John Edwards: "I was wrong".

[Nutmegger]

I want to post this, despite it being old. I wonder how many people actually read the article in its entirety?

I was wrong.

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

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

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

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623_pf.html

[JDPriestly]

1. Thanks for posting this. I'm waiting for Hillary to copy Edwards' statement.

That'll be the day. But then, she came close to copying his health care plan, so she might copy this also.

[calteacherguy]

3. She won't. nt

[slick8790]

6. Why not?

I'm not really in anyone's camp yet supporting wise. But isn't this a good thing? And isn't that a bad thing that Hillary won't admit she was wrong is authorizing?

[GreenArrow]

13. she's already said she "regrets" it

which practically speaking, is the exact same thing John Edwards is saying. Course, with Edwards, having said "I was wrong" if not I'm sorry (usually a critical component of apologies), he feels he can take the "high" road and, with the utmost righteous self satisfaction, bash everyone over the head with his mea culpa.

I don't like Hillary. But at least she isn't insulting me with some fake apology.

[Qutzupalotl]

17. So a non-apology is better?

Really, they've pressed her on it and she gives the same stock answer. To me, that seems fake. Admitting fault seems genuine.

[GreenArrow]

19. I'd say a fake-apology

might be worse than a non-apology.

[mark414]

24. how do you know it's fake?

have you never in your life had a change of heart, or realized you were wrong about something?

[saracat]

7. Because she is as incapable as Bush of admitting a mistake! And busy pandering to AIPAC

and trying to look "strong" while pretending to be hiding the fact that she is liberal because she is a "woman" and doesn't want to look 'weak". The rules are "different" for "women" her supporters say. Right. I guess Hillary doesn't really believe in equality. All women should be offended by this obfuscation and gamesmanship. It is insulting.

[Skip Intro]

12. I've heard her say she was decieved and that she wished she could take it back

Words to those effects.


Why do some people ingore this?

[GreenArrow]

14. I think it's convienient to do so

They simply don't like Hillary, and they are looking for distinctions to make between her and the guy they do like. And really, it's as much about who you like as anything else, cause there simply aren't that many substantive differences between any of the big dogs running in this race.

[AmBlue]

26. I call bull$hit...

Hillary's taking huge large donations from the US Weapons Industry and talking tough on Iran. She's just another equivocating, triangulating hawk and proud of it. Far from the same as John Edwards, my friends.

[Skip Intro]

28. People want HIllary to jump through a hoop on this. Say "mistake" - or we'll keep twisting your arm.

It's ridiculous to me.

She's said what amounts to that anyway.


The insistence that she word it in such a way or it doesn't count is really, I'm sorry, ridiculous. She voted it for it. Edwards voted for it. Kerry voted for it. They've all expressed regret for that vote. She has expressed regret for that vote. To ignore that and insist that it only counts if she uses the word "mistake" is just nuts.


imho

[Breeze54]

29. Then she went ahead with her "regrets" and voted FOR the Iran WR!!

Some "regret" she has... :grr: :puke:

Poor memory too!! She's a politician, period!

It's all about winning, not about the people.

[Basileus Basileon]

32. Iran War Resolution? I must have missed that one.

Please don't say Kyl-Lieberman here. That grants no extra war powers to anything or anyone.

[AmBlue]

37. I don't CARE how Hillary words anything

She's a CORPORATIST and she lost my vote long ago. Nothing she says is likely to win it back. I want a President who believes in government of the people, by the people and for the people. Guess what? Hill's not that person.

[Clark2008]

43. Ahem...

While John Edwards has capably expressed his support for deconstructing the U.S. war in Iraq, he leaves the impression that he is now ready, willing and able to launch a U.S. attack against Iran.In a statement that tacitly condoned Israel’s repressive policies: targeted assassinations, house demolitions, military attacks on civilian targets, detentions of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, and the persistent violation of the human rights of the Palestinians, Edwards proclaimed his allegiance to the agenda designed by the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). In their now well-known paper, two highly distinguished American academics, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, exposed AIPAC as the political core of the Israel Lobby. While John Edwards has capably expressed his support for the deconstruction of the premiere project of the Israel Lobby — the U.S. war in Iraq — he leaves the impression that he is now ready, willing and able to launch their next foolish enterprise: a U.S. attack against Iran.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/012907CARMICHAEL.shtml

I'm not saying you can't like Edwards - go for it - but let's not say he's something he isn't.

[Mellowtone]

9. Good point!

Hillary will copy it, change a few words, no, maybe she won't... but we know she wants to...

[calteacherguy]

2. I thought he was going to say "I was wrong to think I could win the nomination."

Guess that's coming up later...

[Inspired]

4. He won't lose if Democrats remember what they stand for. n/t

[saracat]

8. John Edwards is the soul of the Democratic party.

[Inspired]

15. Yes, he is! n/t

[GreenArrow]

10. if Democrats remember that

they'd vote for Kucinich. But they won't and they won't. They won't even vote for a cheap self-promoting Kuicnich knock-off like Edwards. Election 2008 is all about winning, not about who was right or who has the best plan.

Interestingly, Edwards does not credit in his apology those who were right from the beginning in opposing the invasion of Iraq, including his own constituents. Nor does he make mention of the damage and destruction we have wrought in Iraq, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the environmental destruction, the disease. Nor does he apologize for supporting illegal aggressive war. He's shows no remorse, but instead uses his apology to make a political pitch, for his own personal gain. He has set his whole "apology" up in order to deliver the sales pitch at the end.

[Clark2008]

44. Yes he would.

If we remembered that, we'd all be voting for Kucinich.

[waiting for hope]

5. Thanks Nutmegger -

It was an excellent op-ed then and it speaks volumes now. People tend to forget how crazy it was back then and Bush and his PNAC buddies were willing to do anything to get this occupation started. It kills me to see so many here give HRC a pass on this and slam Edwards, and if there was any integrity over some of the posts, Kucinich would be at the top of the polls.

Thanks again! :hi:

[Hekate]

11. A statement astounding for its rarity in the political world. I like Edwards a lot. nt

[Clanfear]

16. I find this mea cupla rather specious.

So, if the intellligence had been right it would have been the right vote? He is there to make a judgement, and he made one based on the info he had. He argued on national television that Iraq was a greater threat than North Korea or Iran.
So was it a mistake in hindsight because of the intel faults and pumping up by *, or was it a mistake regardless?

I do not trust this man, and never will.

[GreenArrow]

18. exactly

This war was wrong under any of the rationales offered for it.

It was a "mistake" because he stood/stands to lose politically due to his choice of supporting a completely unnecessary war of aggression.

[Clanfear]

20. He lacks good judgement.

There were others on the Senate Intel Committee that saw this for what it was. He did not. Trying to say it was a mistake because of the reasons given does not forgive is lack of judgement.

[SaveElmer]

21. John Edwards non-apology "apology"

From Meet the Press last February...on voting for the IWR

I take responsibility (except George Bush and Bill Clinton staffers made me do it)

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

[Clanfear]

22. So

If * had not been so incompetent in running the war it would not have been a mistake?

[Basileus Basileon]

31. So if Bush hadn't been incompetent in running the war,

and if Bush hadn't given him bad intelligence re:WMD, and if Bush this that and the other. Basically, this war would have been great if anyone else were President, apparently.

[AdHocSolver]

34. If the war had been prosecuted "competently", it could have been over in weeks with few casualties.

Saddam Hussein could have been overthrown and a competent government installed in Baghdad, and the civil war averted. U.S. forces could have been withdrawn quickly, and the situation stabilized.

That didn't happen because the secret goals of the Bush/Cheney regime was never about replacing Saddam with a stable Iraq government. It was about stealing the oil, and occupying Iraq on a permanent basis to control that oil. Edwards, as a freshman senator, could not know that at the time. His mistake was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, and as a freshman senator, wanting to impress his constituents in North Carolina that he is a "doer".

He has admitted that he was wrong and that takes a lot of courage. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand refuses to admit unequivocally that the Iraq war resolution was a mistake. Edwards is criticized for not knowing that the WMD claims were phony. Yet, members of the intelligence community are saying right now that Iran does not yet have nuclear capability, and won't have nuclear capability for several years. There is plenty of time for diplomatic efforts to work with the Iranians, and yet Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman anyway. Saying that it is "nonbinding" so it doesn't matter is inane considering Bush makes no distinction as to whether he actually has authority or not.

Hillary supporters here are using a double standard that does not hold water.

[girl gone mad]

46. To be fair..

Hillary is in an even worse position on this issue.

[yodermon]

23. You *K N E W* the intelligence was flawed, yet you CO-SPOSORED it

You didn't just "vote" for it; you CO-FUCKING-SPONSORED it, Mr Edwards. EVEN WHILE there was a classified version of the NIE available to you to read on the Senate Intel. committee, a version with dissenting opinions and qualifying language that would have given any reasonable person pause in the rush to justify war. Yet you "forgot" to read it, or whatever the fuck your excuse was.

Boo fucking hoo. Apology rejected.

[AdHocSolver]

36. The intelligence today says Iran has no nukes, and Hillary voted for Kyl-Lieberman anyway.

That is no different than your criticism of Edwards for voting for the Iraq war resolution, claiming that he should have known better. Clinton should know from non-Bush intelligence sources that Iran is currently no threat to the U.S., and there is still time to pursue a diplomatic course to resolve the issue. Moreover, it was brought out elsewhere that, as long ago as two years, Iran had approached the U.S. with the intent of compromising with the U.S. about its nuclear development program. Clinton must surely have known about this and, with Bush's record of duplicity, should have voted against giving Bush any military option with respect to Iran. Yet she voted for it anyway.

Saying it is "nonbinding" is a specious excuse since Bush doesn't differentiate "binding" or "nonbinding". Her vote shows that Clinton is either politically naive or not to be trusted.

[yodermon]

39. don't worry, HRC gets a double-dose of vitriol from me on this issue. n/t

[closeupready]

25. Wow, that's pretty momentous for an American politician of his stature.

n/t

[slipslidingaway]

27. The 9/5/02 Intelligence Committee Meeting with George Tenet

He was wrong on more than just his vote, I posted some of the following information to several of Edwards' supporters, each time the answer is the same, silence.

Edwards knew the intelligence information was not up to date in early September, still he gave powerful speeches on why we needed to remove Saddam and why we had to hurry with the resolution. He never read the full NIE that was hastily produced, he proudly cosponsored the IWR, voted against any amendment that attempted to limit the authority in the IWR and then voted for the final bill. A bill which not only gave Bush broad authority to go to war, but also delegated his duty as a member of Congress to declare war. I still do not think he is telling the whole story :(

So which error does his apology cover, it appears that Edwards would like it to cover several errors in judgement. The new motto seems to be 'trust me, I apologized' :shrug:


At the 9/5/02 meeting the members found out that there was no current intelligence report on Iraq WMD's, Edwards should have been aware of that fact since he was on the Committee. Several members... Durbin, Graham, Feinstein and Levin all wrote letters pressing for an NIE.


Knowing the lack of current information what did Edwards do...


Edwards gave a speech on 9/12/02 on the Senate floor saying we know Saddam has WMD's and we should not wait to remove him.

IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO
(Senate - September 12, 2002)
http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html



Edwards wrote an op ed on 9/19/02 for the Washington Post saying we must act quickly on any resolution.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
"Congress Must Be Clear John Edwards
Quick Action Will Ensure that Politics Plays no Part in the Debate About Iraq."


On 10/7/02 Edwards gave a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies...

America's Role in the World
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/

"...This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel..."


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter11.htm

"In September 2002, in the midst of a debate about taking military action against Iraq, Congress, specifically several Members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), requested that the Intelligence Community (IC) produce an National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The IC had not produced an in-depth, comprehensive, coordinated IC assessment of Iraq's WMD programs since the production of the December 2000 Intelligence Community (IC)Assessment, Iraq: Steadily Pursuing WMD Capabilities and had never produced an NIE devoted to Iraq's WMD programs."


What I Knew Before the Invasion
By Bob Graham
Sunday, November 20, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

"...At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE..."


Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

Byrd Amdt. No. 4868
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00234

Durbin Amdt. No. 4865
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

Levin Amdt. No. 4862
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235

[Basileus Basileon]

30. "I'm wrong. It was Bush's fault."

No, John, it wasn't. Don't blame "the intelligence." Everyone knew the inspectors hadn't found any whiffs of anything. Everyone knew Colin Powell's speech was a crock. And this war would have been a mistake even if Iraq did have WMD.

You were far more wrong than you admitted here.

[FrenchieCat]

33. That apology is actually not THAT old......

and in fact, the apology took John Edwards longer to formulate than the time that has passed since he said sorry. It took over three years from his initial vote to finally "do" an Op-Ed to say he made a mistake....and that was only 2 years ago this month.

....So do the math....on the polling support of the American people on the Iraq war starting in 2002, then see what it was in 2003, then in 2004 and finally check out all of 2005 until November of 2005 (date of his formal apology).....and first understand that it took that long for John Edwards to realize he had made a mistake worthy of an apology....and try not to forget that the apology also came after an unsuccessful run in a primary, and an unsuccessful run as the VP on the Dem ticket.

Then scratch your head, and ask what EXACTLY was it that made him FINALLY SEE the error in his ways? In other words, what made him apologize so long after the fact, before deciding to run AGAIN?

Those who do the math with their eyes open while understanding how public opinion shifted will only be fooling themselves if they don't see what is clearly there; John Edwards did what John Edwards HAD TO DO if John Edwards wanted to run for President yet again. It wasn't about humility or sincerity.....it was sheer political expediency and calculation.....just like his Iraq co-sponsorship and cheerleadering for the war were. He knew exactly what he was doing in October of 2002, and he knew exactly what he was doing in November of 2005.....aspiring to become President; and everything else was bullshit!

[Major Hogwash]

35. I disagree with some of what you said based on the fact that Kerry has been so silent

As to whom he will endorse for president.

I think it is indicative of ALL politicians to make statments that are true, after the fact.
Yet, Hill hasn't apologized for her IWR vote, instead she defends it - still to this day!

There's something about Mary.

No, actually, there's something about Hillary.
Something wrong, something very, very wrong when a person that is supposed to be as smart as she is supposed to be, will not, can not apologize for making a mistake, simply because they are afraid of some anticipated backlash.

But, then Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and threw the baby out with the bath water while she was trying to look "tough".
She can spin it any way she wants, it doesn't look good for anyone to agree with Bush about labeling people or organizations "terrorists" in this day and age.

That's sort of like telling the fox his coat is nice and shiny while he is guarding the hen house.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I'm not sure how what Hillary is doing or has not done

impacts why John Edwards did what he did....so I'm not truly certain as to what your point is in response to my point. What does Hillary Clinton have to do with John Edwards co-sponsorship of the IWR and his cheerleadering of the blank check by writing Op-Eds and giving speeches in favor of Iraq back in 2002? I don't understand what Hillary has to do with Edwards not apologizing till Late 2005.

I am not supporting Hillary Clinton...but I'm not clear on how you believe that she fits into John Edwards actions? Please clarify this! :shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

42. The tide had already turned...

:thumbsup:

[Adelante]

38. Who cares?

They're all still dead. Now if he can raise the troops and the Iraqis back from the dead, I will forget that it was his co-sponsorship with Lieberman, that it was his not reading the NIE ordered by the Intelligence Committee he sat on, that it was his votes against every single alternative amendment, that it was his hawking editorial distributed by the State Department and exhibited on government websites worldwide - I will forget that his tragically poor judgment brought us nothing but death and destruction and moral bankruptcy - the day he raises the dead. He does not deserve to be forgiven that much, not to the point of leading this country anywhere. He already led it to hell the last time he held public office.

[slipslidingaway]

40. And close to 5 million people displaced :( n/t

[Clark2008]

41. "I apologize...

for my entire Senate record in hopes of duping enough people into my grassroots campaign."

Sadly, it worked, too.

[girl gone mad]

47. If he gets elected...

and panders to the same people he's pandering to now, his presidency will be a truly great one.

[ecstatic]

48. criminally negligent is more like it... but that's water under the bridge nt