John Edwards was a co-sponsor of the Iraq war resolution

[quinnox]

And he wins second place in the DU straw poll. Unbelievable. Just because he says he is sorry that is good enough?

And do you remember how rabid he pushed the Iraq war and Saddams weapons of mass destruction? I remember it well. He was a total war hawk on Iraq and Hillary compared to him on the Iraq war was a dove.

Sorry Edwards but you can't erase history. We remember what you did.

[Richardo]

1. Got any news from THIS year?

:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

5. Why? Is that when the war started or something?

and is that war still going on?

When do the Consequences of war and peace decisions matter? In the year that they happened?

Is there really a statute of limitation that doesn't go beyond 12 or 24 months? :shrug:

[Richardo]

8. I guess you're not allowed to learn from your mistakes and be President

...which, when you come to think of it, explains why we're in Year 6 of Bush/Cheney, doesn't it?

[FrenchieCat]

10. So why did it take him three years to "learn" from his mistake?

Why didn't he learn from his mistake once no WMDs had been found?

[Richardo]

15. Who says it took him three years to learn?

Maybe it just took him 3 years to tell YOU about it.

[cuke]

20. So he kept it a secret from us?

[Richardo]

25. I don't know nor do I care.

I care about what someone WILL do as President, what his or her plans are NOW and how they plan to get them implented. I want to know what they will do given WHAT THEY KNOW NOW, not second guess their actions based on what they thought they knew 5 fucking years ago -- in the midst of an election campaign where most Dems were concerned about being painted as weak and Bush was near the top of his popularity. Many deceptions, dollars and dead bodies have gone under the bridge since then.

Context, people. :eyes:

[goodgd_yall]

32. ...

:toast:

[Richardo]

33. ...

:toast:

[The Count]

41. Do his votes in the senate give you any clue what he'd do as a president? On war,

on poverty, on Patriot act - everything he speechifies how is in direct opposition to his votes...Which Edwards do you trust? The campaigner or the senator?

[cuke]

70. At least he'll apologize when he's done

[FrenchieCat]

34. Well, I know what he was saying in 2003 and 2004.........and it wasn't

something that resemble apologies......

So my question to you is, do you know what John Edwards was saying publicly about his support of the Iraq War after no WMD had been found?

Cause if you don't know what Edwards was saying up until November 2005, I can post it for you.

It wasn't a secret or anything. :shrug:

[Richardo]

36. Is it November 2005 now?

Then see my post #25.

By the way, Edwards is not my first choice in the primaries, just so you know. Dodd is.

[FrenchieCat]

39. So in other words, whatever someone has done is OK as long as

it is in the past?

So Bush is correct when he says he might go down better than anticipated in the history books? I'm sure that at some point he may just apologize for his decisions.....and what will count then (from your view...I'm guessing) is only what he will be saying then, not what he said at the time that he could have done something different, right?

Unlike you, I judge what one WILL DO by what one has ALREADY Done.
Making serious mistakes does not provide rewards and promotions where I come from!

Obviously you feel differently.

Good luck with that! :hi:

[cuke]

72. No, only if it's Edwards

I've never seen an Edwards supporter give another candidate a pass for something because it was in the past.

[Whisp]

63. that's one big horkin' huge mistake.

an unforgivable one. Anyone who went along with Bush on the war is dead to me. no excuses, Ever. No forgiveness, Ever.
yah, I'm so mean.

[Richardo]

64. Not mean.

Just dogmatic.

Good luck finding that one politician that will vote your way every single time. :thumbsup:

[Whisp]

74. please don't trivialize the horrendous Iraq war.

it's not about not 'voting my way every single time' - it's just simply doing the right thing and standing up against The Big Wrong. Edwards and too many others didn't stand up then and expect us to forget and forgive. It's a carved in stone certainty that I will not. ever. I will never trust him again to stand up.

[BlueStater]

76. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

Just curious.

[Whisp]

82. I didn't vote in 2004.

if I could have I may have voted for him. back then. not now. he folded too quickly about the recount. I thought that was almost fraudulent on his part - his donation drive to hire all these people/lawyers to contest/make sure that the election is on the up and up. And he folded without even a whimper. I sure would want my money back if I gave on that reason alone. Whatever happens to the donation money collected under false pretenses? can one get reimbersed?

so I guess you are guessing i am either a felon or not a citisen of the US.
toss a coin. ;)

and yes, it's very material to me who gets the presidential nod, even tho I am not an american. The decisions made by the head cheese affects everyone worldwide so I have every right to put in my 3 cents worth. just in case I get the regular 'its none of your business'. not saying you will. just saying I've heard that here.

[Richardo]

77. Great. Who's. Your. Guy. or. Gal?

[Whisp]

81. Kucinich - as he one of the few who can speak with a clear conscience

maybe he has some bones rattling around in his closet too. who doesn't, but for now he is the only one that is saying what I believe is the way to get off this runaway war train.

[Whisp]

84. I guess I'm Presidential material then.

I knew the Iraq war was a mistake at first hearing of it. It didn't take a super sleuth to figure that one out.

learning from your mistakes usually means things that affect you personally. that''s the way i take it anyway. Edwards boo boo support for the war made it very very personal to others lives and deaths and welfare. can't just chalk it up to 'learning from his big huge horkin' biggest mistake a human can ever make in a lifetime that affects millions of lives' thingie.

[OKNancy]

2. I AM NOT an Edwards supporter

however, I always suspected that Edwards was moved by the humanitarian aspects of ousting Saddam. Bless his bleeding heart.

[Adelante]

3. Sssshh

Don't you know he had no Senate career?

[mohc]

4. I was not aware...

...that sponsorship of the IWR was the only criteria we should consider for choosing a candidate. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Clintonista2]

7. I was not aware...

...The OPer ever said that sponsorship of the IWR was the only criteria we should consider for choosing a candidate.

[mohc]

13. Of course he didn't

but neither was the OP an even handed weighing of all the issues necessary for choosing a candidate. The argument was basically that sponsorship of the IWR alone is enough to disqualify Edwards from consideration, or at the very least arguing that he should not have as much support here. If I were looking at issue positions alone to decide my candidate, I would probably be leaning towards Kucinich or Dodd, but the decision is far more complicated than that, and certainly more complicated than IWR sponsorship.

[Clintonista2]

14. I think his real argument was

Edwards supporters shouldn't be attacking Hillary for her IWR vote, when their own candidate co-wrote the legislation that brought us there.

[mohc]

22. Hmm

maybe that is what they meant, but that is certainly not spelled out anywhere, no mention of attacks at all. Maybe it was implied if you have been reading other threads, but no more so than it implied IWR sponsorship was itself a dis-qualifier. While I would have preferred Hillary and Edwards both opposed the IWR to begin with, I have less issue with sponsorship than continuing to defend the vote. At this point attacking Clinton for her IWR vote alone seems to me fairly pointless, although I must admit I do not understand her reasoning behind defending the vote (though that certainly has no effect on my support of her).

[Richardo]

35. Single-issue voters should not be allowed to cast ballots

You don't want a President, you want a Pope.

Anyone who can't grasp that politics is compromise, not catechism; or who can't comprehend that the expedient, sometimes inconsistent and self-contradictory nature of real-world politics bears no resemblance the dogma of political purity, is not qualified to hold a voter registration card.

[The Count]

42. That's what Lieberman called Lamont..."single issue candidate"

Too bad war is a life and death issue...And as a senator Edwards pretty much voted against everything he preaches now, so....

[Whisp]

66. the single issue of the Iraq war influences many other issues

as we watch the billions go down that toilet hole directly into the waiting pockets of the Master Thieves. The Iraq war Is The Mother of All Issues.

[CTLawGuy]

101. so if someone favors instituting racial apartheid in America

that's only "one issue" and we should still consider them?

Some issues are too big to ignore, and Iraq is one of them.

The IWR was the biggest derogation of Congressional responsibility to our country in recent memory.

The thing had no real limits on presidential power.
It did not ask for an actual case for war, did not demand a plan with an exit strategy, even in secret, or a realistic cost estimate.
It didn't demand that Bush exhaust alternatives, instead it allowed him to unilaterally "determine" that alternatives would not work.

It was voted on in the heat of an election year; it was pushed by Tom Daschle in order to "take the issue off the table" in the 2002 midterms. Clearly many in congress proceeded out of political concern rather than concern for the effect on our nation.

This is especially true of John Kerry, the man who had spoken out against the Vietnam War and had voted against the first gulf war in 1990. His vote doomed him in 2004, leaving him only to argue that Bush mismanaged the war, rather than a full debate over the morality and wisdom of the war.

[FrenchieCat]

9. So why was Edwards so gun-ho to the point of Sponsoring

his mistake? What was it about War with Iraq that he found so attractive and requiredd? In other words, what made him work so hard to attempt to compel others to join his own support to a blank check? And why did he vote NO on the Levin Amendment? Why did he think that the Lieberman bill was a better answer than the Levin Amendment? :shrug:

[mohc]

16. That is a good question

And I am certainly not privy to the real answer here. If I had to guess, personally I believe he did so out of political expediency, but that is just my opinion.

[AtomicKitten]

6. Edwards had the good sense to oppose Kyl-Lieberman.

Yes, Edwards did lead the parade into Iraq. No question about that. However, all those that voted YES on the IWR are as culpable.

It was the Kyl-Lieberman vote that was the piece de resistance. It was surreal that any Democratic candidate would pony up for another go at war. Even the reticent Jimmy Carter was stunned by it.

At least Edwards got that one right, and I have to give him snaps for it.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Why is voting on the measure AS culpable as leading the parade?

What makes both actions exactly the same?

[AtomicKitten]

19. I've been sufficiently hard on Edwards for this and this should not

... be misconstrued as an endorsement. Kyl-Lieberman vote was the match the wingnuts needed to stoke the fires of their continually louder drum beat to war on Iran in a horribly deja vu kind of way.

In my opinion and as I have always stated, those that have voted yes for war and more war should not even be considered for president.

[The Count]

43. Too bad he couldn't actually vote - talk is cheap. I'm afraid that had he been in

the senate, his position would have been the opposite - like it was on just about everything else. I have no reason to believe rhetoric over actions.

[Nutmegger]

11. I proudly voted for Edwards...

And will proudly do so in the primary. Edwards 2008!

[Whisp]

80. that's a great pic of the Edwards. They do make a lovely couple....

I think Edwards is very charismatic and cute as a button and Elizabeth has always impressed me in the best ways.

but I do not trust Edwards to lead the country in a positive way I think Americans deserve. he has shown his stuff with the IWR and that cannot be erased - all the cute pics in the world will not change the massive suffering he had part of in endorsing it.

[gateley]

17. Everybody knows who did and didn't support the IWR - if someone can't

accept a particular candidate's choice at that time, then the only option is choose another candidate.

It does no good to keep bringing this up repeatedly in an attempt to either dissuade or attract voters.

I'm not pointing to you specifically, quinnox, I'm just tired of seeing the same fight over and over and decided to take this opportunity to say it.

Peace. :hi:

[Richardo]

23. .

:patriot: :applause:

[FrenchieCat]

31. You state with confidence that......

"It does no good to keep bringing this up repeatedly in an attempt to either dissuade or attract voters."

I actually believe the opposite. I believe that elections are about "remembering" who did what when during their career as public servants....as opposed to simply listening to current promises and hearing pretty words spoken by candidates as they vy for our votes.

I certainly hope that Iowa caucus voters will not forget how we got into this war THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY FIGHTING AND that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

But maybe history will be with you, and whatever happened 5 years ago will be neatly and conveniently written off as "ancient" history that has nothing to do with where we find ourselves today.

[gateley]

59. I agree with you EXCEPT that this particular issue is referred to constantly.

It's been addressed in just about every debate, and the candidates are questioned on it frequently. I really believe that people know how the candidates voted on the IWR. If it's a deciding factor for people, they'll definitely be aware of it.

[FrenchieCat]

62. I don't think that people know who co-sponsored the IWR and who didn't.....

And hence, the title of this thread.

[The Count]

44. Sponsoring is more than voting. And until the war is over - kinda relevant

to the future. Why would I trust a sponsor of this disaster to end it?

[zulchzulu]

18. At least Hillary Clinton showed leadership by not voting for it...

...er...uh...

:sarcasm:

[quinnox]

28. I've always said Obama was right on this issue

And yes Hillary was wrong to vote for it.

[The Count]

45. She is less of a hypocrite - if also not acceptable to me. She didn't sponsor it

which makes her action less horrific - if you want to compare the two.

[bigwillq]

21. You have to ask the Edwards supporters

this question: "Just because he says he is sorry that is good enough?"


I didn't vote for Edwards in that poll nor will I vote for him in the primary.

No, it's not good enough that he is said he is sorry. He still voted for it. It's a little too late now. What's done is done.

But at least he said he is sorry and recognizes that face. I can't say that about some of our other DEM nominees.

[Adelante]

24. That one's been answered

It is good enough for Edwards supporters that he says he is sorry. I personally don't care who is sorry or not sorry or who says so or doesn't say so. It won't bring us back to September 2002 when all those people were alive. I won't vote for any of them.

Edit: I will vote for the nominee in the GE, because it will be better than voting for a Republican.

[bigwillq]

26. Me too

on your last line but with regrets b/c I know my choice in the primary will not be our nominee.

[GreenArrow]

65. he hasn't said he's "sorry"

he's said he was "wrong," which, given the circumstances, is kind of like saying the sun is hot or water is wet.

[PurityOfEssence]

27. From a CLINTON supporter?

She voted for it and she had to be dragged kicking and screaming to say that she wouldn't have if she knew what she knew now. This is another issue she's played both sides of the street on, and it's ridiculous for a supporter of hers to criticize Edwards on this issue.

He has been very clear on having been wrong. She can't seem to admit mistakes.

[quinnox]

29. Well I did it

And I am still baffled how Edwards won second place at DU?!

[redqueen]

30. It's a lesser of evils thing...

How many candidates' hands are clean?

It's a fucked up system, but it's what we've got... and people are doing their best to work within it. It's either that or vote for a third-party.

[huskerlaw]

37. And Hillary voted wrong on Iran THIS year

As well as voting for the IRW.

Edwards may not be able to erase history, but at least he's not making THE SAME FUCKING MISTAKES!

:hi:

[The Count]

48. True. Doesn't change Edwards SPONSORING the f*ing law. Fingerpointing is lame.

I am not voting for Hillary either - but her blame for the war is still not as high as THE PEOPLE WHO ADVOCATED IT!

[GreenArrow]

67. not making the same mistakes

Of course he isn't since he doesn't have a vote. Instead, he gets to sit on the sidelines and bitch about how those who are still in the house he abandoned aren't cleaning up the mess he helped make to his satisfaction.

[BlueStater]

73. He abandoned?

He chose not to run for reelection so he could focus on running for Vice President. Give me a break.

[GreenArrow]

90. holding on to his Senate seat while running

worked wonders for his old buddy and IWR co-sponsor Joe Lieberman.

Anyway, Edwards had already decided not to run for re-election to the Senate in pursuit of his Presidential goals.

"Edwards unofficially began his presidential campaign as early as 2000, when he began to seek speaking engagements in Iowa, the site of the nation's first party caucuses. On January 2, 2003, he announced formation of an exploratory committee, allowing him to begin fundraising while not officially campaigning. On September 15, 2003, Edwards unofficially announced his intention to seek the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination, on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, thus fulfilling a promise he made as a guest during the show's coverage of the 2002 midterm elections. The next morning, Edwards made the announcement officially from his hometown. He declined to run for reelection to the Senate in 2004 in order to solely focus on his presidential run. Edwards' campaign was chaired by North Carolina Democratic activist Ed Turlington."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[huskerlaw]

94. Citing wikipedia?

Really?

Please.

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

96. so what?

Do you question the validity of the information? It's pretty straightforward stuff. Common fucking knowledge even.

Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1998, Sen. John Edwards serves on four committees in the 108th Congress: Small Business; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Select Committee on Intelligence; and Judiciary. During the 2000 campaign, he made Vice President Gore's vice presidential short list. In November 2000, People magazine named Edwards, who is married and has had four children, as its choice for the "sexiest politician." During the latter part of 2001 and throughout 2002 Edwards engaged in substantial politicking, and on January 2, 2003 he announced formation of a presidential exploratory committee, declaring himself a champion for regular folks. On September 7 he announced he would not seek re-election to his Senate seat in 2004 "in order to devote all of my energy to running for President."

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edwards.html

But the experience only stoked the fire in Edwards's belly to shoot for another high office. He built a fund-raising network of trial lawyers and talked to Bill Clinton about making a run for the 2004 nomination. Edwards was confident he could take on veteran pols like Lieberman and Senator John F. Kerry, viewing them as part of the ``elitist, paternalistic wing of the Democratic Party'' who would flounder in the South, according to one Edwards adviser.

On September 7, 2003, Edwards made the most momentous decision of his campaign: to drop out of his 2004 Senate reelection race. In January 2005, he'll either be in the White House or, quite possibly, a rising star gone dark. And then, just a week later, as he officially kicked off his campaign to become ``the people's president,'' another fresh face - a newer face - former general Wesley Clark of Arkansas, jumped into the race.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/05/from_mill_town_to_the_national_stage_boston_globe/?page=full

Ending months of speculation, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina said last night that he would not seek re-election so he could focus on his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E1DC173BF93BA3575AC0A9659C8B63

The Wiki cite was perfectly acceptable. Take your sarcasm and rolling eyes bullshit and stuff it.

[huskerlaw]

105. Only idiots cite Wikipedia

because any moron with a computer can edit it. So thank you for finding actual sources.

[huskerlaw]

93. Hahahaha

HE made the mess? Yes, the Iraq war is Edwards' mess. Right. But Hillary didn't help make it. Nor did the vast majority of the US Congress. Got it.

Also, sit on the sidelines and bitch? I believe that would be those of us who sit behind a computer and complain about how our government is running things rather than someone who is, oh, you know, running for president.

The house he abandoned? He lost his senate seat because he was running for Vice President, not because he threw up his hands and walked away. That comment is just ridiculous.

Also, he's running again now precisely because he's not the only one who thinks the mess hasn't been cleaned up satisfactorily. Would you prefer he sit on the sidelines and bitch? Or shall he abandon the country entirely?

:eyes:

[GreenArrow]

99. sure, Hillary played her part

If she gets hit for it, so does Edwards, who went much further in his support. Either he believed the bullshit, in which case he's an idiot, or he capitulated to the bullshit, in which case he's weak, or he voted in the service of his own political aspirations, in which case...well, it's really not flattering. Maybe it's a combination of all those.

Yes, he's sitting on the sidelines, smug and sanctimonious as he can be, bitching and finding fault with those who made the same "mistake" he did. If a smart guy like him can make a bad decision, and then insist on making a big to-do about his "apology," and throwing how "wrong" he was in the face of his competitors, who again, made the same "mistake" he did, then I reckon I can bitch if I want, since I was right about Iraq. How about that!? I was one of millions of Americans who knew more than a sitting Senator who's now running what will prove to be another losing campaign for President. Yeah, I think I have the right to bitch.

He lost his Senate seat because he thought he had what it took to be President. He was wrong, not for the first or last time. He made a choice to leave it, and he was certainly attending more to his ambition than he was to the job he actually had been charged with. So, yes, he pretty much did "throw his arms up and walk away". As I mentioned in another post, his predecessor and later IWR co-sponsor managed to run for Vice President and keep his Senate job.

He's running now because he's a manipulative, self-serving, narcissistic shit. Actually, I might take him more seriously if he were offering his criticisms as a hunble and chastened non-candidate, instead of blowing smoke up my ass while trying to make political hay off the tragedy that is Iraq.

[huskerlaw]

104. Well, I do suppose

that if anyone could spot a smug, sanctimonious shit from a mile away, you'd be quite qualified...

[GreenArrow]

106. you're right on that, anyway

.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. No, it doesn't erase history.

Nobody is arguing that it does.:shrug: What was important was that everyone who supported the Iraq War learn from their failure, and Edwards' apology was the first step in proving that he did learn.

[The Count]

40. Maybe he can bring the dead to life - that would convince me of the "sorry"

But they have to be revived all the way - zombies don't count.
People who try the "old news" defense should talk to some families who lost someone (between the time Edwards sponsored the law and his "sorry" - well at the end of 2005.

[More Than A Feeling]

46. For you he will always be part of the problem, and is forever barred from being the solution

or part of the solution? Wouldn't that mean that in a more just world according to you, John Edwards would have already committed suicide, because who could live with such guilt and no chance of redemption?

I understand why you feel that way, but I find it harsh and unjust, and I am glad you have no power to set morality.

[The Count]

47. He doesn't seek a solution, he seeks higher office. A reward for wrong judgment

and hypocrisy - which he didn't earn in any way. he isn't running "to set things straight" as you try to sell me. He had power once - and we saw how he used it. He wants more power now - not redemption.

[More Than A Feeling]

49. "He isn't running to set things straight."

According to you, that's impossible anyway, since he can't bring back the dead. But setting that aside, how do you know that he isn't running to set things straight? What evidence would you accept that would prove that he was running for that reason?

[FrenchieCat]

52. Because when Edwards ran in 2004, he wasn't running then to "Set things straight".....

....remember?

In other words, the man was running when he had no regrets, and then running again for the same office when he had regrets. In fact, Edwards came out to regret his vote made in 2002, only after losing the first election for the big office in late 2004.

John Edwards is running because he wants to be President.....regret or setting things straight has very little to do with it.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Your last sentence is illogical.

You can both want to be president and want to set things straight. Your evidence carries little weight because it assumes that Iraq was the only issue in play in 2004, and so if a candidate wasn't explicitly promoting immediate withdrawal, they not only didn't want to change course at all, but were solely in it for self-aggrandizement. Not to help the poor, or any other equally laudable goal. You assume too much.

[FrenchieCat]

61. Edwards understood that had he taken a different stance on Iraq in '04,

he might have been the nominee then.

Edwards changed that stance afterwards (after he lost).....cause at the end of the day, his wish is to be President....everything else is gravy!

[More Than A Feeling]

71. Can you show me something that would demonstrate that this

mind-reading concerning John Edwards' motives has a basis in reality?

[The Count]

54. Evidence? For starters, talk about the stolen election 2004 - my vote was there

That would make me listen further.
In 2004 he run the whole campaign on the "war is good" platform. His entire record in the senate is the same. And you believe him to suddenly change his spots because?:shrug:

[More Than A Feeling]

75. You exaggerate.

Also, you aren't keeping in mind that he was senator from North Carolina. Not California, not Vermont, not Massachusetts.

It seems strange to me that the evidence you request that he is running to set things right on Iraq consists of a subject-stolen elections-that is only indirectly related to the Iraq War itself, at best. I suppose this means you take back your "John Edwards must be a necromancer to even have the possibility of redemption" stance.

[GreenArrow]

68. "He doesn't seek a solution, he seeks higher office"

An extremely nice summation.

[FrenchieCat]

50. Edwards can be part of the solution without being rewarded for his

mistake.

See, the part I don't understand is why one who made such an obvious mistake should believe that his penance for that mistake is to announce that he is running for President. Where is it said that "learning from your mistakes too late" made one qualified for the highest office in the land nowdays?

If find it harsh and unjust that we promote folks to bigger jobs simply for admitting way later that they were totally wrong. That is a very low standard of qualification in my book.

[More Than A Feeling]

53. .

"See, the part I don't understand is why one who made such an obvious mistake should believe that his penance for that mistake is to announce that he is running for President. Where is it said that "learning from your mistakes too late" made one qualified for the highest office in the land nowdays?"

People out of office don't have a great track record when it comes to making changes in the Iraq War. Obviously, if Edwards became President, he'd have more power to end the Iraq War than if he were holding a sign at some protest. I exaggerate, but you get the idea.

"If find it harsh and unjust that we promote folks to bigger jobs simply for admitting way later that they were totally wrong. That is a very low standard of qualification in my book."

That isn't the only reason, obviously.

[The Count]

56. But why not give this power to someone with a better track record?

If you hire someone for a dangerous/important job - say airline pilot, would you pick the guy who blasted a plane - then apologized, or to the other guy - who always got it right? That's the choice - or in this case - the election.

[More Than A Feeling]

79. Because Edwards is better in other areas that I also care about n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

51. A good reason to never vote for Edwards...

Clinton, Biden OR Dodd.

[FrenchieCat]

55. The sad thing, he is actually counting on enough voters to "forget"

and/or "Forgive" the err in his ways....and you can bet that there are Edwards supporters out there now that have no idea just how far his leading the Iraq parade actually went.

However, I am certain that his opponents will remind him of his sponsorship of the IWR at some point.....because even though all but a few voted for it, none led on the issue quite in the same way as John Did.

Edwards just better pray that he doesn't become the frontrunner....because at that point, the MSM will not let this deed go forgotten....and if they do, that will be because they actually want to end up with Edwards as the nominee....and then, yes, they will remind us all of us as to what he did then and contrast it to what he is saying now....and how many years of silence are to be found in between. Problem is that they'll save it for the GE.....and put it out there at a time when Public Financing limits (as accepted by Edwards) will not allow him the air time to "justify" his whole enlightment on the subject of the Iraq War. It won't be pretty!

[Richardo]

69. You're wrong

The MSM and republicans will concentrate on smearing him as a $400 haircut, the owner of an enormous house, and a 'trial lawyer'.

No one except DU gives a crap about the IWR. In the attention span of the American voter, in the 12-second soundbite 21st century, it's ancient history.

[MalloyLiberal]

58. Wow, breaking news. And you're for a hawk and Iran war sponsor, Hillary

[JTFrog]

60. I have respect for someone

who learns from their mistakes. I don't have as much respect for someone who seems to repeat their mistakes when so much is at stake.

Gore, Clark, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel knew from day one that the IWR was simply a pretext by Bush to invade and occupy Iraq. Richardson didn't vote on it. Edwards was a co-sponsor, but has since admitted he was wrong. I don't fully forgive him yet, but I believe he's realized his error and the experience will keep him from making the same mistake again.

I don't have that same faith in Clinton:

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Clinton is also the only candidate who supports the Kyle-Lieberman amendment. This is a huge issue for me.

I guess I'll choose "other".

*edit - grammar

[sandnsea]

78. When did Edwards say "stay the course"?

Hillary did, in November 2003. She supported the war and Edwards was a dove by comparison, next to her.

[FrenchieCat]

86. November 2003? Here is Edwards during that era.....

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.
<>
MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[sandnsea]

89. And where did he say "stay the course"?

Because I'm not seeing it there.

[FrenchieCat]

95. Of course, this is typical.......

ignore everything he did say, and find three words that he may not have said, and make that the point.

But when one reads Edwards' "I made a mistake" op-ed....I don't read the word sorry anywhere in there? Is I'm sorry there, or just I made a mistake because "The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda". :eyes:

[sandnsea]

98. People have ignored what Hillary said

I know what Edwards said and I know he was gung ho for war. I'm not really arguing that. He also never said the intelligence was flawed, and neither did Hillary.

My point is that Hillary went far beyond the rhetoric of capturing Saddam. She specifically said we had to "stay the course" in Iraq and has refused to consider troop withdrawal or deadlines until recently. Bill specifically chose to give Bush a pass on the yellowcake. Neither of them will say anything about the manipulation of the intelligence or call anything Bush said an intentional lie. She is the one who was proposing we "fight a better war", the Democratic rhetoric that got dumped on Kerry. I don't know why Clark is supporting her, but she is not what we need and that Iran vote ought to be the final proof of it.

[FrenchieCat]

102. Actually, the quote that I had in my post.....

was from John Edwards' "I made a mistake" Op-Ed. The quote again is....."The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda".

That's in response to your comment...."He also never said the intelligence was flawed, and neither did Hillary."

[sandnsea]

103. Well then good for him

That was my one big beef with Edwards and the IWR. I had never heard him say that Bush had fixed the intelligence to fit the war agenda. I'm glad to know he did. I wish he'd realized it sooner, like back in 2003 when the yellowcake info first came to light. Maybe he would have supported a different strategy on Iraq in 2004.

Doesn't change any of what I said about Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

83. Edwards also claims he's the most progressive candidate. lol

Shit, when he was in office, he was one of the most UNprogressive senators on the Democratic side.

[surfermaw]

85. Gotch running scared doesn't he?

[FrenchieCat]

88. No...but the truth about John Edwards will scare the American people.....

just hoping that they find out the truth BEFORE the Nomination process.....and not during the GE! I'm tired of the Amnesia round here! :eyes:

Edwards also discussed Syria's recent calls for peace with Israel, saying that "talk is cheap," and that Syria was not doing enough to prove it was serious.

The former senator also said that Syria has been a great source of destabilization in the area, from its support of Hizbullah and Hamas, to its relationship with Iran, and for this it should be held accountable.

After opening his speech with great praise for Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Edward's continued to express great appreciation for the Israeli people and the special bond between the two countries, saying it was "a bond that will never be broken."
snip
Until Israel has a real partner, according to Edwards, Israel has the right, and indeed the obligation to defend itself, and should be strengthened militarily, politically, and economically.

In a further display of support for Israel, Edwards went so far as to suggest that Israel should even be made a member of NATO, saying it was only natural that the organization would seen to include Israel next.
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400

"As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."--John Edwards, February 2007
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID
http://www.cjp.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=178593
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/10435.htm
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/world/?content_id=5400
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_23828.shtml
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html
http://www.nysun.com/article/47843
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/enforced-orthodoxies-and-iran.html
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10399

[venable]

87. BREAKING NEWS yet again.

He will make a great, open, honest, the beginning of a truly diplomatic presidency, able to restore our reputation, bring peace, and move always toward justice here and abroad.

He's not perfect, but he's a decent, smart, bold man. He has my vote.

[slick8790]

91. Ironic with from someone with a Hillary avatar.

Yes, Edwards cosponsored. Yes, he's admitted it's a mistake, but no, that doesn't make it all better. But Hillary hasn't even said that! As well as voting for Lieberman-Kyl, it shows she's learned very little.

No candidate is perfect. This is obvious. My support for edwards comes from believing he's the best out of the group, even if he does have some baggage.

[slipslidingaway]

92. Edwards supporters NEVER address what he did after he

learned there was no new intelligence report. That is one reason this issue never goes away :shrug:

Full posts and links are here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3660383&mesg_id=3661709


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'


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.


More at above link.

[SaveElmer]

97. It happened before 2007...so it doesn't count...

At least in Edwards land

[MODemocrat]

100. You're absolutely right about Edwards

He knows full well he voted for the Iraq war resolution, but these days, he's throwing all the blame on Hillary. As far as Obama being right on the way he handled the IWR, for heaven's sake, he
couldn't vote since he wasn't a US Senator at the time. Yet his supporters tout that every day that
he was against the war from the start.

Those two are becoming a bit repulsive nowadays. It looks so strange to see men berating a woman;
and in fact it makes them look weak. I realize they're doing the badgering out of desperation, so
it really doesn't make me angry; but it sure makes me wonder about them.
:crazy: :boring:

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. Perhaps if he had been on the Intelligence Committee and had access to

the classified information that Bob Graham had access to, he would not have done so.