that doesn't benefit him directly that he will. That's my take, although it is obvious that you have a different take. I think of him as a relatively good looking guy (except for that blinking and the weak wrist mannerism) who's life career has been centered on persuading people that he is telling the truth when talks. In his 6 years in the senate, he was a moderate centrist who voted with the DLC, most if not all of the time.
It is not in my nature to believe in rewarding someone for making mistakes and later learning from them. His learning curve may have been beneficial to him in many ways, but not so for me. His votes have helped have an impact on my life and on the life of others. I cannot glorify a list of mistakes or gloss over them as though they never happened; they did.
Certainly, I can admire the fact that he can admit to mistakes, but that doesn't give me reason to want to follow where he is leading. For me, personally, John Edwards has done the "too little too late" more than is acceptable to me. I can't be led by one who has demonstrated to me that my judgment has been better than his, time and time again. There are just certain important issues that a politician has got to have gotten right from the onset and that is not what Edward's record in public life reveals.
And so, the fact that he has done quite a bit of changing after-the-fact doesn't give me confidence that his judgment will be useful when I really need it. In other words, I don't trust his deliberative process. Being Persuasive is a good quality, but leading in the right direction is what distinguish a well intended but wrong man from a great leader. The presidency is an important job, and I want someone with the natural instincts to get it right. I don't believe that Edwards, based on what he has demonstrated to me possesses those qualities.
Read his speech and then tell me why I would want to support a man who was 180 degrees from where I stood when I was desperately looking for real leadership in the right Direction? Saying sorry 3 years later is just simply not enough to give me the kind of confidence that I would need to entrust onto him regarding something as important as the future of my children and this world.
Delivered on October 7, 2002 in the Halls of power-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. snip
After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm. At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.
Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.
We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.
This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And
such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world. snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and
ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq. snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.
I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won. --John Edwards
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
