iraqi invasion, seemed like many of us were more worried about Iraqi lives.

Again, maybe if Edwards would have answered as you had done, I wouldn't have posted the OP. :shrug:

[Beaverhausen]

104. Until you can show us how other candidates have answered that question...

...this does look like a slam against Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Please explain.....

Edwards was asked the question on Sunday on Face the Nation. Why do I have to search out what each and every candidate said beforehand? Who made up that rule?

[FrenchieCat]

99. Good question! Why don't you post an OP asking the question you have?

Make sure to have the relevant interview or quote posted...and ask away!

Let's hope that some will post responses to you without resorting to personal attacks on you as their answer.

[zulchzulu]

102. Read 101. What Edwards SHOULD have said

That's Obama's plan. I would guess that he would have answered it a bit more succinctly.

[zulchzulu]

98. What are you? An Edwards hater?

:sarcasm:

[zulchzulu]

101. What Edwards SHOULD have said

He could have said that we launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative with key nations in the region to help achieve a political settlement among the Iraqi people to end the civil war in Iraq, and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and regional conflict.

Additionally, you should appoint a Special Envoy for Iraq to carry out this diplomacy within 60 days. Future economic assistance to the Government of Iraq would be based on significant progress toward meeting various benchmarks such as training, controlling the violence and so forth.

You would start a phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq not later than May 1, 2007, with the goal that all combat brigades redeploy from Iraq by March 31, 2008, as written with the Iraq Study Group.

Oh wait! That's Obama's plan!

[Beaverhausen]

103. a PLAN and a RESULT are two different things

Edwards does have a plan...surprisingly very similar to Obama's.

[zulchzulu]

109. Well...

...he should have said that. I'm not picking on Edwards, jus' sayin'.

Next time, Edwards needs to pump it up a little.

[NDP]

111. Why don't you tell me what will happen on tomorrow

[FrenchieCat]

112. Even without my recommendations on that situation that I am NOT asking to be charged with,

....I can say that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. The earth will continue to be round, and babies will be born, and people will die. The government will go into session, and the stock market will be open. More than one plane will take off and land, and crops will grow. A flower will bloom somewhere on the planet, and Global Warming will continue. People will shake hands, and the Iraq war will continue. All these things will happen with a probability of 99.99%...although I can't make any guarantees.

what else would you like to know? :)

[NDP]

115. And there is a 99.99% probability that you will urinate on John Edwards' name on this board

Are you sure of any of what you said, or are you just hypothesizing based on what's happened in the past? Since you really are just "guessing" (even if it does happen), I "guess" that you want Edwards to "guess" about Iraq. I doubt that will satisfy you, even though the truth is that no one knows "with certainty" what will happen if we start leaving.

I actually believe that Edwards' answer could have used more words like "with certainty", and then he could have gone on to say, "but I believe based on x, y, and z that this is the best option because...". I'd add, that if I was Edwards I would say that "one thing is sure. If we do start leaving, less American soldiers will be caught up in the middle of a Civil War."

But the fact remains, to focus on that part of the interview is just petty, which is what you generally are when it comes to John Edwards. He has said plenty of times that "the truth is that no one knows what will happen. We make our best judgment," blah, blah, blah. And that's the truth. Anything beyond that is just a prediction.

[FrenchieCat]

117. Who...you won!

Best guess on one's own recommendations would be good, but this conversation is no longer required.

I've been assimilated...... for a time, at least!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3135617

[Cameron27]

126. Frenchie,

I hate that gag on you. It's very clear that some folks have painted a big target on you, so I really do understand your decision, but hell, it's a such a sad thing to see happen. You've got my support, whatever you do, but it's so infuriating when a good poster feels they have to back away.:mad:

[Mass]

113. This is probably the most honest thing he has said in a long time.

However, it would have been better if he had said what he thought would happen. Obviously, nobody was asking him to be 100 % sure.

But Edwards has decided that he would have a new "authenticity", and this is what we are seeing more and more in what he presents, even if, for the largest part, he is in agreement with what the rest of the Senate and the House are proposing, rethoric aside.

[Infinite Hope]

114. What he's saying is true. No sense in BSing with roses. We've had 6 years of that.

He knows the plausible scenarios as do others. But no one knows for sure how things will actually play out. I like that he refuses to fantasize.

[mtnester]

116. "I" can tell you what will happen....

meet the new boss....same as the old boss.

[enough already]

125. I know what will happen if we leave

Our men and women will stop dying. So why the FUCK are we waiting to do anything about it???

[dflprincess]

127. If we leave Iraq....

Southeast Asia will fall to the Communists!

Oh wait.. I'm confused again.