Edwards compares Obama to "child standing in the corner and stomping his feet"

[Herman Munster]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/2008-like-its-today-more-democratic-word-slinging/

Should Hillary Clinton apologize for backing the Iraq war? “That is a moral decision she has to make,” Edwards told me.

Is George Bush a “good man in difficult circumstances trying to do the right thing?” No, Edwards said. He is not.

That nonbinding resolution against the Iraq troop surge favored by Barack Obama? “Useless,” said Edwards. “Exactly like a child standing in the corner and stomping his feet.”

For the record, Senator Barack Obama did introduce binding legislation of his own on Tuesday.

[Wiley50]

1. He Didn't Say that About Obama. He Said It About A Non-Binding Resolution

Stop Trying To Stir Up Shit

[Erika]

6. Yep. Stirring up shit n/t

[Syrinx]

21. thank you n/t

[Tatiana]

2. Oh yeah, and Edwards introduced TONS of useful legislation in Congress to stop the Iraq war.

Oh wait a minute...

[me b zola]

3. You should change your subject line to match what the article says

[LittleClarkie]

13. Oh, but then, where would be the fun? nm

nm

[atre]

22. Interesting

Lying about Edwards = fun for users with "Clark" worked into in their username?

[LittleClarkie]

30. Ahem

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=98095&mesg_id=98160

And actually, despite the name, I'm a Kerrycrat. So there. :P

[FrenchieCat]

38. Plueaze...that line is getting old and worn out.....

Edwards supporters when they have no explaination which is usually often, they point a finger at whomever is doing the talking and shout out "Clark"!

The problem are those pesky facts. Hard to work around them, no matter how many names you call those posing the questions.

In fact, I am going to start to say that Edwards supporters like to stifle debate and dissent....a la Patriot Act.

[LittleClarkie]

40. Esp, when I'd just gotten done defending Edwards down thread

Ludicrous and not even accurate.

[thoughtcrime1984]

4. It might sting a bit

to lose to the kid standing in the corner. I hate primaries, BTW. Can't wait to feast on the "Republicants".

[KingFlorez]

5. Coming from someone who voted for the war

Edwards needs to knock it off.

[Erika]

7. The Dems who voted for the war was given GOP filtered info

Edited and censored by the likes of Cheney. They didn't know they were being deceived.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Sorry, that won't fly.....

Just saw Feingold on C-Span3 (they are showing the Senate Iraq Debate from October 2002), and he wasn't "deceived" one bit...nor were Kennedy, nor Boxer, nor Byrd (I just saw them speak).

Here, Hillary is talking now....but back in time 2002. Funny how time machines bring back a lot of memories!

Watch the video!
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

Waiting for Edwards!

[Erika]

14. Are you saying the pres releases all info to Congress?

Did W tell how Cheney cherrypicked the info?

Just answer.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Well, in watching the 2002 Senate Iraq Debates just now on C-Span,

I believe that Ted Kennedy listed quite a few articles that had been written in the corporate press stating that intelligence personnel were stating that the intelligence wasn't accurate.

What I am saying, if you don't want to read what I can present below is that the congress does not and did not exits in a bubble all on its own, and if you believe what you just said, then you have been misled, either because you want to be or because you need to be. Y

The following is a pretty clear indication that most of the senators understood that there was no evidence to go to war.....and that the intelligence information was sketchy at best.

So no, not one of the senators can say that there were misled or confused or ill informed. That's what you are saying, and it's a poor excuse. Please pay particularly close attention to the last bit of info I provide you with; it is Senator Edwards doing the talking...clearly stating that it wasn't due to the "intelligence" that he voted for war.

So let me quote what Feingold said back in 2002 on the floor of the Senate ....

October 9, 2002
Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. From hearings and meetings on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications, after my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26, and, Mr. President, I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President...

Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
http://www.feingold.senate.gov/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html

Here's Sen. Byrd on 10/4/02:

"Let's go back to the war in Vietnam. I was here. I was one of the Senators who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Yes, I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I am sorry for that. I am guilty of doing that. I should have been one of the two, or at least I should have made it three, Senators who voted against that Gulf of Tonkin resolution. But I am not wanting to commit that sin twice, and that is exactly what we are doing here. This is another Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
snip
Does the Senator have any idea, based on his having information from the administration, what is the likelihood we might find ourselves bogged down in the hot sands of the Middle East and our men and women may have to fight a house-to-house, apartment-to-apartment battle in any one of the cities of Iraq? What would be the cost in terms of human life, not only of Iraqis but of our own men and women, if we were faced with a war in which we have to go street by street, avenue by avenue, house by house, floor to floor, to root out the snipers? What would be the cost in American lives?
snip
I wonder this further, if the Senator will allow me: Have the American people been asked to face up to that possibility? And, no, the administration will not make its military officers available for one reason or another to accommodate the Senate Armed Forces hearings, but why then do we have to rush in and make a decision before an election that is only 30 days away? Why should the leadership of this Congress not say we are going to go home, we are going to talk to the people, we are going to listen to what they have to say? After all, they are the ones who are going to have to pay the price. We will go home and we will await this fateful, momentous, all-important, vital decision until after the election, and we will come back.

When I was the majority leader of this Senate, I, from time to time, included in the adjournment resolution a provision
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0210a/iraqdebate.html

Here's Sen. Kennedy on 10/04/02

I intend to oppose the Lieberman-Warner resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until all other reasonable alternatives are exhausted.
snip
It is an open secret in Washington that the Nation's uniformed military leadership is skeptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq. They share the concern that it may adversely affect the ongoing war against al-Qaida and the continuing effort in Afghanistan by draining resources and armed forces already stretched so thin that many Reservists have been called for a second year of duty, and record numbers of service members have been kept on active duty beyond their obligated service.

A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen, not lessen, the threat of terrorism. It could strengthen the ranks of al-Qaida sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, that kind of war against Iraq, would "super-charge recruiting for al-Qaida."

In a September 10 article, General Clark wrote: "Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaida."

We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0210a/iraqdebate4.html

Bob Graham OP-ed in the WAPO on the intelligence on Iraq provided in 2002 and why it didn't add up, and so he voted NO on the resolution. John Edwards was on that committee, so he saw the same information that Graham saw

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.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

The American people needed to know these reservations, and I requested that an unclassified, public version of the NIE be prepared. On Oct. 4, Tenet presented a 25-page document titled "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs." It represented an unqualified case that Hussein possessed them, avoided a discussion of whether he had the will to use them and omitted the dissenting opinions contained in the classified version. Its conclusions, such as "If Baghdad acquired sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year," underscored the White House's claim that exactly such material was being provided from Africa to Iraq.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397_pf.html

Edwards after the fact...stating that he didn't vote against Iraq due to lack of intelligence....

John Edwards, meanwhile, wants to set the record straight - he was not fooled by the administration into supporting the war. And, he adds, neither was any other senator.

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the latest issue of The New Yorker, Edwards said: "I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons. There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn't rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there's some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don't think it's true. It's great politics. But it's not the truth."

Edwards refused to single out anyone, but Goldberg wrote that he appeared to be referring to John Kerry, who chose Edwards as his 2004 presidential running mate. Like Nelson, Kerry claims he was misled and "given evidence that was not true."

"I was on the intelligence committee," Edwards went on, "so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the intelligence committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice."

For Edwards, the question at the time was not whether the information he was getting was accurate but whether to trust George Bush. "I decided to do it, and I was wrong."

He should have listened to Bob Graham.
http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070117/OPINION/201170311/1030/OPINION01

Since you told me to answer....make sure you respond. :)

[pnwmom]

32. They made a valid choice. But Dems who voted for the compromise IWR

in October 2002 made a valid choice, too.

Because they knew that if all the Democrats voted against the Oct. IWR and it failed , that would have no effect on Bush's plans. In fact, it would free him up. Because all he would have had to do was wait for his incoming House and Senate majorities in the following January. Then he could get his minions to approve his preferred version of the IWR -- without any conditions -- that would allow him to attack any country in the Middle East.

So the real choice all the Democrats faced was this:
Work with the Republicans to approve an IWR with as many restrictions as they could manage.
Or stand by in January while the Republicans -- without the help of a single Democratic vote -- rammed through their own version of the IWR, giving Bush a virtual blank check.

Now, at least, we can point to language in the IWR as proof that Congress never intended to give Bush permission to attack Iran or Syria. But what if Bush had gone to war based on a Republican IWR passed in January 2003? There's a good chance we'd already be in Iran.

[KingFlorez]

15. They still should have used better judgment

Regardless of what Cheney or anyone else did to the information

[Erika]

17. So they should have had a crystal ball and used it?

And thrown their government's info away? Sorry, that won't fly.

If they have a government who lied to them, how can you hold the dems responsible?

[KingFlorez]

25. They shouldn't have voted for military action, period

That's the point I'm making. It was bad judgment to support such a large scale military action when there wasn't an obvious, immediate threat to security.

[Erika]

Their GOP supplied info said there was a threat n/t

[Erika]

29. Their GOP supplied info said there was a threat n/t

[FrenchieCat]

35. No it didn't....the intelligence information was full of doubts....

as I posted above and as Graham, who headed the Intelligence committee clearly stated in his op-ed:

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.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. .While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.
There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397_pf.html

[pnwmom]

33. So you would have preferred it if the IWR in October had been defeated?

So that in January the new Republican majorities would have been free to pass their own IWR that would have given Bush a blank check to attack anywhere in the Middle East?

Bush had the Democrats between a rock and a hard place. They only had two choices: provide some votes for a compromise IWR with some conditions in October, 2002. Or wait till January, 2003, when they could sit on the sidelines and watch the Republicans pass their own IWR giving Bush a blank check.

They thought the conditions would be adhered to. They weren't. But at least the IWR didn't give Bush permission to attack anywhere in the Middle East. That's the version of the IWR that the administration wanted.

[FrenchieCat]

36. You are speaking in hypotheticals as though they were absolutes....

White the senators who opposed the resolution were speaking to defend the principle of the constitution as opposed to some hypothetical situation that you are talking about after the fact.

You are offering false choices, and making assertations based on on suppositions.

Bush would most likely have been impeached by now, that's what I'm supposing....once the WMDs wouldn't have been found. Maybe we would have won back the WH in 2004. About supposing some of what I'm telling in there somewhere...since you're so good at it?

Theories are not facts, nor are theories the truth.

[pnwmom]

39. Nope. The Republican backed IWR wouldn't have contained that

language about WMD. That was put in the October compromise bill to get Democratic support.

I'm not speaking in hypotheticals, I'm speaking about probabilities: the same probabilities the Democrats had to consider when deciding on their vote. The Democrats had a choice to make. Would they vote for a compromise bill in October -- or defeat it and see what the Republicans would push through in January. Some of them decided to take a chance on the compromise bill, since the alternative -- a January IWR drafted solely by the Bush administration -- seemed even worse.

And this isn't something I dreamed up after the fact. There were open discussions about this at the time.

[FrenchieCat]

41. well you can justify how the Dems voted and rationalize that it was

better that they voted for it, if you want.

It's your choice.....as it was theirs.

[pnwmom]

43. And you can pretend that if the Democrats had voted

against the IWR, then Bush would have been impeached by now.

[FrenchieCat]

47. There you go.....Agreeing to disagree......

sometimes it's for the best. :hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

45. Huh? Bush DOES have a blank check to invade the Middle East.

To paraphrase Stalin, how many divisions does the new Democratic congress have?

[Clark2008]

53. Sorry - but to use your oft-used term - your point doesn't fly.

Yes - we hold the Dems who voted to send troops to this "war" responsible, along with the Republicans.

Duh.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Really!

Edwards Senate Iraq War debate performance in 2002 is about to get put up on Youtubes. He may want to be careful about what he is saying, because he's gonna get shown to be the clueless person that he really was in all of his splendor!

Watching the Hillary footage right now, as we speak!
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

And according to the debate; it was a vote for war.

[Erika]

20. You take glee in putting down dems?

Thanks for that insight. Very helpful.

[FrenchieCat]

37. No, I don't take anything....I just speak the fact, and sometimes a person

like you will throw personal attacks due to lack of any factual comeback.

[LittleClarkie]

9. The article is manufacturing drama

Edwards spoke about the resolution, not about Obama.

[Herman Munster]

11. how exactly can a resolution be a child?

A resolution isn't a person. He was referring to a person.

[LittleClarkie]

12. It's a metaphor.

It doesn't have to be referring to a person. If you read the article, he's clearly talking about the resolution.

[Wiley50]

16. BS n/t

[illinoisprogressive]

18. What exactly was it again that Edwards did in his 6 years in the Senate???

[Erika]

23. Why so hateful to Edwards?

Why?

[Clark2008]

55. IP is not being "hateful," (s)he is merely presenting FACT.

What can't you understand about that? Frenchie did it, Illinois Progressive followed up the statements. Edwards didn't do much in his six years in Congress.

Don't take my word for it, look it up.

He didn't present any legislation to help his so-called "pet project"... the poor. He DID, however, co-sponsor the IWR and the Patriot Act and wrote legislation helping the banking industry.

It's not "hateful" to point that out - it's being honest to both the board and one's self.

[mnhtnbb]

63. Here's a list of what John Edwards did in the Senate--thanks to another DU'er.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:nI_CiezSVTwJ:www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm+John+Edwards+Voting+Record&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Well, wait a minute. That's some major misrepresentation.

He didn't say that about Obama, he said it about a resolution Obama "favors".

That's completely different, and shamelessly disingenuous in the way it is worded here and in the link.

[LittleClarkie]

31. Indeed

The misrepresentation may not have been original to the OP, but he didn't have to repeat it, either.

[illinoisprogressive]

24. What it comes down to is why some voted for and some against...

Like my Senator there at the time, Durbin, voted against. Why did he do so and yet, why did people like Edwards and Clinton vote for it.
I know Obama made a major speech at a rally in chicago at the time but, was not there in the US Senate.

[MonkeyFunk]

26. This is a ridiculous thread...

the article doesn't say what you say it does. Shame.

[Bluebear]

56. .

[wiley]

27. You don't have to make things up about Edwards

Just look at his record. Tell me you disbelieve anything he says when he speaks. There is no use bringing facts into the discussion or comparing him to anyone else. He's a sunny, handsome, articulate, good man, groomed down to the last hair. A former cheerleader, even. C'mon. You know you want to be him. Let Edwards do all the really hard thinking for you. A pretty but masculine man, and a genteel Southerner. He's like golden yellow cake filled with sweet white frosting. Mean people don't have a chance against him, and you know it. How could you not want him to be President? The people of both Carolinas cried in the street when he refused their pleas to run for Senate again. Could you not hear them?

[Dogmudgeon]

28. Original title: "2008 Like It’s Today: More Democratic Word-Slinging"

Kinda puts it into perspective, dunnit?

The Right is manipulating not only the usual minor sparring, but also rather mundane statements, blowing them up into as many scandals as it can work.

If Obama/Hillary/Edwards/etc. so much as crosses his/her eyes, it becomes cause for revolution.

Or, as we DUers are fond of saying, WHORES! TRAITORS! DLC!

--p!

[Eurobabe]

42. Poorly worded blurb in the NYTimes, I believe Edwards was talking about Obama's resolution

not Obama personally, but the Times writer left the verbage just hazy enough, possibly to stir up trouble between Edwards and Obama camps.

[eridani]

44. No, he compared the non-binding RESOLUTION--

--to standing in the corner and stomping your feet. Anyone who backs it without also favoring funding cuts is no different from Obama.

[Leopolds Ghost]

46. Good! A middle of the road ex-congressman pressuring Obama & Clinton to go LEFT

On the Iraq war!

A very valuable political dynamic regardless of his or Clinton's electoral hopes.

[JNelson6563]

48. Stop by the lobby for a pair of crutches

Becasue this shit stirring attempt is so lame it limps.

[and-justice-for-all]

49. I think DEMS should be working together...

..This childist attacking bullshit does not sit well with me at all. Strike one against Edwards for me already, ENOUGH.

[WilliamPitt]

50. Bullshit subject line

Let's watch how many people "accept the premise," thus validating the baloney.

[countingbluecars]

51. Wow, spin it like Fox.

[Bluebear]

52. And again he unleashes a wacky headline then sits back to see all the reaction to it.

I forget what that's called in the internet world. It'll come to me.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. What a terrible, misleading subject line. eom

[WI_DEM]

57. Hmm, I didn't read it quite that way as far as Obama is concerned

it sounds like he is talking about the resolution.

[Arugula Latte]

58. My fantasy: An Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket.

I hope they join forces one day ...

[Norquist Nemesis]

59. *sigh* When are they going to learn?

ALL of the Democratic candidates should just stop this crap! Funny...I'm not seeing or hearing about Guiliani trashing Romney, or McCain going after Brownback.

:banghead:

[madinmaryland]

60. ..

Edwards is referring to the resolution, not Obama.

[uppityperson]

61. No he doesn't. Why is this still up and going?

[Beaverhausen]

62. Your appalling lack of reading comprehension is stunning

You might want to rethink your thread title, since it has no relation to what Edwards really said.

[redqueen]

64. Compared to his help beating the drums of war against Iran...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3355802,00.html

This kinda seems like slightly less significant of an issue for him to overcome.

[Broken_Hero]

65. Locking

The topic has evolved into a snipping contest, aka flamewar.

Thanks,
petersond
DU Moderator