Why did John Edwards Co-Sponsor the IWR, Again?

[FrenchieCat]

I realize that John Edwards apologized about his vote in October of 2005 in an OP-Ed, but did he also apologize about his co-sponsorship of the IRW?

In Edwards' Op-Ed he stated that he had been misled, but considering that there was debate on the issue of Iraq all summer long in 2002 and mostly everyone knew where Bush was going with his Iraq threats, why did Edwards believe George Bush? :shrug:

It's not like the Dems didn't realize what Bush was doing. The question for some was how to stop him, and for others whether they were willing to stop him. Some climbed onto Bush's bandwagon, while others voted reluctantly for the IWR, while others voted for alternative resolutions but chose to vote against the Blank Check one. Some, like Levin voted for a more restricted Resolution (as Clark said he would have) in where Bush would have had to come back AFTER securing a vote from the Security Council, but did not vote for the Blank Check resolution. The point of the more restrictive resolution was to attempt to slow Bush down, give the United Nation more power in the decision of war, give more time for the American people to debate the evidence, and in effect hope that the inspectors could come back with a definite pronouncement prior to a war being started.

Here are a few of those article, that show clearly that most of the lawmakers (those who read the newspapers anyways) pretty much had Bush's number....

I know why Republicans supported their President......
But why did those Dems like Edwards and Lieberman actually work at gaining support for Bush's planned "Selective" War?

These publicly printed articles are all from 2002, prior to the vote.

Evidence on Iraq Challenged
Experts Question if Tubes Were Meant for Weapons Program
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 19, 2002; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-2002Sep18?language=printer

American Aides Split on Assessment of Iraq's Plans
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A letter to Congress from the director of central intelligence has brought into public view divisions within the administration over what intelligence shows about Iraq's intentions and its willingness to ally itself with Al Qaeda.

The letter and other reports from the C.I.A. paint a worrisome picture of Iraq's pursuit of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. But they do not support the White House's view that Iraq presents an immediate threat to the American homeland and may use Al Qaeda to carry out attacks at any moment.

Current and former administration officials say divisions between the C.I.A. and the White House and civilian Defense Department officials over intelligence on Iraq have been simmering for months.

But with the Oct. 7 letter, sent in the name of the director, George J. Tenet, the divisions came into the open.

As some Democratic lawmakers sought to use the letter to challenge the administration's case for attacking Iraq, the C.I.A. told the Senate Intelligence Committee today that it would not declassify additional material the panel wanted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/10/politics/10INTE.html?ex=1169010000&en=a886bd130c09ef7c&ei=5070


editorial | posted June 20, 2002 (July 8, 2002 issue)
War on Iraq Is Wrong
In making the case for taking pre-emptive action against Iraq, the White House has been long on innuendo and very short on evidence of an Iraqi threat requiring such drastic remedies. What we do know is that since the Gulf War, Iraq's military capabilities have weakened significantly, to the point where they pose little or no threat to its neighbors, a fact reflected in Saddam Hussein's bid to improve relations with both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The United Nations inspections regime that operated in Iraq until late 1998 destroyed most of Iraq's ballistic missiles and nuclear and chemical weapons program. Since then, UN financial controls have deprived the regime of the money it would need to rebuild its military machine or redevelop the infrastructure needed to produce weapons of mass destruction. We know that the regime lacks the reliable means for using any weapons it might have. Of the 819 Scud missiles that Saddam once possessed, all but two were accounted for before the inspections ended. The regime has some short-range missiles, and it is suspected of working on longer-range missiles, but since none have been tested they therefore would be of highly questionable reliability. Even if Saddam had been able to hide away one or two longer-range missiles, it is not clear what he would hope to gain from irrational and ultimately suicidal attacks on Israel or his other neighbors.
snip
The Administration seems to recognize the weakness of its case and has begun to shift the rationale for a pre-emptive strike to the danger that Saddam may pass weapons of mass destruction on to terrorist groups that threaten the United States. Again, there is no evidence that Saddam has cooperated with Al Qaeda or other "terrorist groups with global reach," in the Administration's words. In fact, according to the State Department's own report, Iraq's support for terrorist activities is modest compared with that attributed to some of the other states on its list. As the State Department said earlier this year, Saddam has not been involved in any terrorist plots against the West since his attempt to target Bush Senior during his 1993 visit to Kuwait. Nor is there any reason for the Iraqi leader to aid the apocalyptic goals of Islamic fanatics, who are seen to threaten his secular regime and his bid for leadership in the Arab world.
snip
A Security Council-coordinated containment and engagement strategy--involving international inspectors and targeted sanctions backed up by the threat of international force--would be an important precedent for world order and a much better guarantee of security than a pre-emptive war whose outcome is fraught with dangerous uncertainties. Democrats and Republicans, and all citizens with civic courage, must challenge a policy that poses a clear and present danger to international and American interests.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020708/editors

"Bush Developing Military Policy Of Striking First: New Doctrine Addresses Terrorism"
Thomas E. Ricks and Vernon Loeb, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Washington Post, 10 June 2002

The Bush administration is developing a new strategic doctrine that moves away from the Cold War pillars of containment and deterrence toward a policy that supports preemptive attacks against terrorists and hostile states with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

The new doctrine will be laid out by President Bush's National Security Council as part of the administration's first "National Security Strategy" being drafted for release by early this fall, senior officials said.
snip
Inside the Pentagon, some officials suspect that the new doctrine may be acted upon sooner rather than later.

"I think the president is trying to get the American people ready for some kind of preemptive move" against Iraq, said a Pentagon consultant. He said it would not necessarily be against Iraqi weapons sites but might instead involve a seizure of Iraqi oil fields.

Rumsfeld may have captured this situation best when he declined to discuss preemption last week. Asked in an interview whether the U.S. government is contemplating preemptive moves against other nations' weapons of mass destruction, he replied: "Why would anyone answer that question if they were contemplating it?"
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/ricks.htm

"West sees glittering prizes ahead in giant oilfields,"
Michael Theodoulou in Nicosia and Roland Watson,
The Times (London), 11 July 2002

THE removal of President Saddam Hussein would open Iraqs rich new oilfields to Western bidders and bring the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil.

No other country offers such untapped oilfields whose exploitation could lessen tensions over the Western presence in Saudi Arabia.
snip
However, regime change in Baghdad will be of little value to international oil companies unless it is followed by a stable Iraq with a strong central government. Companies cant go in unless there is peace. To develop Majnoon, you need two to three billion dollars and you dont invest that kind of money without stability, one industry analyst said.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/iraq.htm

Mike Salinero,
"Gen. Zinni Says War With Iraq Is Unwise,"
Tampa Tribune, 24 August 2002

TALLAHASSEE - One of President Bush's top Middle East trouble- shooters warned Friday against war with Iraq, saying it would stretch U.S. forces too thin and make unwanted enemies in the volatile region.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the president's special envoy to the Mideast, made some of his strongest comments to date opposing war on Iraq. Speaking to the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee, Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives.

``I can give you many more before I get to that,'' Zinni said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam.

Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

``We need to make sure the Taliban and al-Qaida can't come back,'' he said.

Much more important to Mideast stability than Iraq is Iran, Zinni said. Iran has been one of the leading financiers of Islamic terror organizations such as Hezbollah since followers of the Ayatollah Khamenei took American hostages in 1979.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/zinni2.htm

There are many more articles....because the debate went on all summer of 2002.

Plus there were testimonies given before both houses of congress....

[BluegrassDem]

1. Edwards is only making decisions based on pure politics

I can't trust a guy like that. He had plenty of chances to apologize a long time ago. Only when he knew he was going to run for president, did he conveniently change his mind. And he actually co-sponsored the damn thing! How can he not be held accountable for that? Him and Hillary are going to have hell to pay in the primaries for their poor decisions.

[FrenchieCat]

2. At least Hillary didn't co-sponsor the damn thing.......and neither did Kerry.

But I'm sure that Edwards supporters will enlightened me shortly.

And I pray that I have provided enough substance in my op
and still have the right to ask such a question and expect a reasoned calm answer. :(

[mtnsnake]

20. If either one of them had, especially Hillary, we'd be hearing about it 24/7.

So Edwards not only voted for the Iraq War, but co-sponsored the ugly resolution itself, and there's barely been a peep about it until now.

[venable]

22. well, from you guys we do hear about it 24/7

so, what are you talking about?

[fuzzyball]

251. Edwards always gave me that impression....stick a wet finger up

to see which way the wind is blowing, then change direction.
May be it comes from his background of personal injury lawyer
whose job always is to sway the jury by whatever means possible.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Didn't Edwards see these pictures of his peeps before he was saying

This on February 2003....
Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml



Or this, In October of 2003....

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

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.

or this in December of 2003?
In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074




When did he get his first "clue", since the protests didn't quite do it? Because all of the protests occurred in earnest starting in Feb of 2003, to attempt to head off the war after our congress had failed us.

All over the world, there were protests.

If John Edwards was still supporting the war in November of 2003, nearly a year after it had started....where in the fuck was he, and why didn't he say something other than what he said?
Considering that it doesn't look like he really cared then what we thought?
Why should he really care now?.....
What changed?
Think about it.

[BluegrassDem]

4. It's mind boggling that IWR co-sponsor would even have a shot

at the Democratic nomination for president. :puke:

[FrenchieCat]

5. That's why I don't understand all of the support for John Edwards.....

and no coverage on this aspect of things?

I mean, I'd think that we'd be a bit discriminating. We are for everyone else. Clark, Kerry and Hillary have/are still taken through the ringer here.....But Edwards is never asked this simple question?

Where are the "post everything that Edwards does and says" posters, when you need them?
They should have an answer that makes sense.

[MonkeyFunk]

6. I find it odd, too

Sen. Clinton is vilified for voting for it, but Edwards is loved, despite sponsoring it.

I have nothing against Edwards, but I think his support for the resolution was politically-based. He lived in a conservative state, and if he was considering re-election, it would've helped him.

Now, I'm not one who rejects candidates based on such things, because I think I have some understanding of politics. Not every vote is a reflection is one's personal character and morality, and I think it's kinda nuts that so many people believe that to be the case. But, I'm still a little confused by the selective way it's applied to candidates here.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Edwards was way past running again for senate by Late 2002...

Edwards had to have been thinking about running for President in October of 2002, since he formed an exploratory committee on January 2, 2003.....one would have to "think" about it prior to doing the committee routine. So I'm sure that Edwards knew he'd be running for President at the time of his vote and at the time of his Co-sponsorship.

Edwards unofficially began his presidential campaign as early as 2001, 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Fair enough....

but I think he also believed the IRW would be a winner with the US public, too, not just North Carolina.

And at the time, he was right. The majority of Americans supported the war. He calculated, he made his decision, and in the long term, he was wrong.

Nothing wrong with that, really. I don't think it makes him a bad man - it makes him a politician.

[FrenchieCat]

9. But his apology says that he was misled......by Bush.....

so is he lying about that?

and if it was politically motivated, shouldn't that give us pause? It's one thing if it's politically motivated and a good decision too....but Edwards, like others...was warned of the possible dangers ahead of the vote. Was he listening to that at all.....cause I know, I was.

PS. I don't think that Edwards is a bad man either....he just ain't the only one that's gonna be running so there are options besides just voting for someone who helped get us where we are today.....an issue we discuss each and everyday in the news.


PSS. And I don't necessarily relish the fact that Edwards is a "politician"...which yes, I believe that he is.

[MonkeyFunk]

11. I don't know

but I suspect he's at least using selective memory to justify his position.

We all do it. If he harbored presidential ambitions shortly after 9/11, he knew he couldn't appear to be weak on terror or defense, and the IRW was the best way to show that. I also suspect he thought the war would go rather well, and he could then claim to be on the side of the angels.

He was wrong. I think that failure of judgment is more important to evaluating him as a prospective President than the moral issue of supporting the war. I don't believe the people who supported the war did so out of a desire to kill a lot of people. They did it because they believed it would be a positive event, and they believed Americans wanted it.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I agree on the judgement......

and I believed his judgement was flawed, i.e., there were too many warnings that this shit wasn't gonna fly right.....

and

Atonement is one thing (although 3 years to apologize is like forever to those on the battlefield) and I can always "forgive"....but rewarding someone for having bad judgement is quite the something else. I ain't forgetting nothin'.

Maybe those that voted for Bush didn't take the Presidency seriously, But I sure in the fuck do (pardon my French).

[salin]

16. Let's ask Jay Rockerfeller (seriously)

Back in the Sen intel hearings (stonewalled by sen roberts) there was a very disturbing exchange that was covered for exactly one day in the news. It was about the NIE prepared and presented to congress. First, it was shocking that the admin had never requested an NIE during their war planning; Second the NIE was a rush job created in response to a request by Sen Durbin; but here was the kicker... the original version and the version presented to congress were rather different. The original version had a lot of footnotes and caveats about different pieces of intelligence that qualified those items (as in - this item couldn't be verified by a second source, or this item is credited to a source who has given poor intel in the past) - and the version that was presented to congress had all of the caveats and footnotes stripped out.

The author's of the NIE were before the senate committee and were asked about the different versions - they were asked WHO ordered the stripping down of the NIE - and who did it - they said they did not know. THAT line of inquiry gets directly at several important things: 1) the intel provided to congress was NOT the same that the WH had (an oft canard propogated by repub.s and the rw media) that what was provided to congress was intentionally made much more ominous than the intelligence as it originally appeared in the NIE suggested; and 2) that the WH canard that the 'intel folks got it wrong' isn't correct this gets to the politicization of intel and the fact that the admin intentionally manipulated intel to sell it. There are still many who now disagree with the admin policies in Iraq but think it is an issue of incompetence and misplaced priorities rather than active malfeasance on the part of bushco.

I can not answer the question per Edwards -but I think that we all need to hope that as Sen Rockerfeller reopens the lines of investigations and reports about the use of Intel in the buildup to war that the questions of political manipulation by Cheney and the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans are scrutinized in a very public manner.

[SaveElmer]

23. Well if folks here on DU are to be believed...Rockefeller is not credible...

Either...he voted for the IWR...

[salin]

28. and that committee investigation (as I describe in my post)

gets to the heart of the explanation.

Frankly, most of the posts I have read that refer to Rockerfeller are supportive. He took Roberts on time and time again. Go Jay!

[SaveElmer]

29. Yes I agree actually...nt

[brg5001]

33. Correction: Edwards BEAT a conservative to win his Senate seat

Edwards beat all-time Conservative Idiot Lauch Faircloth (aka Jesse Helms, Jr.) to win his senate seat.

As a former NC resident, I reject the idea that NC is a "conservative" state -- it's actually one of the more progressive southern states. Proof: With last year's elections, the democratic majority grew in the North Carolina General Assembly and Democrats gained a majority in the U.S. House delegation. Although both Senators are Repubicans, the wingnut wing failed to get its candidates nominated. The governorship has been in Democratic hands for all but 8 years of the last 30, and the current governor is a Democrat. IMO, NC is no more conservative now than, say, Ohio or Missouri. It's DEFINITELY not an Alabama, a Kansas, a Georgia or Utah, nor for that matter, a South Carolina.

Many of us (myself included) were burned by *'s selective intelligence, the prevarications of his entire administration along with the complicity of MSM. I am not interested in some sort of contest about who had the purest record leading up to the war, although I have the utmost respect for Kucinich, Feingold, Gore and everyone else who had the foresight to oppose this mess from the outset. Edwards was lied to by people he thought he could trust -- all of us were. Now it's become some sort of original sin, when what should matter is how outspoken the candidates are now and how they aim to fight back against the Corporate/Media Money Machine that's digging the country's grave.

Full disclosure: I do support Edwards although I'm not a paid staffer nor volunteer at this point.

[LittleClarkie]

85. Charisma

That's one reason.

Also, she's not vilified just for that. There's a pattern of mechanical poltics afoot.

[ellisonz]

10. How many co-sponser's were there? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

12. There were 16......

Here's the list:


S.J.RES.46 was sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D), with 16 cosponsors: Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution


If you note the dates, He a very early co-sponsor.
And double Yuk on the company that he was keeping! :scared:

[ClintonTyree]

15. Really....

reading that list of co-sponsors is like reading the Bush christmas card list. I'm totally shocked. I had no idea Edwards was this bad of a flip-flopper. He sounds like a typical politician, saying anything that is politically expedient. That just moved him down a few pegs in my book. Still, much better than Bush but no one I think I want to hang my hat on.

[vireo]

159. Is that perhaps why Bayh decided to drop out?

I generally like Edwards, but this is going to haunt him.

[MonkeyFunk]

13. Sixteen

Sen Allard, Wayne
Sen Baucus, Max
Sen Bayh, Evan
Sen Breaux, John B.
Sen Bunning, Jim
Sen Domenici, Pete V.
Sen Edwards, John
Sen Helms, Jesse
Sen Hutchinson, Tim
Sen Johnson, Tim
Sen Landrieu, Mary L.
Sen McCain, John
Sen McConnell, Mitch
Sen Miller, Zell
Sen Thurmond, Strom
Sen Warner, John

[Mass]

17. Happy to give you the 5th recommand.

While I am not bothered by Edwards speaking out on Iraq (people can change their mind), I am very bothered by Edwards posing as the greatest anti-war person and his supporters thinking that saying two words will make his the "anti-war" candidate.

What about Dennis Kucinich, who proposed a COMPLETE plan to get out of Iraq.

What about Clark, Biden, Kerry, Murtha, ... who also proposed plans to get out of this mess? People can agree or disagree with any individual plan, but these people all took the time to propose a plan that went further than: we have to get out of Iraq.

And M. Edwards comes, throws two lines in a speech that proposes a partial withdrawal of troops, does not say anything else, and we are supposed to think he is the second incarnation of Martin Luther King or Bobby Kennedy?

[smoogatz]

18. B-b-but you're bashing Edwards! Bashing, I tell you!

How dare you confront his followers with his actual record!

[GreenArrow]

34. well, they will block you if you do

as I've already discovered.

[LittleClarkie]

57. Did you think we're all Drew Barrymore in 50 First Dates?

Bringing it up is not bashing. Bringing it up over and over and over as if we were all stupid is bashing.

[FrenchieCat]

79. Didn't see the movie......

Bashing is not necessarily what you have determined it to be.

But I am asking a serious question here, and it doesn't get an answer soon, I'll ask it again.

It ain't about anyone being stupid, it's about the fact that John Edwards is a very good politician who is running for President, and I want a concrete answer to my question (here it is again):

what motivated John Edwards to co-sponsor the IWR, and to stick to his beliefs one year later? Why did he make an "adjustment" fairly recently in his "sorry" OP-Ed when he stated that had he known then what he knows now, he wouldn't have voted for it? What was it that he didn't know in late 2003? By then, it was well known that Saddam didn't have WMDs, that the Intelligence had been fixed, and that the war was going very wrong.

If you have an answer to those questions, great.

If not, that's OK too.

But calling this bashing is really not an acceptable answer.

[LittleClarkie]

97. Gotcha. It was couching it around his apology that was confusing me

I see what you want. And I personally don't have the answer. But what I THOUGHT I was seeing was you asking if his apology covered his sponsorship too, which seemed odd at the least. Of course if he thinks his vote was wrong, then he thinks his sponsorship was also wrong.

Actually, someone toward the end of the thread coughed up Edwards own explanation at the time. Worth a gander.

[smoogatz]

183. I was kidding.

Sheesh.

[citizen snips]

19. John Edwards has a plan to withdraw troops.

and he is also against the war funding.

[mtnsnake]

21. Maybe if he didn't co-sponsor the IWR, we wouldn't be discussing his withdrawal plan today

Speaking of plans for withdrawal, I'll bet he wishes he could withdraw his name from the list of people who co-sponsored the IWR.

[citizen snips]

24. can you remind me what party was in power

during the war vote and tell me all the other democrats who voted for IWR and have apologized.

[mtnsnake]

25. So that justifies that Edwards voted for the resolutions AND co-sponsored them?

[citizen snips]

26. you are polarizing the IWR vote

by singling out Edwards. I have seen not you criticize Kerry and Cleland for voting for the war.

[mtnsnake]

35. I'm singling out Edwards? That's funny.

I have seen you criticize Kerry and Cleland for voting for the war.

What you've seen is me listing ALL the senators who voted for the IWR whenever someone tries to single out someone, usually Hillary, for doing so, and that list happens to include Cleland's name on it. I've also said that any of the candidates who voted for the IWR, including Hillary, Kerry, Biden, Dodd, etc, have some explaining to do.

As far as any other criticism of Kerry, yes, I've often criticized him as a campaigner. I've also said he's a fine senator, an honorable person, and a bonafide war hero more than once, too.

[citizen snips]

46. I meant to say

that I have NOT seen you critize every senator who has voted for the war. Which is true so you can prove me wrong by providing the links to your post. You have also said that Kerry, Biden, Dodd, have explaining to do. What about Edwards he has been explaining his war vote for awhile.

[mtnsnake]

54. You haven't seen that

because critcizing every senator who has voted for the war has not been a big MO of mine.

Often I've defended Hillary for getting SINGLED OUT for HER vote for the IWR by posting the list of ALL the senators who've voted for the war, not just her.

The other times I've criticized someone for voting for the IWR is when poster X tries to absolve candidate Y from their IWR vote simply because candidate Y apologized later for that vote when it was more politically correct to do so.

Those are the times I've criticized people for their IWR votes. I can't be anymore forthright with you than that.

[Moloch]

50. Apparently you weren't here in 2004....

Kerry was roundly criticized for his war support, and at least he didn't co-sponsor the blank check.

Cleland is irrelevant now.

[mtnsnake]

58. Also, Cleland isn't a presidential candidate either

and normally we've been aiming our criticisms of the IWR vote to presidential candidates. Whether that's right or wrong, I'm not saying, just that that's the way it's been.

[benny05]

88. Neither Did Edwards

To borrow from Philgoblue at DK:

Edwards voted for the bipartisan AUMF, not the White House version. And he voted against the $87 billion "I support Bush's War as he fought it" bill (the blank check). So, no, the AUMF is not the war and, no he didn't consistently vote for the war.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/15/91238/4120

Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, who praised Edwards for his candor at Riverside Church yesterday.

"It turns me on to hear a political leader stand up and say 'I made a mistake,'" Edelman said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/01-15-2007/news/story/488779p-411648c.html




Instead of bitchin' about the past, in which Edwards has apologized more than once, he's at least trying to take some action. Sign his petition to cut funding for the McCain Doctrine (or the surge):

http://www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/nofunding/

[karynnj]

176. He voted the same way Kerry did on the $87 billion

It was not a vote that was designed to cut the funding - but to have it paid for. (This came up in the Primary debates.) It would have KILLED his chances in 2004, if he said he wanted to cut the funding in (I think) Oct, 2003. He was still saying it was right to invade at that time. He was the most pro-war candidate other than Leiberman at that time.

[benny05]

205. I disagree with that

Edwards was not the most pro-war candidate and to lump him with Lieberman in the same league is far-fetched.

Kerry voted exactly the way Edwards did.

[karynnj]

283. I did not lump him with Leiberman

I simply said that he was considered the second most pro-war - he was. Read his floor statement and read Kerry's on the IWR

Edwards:
on Intelligence Committee
Co-sponsor of IWR
wrote part of IWR
floor mananger of IWR
voted for it
said invasion was the right thing to do for at least 6 months

Kerry:
not on intelligence committee
voted for IWR reluctantly after the Levin amendment was defeated and teh Biden/Lugar resolution was dead - saying at the time he would speak out if Bush broke promises.
He spoke against rushing to war before the war started
He spoke against it after the invasion - saying that diplomacy should have been given more of a chance.

The difference is Edwards was undeniably pro-war at least in early to mid 2003.

Kerry thought the war was not a war of last resort, thus in his opinion not a just war.

BIG DIFFERENCE

[1932]

252. How can the guy who was talking about Two Americas 99% of the time

be the most pro- (or anti-, for that matter) war candidate?

Lieberaman was the most pro-war candidate by a mile. All he talked about was the war.

Edwards probably talked about the war the least of all the candidates!

[karynnj]

289. I said Leiberman was more anti-war

Edwards' stump speech was mainly on 2 Americas, but he did speak about other issues - and he was convinced that the war was for good cause.

It wasn't the talking - it was being a co-sponsor, floor manager and even one of the authors of the IWR.

[karynnj]

170. They didn't vote for the war

they voted for the authority to be used as Bush et al publicly said it would. There's a huge difference in their speeches when voting. Kerry said he would speak out if Bush violated his promises and he did on January 23, 2006 and other occasions. Kerry was NEVER for invading.

Edwards was one of the authors of the amendment which was a Hobson's choice for Democrats and he was for the war at least 6 months later.

[Pithy Cherub]

62. The Democrats were in charge of the Senate

at the time of the October 2002 vote that the not even full one term rookie senator from North Carolina was cheerleading for the war. The Chairman of the Itelligence Committee stated he could not vote for it, but John Edwards went out to sell and co-sponsor it. Then he announced for president and YEARS later he says he's sorry. That vote needs a daily apology and atonement for its specatcular lack of judgment, but instead he wants more on the job training as president because he practiced saying sorry.

[KoKo]

111. As one of his constituents and supporters in his Senate race....

I can say he does need to atone for the way he treated us who questioned his war stance. The way he treated us who protested the war "before it started" here in NC will take alot of forgiving. His standard form letters and avoidance of speaking about his reasons for his vote with his constituents are still very strong in memory for many of us here. For him now to be seen have the BIGGEST MEA CULPA...well it's disingenuous when Senator Byrd stood on that Senate floor hour after hour day after day warning what would happen if we gave Bush his Iraq War Resolution.

Edwards should have listened to his elders like Byrd and Kennedy...but he was too busy working with his consultants on running for President. His ambitions seem to always get ahead of his stopping and taking the time to earn his way.

[Mass]

44. Can you post this plan (with details).

and ANY REFERENCE THAT HE IS AGAINST THE WAR FUNDING (by opposition to war escalation funding).

[citizen snips]

48. of course

read this recent press release.

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070109-escalation/

[Mass]

49. This is a plan?

Let's get 40 k troops now is a plan? What do we do with the rest? When do they leave? What do we do for them to leave?

This is the typical Edwards's plan. No meat. Just a few good words.

[citizen snips]

53. its better then Bush's plan.

[Mass]

56. Sure, but this is not enough. Many GOPers have better plans than Bush.

Many dems have plans that are complete and meaningful, starting with, but not only, Kucinich.

We can aregue about what the different plans propose. The problem with Edwards is that there is nothing to argue about because there is nothing.

[Nedsdag]

72. Oh, but that's not good enough.

He must be tarred and feathered. :sarcasm:

But then again, Bobby Kennedy was a supporter of the Vietnam War. Granted he didn't co-sponsor an IWR but that's where Eugene McCarthy came into the picture.

[FrenchieCat]

89. Is Bobby Kennedy running for Office today? Is Eugene McCarthy?

didn't think so.

[benny05]

228. No, but RFK cared about poverty

Something you have ignored.

[FrenchieCat]

264. Well, Looks like Edwards "ignored" poverty until he decided to

run for President. Unless you can show me some legislation work he did on Poverty issues prior to 2003. I believe that he was in the senate starting in 1998, so there should be something to back up the populist's record, no?

Cause Obama has been in the Senate only a short while, and already has quite a bit under his belt.

So act like I'm from Missouri, and "show" me why Edwards' name is invoked in the same sentence as that of RFK.

Thanks!

[benny05]

287. Colbert Double Finger Wag

In the 106 Congress, there was HR 833 and S 625 (which was inserted as an amendment to pass HR833, both related to Bankruptcy Reform, in which both bills included a provision to raise the minimum wage. Edwards voted yes on the Senate version S625.

The 2 versions went to conference and it was stalled over tax cuts and reliefs. Clinton threatened to veto tax cuts. The House Republicans decided to wait for Bush to take office. Thus, S 625 died very quietly.

Information taken from 3 sources: Congressional Quarterly, Thomas, and the Charleston Daily mail. I cannot give you links, but you can find the text of the legislation on Thomas.

After Bush took office, and the Rethugs took over in 2003, most of the candidates for 2004 introduced various forms of legislation, including Edwards, who was trying to get at least one year for all first year college students in need and who attended public universities. But as CQ said around May 2003, none were going to get any legislation through.

[SOS]

274. Robert F. Kennedy

did not enter the race until March 1968, well after McCarthy.
Kennedy's position on Vietnam in 1968 most closely resembles the ISG recommendations for Iraq in 2007:

RFK at the University of Kansas in March 1968:

"I don't want to be part of a government and have them write of us as they wrote of Rome: "They made a desert and they called it peace." I think that we should go to the negotiating table.
We have three choices: We can pull out of South Vietnam unilaterally and raise the white flag, I think that's unacceptable.
Second, we can continue to escalate, we can continue to send more men there, until we have millions and millions of more men and we can continue to bomb North Vietnam, and in my judgment we will be no nearer success, we will be no nearer victory than we are now.
And the third step that we can take is to go to the negotiating table. One of the things that we're going to have to accept as American people and that the United States government must accept, is that the National Liberation Front is going to play a role in the future political process of South Vietnam."

Humphrey was the stay-the-course Democrat in 1968.

[Clarkie1]

91. What plan? All I've heard him say is withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops?

How did he pick those numbers? How is he going to argue that immediate withdraw of 50,000 will best advance the goal of peace? If he believes the issue is troop levels, why not call for withdrawing all troops now? If he belives some troops must be left in Iraq as others are immediately withdrawn, how did he determine the amount that need to be there now for his plan to be successful?

All hypothetical questions of course, as long as we have GWB in the White House.

[Critters2]

192. He damn well ought to. He got 'em in, he should get 'em out

Without his resolution, they wouldn't be there in the first place.

His having a plan to fix his blunder doesn't impress me.

[venable]

27. the OP is disingenuous

as are most of the gleeful historians on the board. You are afraid of his candidacy because he is a threat to your candidate(s). I'm sorry, that's the only reason that accounts for your failure to embrace a strong anti-war voice (unless, perhaps, you don't care that much about leaving Iraq).


Why is the OP disingenuous? Because the poster knows the answer, and merely wants to harp on the past, at the expense of the present and the future.

But to answer - for the eleventy millionth time


Edwards has explained why he voted for the IWR -he believed the threat (and, BTW, had more info than anyone on this site).

He was wrong. He should have been like those others who did not believe the Intel. He should have heard Ritter.



He voted for a process, a process aborted by Bush. He should not have trusted Bush.



So, his vote was wrong. How is the best, most honest way to move forward from that? Say, loudly and repeatedly - I was wrong.



Support your own candidate. Don't live to trash Edwards. Support peace. Bring the troops home now.



Get over the threat Edwards poses to your candidates. We are all in this together.


(Also - of all the political sites I go to, of all the political discourse in my life - there is no place nastier and pettier than here, especially as regards Edwards, and Kerry, and, of course, Hillary - though I might contribute some to denigrating the latter, I try to refrain, instead would like to spend my time promoting Edwards.)

[wyldwolf]

30. the OP vehemently supports a candidate who could not have voted for the IWR...

... and therefore cannot be criticized for it. Nevertheless Wes Clark believed Saddam to be the threat Bush said he was and said as much to the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002.

And I can legitimately make this claim because there weren't many fans of Wes Clark bigger than I was in 2003-2004 and still am.

[Pithy Cherub]

38. Impressive Wyldwolf!

It also speaks to how wide the spectrum is on Clark supporters, as you and I both know we are from differing ends of the political universe, but we rally strongly in unity on behalf of Wes Clark.

Frenchie is also doing what every campaign should be doing and that is gathering true and factual information about candidate's full records, not those that want the record expunged on such a critcal issue as the IWR and all of the atrocities that have led from it.

:toast:

[madmunchie]

43. Geez, why don't people just GET IT!!!! Thinkinig that Sadam is a threat

and starting a war over it ARE TWO SEPERATE THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Many of the people that thought Sadam was a threat DID NOT SUPPORT INVADING IRAQ.

The two things don't necessarily go together, they aren't joined at the hip......

Clark did talk about not going into Iraq.... He just wasn't in the position to vote on it.

[FrenchieCat]

90. Wyldwolf, I believe that Clark has been criticized for plenty.......

and as long as you've been here, you should know that.

And yes, Clark has been plenty criticized for some of what he has said in reference to Iraq. And I have answered those critics as best as I could, consistently and copiously many times without a word of complaint. Most times without dragging in other candidates whom the poser of the question might support.

Wes Clark is not the answer to the question I posed. Certainly he can be "used" to obscure the subject matter, but Wes Clark is simply not the point. The man is such an underdog as we speak, he may not even run.....and so, it ain't about Wes Clark...it's about John Edwards who, looking at things now, may just end up being our nominee.

and that's the truth.

[wyldwolf]

103. I know that better than most

However, based on what I've read and my interpretation of it, what separates Clark and Edwards in regards to Iraq is Edward's activity as a Senator. It my opinion, and I'm only speaking for myself, that Wes Clark would have voted for the IWR if he were a senator at that time.

[FrenchieCat]

112. Yes, you are speaking for yourself, as I am......

and I disagree with you on what Clark would have done... but I think that we can at least agree that Clark wouldn't have co-sponsored the Lieberman IWR.....which is what my OP is about.

In terms of what Clark said about what he would have done.....
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/dissecting_nagourneys_nyt_arti.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/what_wes_clark_said_prior_to_t.html

But this thread was not about Wes Clark, until some decided the need to bring him in....and to those, I say....whatever!

[wyldwolf]

118. I don't see co-sponsoring it any more or less detrimental than voting for it.

If one is inclinded to vote for it, he/she feels strong enough about it to co-sponsor it. My opinion being expressed in that regard, any Senator who voted for it may have been inclined to sponsor it if they'd been asked it.

[FrenchieCat]

122. I don't agree......which is why not everyone who voted for it co-sponsored it.

I believe that John Kerry is one of those who relunctantly voted for the IWR, cause he pretty much knew where Bush was going with it.

I for one do not believe that John Kerry would have co-sponsored Lieberman's blank check.
...know why? Cause he didn't, but could have.
That's my evidence which is more concrete than your opinion.

[venable]

277. 'those who brought him in', indeed

again, disingenuous and transparent. not an Edwards thread occurs without it becoming about Clark, as a result of a handful of posters, none of whom are Edwards supporters. This fascination with Edwards by Clark supporters is not reciprocated, so you know.


you never answered my assertion that your OP is disingenuous. you know the answer, so why ask? if not to inflame.

and why would you want to inflame? because the man you despise, Edwards, is being rightfully touted as a strong anti-war voice TODAY, and that is something that doesn't fit your view of him. I think you're just going to have to accept that yes he voted for the IWR and yes many today look to him for his antiwar voice. All of this is true.

[Donna Zen]

236. Therefore:

Clark was on the phone with Dashel the night that Gephardt caved trying to formulate new wording for an amendment that would have taken the "trigger" out of the IWR; therefore, he did not agree with IWR as it was written. Clark himself has said that he agreed with Bob Graham. Therefore, I believe him, Clark, that he would have not have voted "yes".

We know this is true because Gene Lyons has documented that he had spoken with Clark on July 4th 2002. Clark was absolutely against going to war in Iraq long before anyone else understood that a war in Iraq was on the bush agenda.

Why was Clark running around with his hair on fire trying to stop this war, if what you say is correct? Why would Wellstone have quoted Clark when voting "no" if the assumption that Clark would have voted "yes" is true. That dog don't hunt.

BTW, we should also thank the General that he brought up the word "region" in the IWR wording, and was successful in having the word removed. Iraq and the region... Imagine where we'd be today.

[SaveElmer]

254. Same place we are now...

Do you seriously believe George Bush would have let a no vote on the IWR stop him from atttacking?

[Donna Zen]

268. I believe

I believe that Democrats controlled the Senate at the time.

I believe that UN Security council would have clipped bush's wings knowing that his domestic backing was thin.

I believe that people who put their love of country first and voted "NO" are to be honored for their bravery.

I believe that the American people would be better informed today if Democrats had been guardians of the truth.

I believe that covering for those who bet on the wrong horse and voted "YES" hampers the conversation about the war because the Democratic Party continue to cover up for those who served us so poorly.

I believe that any voter who puts their country first will put an end to our representatives selling us out by holding them accountable.

I believe that voting for politicians who have not earned our votes will guarantee that we get more of the same.

In short, it has become very clear to me, that rather than complain, I have a responsibility to be ever vigilant if we are to protect our democracy. Democracy is a fragile construct that demands much of those who wish to keep it safe.

Daniel Webster on the occasion of the one hundredth anniversary of George Washington’s birthday.


Other misfortunes may be borne or their effects overcome. If disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation my renew it. If it exhaust our Treasury, future industry may replenish it. If it desolate and lay waste our fields, still, under a new cultivation, they will grow green again and ripen to future harvests. It were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder Capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars would fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. All these might be rebuilt. But who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? Who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns of constitutional liberty? Who shall frame together the skillful architecture which unites national sovereignty with State rights, individual security, and public prosperity? No. If these columns fall, they will be raised not again. Like the Colosseum and the Parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. Bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than were shed over the monuments of Roman or Grecian art. For they will be the remnants of more glorious edifice than Greece or Rome ever saw: the edifice of constitutional American liberty.

I believe that if your chosen candidate had voted "NO" or the subject of this particular thread had used better judgment, you and they would be all over this issue. I would have never considered voting for any candidate who voted "YES", and that is that.

[SaveElmer]

270. I believe...hmmm

"I believe that Democrats controlled the Senate at the time."

By one thin vote

"I believe that UN Security council would have clipped bush's wings knowing that his domestic backing was thin."

Using what mechanism? The U.N. has no power over the United States Government, particularly a government that holds the U.N. in contempt

"I believe that people who put their love of country first and voted "NO" are to be honored for their bravery."

Please, sophistry with no substance. Show me a man braver than Max Cleland!!!

"I believe that the American people would be better informed today if Democrats had been guardians of the truth. "

Describe for me the exact intelligence gathering mechanism Democrats in Congress had at their disposal! I will save you the time...they had none. Take a quick glance at the floor statements of OPPONENTS of the IWR...virtually every one of them believed Saddam Hussein had WMD's...were they lying? The most rigorous examination of the intelligence was demanded by Senator Bob Graham. And even he flat out said Saddam had biological and chemical weapons

"I believe that covering for those who bet on the wrong horse and voted "YES" hampers the conversation about the war because the Democratic Party continue to cover up for those who served us so poorly."

Bull...Senators are paid to examine the evidence and the situation and use their best judgement. These are not black and white issues. At the time, in October of 2002, a vote in favor of the IWR was a reasonable position to take. No one is covering for anything. The blame for this debacle lies with the man living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his cohorts...no one else!

"I believe that any voter who puts their country first will put an end to our representatives selling us out by holding them accountable."

Do you believe - yes or no - that Max Cleland, John Kerry and Tom Harkin - all veterans, two highly decorated, voted YES on the IWR knowing full well it would mean the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians? That is the logical extension of this "argument" that you cannot avoid! The man that should be held accoiuntable is currently the President of the United States!!!

This "argument" you make - that the Democrats voting yes did so for selfish political reasons - encompasses the catch all criticism of politicans that people trot out and that everyone believes prima facie, without a shred of evidence to back it up. You have no evidence other than your own prejudice to show that the vast majority of these 28 Democrats in the Senate did not take their vote just as seriously as those that voted no.


"I believe that voting for politicians who have not earned our votes will guarantee that we get more of the same. "

Ridiculous - name me one single politician, including the greatest this counrty has ever produced, that has not made a serious lapse in judgement. Again, I will save you the trouble...there are none. If you follow this line of argument you would have voted against Abraham Lincoln in 1864 and FDR in 1944...

"In short, it has become very clear to me, that rather than complain, I have a responsibility to be ever vigilant if we are to protect our democracy. Democracy is a fragile construct that demands much of those who wish to keep it safe. "

And only those such as yourself who rigidly adhere to standard of perfection unattainable by any are the only ones "protecting our democracy" eh?

I believe that if your chosen candidate had voted "NO" or the subject of this particular thread had used better judgment, you and they would be all over this issue. I would have never considered voting for any candidate who voted "YES", and that is that.

Considering you know nothing about me this is a fairly bold statement to make. Fact is, I have never said one word in criticism of those that voted against the IWR. There were very good reasons not to vote for it...but in October 2002, there were good reasons to vote for it as well!!! I support Hillary CLinton because of her whole record and my perception of her fortitude and competance. Had she voted against the IWR, I would feel the same way!

[More Than A Feeling]

32. Did he really have to CO-SPONSOR the cursed thing?

Voting for it is one thing, Co-sponsoring is another. It's just like when Hillary co-sponsored making flag-burning a federal crime. Maybe she wanted to vote for that as an alternative to the constitutional amendment (which her supporters have argued), but again, did she have to co-sponsor it?

On edit: if my avatar didn't make it clear, I have no candidate yet, and I haven't since Feingold dropped out.

[KoKo]

115. As a freshman Senator it was a bold move. And was probably

calculated to be that way. If we weren't still in Iraq it would be seen as brilliant politically in his strategic positioning himself with Lieberman.

[brg5001]

41. Well stated, venable

*Sigh* I guess this means that Edwards had become the front-runner. Message to all: They're ALL politicians. We don't have a situation where some are politicians and some aren't. As long as the goal is to appeal to enough people to win elections, they will all have votes and actions to explain as best they can. I think Kerry stated it well, when he told Rolling Stone: "I voted for the resolution, but I had no idea that he was going to fuck it up so badly." In the end, it doesn't matter if Edwards co-sponsored it or if he had merely voted for it, he will never be able to apologize enough to satisfy the Original Sin crowd.

[madmunchie]

45. You got that right! It took him way too long to figure out that

"Oh gee, I guess I was wrong!" Duh, I knew that, my friends knew that...but the aspiring POTUS (Edwards) didn't and then he co sponsored it?????? PLEASE you are doing the Democratic Party a great injustice by saying that Edwards is the best we have to offer. There are plenty of possible Democratic candidates who didn't support the IWR and didn't cosponsor it.

What is most telling is how long it took him to figure it out its kind of like Bush reading "My pet goat" while we were under attack.

The time clock is ticking:

one idiot is reading a children's book while we are under attack,

The time clock is ticking:

the other idiot is wondering when it will be the most advantageous for his career to come out against the Iraq war while thousands lose their lives....

As to your "Sigh".... how exactly many Democratic Candidates have actually announced their candidacy???? Easy to be the Front runner when you are almost the only one running now isn't it?


Message to you: Politicians: some actually try to do the work for the people that they represent, Edwards wouldn't know too much about that, since his work was to get a raise and promotion while he was a Senator. He never even served one full term in ANY POLITICAL OFFICE before he was out campaigning for the #1 job. He never served the people period. While many of our choices are working for the people, Edwards sole concern is to put together his campaign.... He is an egotistical, overly ambitious, self serving person. PERIOD And I pray to God that this one issue candidate gets hammered in the primaries. I know that I will personally work towards that goal. I don't trust Edwards to do the good for the people. He'll be too busy campaigning for his next 4 years if he gets a 1st 4, mark my words.

When you want to look to see where a man is going, look to where he has been and Edwards was on the wrong side of the most important issue of his career.

[brg5001]

275. I appreciate your response, it was honestly very persuasive

After reading the opinions of those who are seriously opposed to Edwards due to his sponsorship of the IWR, I am ready to consider other candidates. It's important that we celebrate those who had the guts to oppose the damn thing in the first place, or at least, not co-sponsor and embrace it. There is no doubt that Edwards is ambitious -- anyone who runs must be -- but the part of your argument that swayed me is that we can't take the risk that he is only saying the right things now in order to curry favor with the party's core consituents (us!).

When we needed tigers to oppose the fascist regime, we got lapdogs. You are right -- that's unacceptable. There's no shame in admitting a serious error, but honesty demands that he explain that it was more than just Bush's lies that caused the error -- it was his desire to please a war-thirsty public. We don't need rock stars, nor pretty boys, nor people who say the right things at the right time -- we need a statesman.

I urge everyone on the board not to dig in his/her heels when candidates are challenged. We all have our favorites but let's be willing to admit their faults and keep our minds open. Let's find the RIGHT candidate(s) and let a bunch of network TV execs determine who they want in the race for the sake of the best ratings.

I have forgiven Edwards for making the biggest mistake of his life. What I see now is that he is not being honest with himself nor with the voters about what led to that mistake, and THAT is the issue.

[Clark2008]

51. Not everyone dislikes Edwards because they like Clark, venable.

YOU need to get well over that assumption.

Some of us just happen to view Edwards as a slimy politician in his own right without a thing in the world to do with the candidate we DO support.

[venable]

130. did I mention Clark?

didn't think so. Check it out.

This thread seems to be all about Clark, having nothing to do with me, so, now that you mention it...

[Clark2008]

278. No - but you've asserted it before - to me - and to other who

support Clark but dislike Edwards.

Just doing a little reading between the lines.

[jen4clark]

153. You are wrong

Yes, I am scared of Edwards, but it has nothing to do with the threat he poses to my candidate. It is his poor judgement that terrifies me. He is a good man, but he lacks sound judgement. I don't understand why that is so hard for JE supporters to understand?

[Inspired]

266. I understand

JE supporters understand what is going on here. Whenever there is a pro-Edwards thread, or an anti-Edwards thread like this one, you can always count on the same people jumping in. The vast majority of them are Clark supporters.

Is this the strategy? Is this tactic approved by Clark?

[Clark2008]

280. How hard is it to understand that the TYPE of person who

would like Clark in many cases would DISLIKE Edwards. It's an experience and trust thing. It's not that we are Clark supporters, it's that we don't like Edwards.

[madmunchie]

31. You go Frenchie, only you could come up with such a fact filled intelligent

exposure of Edwards and what this man is truely about. I am bookmarking this thread for future reference, Thanks!

[Cameron27]

36. k&r

[Auntie Bush]

37. Thanks Frenchie...I just bookmarked and recommeed #5

I remember feeling all those anti-war sentiments and wondering how all those politicans could vote for the war. I knew it was purely politics and they wanted to appear tough on protection for the united States. I see WHY he did it but for the life of me I can't understand HOW they could have voted for a WOR which would result in the death of thousands of our troops and the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi, the cost to our treasury (and the resulting loss of much needed funds for our own country) the distruction of Iraq and it's historical treasures, The distruction of a country's intratructure and the cost of rebuilding the country. HOW could any of those politicans possibly think their presidential ambitions more important than all that distruction? That really makes me question their own personal morals and that goes for EVERYONE who voted for the IWR! PERIOD!

This is a very important post and I hope everyone reads. It did actually make me much more against anyone who voted for IWR. Previously, I would have been a little more forgiving. We allknew it was wrong...why didn't they? They did! They did it anyway for personal gain. That's unforgivable! They all knew we wanted their OIL...as we ALL did.

[ruggerson]

39. More desperate Edwards bashing

To be expected since many Clarkies seem to hate Edwards with a passion based on an incident in the '04 campaign.

Clark's own son occasionally goes out of his way to bash Edwards on various blogs.

It's a very personal vendetta.

[mtnsnake]

40. How is it bashing if it's true? nt

[ruggerson]

42. Because he's changed his mind and admitted his error

which he's made abundantly clear, time and again.

Edwards could be the second coming of MLK and FDR combined, and many Clarkies would still diss him.

He doesn't fit their agenda.

[Mass]

47. My problem with Edwards is perfectly described with your post.

Is Edwards that unsubstantial that he has to be the second coming of MLK or Bobby Kennedy? Is being John Edwards not enough?

I am still waiting to see anything that goes further than platitudes coming from Edwards, and I find offensive that the media compared his speech yesterday to MLK speech forty years ago (and I am not a Clarkie, so be sure many more than the Clarkies are against him).

[Clark2008]

52. Well, he isn't the second coming of either, so that makes your

point moot, doesn't it?

He's a politician who says what is popular for votes. Period.

[venable]

131. Wrong. Period.

He says what he believes. Period.

[Texas_Kat]

200. Must have been a recent epiphany

In trying to sell the "I'm authentic" schtick, he isn't particularly.... ah....'authentic'.

Saturday, July 1, 2006

"I'm trying to retrain and recondition myself when I get asked a question to actually answer it -- to not say what I've been trained to say, to not say what's careful and cautious," said the former U.S. senator from North Carolina, widely considered a likely candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination."

...


"My own view is the next president of the United States, or certainly the one after, is likely to be the single candidate who doesn't sound like a politician," he said. "I want to tell you on a personal level, I'm trying every way I know how not to do it.

"We've been trained to do the wrong thing," he concluded. "That's the problem."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/276108_gnomedex01.html

[LittleClarkie]

60. But the OP is asking if he apologized for his vote without apologizing for his sponsorship

Why would he separate the two.

It's an excuse to bring it up AGAIN, as if it hadn't been brought up before. He voted for the thing and sponsored it, true. He's apologized. Also true. He has a pullout plan. True.

We've seen this fact presented on this board before. True. Repeatedly.

The OP has a reason to take Edwards out for the sake of his own candidate. True.

We aren't Drew Barrymore and this isn't 50 First Dates. The only reason to keep reminding people of the same fact is if you want to hit someone over the head with it.

That's bashing.

[LittleClarkie]

55. This isn't a transparent attack on a possible rival to Clark nosiree.

Nope.

Okay, how many DIFFERENT things would you like Edwards to apologize for regarding that vote. How about the color tie he wore that day? The pen he used?

He apologized. He said he was wrong. He's now pushing that we get out. Short of putting a gun in his hand, there's not much more he can do.

And isn't it just spiffy that Clark wasn't a Senator and doesn't have a vote that anyone can hang him by his thumbs for.

[salin]

59. what is the source of this antipathy between some clark and edwards

folks? I remember the Deanfans and Kerryfans spats four years ago (ugly, those were) - but missed the origins of this particular feud.

Me, I like them both. Heck I also like Gore. And Obama. And Kerry. And Dodd. I think we have a really great field - that could get even greater if folks like Clark, Gore and Kerry jumped in the ring as well.

[LittleClarkie]

61. The upcoming primary, I reckon, and that they see each other as a threat

I'm a Kerry person, despite the name. So I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'll defend Clark when he needs it, and Edwards when he needs it. It's Edwards turn at the mo.

[Clark2008]

65. There's not that much of one.

It's just that most Clark supporters are supporters of Clark because they feel he has a firm grasp on the threats, both internally and externally, that face American while we think that Edwards is so much pablum.

Even is Clark weren't in the picture, very few of us would migrate to Edwards - in fact, I think less than 1 percent would.

There is some bad blood because of the Hugh Shelton issue (I'll try to find a link for that for you), but mostly, it's because of the type of people who support Clark would never support Edwards.

[salin]

70. Thanks for the explanation. Thus far,

the back and forth seems focused on the candidates, which is much more civil than last time around when there were all out feuding between duers - the attacks were often broad generalized slaps at whole "camps" (fans of a particular candidate). Hoping that we don't see much of that this time round.

Hugh Shelton - that name sounds vaguely familiar - was he tied up with the swifties?

[FrenchieCat]

94. You can read this to answer your question......

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/01/gen_clarks_band_of_brass_opini.html

[salin]

116. that was very helpful to read

also does explain some of the animosity I sense between camps. You know, when I first heard the name I couldn't recall why it was familiar - swifties came to mind (but that didn't make sense if the person was associated with edward) - guess there was something swiftie-like that was caught in my memory, eh.

Me, I would love to see the General in the race, (and Gore - but that doesn't seem likely to happen), and I like Edwards. Just trying to keep up on the dynamics (du board dynamics that is).

[citizen snips]

113. Actually I have not criticized Clark in a long time.

[Clark2008]

63. And, to you, too.

Many of us dislike Edwards for these reasons and others and it has nothing to do with our support of Clark or any other candidate.

We just don't feel Edwards, based on SOME of the information posted in the OP, is the right person for the job. Heck, some of us won't even vote for him if he does get the nomination because we feel so strongly about it.

I'd vote for nearly any other Democrat in the general election, but not for him. I don't want another Bush. And, while he's at least nicer than Bush, Edwards is still not a man with developed plans and a solid understanding of the problems facing this country externally. Even Nancy Pelosi said he'd never give his opinion without first asking if a poll had been taken regarding said issue.

[LittleClarkie]

68. I would have preferred your explanation to the ingenuous way

the subject was brought up by the OP.

I appreciate your reply.

[Clark2008]

76. I don't think she was being disingenuous though.

Most of us who don't support Edwards don't support him for many of the reasons given in the OP - not because we support someone else. We support someone else over Edwards for those reasons.

I guess that's the backwards rub of this sort of thing.

[ChiciB1]

64. Oh Well, There Are Other Candidates... Pick One And Go With It!

There's always McCain I guess!

Yes, I do support Edwards, but other than Hillary I don't say anything negative about the others.

I just feel that the Repukes want Hillary to run because they can't wait to start piling on. Granted there are things to pile on about, but THEY think the Democratic base find her to be some kind of Goddess and I don't think most of us do. I'm sure they will pile on just about anyone, but especially Hillary!

Just my opinion.

[Clark2008]

66. Um, Edwards is more similar to McCain than many other Dem choices.

:P

[benny05]

230. Really?

Prove it in terms of Edwards who wants our troops to start leaving now, and McCain wants the surge.

What a dumb comparison. Are you a recovering Republican who still has an itch for current war-machine pols?

[madfloridian]

67. This is Edwards' bashing.

If I post anything about Wesley Clark that is not glowing, I get blasted out of the water.

Say, how did Clark feel about depleted uranium? There's a good interview at Democracy Now.

Did he refer in April 2003 to the "balm" that was victory in Iraq?

So why the double standard? Why is Edwards fair game but Clark off bounds?

[madmunchie]

69. Clark spent all of his adult life foregoing wealth and served his country for over 30+ years

and then ran for President

Edwards spent all of his adult life acquiring wealth for over 20+ years and then ran for POTUS.

See the difference? This is just one of many many differences.

[madfloridian]

71. I don't believe you said that.

I truly don't believe you said it.

[Nedsdag]

75. These threads are the epitome of

why I'm not a supporter of neither Edwards nor Clark. I like Edwards but the vitriol against him albeit true forces me to hold my support towards him. As for Clark, I believe he has the best intentions for this country and I agree on his positions, but his supporters tend to be like fans of the Chicago Cubs: very faithful yet very cultlike. It sort of rubs me the wrong way.

For now I want to look at both sides of ALL the candidates and would probably not endorse anyone until, yes, November of 2008. That is all.

[madmunchie]

134. Cultlike??? It is just that we have read and studied the articles, books

and watched appearances from Clark. We acknowledge his chest full of medals and honors from heads of states all over the world. We also acknowledge the fact that over 50 diplomats endorsed Clark. We appreciate the jobs that he has done in Kosovo and as the head of NATO, we appreciate that he graduated #1 in his class at Westpoint and that he went to Oxford and was triple degreed. We honor our troops, even when they climb to 4 start General status - coming from a home where his father died when he was a young boy and he grew up in modesty. His father wasn't a millworker, he didn't have a father, his father died.

We appreciate and realize what a true treasure this man is - we see brilliance and we know that he is so much better equiped to handle what is going on in this country than most other candidates. It would be this country's loss not to really listen and take this guy to heart.

I don't think that it is cultlike, I believe it to be intelligence and hope and the fact that we can all recognize that this man is the right man for this country, right now.

[Nedsdag]

245. I've never knocked Clark

If you read what I said, I agree with everything Clark says. I also appreciate his service to the country and his work with NATO and the Armed Services. I'm just a little turned off those who support him as if you supported any other candidate you have a problem. That's not fair. Again, I haven't made a choice. I may go for Clark but then again I may not.

I really feel bad for his supporters if he 1. doesn't run; or 2. runs but doesn't win. I fear they may stay home or bad mouth the eventual nominee.

[madmunchie]

259. Clark isn't the only one that I am looking at for possible candidates

There are some candidates, like Edwards, that I will not support during the primaries whether Clark runs or doesn't run.

I worked for Clark in 04', when he dropped out, I supported Kerry (although I was extremely dissappointed that he chose Edwards for VP, or should I say that Edwards was chosen to be VP).

"Us Clarkies", are not all "cultlike", we just think that Clark would make a great POTUS.

You won't see me knocking the shit out of Gore, Kucinich, Obamma, Feingold (even though he says that he won't run), possibly there might be another one or two that I would consider. But Edwards won't be one of them.

[Clark2008]

93. Why?

It's the truth.

Oh - and don't quote Democracy Now to me, not about military matters. They despise the military so nothing the military does is good enough for that bunch.

There are things they are good sources for, but military matters aren't one of them. They're too biased against the military.

[madfloridian]

101. Ok, then riddle me this.

The DLC folks here tell me I can't quote blogs. Myself...I don't trust the Mockingbird infected WP or the NYT as far as I can throw them.

And you tell me I can't quote Democracy Now on military issues.

Sure are getting picky round here.

Would you like the other sources on Clark's denial of the dangers of depleted uranium? I notice the topic is studiously avoided here and everywhere. Yet the military knew, and we don't talk about it.

[Clark2008]

109. Oh - you can quote them all you want.

I just won't lend them any credence on issues of the military.

They are absolutely the best in reporting some issues. But, when it comes to the military, DN's bias is so blatant, I can only take their reportage on such matters with a grain of salt.

But, no, in regards to your offer to provide sources about Clark's depleted uranium opinions. This thread is about Edwards.

[ChiciB1]

120. I Think This Is Called "Eating Our Own" And I Prefer Not To Do

this all the time! Maybe it's because Edwards has gotten very popular of late and it makes some people upset. I don't think any of us know how this will jell yet. However, I will tell you as a person who lives in Florida and one who emails with many here.... Edwards is coming out on top right now.

Just got another email last night from a friend in Volusia County saying that he and his wife have made the decision to get on his band-wagon. I know at least 14 people right now who are trending his way, and I'm only one person.

How anyone can be worse than The Idiot is beyond me!

[FrenchieCat]

126. THis is called asking a question of someone who wants to be President......

Long live Democracy!

The day we install someone on the throne is the day that we should not question anything.

More power to John Edwards in his quest to become our next president and be the one to clean up the Iraq mess.

However, the race ain't over yet.

Eating one's own means what exactly?....that we cannot question John Edwards' judgement or his motives for doing some of what he did that he even now was wrong on the issue of war and peace?

Almost a trillion dollars spent, and one year away from voting and we should already be careful of what we say and shit....? How sad. :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

82. I believe his backstory. His kid died, and it changed him

And I don't hold it against him for being wealthy.

[karynnj]

188. The same could be said for

Kerry, Dodd, Clinton, Gore, Dean, Kuchinich, Obama and Biden as well as Clark. They also spent their adult life chosing service over gathering wealth. (and no Kerry was NOT independently wealthy through his 30s and 40s - he was one of the poorest Senators. Gore and Dean were from well off families, but they also were not wealthy themseves because of their choices.)

The point is ALL these other men (and woman) CHOOSE a life of public service. This really means something to me. All of them had talents and/or connections equal to Edwards. This is why you can look at Gore or Kerry and see that they have been involved on the environment since the 1970s. Edwards did very little until the late 1990s on any public service thing. (I'm open to contradiction - if it is documented.)

[GreenArrow]

242. well for one thing

the dude (Edwards) made a mint in his law career, yet never found time to take on a single pro bono case.

[karynnj]

288. That seems hard to believe

maybe he simply didn't call attention to it. (I am not an Edwards fan - but I suspect that this is not likely. )

[citizen snips]

282. and you are not trying to build wealth.

[FrenchieCat]

74. So can you answer the question that I pose about John Edwards

or do you believe that obscuring John Edwards' actions by changing the subject is an answer....cause I don't.

Clark is not out of bound......as the question that you are asking has been answered many times before, and will be asked again....and as a Dutiful Clark supporter, I will fully answer the question......

but this ain't about Wes Clark, this is about John Edwards' independent actions without regard to Wes Clark.

Since you say that asking this question about Edwards is bashing, what double standards are you speaking of? I am allowed to ask about John Edwards, or are we only able to insinuate (without details) about Wes Clark?

I think we should be able to ask questions of both ....don't you?

[madfloridian]

80. I don't have to answer anything....I am not sure who I support.

I only know of one I won't support at all.

This is exactly what happened in 03. The same thing happened. Over and over and over.

Same group, different target.

[ultraist]

222. I saw it too

Dean was unfairly ripped to shreds and he is one of our leading Democrats who is doing a kick ass job as Chair of the DNC as evidenced by our win in 06.

I have to really wonder about people---who they really are when they spend an inordinate amount of time bashing good Democrats and obsessing and whining about the past, rather than focusing on working in the here and now to improve our country.

[benny05]

95. Do You Intend to Live in the Past

or move forward?

This is really old.

It's time you and others start launching posts that say why General Clark (or Obama, or Dodd, or Clinton, take your pic--yours is generally for General Clark) is the best potential candidate. Talk about his current position on the McCain doctrine. Talk about what his plans are for helping those less fortunate and need a hand up.

All I see is you spinning your wheels bashing Edwards, which means you are stuck in the muddy past. Why do you do that? I think it's because Edwards is getting some positive press, and so to divert it, you write the SOS.

Move on FC. It's time. Have General Clark break the silence or do it for him if you can. Election season has begun for some politicans. Edwards is on the offense, and he is doing a good job.

[Pithy Cherub]

100. Election season has begun

and Edwards announced his intention to be considered a candidate. His entire record is open for examination as he has declared that he should be the Head of State. A Head of State that has to undergo a thourough review of the most critical national security issues facing this nation. He was an utter failure in his first attempt to guide national security and foreign policy so it is incumbent to examine every candidate's record on the issues before this nation. This focuses on Edwards and rightfully so as he himself owed the country an apology. He made it years later, but he did make it and it is a credible tool to view his merits as candidate on his judgement, ability to discern truth from lies and whether he is credible before other heads of state. As his record shows poor choices in that regard, it is entirely fair and just to use them as data points on his fitness to serve as president and ask for votes! That is the American process unless you are espousing an evisceration of that model for a more totalitarian one which means the candidate's propaganda should be all that is consumed during the election season.

Each candidate should undergo a full vetting of their records to ascertain whether the competencies to serve are in evidence throughought their careers or is it something that has just been a new development and needs road testing for general audiences. Primary voters pay attention to entire records, not just what a candidate says is their platform. The poltics of contrast in all of its permutations should be utilized to make the best possible choice, not one of expedience because some supporters are made uncomfortable by questioning the entire record of a candidate and whenether they have the expertise to be credible on matters of national security or domestic policy. Records of achievement matter - and on national security Edwards is sincerely lacking to be commander in chief.

[benny05]

104. I disagree on one point

I don't believe all primary voters look at the entire record other than those in Iowa, NH, NV and SC since those are the 4 starters and all are having debates early. I think they will contrast the candidates positions more, and voters want to know, "what is your plan" as they tend to want solutions. Americans are not patient, and they want action today and tomorrow.

[Pithy Cherub]

107. Believe that is you wish, but it belies

a history of modern political campaigns in early primary states that use ads to show why a plan is flawed
(whatever one it is) and how you can not trust a candidate because of bad decisions in the past. As it says above the door in the Archives for the Library of Congress: What is Past, is Prologue. Each candidate has to own theirs during the primary and the advent of the internet for 2008 means more primary voters will be knowledgeable as the lapdog media is not the sole arbiter of how a candidate controls their message. Edwards and other candidates votes as well as speeches are on the record and available for review.

[benny05]

108. Key Phrase: Early Primary States

Which is what I said essentially.

[dk2]

123. I agree most americans don't even know how or where

to find their Senators/Representatives votes. The netroots usually know, a large part of the college students know (bue most of them don't vote), but most general voters aren't even informed on issues themselves much less how someone in congress voted on it. If they did, the congress now would be more inline with what the everyday working american's needs are and would be forced through voter outrage to change their evil ways and stop voting on behalf of lobbyist and coporate america.

[FrenchieCat]

105. I live in the present, remember the past, and look forward to the future.....

What I don't do is forget the past.....

And what is old to you, may not be old to others. In fact, there are a couple of posters who clearly state on this thread that they did not know about Edwards co-sponsorship of the IWR. Are you saying that they should'nt know......cause its a "move on...nothing to see here" situation?

I would think that you'd rather folks know all about John Edwards and still select him....otherwise, it is soft support.

Look, you can move on and post about what you choose to post about.....as for me, I will do what I choose. I have no quarrel with our choices for yourself.


And I agree with you, John Edwards is doing a magnificent job....and so, you shouldn't mind if his support is done with folks' having their eyes wide open....not eyes tightly shut.

[benny05]

106. I'm more interested in these kinds of posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3057000

[Clark2008]

110. I don't think the families of the more than 3,000 soldiers killed or

more than 100,000 injured would think this issue is really old., do you?

[benny05]

136. That is not old

But to continually start threads just to bash Edwards when he's getting some positive attention and when he has repeatedly apologized is old. He made a big mistake.

If one doesn't buy the apology, fine, but I'm more interested in solutions and action in the next few years. Thus, I'd rather hear about General Clark's views on how to fix the mess at home and abroad.

[jen4clark]

160. Maybe you haven't noticed

but Frenchie Cat spends considerable time answering questions about General Clark. Many Clark supporters are so used to answering in depth questions about his stance on the issues, on iraq, etc and debunking lies that are posted over and over, that there are now websites dedicated to correcting misinformation spouted endlessly about him.

So, when someone asks questions about another candidate, it would be really really nice if some of the supporters spent even a little bit of time explaining, debunking, whatever, instead of going on the defensive and turning it into Clarkies hate Edwards because Edwards is such a threat to Clark.

I said it upthread, and I'll repeat it -- my fear of Edwards is due to his lack of good judgement. It has nothing to do with anything else.

[CarolNYC]

237. It is a curious thing, isn't it?

When Clark is criticized, attacked, bashed, questioned, whatever you want to call it, Clark supporters respond with all kinds of information and sourced material and explanations and added context....

But when Edwards is questioned, critcized, attacked, etc, his supporters answer by changing the topic to Clark supporters and how awful they are. You'll see that in threads where there will be people of all kinds questioning or criticizing Edwards, most of them not Clark supporters, and yet somehow the discussion becomes one about how much Clark supporters hate Edwards.

One could get the impression that there are no answers or defenses for the questions and criticsms, you know?

[ChiciB1]

117. I'm NOT Bashing Edwards! Uh... I Think I'm One Of His Biggest

supporters. Only person that would bump him at all "might" be Al Gore, but it would be a difficult choice too.

Might even have to do an eenie, meenie, minie, moe thingie!

Hey, EVERYONE makes mistakes.... at least that's been my experience and I've been politikkin since I was 11!

[dk2]

124. I think Edwards is leading also.

He is pushing issues important to me, and most americans relate too. I really like his no draft - keeping the all volunteer military.

[madfloridian]

138. My post was in response to the OP

Not to you. The OP is very obviously attacking Edwards.

[ChiciB1]

141. Okey, Dokey! Thanks... n/t

[Clarkie1]

128. There was a "balm" of victory in Iraq.

Don't you recall in the few weeks right after the intial invasion all of the good feelings....what was Bush's approval then, 80% or so? Clark was writing FACTS about how people felt at the time. In that same article, he foreshadowed the dangers that lie ahead, and why he disagreed with the choice to go to war. And his use of the word "balm" was quite appropriate because as I am sure you know a balm is only temporary and does not cure the underlying condition or disease.

Newsflash: Clark did not invent Depleted Uranium, and there is a lot of scientific controversy over the dangers. What U.S. senator has voted to ban Depleted Uranium? Let me know when you find one.

The double-standard is you, Mad. The OP presents factual evidence whereas your statements are nothing but hypocrisy and cute out of context soundbites that have been used over and over by Clark bashers to no avail.

Is that all you've got?

[appal_jack]

267. has ANY Dem candidate?

Has ANY Democratic candidate taken an official position against Depleted Uranium armaments? I assume Kucinich has, and no-one else, but would love to see some references.

Since this thread is about Edwards, has he taken a stance on DU-weapons? Or has not enough polling on that issue taken place yet for him to develop a position?
(OK, I admit my snarkiness here, but I'd really like to know...)

-app

[FrenchieCat]

73. It appears that the answer to my question as to why Edwards supported

the war by co-sponsoring the resolution has been answered in a number of ways, but never with the truth by Edwards supporters. Instead they point their finger at me, as though I co-sponsored something and have determined that I really shouldn't asked the question because I must "hate" John Edwards since I support someone else. That's not an answer as to what John Edwards did, and why.

By simply blaming me for opening up my mouth, it appears that to many it doesn't matter what John Edwards has said or done. To them I say....it don't work that way. The Presidency is a serious matter, and blaming me to obscure the timeline of John Edwards beliefs on a subject like war (that has depleted our coffers, stretched our military, devalued our credibility to the world, killed and maimed hundreds of thousands) is scary.

There are yet others who have determined that this question can only be asked so many times, and after that it is an overkill and should not be brought up again...and so, they have also determined me to be the villain on this issue.....because I dare bring this matter up, and John Edwards is only a prosecuted politician of the "people" that I am relentlessly picking on. To those, I respond by saying that there are many reading these boards who have no idea how John Edwards participated in our march to war because we are not allowed to discuss it anymore cause he already said "Sorry"......like 3 years later, and that should be good enough for me, cause it is good enough for them. I say whomever wants to vote for John Edwards should do so, but should do so understanding his actions in very recent history.

There are still others who have excused John Edwards for his co-sponsorship because he "believed" Bush and he was being misled. My point in posting the type of information that was out there BEFORE the vote back in 2002, was to show that there was plenty of indications that there was good reason to be skeptical, even if some decided to "go with it" for whatever their reasons.

When I read John Edwards' apology, I see this, and I ask if it is just a lie or what?
"The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

But yet, John Edwards also said this, exactly one year after his vote....

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://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295
---------------
In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq."

Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."

When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world."
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074
--------------

So which was it? Was John Edwards misled by faulty intelligence (as he stated in his 2005 apology)
or did he clearly understand (as he said it was in 2003, one year after his vote) that although the intelligence was faulty he would still have voted for support of a war in Iraq?

Because to me, even Edwards' 2005 apology is based on a lie......hence why I still have a problem with John Edwards running for President. I'm tired of lying politicians......

[dk2]

125. A large part of that (his) support can be laid at what

the Clinton Cabinet was saying about Iraq.

[Pithy Cherub]

127. Edwards lacks independent thinking

according to your logic. Not at all attractive in a presidential candidate. Too bad, Senator Byrd and the Chair of the Intelligence committee and the one smart republican, Chaffee, got it when Edwards was listening to only one source of bad information.

[dk2]

132. Not at all - independant is what lead him to seek out the

clinton group, with them in office for the prior 8 years you would think they would know. You can twist it any way you want to. Edwards made a decision, that is all there is to it. Most americans were for the war, and still support the fact that they would rather fight off shore. Many still support Bush in Irag, you must be missing the interview that the MSM does almost daily asking if you support Irar or President Bush, and they always say yes, especially relatives and partents of wounded and or killed military personal. You must be missing the daily news!

Many will vote for Edwards because he did, they are sill behind bush, and these votes Edwards will pull!

[Pithy Cherub]

133. A herd mentality, Poor judgment and a Lack of Judgment

are qualities you might choose in a presidential candidate but definitely not me. I knew they were lies and the critical thinkers in the House and Senate did too. Byrd said it was unconstitutional and the frosh senatar though co-sponsoring would give him a leg up on the squishy jello of public opinion at the time. Now he has to apologize and it is not red jello he has splattered all over. Edwards is a disaster in national security and rightfully has put his sights on domestic issues he did not even champion while in office. Hmmmm, pandering.... hmmmm. Edwards as political theatre plays but as this gets mre serious with the advent of candidates with better records and more money again things change. When was Edwards showing the best of himself - following the Clinton Cabinet and championing a pre-emptive war or while apologizing years later just for a collosally stupid the vote? That is where the voters will get to see if he has made any strides in his thinking as he still has no national security experience and has to rely on others and we know how that has turned out in the past...

[dk2]

262. At least he was seeking information.

there is nothing he could do to satisfy you, so that is fine it is your choice. Good luck, I along with many others will continue to choose Edwards because he has the american hard working people in mind.

[Pithy Cherub]

263. Where he looked and did not speaks to

Edwards ability, or major lack there of, in getting information. Strange Senator Robert Byrd was there and had over 40 years in the senate and had already made the mistake Edwards rushed to repeat with his Gulf of Tonkin vote. He made a compelling case whay that vote was horrid. Hmmm, other presidential candidate George McGovern had made the mistake and Edwards did not listen to him then either. Clark testified before Congress and Edwards gave that a pass. Brent Scowcroft cautioned against it and that got ignored. Gore spoke out against it and he was quite clear. The millions of protests got ignored, but Edwards bet his career on George Bush - that is a fine example of why he needs to show more of his motivation for decision making and so far we get slogans and soundbites not substance. Nope, to date Edwards has said nothing that convinces me he should be president and all we have to evaluate his candidacy is his record. Those that choose to support him do so because they believe his words on domestic policy. These are perilous times that call for national security and foreign policy credibility, of which John is woefully short and that which he has is terribly bungled. I believe his actions and that is his FULL record in all its tarnished glory.

[McCamy Taylor]

77. Feel free to select another candidate. I think POVERTY is no. 1 issue.

[FrenchieCat]

81. So then, please answer this other question that I have.....since poverty is your

number 1 issue.

What legislation did John Edwards write, sponsor and fight for during his 6 years in the senate that directly addressed the issue of poverty? If you are able to, please separate the legislations that he championed from 1998 to 2002 vs. 2003 to 2004.

Thank you.

[Critters2]

193. Sending poor people to fight an unconstitutional war doesn't seem

like the best way to fight poverty.


Just sayin'.

[SaveElmer]

78. The answer to this question is very simple...

John Edwards floor statement explaining his support of the IWR:

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.
We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.
Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.
We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.
This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.
Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.
If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.
Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.
We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.
That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.
Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.
Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.
If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.
Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.
Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Clearly he viewed Iraq as a threat and voted provide a credible military threat to induce cooperation from Iraq on inspections....

Unless you think he was lying then, these are his reasons...

[LittleClarkie]

83. And he sees now that he was wrong. I see no need for him to itemize his apology.

That would seem pointless.

[FrenchieCat]

86. See littleClarkie, that's where respect comes in.

I don't have a problem with what you feel no need for him to do.

However, I am not you, and I see it differently. I would hope that I am allowed not to think exactly like you.

[LittleClarkie]

96. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

:P

Of course. I'm just an equal opportunity defender of Dems. Sorry if I get over-zealous at times. If it were Clark on the block, I'd be there too. And Edwards isn't even anywhere near the top of my list.

[SaveElmer]

92. I don't think an apology is warranted...

Unless he was lying when he cast his vote, he use his best judgement at the time and arrived at a decision. One doesn't apologize for doing their job.

What he has done since is shown a recognition of the true situation and is proposing remedies...

[FrenchieCat]

84. And my point is that he lacked good judgement

as far back as February of 2002.....when he said that Iraq was the biggest threat.

His reasoning was flawed......and that's part of my problem with him. Sure, in hindsight, he's figured it out. But that's not the kind of President we should want.

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

[SaveElmer]

87. Based on intelligence being provided by the CIA...

That is not an unreasonable thing to say...

Of those countries only Iraq had actually used them in war...at least 10 times...

Of course I could list every President, from the greats Washington, Lincoln, and FDR...

Down to the lowly, Nixon, Harding et all..

And point out very serious mistakes in judgement...everyone is human...

Washington was responsible for starting the French and Indian War in America
Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Act
Lincoln suspended habeus corpus
FDR interred 120,000 American citizens based on their ethnic heritage...

and on and on...

It is important to judge the whole person, not only on what are perceived as their mistakes...

Edwards is not my first choice obviously, but it is just as obvious he is an extremely intelligent, competant person who I am sure would make a find President...

[Clark2008]

98. I do judge Edwards on several things and it seems he is constantly

changing his position to fit the popular agenda.

That's why I can't and don't support him.

It isn't just about the war - it's about nearly everything he has an "opinion" on. His opinions seem based on polls and not his own internal leadership abilities.

You may disagree, but that is what I see when I look at the man, study his record and match that up to what he's said or is saying.

[SaveElmer]

99. Well I have to say I don't see that...

But if you would like to provide specifics I'd be glad to look at them...

[Clark2008]

114. I'm at work... I'll look them up when I get home.

I'll bookmark the thread so I can find it later on this evening.

[FrenchieCat]

102. My idea of a competent President is not

what John Edwards' track record demonstrates....and that is what I look at; his actions then.....not his actions once the country clearly polled largely in opposition to our Biggest blunder.

John Edwards is certainly very intelligent, charming, articulate, and ingenious but IMO, he is no leader....

Also, not one Edwards supporter has answered my repeated question as to what legislations John Edwards wrote, sponsored and fought for in reference to poverty during his six years in the Senate?

There is an important reason I asked for this information....because if he wasn't that interested in poverty when he had a chance to do something about it, why the interest now?

You see, I want to know who the real John Edwards is, not just the person he has presented before us (he even stated that he wasn't always "himself" in front of potential voters....if I recall correctly.) There is a lot about him that I find slippery, and instead of his supporters putting me at ease, they are attacking me instead.

Whomever I end up voting for, it has to be someone who is real, not someone packaged for my consumption.

[KoKo]

119. I'd disagree that he lacked "good judgement." At the time it was excellent

calculation to support Lieberman and to be seen as a Hawk as a freshman Senator who already decided he was going to run for President.

As I said "upthread" if Iraq had gone as well as the NeoCon's dreamed it would, then Edwards would have been seen as the sharpest new politician on the political scene with his good looks and charm.

I think he lacked convictions about the "WAR." The morality of an "Invasion and Occupation" wasn't on his radar.

[Cameron27]

121. Then his political "good judgment"

still stands, since his co-sponsorship really hasn't gotten any play this go round. I don't think he'll be so lucky if he wins the primaries, since I expect the republican's will use it against him it at every opportunity.

Since he's recanted his vote, I don't know how nasty the sting will be; only that there's definitely going to be a bite.

[GreenArrow]

246. The morality of an "Invasion and Occupation

See, that's a major part of the problem. He apologizes for his vote, because it has proved to be an increasingly unpopular gamble on his part, but he has yet to apologize for the actual thing he was voting for. He doesn't seem to comprehend -- on a human level -- just what it is that he voted for, helped sponsor, and supported in the media.

The treasure that has been lost, the lives that have been obliterated were as so many game pieces to him, tokens played in the game called politics with the aim of furthering his career.

[dogman]

145. Will he recycle this speech for Iran?

bushco would like a second chance also.
Snip>a strong, unambiguous resolution,
Snip>less likely that force would need to be used
He believed bushco, did you?
Some seem to feel he is just as qualified as w was. That's what scares me.

[joe green]

129. Edwards has some liabilities definitely

I'm looking for a candidate who believes that war was morally wrong. I want a candidate who opposed the war from the start. I want a Dennis Kucunich, one of the few people who opposed that war based on morality and principle from the start. I want someone who will stand up to what Bush is currently doing in Somalia and say it's wrong -- where's Edwards on that one? ****Dirir Moalim Hussein, a herder, said his wife and two other members of his family were killed as they tried to flee the attacks on their village of Bulo Haji between Dhobley and Afmadow. "We are really scared," he said. "We heard bombing and heavy explosions over our village, it was dark and no one could see well. I ran with two children, I don't know in what direction, but three of my family were killed, including my wife. I have nothing right now," Hussein said. "I have lost everything, they have bombed my cows and goats, we dont know what crime we committed and we have been punished for no reason," Hussein said.****

I want a candidate who will condemn this sort of atrocity, who is opposed to it based on principle. People like Hillary Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, Clark don't fit the bill. They don't seem to have any moral compunction about wars or killing people, all their objections are technical. They're part of the reason why this country is off track. If any of them were elected, do you think the war on muslims would stop? I doubt it. They're too politically calculating, too eager to please the right wing, and don't have the backbone to stand up to the corporate war agenda. They all let themselves be fooled by Bush's propaganda, which on the surface was unbelievable. They let themselves be steamrolled. That's not what I'm looking for in a Presidential candidate. It's time to clean house.

That's why I'm looking at Vilsack and Obama. They don't have the baggage. I don't know enough about them and their views, but I want to find out more.

One other thing with regard to Edwards. We've had LBJ, Carter, Bush sr, Clinton, and Bush jr from the south. They were all deficient imo, some more than others obviously, and they were all products of a southern hillbilly know-nothing culture to varying degrees. I want something different. I'm tired of that. I want to know what Edwards' religious views are, does he believe in end times theology, the rapture, all that stuff. Does God tell him that America has the right to rule the world? Does God inform his political decisions? He has made statements in the past in political settings about his religious beliefs, and I'm not too keen on that. I want total separation of Church and State, no fallback on religion in government. Every time I see these southern tv evangelists with their crowds of simple-minded sycophants, it makes me sick and I say "No more of that in our government."

So this is why I'm not a fan of John Edwards.

[benny05]

135. Your quote is out of the Bush Playbook

"I want to know what Edwards' religious views are, does he believe in end times theology, the rapture, all that stuff. Does God tell him that America has the right to rule the world? Does God inform his political decisions? He has made statements in the past in political settings about his religious beliefs, and I'm not too keen on that. I want total separation of Church and State, no fallback on religion in government. Every time I see these southern tv evangelists with their crowds of simple-minded sycophants, it makes me sick and I say "No more of that in our government."

Edwards is a man of faith, and when asked, he will tell you about his strong belief in the Trinity. But, it's my observation in past 3 years that he doesn't put the topic of his religious beliefs up front and center very often. He's very much into the separation of church and state, just as his wife is, however, both of them are very spiritual people. I find that their spirituality appealing while I also prefer the separation of church and state in terms of legislation and position opinions.

Your comment was out of Bush's mouth. To put those two in the same league illustrates that you have prejudice against southern politicians as you think they are all alike. Edwards wouldn't have your vote no matter what, and that's fine. But I think labelling all southerners that way is simply misguided thinking on your part. You may not know NC is becoming more progressive.

I will say this and I predict it: a Northeastern candidate from the Dem party is more likely to lose the general election. There are still not enough liberals in the NE, Illinois, and California (states considered not in the US of Jesus) to carry a candidate all the way to the WH.

[venable]

137. Stop It, Please. In the name of decency and honesty, stop it.

He voted for the IWR. Yes, he did. You know it. I know it. He knows it.

He made that vote, not because he's a bad man, but because he was led to understand that putting teeth into inspections was the best thing.


It was a mistake, given Tenet's lies, and Bush's perversion of the process. It was not the vote that has led to the deaths. It is the lies and the perversion of others.


We can only hope that he knows it....oh, wait, he does. He goes out of his way to tell people, that if they don't know it, he made a bad vote. He takes responsibility for that, and it has made him all the more eloquent in his antiwar voice.


If you have any decency or honesty, you will know that, and you, all of you will stop this.


You will quit trying to demean one of the most important voices for peace, TODAY.


I genuinely wonder how much you all care about those who are yet to die in Iraq, if you take the one person saying "OUT NOW", and obsessively wallow in a past that he has admitted was a ghastly and deadly mistake. You are trying to undermine the one person saying what you all presumably believe. Your dislike of Edwards has hindered your thought, and, I'm afraid, your honesty.


IT IS BUSH'S WAR, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO MAKE IT EDWARDS'.

[madfloridian]

139. I agree. It needs to stop, but it is just getting started.

Unfortunately this is just how it was here in 03. It got ugly. It was like a whole contingent descended us here.

You might as well get used to it.

I like the way Edwards is running his campaign, and I think he has a very good chance.

Some think Clark probably knows he is not running. But many believe he will hang around to make it uncomfortable for Edwards and perhaps Kerry.

It is sad but that it is how it will be here at DU. All the time, every day. If you protest too much, you will pay dearly for it. I have and so have many of my friends.

[FrenchieCat]

142. So we are the dishonest ones, and Edwards is just sooperdooper?

Look, you can support Edwards all you want.....but the man is running for the highest office in the land.

If you want to attack us for asking questions about John Edwards, go ahead....but that will not stop the questions.

Running for President is not for the faint at heart, and nothing in life is so easy that one gets a pass and makes it to "Go" without having to explain themselves.

BTW, could you answer the other question I have asked throughout this thread several times?

What legislations did John Edwards write, promote, sponsored, co-sponsored that were issues directly in reference to the poor in this country during his 6 year stint as a Senator? I really do want to know. Thus far, no one has answered this question....and I don't know why. :shrug:

[madfloridian]

143. When is Clark forming an exploratory committee?

When does he plan to announce. The first forums are in Washington February 1-3 this year, sponsored by the DNC.

Clark avoided a lot of hassle for himself by not entering until September 03, when others had been attending forums and getting blasted. Most of the 04 field started early in CA at the DNC forums in Feb and March of 03.

Is he going to do that again? Just wait and wait?

[NCarolinawoman]

144. Why are these forums so early? What is the reasoning? n/t

[madfloridian]

147. They were in 03, I know.

I don't know the reasoning behind them.

[FrenchieCat]

149. Is that your answer on what legislation did Edwards

push forth for the poor during his six years in the senate? Is this your final answer?

[madfloridian]

150. Is this your last attack on Edwards? When do you start on others?

In support of your candidate who probably won't run. That is my point. It is just like 03....only you guys don't have the same ones to bash anymore. Same song, different verse...will get worse.

[JNelson6563]

152. When the others seem threatening

This can go one of two ways....

Clark decides not to run in 08. That would about be the end of attacks from anyone on any candidate who posed a threat to Clark.

Clark declares and the non-stop going after anyone who poses a threat really kicks in. GD-Politics and whatever primary format it subsequently morphs into will be dominated by the stuff, just like last time.

I imagine we'll know soon enough. In the meantime it may well be time to seek entertainment elsewhere on DU and leave the mud-pit dwellers to their business.

Julie

[madfloridian]

155. But....

I feel sorry for what's coming. There are some new Edwards folks here who don't have the background of 03, and they are just not prepared for what's coming.

[FrenchieCat]

162. If Clark decides not to run in 2008, I will still be asking questions of

Edwards and the others who are running....cause I'll still have a vote.

This is a political forum, and I am discussing political issues...whether you like them or not.
I will agree though that if it is other forms of "entertainment" some seek, this thread isn't necessarily the best place for them. But How can one determine who to support if one is not allowed to have or read discussions on the actionable merits of each candidate?

Primary season certainly has arrived, as candidates are lining up to announce, last I looked.

In reference to Mud-pits; that may be what this thread looks like to you, but it doesn't look like that to me, except for those posts where some choose to criticize DUers for utilizing this political forum instead of concentrating on the personalities and track record of those seeking political office.

If this ain't the place to discuss politics in reference to various candidates and who they are, where should one go? Why don't you point to a better place.....

[Clark2008]

281. If Clark doesn't run, I'll still "attack" Edwards.

He's an awful leader, to use the term loosely.

It's not that he's a "threat" to my candiate - I find him a "threat" to what I believe in.

Does that make it better?

[FrenchieCat]

156. Why is it that a candidate should not stand to questions on this forum?

Here are questions again for you that you have not answered (as you have ignored every single one of them)....although you take the time to respond to my posts in where I ask these questions by putting me down instead....

I'll give it one more shot:

Why did John Edwards co-sponsor the IWR? Why did he claim to be misled in his apology, when he specifically stated that he had not been misled a full year after his co-sponsorship and vote although we had not found any WMDs in Iraq, and the news was out that the intelligence had been fixed?

Was Edwards misled as he said in late 2005, or was he not misled as he stated in late 2003?

And considering Edwards' current championing of the issue on poverty; what legislation did he write and push during his 6 years in the Senate?

These are not attacks; these are questions. Either you have some answers or you don't. Your attempts at changing the subject are not acceptable, nor do they make John Edwards or yourself look the better for your lack of a reasoned answer to reasonable questions.

[madfloridian]

158. Here's what bugs me.

Once I posted some controversial stuff about Clark, with good sources. It was where he was privately telling our senate retreat to "tamp down the come home fever" in Iraq, and talking about spreading Democracy in the middle east.

I posted it, and it was locked because it was said to be continuing a thread. So, those of us have done research and feel the need to post it can not. The urge is going away to do it, because I just plain get tired.

This is damaging to our country and our Democracy.

[FrenchieCat]

165. So who is damaging our country and democracy?

Are you saying that I am the one doing damage to our country and democracy by sharing my questions and opinions on an Interent political board about a political figure?

Or are you saying, that those who attempt to squash discourse on an Internet Board are doing the damage to our country and democracy?

Which is it?

[madfloridian]

174. You guys are amazing....Julie is right.

What was her term...the mud pits?

She may be right.

Not one thing has changed here since 2003...nothing...nada. Same song, 2nd verse. Different victim.

You guys are as always totally amazing.

Go for it.

[FrenchieCat]

180. IT is you who seems to have the same song, not I......

Same indignation, different candidate.

[tishaLA]

286. Yes, holding people accountable for votes

is damaging to democracy! In fact, referencing their votes is equally bad! We need to just hear what they say in speeches and not pay attention to anything else. Even better, we can have some radically misrepresent positions and just leave it at that.

[GreenArrow]

248. what the hell do you propose?

If all candidates are above criticism, if none of them need be held accountable for their words or deeds, then, all candidates being effectively equal, why not save everyone a whole hell of lot of trouble and money, and just draw a name out of a hat at the DNC?

[CarolNYC]

244. Clark and 2008

Here's what Wes Clark told Mark Green about running in 2008:

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think, you know, any American President is going to want to deal with Iran. What I'm asking for is that we deal with Iran now while there are options, rather than later when there's no option but the use of force.

Mark Green: General Clark, you say any American President. In 1952, a NATO Commander who had won a war in Europe was trusted to extricate America from Korea. Hm. Might you run on '08, and might you be (laughs) the Eisenhower for Iraq? By the way, John Soltz told me to ask you that question. (laughs)

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think history repeats itself exactly like that. I haven't said I'm not going to run. I, I haven't taken the steps of forming an exploratory committee. I'm very interested right now in trying to help the Democratic Party pick the right policy as it moves forward, and then we'll have to see as the weeks go by as to whether there's more to be done or not.

Mark Green: One more question on that: Obviously candidates, yesterday Senator Dodd, are announcing now, and having been a candidate, every day you're not running y-y-you're not raising funds, which regrettably is a sine qua non of a candidacy. About when might you have to move from the policy focus you're bringing to Iraq and start actually running and raising funds?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, sometime within the next few weeks.

Mark Green: Oh, that soon? Wh-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, I don't think you're going to wait six months-

Mark Green: Well, I'm not-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: -but I don't have a definite timeline, and, and I haven't made a decision.

Mark Green: Sure.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I'm still working through this issue, and, and, and weighing it and mostly I'm worried about the policy.

Mark Green: General Clark-

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Once a person becomes a candidate, then everything they say becomes viewed through a political lens. I don't want this viewed through a political lens. This should be viewed as a policy issue. That's why I'm advocating.

So, see, he's more worried right now about the future of the country and the world than his political future....something which some here apparently think is a BAD idea. Go figure. :shrug:

So, if you're looking for someone who cares more about their political ambitions than about what happens in the world, then you're smart to shy away from Wes Clark. He will never put his personal interests above those of the country and the world. If that's what you're looking for, though, someone who puts their own interests first and foremost above everything else, no doubt you'll have no trouble finding someone who fits that bill quite nicely.

[Pithy Cherub]

151. There's no cryin' in politics!

Edwards' record is in the initial stages of being discussed and you are already running a white flag up the post? Edwards knew this was coming and if he didn't well... Edwards is going to answer sharper and tougher questions before all is said and done. There is no such thing as being silent as it is assumed people will have consented and dissident voices in the political process should be welcomed. That is the message the newbie NC senator learned AFTER his disastrous attempt at trying to lead on national security. He's a good guy that made a terrible mistake and trusted Bush to run the war and he owns that for the rest of his life as well as the support it costs him because of the display of hubris and bad judgment in aligning himself with Lieberman, Bayh and Bush. Edwards wanted to be THE Hawk as president in 2004, that did not work out and he is trying something new to be president in 2009. We all need to take a good long look at the "new and improved" version of Edwards. As an early supporter of a candidate its going to be a long year as this war has wrecked American Life as we know it and Edwards circa 2002, 2003, 2004, and most of 2005 was definitely helpful to Bush in that regard.

[LittleClarkie]

140. Did Edwards co-sponsor the bill that eventually was voted upon in Congress

an interesing question from another thread.

[Mass]

146. Eventually, the house and senate bills were merged, but AFAIK the bill he co-sponsored

has all the ingredients that were in the final bill, including the fact that * would not have to go back to Congress before attacking Iraq.

[FrenchieCat]

148. From what I know, John Edwards co-sponsored the

Lieberman bill...which is why Lieberman is listed as the "Sponsor" of it here....

S.J.RES.46 was sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D), with 16 cosponsors: Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002
http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Iraq_War_Resolution

Here's details on the resolutions available at the time of the vote.
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102

I believe that the original resolution in the Bush/Lieberman bill was changed only to exclude the word "region"....thereby giving Bush the restriction to using military forces against Iraq only, as opposed to the region, as I believe was in the original Bush/Lieberman bill. I believe that John Kerry is to be given credit for that change, as I recall.

[venable]

154. I guess I have my answer to the request for looking forward

you all go ahead and feel good as you shout about the vote that he, himself, already regrets - and that he regrets not because of your endless chides, but because it cost lives.

And don't ever, not for a moment, say - as is often done here - that John Edwards does not care about the loss of sons and daughters.

If you lack the imagination to see how someone as compassionate as he MUST be could possibly have voted his conscience (even if, in the end, it was wrong)...if you lack even this minimal consideration, then the dialogue would just turn into hateful, obsessive, ugly, smug name-calling....which, it turns out, is exactly what it is. What you think is clever and honest dialogue is exactly the opposite.

I have had it with all those who care less about the future - and future lives, Iraqi and American and Iranian - than they do about pointing out something everybody already knows. You have no idea how pathetic it all is, outside of this high schooly echo chamber you have set up.

[ChiciB1]

167. Ya Know.... Sometimes People Just Want To Argue...

I completely agree with you venable and madfloridian. When I see some of the same people posting and arguing all the time it makes me very sad. I may not be a Clark supporter, but I'm sure he has good issues and bad issues, as do ALL or ANY candidate running.

By doing this over and over does only one thing as far as I'm concerned... forms arguments and animosity. It really is too bad.

[FrenchieCat]

171. Why don't you just do what is simple to do?

and if not, why not?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3057475&mesg_id=3058467

[ChiciB1]

232. It's My Choice, And To Argue Point By Point With You Serves No Purpose

to me. I can read, research, understand and make my own opinion, just as you have.

It's time consuming enough trying to stay aware and on top of multiple aspects of so mamy issues. Plus, for me while I can respect the research you've done to present in your post, I myself have come to different conclusions regarding Edwards.

There is ONE more issue I have when it comes to Clark, who is undoubtedly a noble and intelligent man who has earned a lot of respect. But I have my issues formed from growing up as an Army brat. It DOES NOT mean that military persons are unworthy, and I have to state here that my father was SUPER and led and guided many men while he performed his job. He did not drink, nor was he abusive, but I simply could not wait to leave home and the military life. While this may seem simplistic to you, and you may well be able to argue til the cows come home about all the pluses, again I have to say it's MY CHOICE! There are things you learn very early in life and some of those things didn't sit well with me.

Don't question authority may be one of the very first things I learned... it's the military way! You can liken it to the "thin blue line" that many police get caught up in. Colin Powell comes to mind! Perhaps you find this laughable and silly, I DON'T... remember My Lai... remember yellow cake uranium. That's all!

[venable]

238. I agree that the arguing here is often counterproductive

and the onslaught of certain posters makes me think that they value QUANTITY of quotation to lucidity and insightfulness. A poster leaves a tome of BOLD-and-CAPs-infused excerpts, and they are celebrated as great thinkers, when, in fact, all they've done is spend a lot of time assembling idee-fixe corroborations of their own distastes. It is unseemly and ineffective, and pretty sad.

I also grew up in the military (not an Army brat, but a Navy 'Junior' - winkie).

From that amazing experience I have very distinct thoughts about the military life, almost all positive.

One thing I do take from that experience is that I do not want career military men in political office. Some real military experience is a great influence in the lives of many of our leaders. Military men and women are brave, they are smart, they are democratic in temperament - though quintessentially hierarchical in command, obviously - but they are not, by training, statesmen. They can be, of coure. Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech is a highwater mark of Humanism and compassion and insight. (And boy was he prescient). General Gavin, too, became a remarkable anti-war voice. I had the great pleasure of getting to know him a little before he died.

Colin Powell, Wes Clark, and several others, are important parts of our culture, and represent their important constituency very well...they are good advocates for peace often (almost always, even though both mentioned above have, to put it mildly, mixed histories on the current tragedy. Both are eloquently against war now, though I wish that Clark had not endorsed, in theory, the escalation.) They also advocate war sometimes.

I remember a Soviet General said during the Cold War: "American and Russian Generals have more in common with each other than either does with the civilians of their respective countries". I think that's true, and that makes them interesting people, but not political leaders.

I am a pacifist, and I support John Edwards.

[ChiciB1]

258. I Am Also A Pacifist... And As To The Military Experience....

Yes, it does have it's positive aspects, but given that I'm female, and I know that's not as relevant today as it once was, I still prefer not living the life.

I can recall my father always wanting to "fix me up" with men he was in charge of and I'm sure they were really really nice, but I was ALWAYS afraid that they would want to stay in the military and knew it wasn't for me!

I do have sympathy and much angst for those in Iraq because I don't think many of them REALLY knew what they were signing up for. So when I think about the escalation of the types of weapons used today, it's VERY chilling!

I can't even "look" at some of the pictures of people in hospitals who have come back! I don't know how relatives of those serving actually make it through.

But I also know that a military is necessary and always has been.

[ultraist]

157. Frenchie cat must be really short on good things to say about Clark

Otherwise, why would s/he spend so much of her/his time trashing John Edwards?

So sorry Frenchie that you just don't have a lot to work with when it comes to campaigning, in a positive, productive way for your candidate, Clark, who probably wont even run. And...is polling around 2% if that.

It seems to me, focusing on tearing down a Democratic leader would be such a downer, but to each his/her own!

[FrenchieCat]

163. Trashing John Edwards?

So you would trash a DUer because they don't follow your line about a political figure?

Is the trash the fact that Edwards co-sponsored the IWR, or is that just a simple fact?
Is the trash the fact that Edwards said he was "Misled" in his Apology OP, but the fact that said he was "Not Misled" in late 2003 Interviews?
Is the trash the fact that no Edwards supporters to date have posted what legislation John Edwards championed on the specific issue of poverty during his 6 years term in the senate?

Or are you simply saying that am I the trash for daring to ask?

my focus is on providing my opinions and getting answers on a political board.
Your focus seems to be on trashing me...and since I am not a political figure running for office last I checked, who is trashing who?

[ultraist]

166. Yes

Because you have posted this same information numerous times and have been provided the answers time and time again.

It's obvious why you continue to do so and it's not to gain real info or insight but to put out information that you feel will be unfavorable towards Edwards. The fact is, most progressives are more forward thinking and not obsessing in the past. They are supportive of John Edwards call to bring the troops home and his call to block funding of the escalation (two actions Clark does not support at this time).

EMAIL FROM JOHN EDWARDS

Almost 40 years ago the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the pulpit in Riverside Church and, with the full force of his conscience, denounced the war in Vietnam -- calling it a "tragedy that threatened to drag our nation down to dust."

As Dr. King put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one's personal convictions, or even of one's country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to humanity.

Today, another president is trying to escalate another war. And once again, silence is betrayal.

Congress can stop Bush's escalation, but they'll only do so if the people demand it. That's why today -- in honor of the memory and courage of Martin Luther King -- I'm asking you to do two things:


Ask your friends and family to join you and nearly 50,000 other Americans who have signed the petition calling on Congress to block funding for escalating the war in Iraq: http://www.johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/nofunding/


Tomorrow, when Congress returns to session, call your Senators directly and tell them to block funding for escalation. Click here for your Senators' contact information: http://johnedwards.com/action/senate-contact

TO WATCH VIDEOS OF JOHN EDWARDS SPEECH FROM YESTERDAY AT THE HISTORIC RIVERSIDE CHURCH CLICK HERE: http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=johnedwards

[FrenchieCat]

178. So when will you answer a question instead of providing me with

great Edwards photo-Ops?

You would seem to be someone knowledgable about the person you support--
So can you please answer my question about substansive legislation on issues of the poor put forth by John Edwards in his six years in the senate.

Thank you.

[ultraist]

184. Getting the minimum wage raised in six states states is a photo op?

Working to expand and strengthen unions is a photo op? Intiating a College for Everyone program is a photo op? A call on Congress to TAKE ACTION by BLOCKING THE FUNDING of the escalation is a photo op?

For a general overview of some of what John Edwards has been up to, visit this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/12/27/2858/1411

Do you honestly think that your tactic of whining about Edwards past vote for the IWR, which he has clearly stated two years ago was wrong, will win over new Clark supporters? Seriously.

[FrenchieCat]

197. I am not whining......although that is what you want to call it. I am standing firm.....

and you answer is not to my specific question.

I asked what legislation on poverty did John Edwards write, push and champion as a senator during the six years that he served?

Not what has he done since he started running for President in 2003, which is why I'm not asking about that......

He was elected in 1998, no?

[Pithy Cherub]

181. Politics is about communication and by dent of that

repeating information is the coin of the realm. Why does Edwards repeat the same Two America stump speech ad nauseum, its because elucidation for those who were not privy before is necessary. FC is engaged in the political process the correct way by asking salient questions and no, Edwards has never provided insight into his poor judgment calls, just said he was sorry. His supporters can not speak to his motivation the same way you can not speak for Frenchie's. Edwards record, such that it is, is fair discussion politically from now until the election in 2008.

[Catchawave]

173. Sad isn't it.....

Especially that Clark's not all that "innocent" either in the grand scheme of fugly politics, good grief, he doesn't even have the Clintonista support this time around :shrug:

But he's not a threat to me or JRE, neither is Ms. F'cat, no offense to cats.... :nopity:

[citizen snips]

279. when Edwards popularity goes up so does the muckraking

[ArkySue]

161. I thought Edwards co-sponsored...

The Patriot Act. The IWR too?? Sorry, I could never support someone like that.

[madfloridian]

164. A tip to the Edwards' supporters here...

of which I may be one, not sure yet.

Learn to fight. This is just what happened in 03, but the victim was different then.

Get some friends and stand up for yourselves.

[jen4clark]

168. I think "learn to answer questions"

would be more helpful. I haven't seen anyone answer the questions FC asked in her OP and several times throughout the thread.

I'm very curious about his work in the Senate on poverty issues. Does anyone supporting him know the answer even to that question?

[FrenchieCat]

169. How about "learn to provide information" and stop crying like someone

is attacking them personally.

How about that?

Now, do you think I will get an answer about substansive legislation on issues of the poor put forth by John Edwards in his six years in the senate, or will I have to start a brand new thread and hope that someone who knows something about John Edwards will answer? Cause so far, looks like no Edwards supporters are answering this simple straightforward question...... :shrug:

[madfloridian]

177. Amazing.

You are amazing. You truly are amazing.

[ultraist]

179. Crying?

Whose crying? I'm not obsessing in the past and whining about it.

Does my post above that includes Edwards recent email look like I'm crying and dwelling in the past?

I've been out promoting my candidate and there is a LOT to talk about with his tireless campaigning for 06 candidates, his fight to raise the minimum wage, which passed in six states, his endless work on poverty issues, work to strengthen unions and his call to bring the troops home and block the funding for the escalation.

[Clark2008]

284. Your posts actually answer Frenchie's questions... sort of.

You REFUSE to provide any information regarding Edwards' support of the Bush War... but what you DO do is post a picture of him in nearly every single post. It's not a pic in your sig line - it's a new one each time.

Which tells me this: the ONLY thing Edwards has going for him is that some (particularly women) think he's cute.

Oh - and I'm a woman. A mid-30s, married Southern woman who will not, cannot and shall not support Edwards. And I'm allegedly his big demographic.

[ultraist]

172. Edwards won the most recent 2008 DailyKos straw poll

Edwards has a lot of support in the blogosphere. Clark is not even on the radar screen beyond DU. There just happens to be a small group of Clark supporters here on DU that continue to parrot the same smears over and over and over again.

Our best counter to that and to help grow Edwards large natural base of supporters is to get out accurate information about him and not get diverted by engaging in arguments that are nothing more than rightwing smears.

As Edwards himself has said, he wouldn't bother arguing with a Rush Limbaugh but he will however, speak truth to power and fight for what is right.

[FrenchieCat]

204. You say...."engaging in arguments that are nothing more than rightwing smears"

how's that? What does Limbaugh have to do with anything I have asked about?
Are you deflecting the issues away from John Edwards by calling my questions Rightwing smears? :wtf:

and how can you get out accurate information when you have no answers for me?

Y'all got work to do, and I believe that you need to inform yourselves on Edwards' pre 2003 stances prior to telling others how the debate will go.

[ultraist]

208. "Y'all got work to do"

That applies to Clark supporters. You all have a looooong way to go. Clark is polling at the bottom of the barrel, around 2% although I don't think he is going to run as the last I read on that, he had said, he's still mulling it over and it will be may be another six weeks before he decides.

Clark doesn't sound too sure about it or too committed. Meanwhile, Hillary and Obama will be announcing their exploratory committees in coming weeks and of course, John Edwards, Kuchinich, and Vilsack have already announced.

[FrenchieCat]

209. Look, Edwards is in a good position.....gets good free media, good buzz,

and is polling very well. That should be "all good" for Edwards' supporters. Afterall He's the only White guy and southerner listed as one of the three "Frontrunners".....so my point was that y'all need to be able to answer questions without being so defensive and indignant. Especially relevant questions.

Thus far my question on his poverty legislation while in office during his six years has yet to be answered. That should not be....That should have been simple to do......yet, I have asked the question several times over and the closest anybody got to an answer is to point to some campaigning he was doing in 2006 for popular issues with the base....

What that shows is either a lack of knowledge about the candidate by his supporters, or there is no such legislative work to point to.

Maybe someone will at some point say something like...."I don't know" or "there was none" or provide links and excerpts of what he did work on or something! :shrug:

[benny05]

210. You just gave the insight to Clark Supporters

More interested in picking fights than seeking peace or accepting someone's apology. Not many pols and military mights admit they made mistakes. Edwards did it.

[Pithy Cherub]

216. Just because one apologized does not mean the negligence

leading to the error in judgment in the first place is magically erased. Many Edwards supporters wish it away and that is not reality based thinking. His partial apology (need to hear his thoughts on co-sponsorship too) was merely a beginning to understanding his thinking, or lack thereof, as it relates to national security.

Because an apology is given does that mean a promotion is in order without close examination because the candidate proves adept at policy mea culpas? It is legitimate to consistently and constantly seek further information to ascertain whether a candidate who has apologized once already, for a grave error, is positioned to repeat it or demonstrate a growth process. Those are the breaks and parents do the same with a teen driver after breaking curfew. Trust has to be rebuilt over a long time as the mistake he made was deadly. Edwards does not get a redo or a free pass especially in light of his record. Going forward, everything he proposes or any other candidate proposes needs to be fully examined. Edwards is not exempt from his own record. Answering questions over and over is part of the political process that some supporters need to get accustomed to rather quickly.

[benny05]

217. Again, JRE doesn't deny it

If you really want to know, ask him. Go to johnedwards.com and visit the audio blog section. You can leave a v-cast for his upcoming podcast. My fingers are fatigued from typing the same answer that you and other Clarkies cannot accept. I think it is better for you to say:

"I will never forgive any politicians who make a big mistakes on votes, even if they realize they made it and say they were wrong." Be truthful Say it.

You cannot forgive Edwards and that you will continue to raise the question without figuring out how to move forward. Sorry, I want solutions, I've heard enough of your complaints.

I'm signing the petition myself to urge Congress to not fund the surge, as I got this e-mail from him today:

Yesterday, I had the honor of speaking to nearly 2,000 parishioners at the historic Riverside Church in New York City.

Almost 40 years ago the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood at the pulpit in Riverside Church and, with the full force of his conscience, denounced the war in Vietnam -- calling it a "tragedy that threatened to drag our nation down to dust."

As Dr. King put it then, there comes a time when silence is a betrayal -- not only of one's personal convictions, or even of one's country alone, but also of our deeper obligations to humanity.

Today, another president is trying to escalate another war. And once again, silence is betrayal.

Congress can stop Bush's escalation, but they'll only do so if the people demand it. That's why today -- in honor of the memory and courage of Martin Luther King -- I'm asking you to do two things:

1. Join nearly 50,000 other Americans who have signed the petition calling on Congress to block funding for escalating the war in Iraq.
2. Tomorrow, when Congress returns to session, call your Senators directly and tell them to block funding for escalation. Click here for your Senators' contact information.

Let's be clear: This is not a time for symbolic speech and hand-wringing from Washington. Congress has a very real choice to make -- either they fund Bush's escalation and he risks more American lives, or they don't, and we start to bring this war to a close.

Every member of Congress is responsible for that choice -- if they know this war is going in the wrong direction and that escalation is wrong, it is no longer enough for them to study their options and keep their own counsel.

But the ultimate responsibility for our country does not lie in Washington -- it lies with us. All of us who believe that Bush's plan to escalate the war is wrong for America, for Iraq, and for the world, must do more than hope for action in Washington -- we must take responsibility and act ourselves.

Your urgent calls will help push the Senate to hold a vote on funding Bush's escalation, and we'll deliver your signatures to Congress to help ensure they cast the right vote when the time comes.

Today, as we honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., let's do our part for the nation he loved and the peace he sought.

Click here to demand that Congress block funding for the president's escalation of the war in Iraq.

Thank you for breaking the silence.

John Edwards

http://johnedwards.com/action/sign-petitions/nofunding/


Clarkies, I suggest your urge your Congressmen not to fund the surge and think about the political solution towards peace. Meantime, there are 6 Greatest Page threads about his speech yesterday and how some people appreciate JRE's honesty in admitting his mistake.

[Pithy Cherub]

218. Wrong.

Too bad you have a problem understanding that JRE said he was sorry and others want to ensure his lapse does not happen again. In my book he's forgiven - shows what you know about me - nothing, BUT he bears more scrutiny for the mistake. If you are going to champion a candidate then it is full time, not when you are tired, that's a fairweather supporter and yipee for Edwards he has those!

[benny05]

221. Not wrong

For wanting to bring the peace now and figure out how to get our men and women out of the crosshairs of a Iraqi civil war and Bush's war.

I am not wrong for suggesting that you visit his site, leave a v-cast, as Clarkie1 did a few minutes ago, if you and others want to ask Edwards about his record, to put it under more scrunity as you say.

And I'm not wrong for supporting two people who care deeply about all of us, in which Elizabeth Edwards blogs with bloggers on the DK this evening. Post is not related to the topic here, which is why I chose to omit it.


Records should be examined, but when the answer is over and over: he made a mistake and there are countless places to find what JRE said on the Internet as to why he voted the way he did, in my gut, this OP does it not to question as much as to divert attention away from the fact that Clark is polling poorly and not getting the attention, so instead, she uses another draw tactic. Congrats, it worked.

The human connection and community building our country needs counts with me. Perhaps I've been tired of watching Bush divide us, and I perceive the poster here is trying to do the same, but in a different way. The OP is far more intelligent than Bush, and in no way, are those two in the same league. But the OP is trying to be a divider, imo.

[trillian]

175. The answer is very simple.

Edwards voted for, and sponsored, the IWR for political reasons

He voted for the Patriot Act, for political reasons

He recanted for political reasons.

This country is in desperate straights. We can't afford another President who is guided by simply political considerations. IMHO

[Critters2]

196. Exactly. Thank you. nt

[GreenArrow]

250. " can't afford President who is guided by simply political considerations."

No, we can't, but that is what faces us, and really it isn't limited to Edwards.

[baldguy]

182. He was being lied to, remember?

[trillian]

186. Everyone was being lied to...

Not all took the bait.

[FrenchieCat]

187. and?

wasn't John Edwards also reading newspapers, talking to fellow Democrats, sitting on the intelligence committee, listening to testimonies?

Was he only listening to this administration and their minions?

Look.....I marched twice in late 2002 and early 2003 in S.F. against this war before it started--yet Edwards was still stating that he had not been misled as late as November of 2003....even after WMDs had not been found, and the intelligence had been publicly discredited.

so

Who lied to John Edwards, why couldn't he get a clue earlier and when did he realize that he was being lied to?

Please reread my op in where I list quite a few newspaper articles that I read at the time of the Iraq Debate that started in the Summer of 2002.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3057475&mesg_id=3057475

[SaveElmer]

256. You act as though these articles you post...

Represent a slam dunk case against voting for the IWR...they do not. They represent the oopinion of the writer, valid opinions that should be taken into consideration, but they do not represent the only valid position to take.

These 28 Democratic Senators for the most part, were not voting for war, they were voting to reinsert inspectors...

The fact is Saddam Hussein had used WMD's on at least 10 occasions, during war, as well as against the Kurds...

During the time when Saddam Hussein had been forced into a level of cooperation between 1991 and 1998, it had been at the barrel of a gun...a good account of the difficulties inspectors were having
can be found here

http://www.nci.org/v-w-x/wp101198.htm


Scott Ritter himself noted that Iraq had NEVER cooperated without a credible threat of military force backing it up...and in fact between September 2002 and March 2003 Iraq was again providing a level of cooperation...it is no coincidence that this is shortly before and after the IWR was passed

It is also a fact that there had been no inspection between the time Saddam ended cooperation with the U.N in 1998 and late 2002...

The CIA was providing explicit, detailed information regarding Iraqi WMD's...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.pdf

It is very easy to say Senators should have been able to see through the lies...yet no mechanism for that is ever proposed...exactly what intelligence arm does Congress have to do this with? None. All they can do is closely query the intelligence agenices themselves, which many did rigorously. Possibly most rigorously was Bob Graham who said flat out Saddam had Biological and Chemical weapons...in fact every opponent of the IWR believed this as well...

You say there was a debate through the summer of 2002...of course there was, no one I know of has said there was not...

There were very good reasons not to vote for the IWR...but there were good reasons to vote for it as well!

It is a cop out to say Senators were voting for it for strictly political reasons...its something you can say without having to back it up with an ounce of evidence...it is the catch all criticism of politicians that everyone believes prima facie, particularly about politicians one does not agree with.

That of course requires that you accept the logical extension of this argument, that more than half of the Democratic caucus in the United States Senate in 2002 voted for a Resolution they KNEW would result in the death of thousands of American soldiers and untold numbers of civilian Iraqis. You have to believe that men such as Max Cleland and John Kerry were capable of this level of indifference over the lives of American soldiers...

I say that is crap...I say these members were doing their jobs, looking at all the evidence, and making a judgement call...and to say because of this that they are the cause of these deaths is also crap...There is one man responsible for the deaths in Iraq...and he lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

[ultraist]

185. Clark is not calling to bring the troops home.

Why is that?

Clark is not really opposed to the escalation because he has failed to step up and demand any action that will put a stranglehold on Bush, which is to block the funding for the escalation,

Why is that?

[Pithy Cherub]

189. This post is about Edwards and if he had listened to Clark

in the first place, like Levin, Wellstone, and Kennedy he would have never voted for the IWR travesty. Edwards decided he was "smarter" than the committee chair on Intelligence too. Edwards decided to believe Bush. It did not work out for him or the thousands of dead and maimed who shall not be conveniently forgotten.

[FrenchieCat]

190. Clark doesn't believe that troop numbers is the issue in getting

a grasp on the violence in Iraq.

Read my sig where I quote Clark.....and note the date.
he already predicted what would happen once before. I trust him to get it right again.

Here's some information for you on his stance though.....
http://securingamerica.com/blogbuzz
Pages and pages.

But you should start a thread on this....
and while you are at it, answer my questions instead of changing the subject.

[Cameron27]

194. The "rapid fire"

blog is outstanding, is it new? Noticed Tom Rinaldo's posts, really excellent site.

[jen4clark]

195. It doesn't look like

anyone can answer your questions Frenchie Cat. And that's almost as disturbing to me as people willing to support him despite his lack of good judgement.

[Cameron27]

199. What's disturbing to me,

is seeing people get bopped over the head for simple asking...the nerve!

[ultraist]

227. LOL

So, I ask for detailed info on Clark and you post a link.

If you want to know about Edwards voting record in the Senate LOOK IT UP. He was considered a very liberal Senator. Get real. You are game playing.

Enjoying whining about the past. I'm moving on and taking action to BREAK THE SILENCE and to bring OUR TROOPS HOME.

[jen4clark]

253. Okay, I started looking up his voting record

and this is one of the first things I came upon:

John Edwards talks about poverty, but he co-sponsored a massive increase in H-1b Visas.

I'll keep going since no Edwards supporters seem able to supply any info on his work in the Senate re: poverty. So far not looking so hot...

[FrenchieCat]

265. Thanks.......

I'm kind of surprised that not one Edwards supporter can do this? What does that mean?
I actually a bit shocked that there is no there there.

[jen4clark]

257. More on Edwards voting record

...Edwards, on the other hand, had a moderate voting record during the first four years following his election to the Senate in 1998. The results positioned Edwards comfortably apart from Senate liberals, but not so far to the right that he locked arms with centrist Republicans. His consistent moderation placed Edwards among the center-right of Senate Democrats. But once Edwards decided to run for president and abandoned his bid for a second Senate term, his record moved dramatically to the left in 2003...

Rated 37% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)

[trillian]

191. Clark is for bringing the troops home

At the same time, he knows that it isn't going to happen with "stay the course more". He recognizes that cutting funding will do nothing. Bush has the money on hand to continue the surge. His analogy is that is like "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."

Clark has said repeatedly that what is needed is a strategy change from military to political and diplomatic.

This is the difference between those who spout sound bites that sound good and someone who actually knows what the hell he's talking about.

[jen4clark]

198. and that's the difference

between answering a question and changing the subject.

[ultraist]

202. No, Clark is not calling to bring the troops home

In fact, he said very recently that he is not for pulling out troops out.

Do you have a link that says otherwise?

[trillian]

206. Do you have a link that ....

....says he's not for the troops coming home?

[joe green]

213. The best course is cut off all funding

Bite the bullet, do the right thing. Give Bush a timetable -- all troops out of country in six months.. Also give him a copy of Dennis Kucinich's 12-point plan and tell Bush to more or less follow it. It has some great ideas, espoused by others like Chuck Hagel and Chris Dodd, especially regarding mediation of the conflict and the involvement of the UN.

Bush likes to present this choice that it's either all-out war or surrender and leave. This is a false choice. There are many steps that can be taken along with withdrawal that can help solve the Iraqi problem. It's up to the Democrats to stand up and get the process going. Quit the handwringing and the nibbling around the edges. Develop some balls for chrissake.

[madfloridian]

203. When I posted about some things Clark said....

the thread was locked. It was done because I was said to have continued a flame thread which I did not start.

So there is no way for me to post stuff I am concerned about here.

[Clarkie1]

226. "Some things" mad posted....

This is my response to "some things" mad posted. This response can also be found on post #128 of this thread, to which mad has yet to respond. I'd like a response, so I'm posting post #128 again here. Maybe it will get someone's attention...



There was a "balm" of victory in Iraq

"Don't you recall in the few weeks right after the intial invasion all of the good feelings....what was Bush's approval then, 80% or so? Clark was writing FACTS about how people felt at the time. In that same article, he foreshadowed the dangers that lie ahead, and why he disagreed with the choice to go to war. And his use of the word "balm" was quite appropriate because as I am sure you know a balm is only temporary and does not cure the underlying condition or disease.

Newsflash: Clark did not invent Depleted Uranium, and there is a lot of scientific controversy over the dangers. What U.S. senator has voted to ban Depleted Uranium? Let me know when you find one.

The double-standard is you, Mad. The OP presents factual evidence whereas your statements are nothing but hypocrisy and cute out of context soundbites that have been used over and over by Clark bashers to no avail.

Is that all you've got?"

[madfloridian]

229. It's all quite true.

It was a sad kind of night when that happened.

[Clarkie1]

231. Show me the thread. I'm sure it's archived somewhere. Also...note I edited the post above

that you just responded to.

I'd like to know where you get off taking Clark out of context, and comparing that to what Senator Kennedy called the most important vote of his life, as if the two were equivalent "bashing."

There is a difference between the truth and lies. Only hypocrites don't know the difference.

[madfloridian]

241. You need to figure out what you are talking about, because I can't.

I never said anything about Kennedy, I did not take anything out of context.

This is really sad. I don't agree so I must be a liar or a hypocrite. Folks around here are getting very bad about accusing of that kind of thing.

The post I wrote about is still up at Kos. It was not taken down from there. It was locked here and deleted from Securing America.

I call that not confronting truth.

[Clarkie1]

243. You said that this thread was Edwards bashing...it is not.

What is bashing is taking things our of context such as "the balm of victory," or worse, holding Clark responsible for depleted Uranium (irregardless of the evidence of its dangers or lack thereof) as if he invented it and is responsible for its use.

THAT is bashing.

Discussing a VOTE in the U.S. Senate (Kennedy called the IWR vote the most important of his life) is NOT bashing.

Get your head straight.

[madfloridian]

234. What can I say? If you think depleted uranium is no danger...

then why bother working up the post.

You appear to not understand what I am talking about. There are two of you who seem confused about what I said.

So I leave the mud pits, as suggested by one of the few remaining oldtimers here, named Julie. She, like me, survived the mud pits of 03.

Good luck, have fun. Hope your guy runs.

[Clarkie1]

239. I did not say depleted uranium is no danger. Stop changing the subject. nt

[Cameron27]

249. I already had a "discussion"

about this with madfloridian.

The World Health Organization agrees with Clark about the degree of danger caused by depleted uranium. So not to sidetrack the purpose of this thread, I'll just leave the links for anyone concerned about mad's insinuations.

Wes Clark:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0211/08/se.13.html


WHO (paragraph concerning Kosovo included):


http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

[madfloridian]

255. No, you had a discussion. I did not.

I have a folder of stuff, but not getting into it tonight.

Could I suggest you do a search at the BBC, just that one site tonight...just that one...pages and pages.

BBC, depleted uranium will get you pages with many hits. Yes, it is a known danger. Britain tried to ban its use in 2001. Just read some of the articles there.

[Cameron27]

261. This is not the thread to discuss DU

however, I have 4 BBC stories that back up the WHO report, 3 comprehensive studies done by radiation specialists, and the International Red Cross's findings in addition to the UN and the WHO report.

I'm not going to defend the use of DU, whatever any studies show, but place the blame on the President, the Pentagon and everyone involved in weapons development, not the General who was charged with prosecuting the war in Kosovo.

[Clarkie1]

223. Edwards is only calling to bring 50,000 troops home, why is that?

I am very interested in Why Edwards choose that number...why not call to bring all the troops back immediately, or say, 20,000?

Why does Edwards think at this time that bringing that number of troops back will best serve the interests of the United States and the Region? I am very curious to know, and would like to thank Benny (screename here on DU) for directing me to a voice cast where one can leave voice questions for Edwards podcast program. I'm am looking forward to hearing Edwards reply to my question.

[Mass]

233. This is the most unfair attack I have seen in a while.

Clark has spoken out before Edwards on this subject. Here is the petition he has sent.

http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/54

He, Webb, and others are opposed to block the funding for the escalation. Did it cross your mind that it is because they have a long military career and see an aspect of things we do not see (sorry if you are a vet).

As for bringing the troops home, we may disagree on how to bring them home, but certainly, Clark has been putting a lot more thought than Edwards on this issue. Attacking him this way is low, and saying that Edwards has a plan to bring the troops home is a little bit utopian. Saying "we need to bring them home" is a good thought, but not a plan.

[Clarkie1]

260. Thanks Mass. nt

[madmunchie]

271. That is what is wrong with a lot of Edward's supporters

Two or three paragraphs constitutes a "plan" to them

A soundbite constitutes a "position"

See what I am getting at?

[last_texas_dem]

201. What's the point?

I've been around this place long enough to know that no answer given will be considered acceptable by the OP who will simply post the same "question", same links, same arguments in a similar thread shortly after the rancor caused by this one has died down.

[FrenchieCat]

207. Do you have any answers....?

instead of coming up with a "Shake the head" foregone conclusion as to my motives.

The answers....you see....aren't so much to "satisfy me".....as I am not the only one reading this thread.

There are a lot of lurkers and such who are reading this thread and other threads on DU, and some of these same folks are attempting to get information and form opinions based on what they read here and at other places.

Shouldn't those Edwards Supporters want to try and answer questions, that not only I happen to believe are germaine to any candidates running for President in 2008?

Some who are undecided now are looking for authenticity, or really do want to know what Edwards did during his time in the Senate in reference to Poverty. They may or may not know that he co-sponsored the Resolution. They may want to know why he did that, and why he is now so unsupportive of Bush's war..... and so, they should know be able to get this information....

Why would think that this was about me?.....because I do not believe that at all.

I believe that it is about our political choices for 2008--

[jen4clark]

211. What's very strange about this thread

is that no one seems to be able to answer the questions!!

It's such a double standard here it's amazing. There are countless posts at DU stating flat out lies re: General Clark, and Clarkies are always there supplying truth, facts and links. Yet you ask honest questions and are attacked as if you're posting lies. WTH???

[benny05]

214. No one is denying that JRE co-Sponsored a resolution

No one is denying that JRE made a big mistake. Edwards knows he made a mistake.

Clark was not in Congress or working for the Federal Gov't other than being a witness. Here's a fact: Clark has never held any kind of elective office. period. I'm not trashing him over it, but I do expect the President to have some kind of legislative experience and understands how Congress works. The President has to work with them. S/he has to understand how they tend to vote and why. President also should admit when one makes mistakes and tell the truth to grand juries, even over indiscretions. Edwards got Clinton off the hook from getting convicted in the Senate.

What is being interjected is that Edwards lacks judgment and an inference that Edwards is denying all of this stuff. He's not denying it, he's not trying to hide anything.

I admire folks who try to learn from their mistakes and offers solutions. We've all made mistakes.

Eleanor Roosevelt used to say "Learn from the mistakes of others. You can’t live long enough to make them all yourself." Edwards clearly is learning from his own, and those of his colleagues and the Divider-In-Chief.

[jen4clark]

224. I think the main problem

here is that no one will answer the questions. Frenchie Cat has asked them several times throughout the thread, yet I have not seen one person answer the questions. Why is that so hard? When I became a Clark supporter, I quickly became informed on his stance on the issues, etc. so that I could answer questions. I don't see that here. That's all.

Make it even easier -- just stick to the question about his legislative work as a Senator.

As for Clark -- he has more executive experience in his pinkie than JE has in his entire body.

[benny05]

225. But not an elective office

To scruntize his record, huh?

[madmunchie]

272. Edwards record in an elected office .....O.K. let's talk about it

His whole 6 years....what did he accomplish that qualifies him to be POTUS?

What do you base your support of Edwards on?

[AtomicKitten]

212. thanks for your diligent attention to detail

There is nothing wrong, in fact, everything right about posting factual data and opening the topic up to discussion.

Accusing you of bashing and telling you to shut it down is nothing short of advocating censorship. We are not here to cheer-lead, we are here to discuss issues that affect our lives, not the least important of which who is to lead this country. It matters who we choose as leaders.

I appreciate the hard work you put in compiling this data for discussion.

[joe green]

215. There are some serious questions about Edwards

I want to vote for someone who had the good sense to vote against the war. I'll use Chuck Hagel as an example. He stood up against his own party, saw through the bs, made the right decision and has been outspoken about it. He also emphasizes the importance of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. All that shows common sense to me. It's the kind of person I want to vote for because if a similar situation comes up again, I think he'd make the right decision.

Edwards OTOH made the wrong decision, showed bad judgment. He stuck by that bad judgment even after the evidence came out. It was only when it became politically expedient that he issued his apology. I'm not impressed with that. I'm not convinced that if a similar situation came up he'd make the right decision. There's something to be said for good judgment.

[Mass]

220. Just to be clear, Hagel voted for the IWR.

the rest seems correct to me, though I would not vote for him for other reasons.

[Clark2008]

285. Hubby - a big honking New England liberal - told me yesterday

that if the race comes down to Hagel v. Edwards - he's voting for Hagel.

That's how bad he thinks Edwards would be.

Whew!

[unfrigginreal]

219. Probably similar reasons that Clark failed to speak out

Clark knew this administration was going to take us to yet he said and did nothing. At least Edwards admits his mistake.

[jen4clark]

235. Are you high?

Failed to speak out?

Okay, maybe you just haven't been paying attention.

If you're interested, go to the link below -- scroll down and on the left you'll see "PRESS ROOM" with a list of Articles, Op-Eds, Speeches, Transcripts, and Press Releases.

http://securingamerica.com/

In addition, in September 2002, General Clark testified before the House Armed Services Committee warning about the consequences of attacking Iraq. Senators Kennedy, Wellstone and others ? cited Clark's testimony as among the reasons they voted against the IWR.

[Clarkie1]

240. You are truly.......UNFRIGGINREAL.

Get my drift?

[Donna Zen]

247. Heh?

Clark, without picking up a public paycheck, was a private citizen trying to stop this war. Everyone one of those senators was spoken to in public and behind closed doors. Clark was who Kennedy said got him to vote "no".

Edwards? Well, Edwards wrote a pro-war op ed for the Washington Post that put pressure on the other senators to vote "yes". The WHouse liked it so much that they put it up on their website.

Edwards now has said that he was wrong, and I totally accept his word. Nevertheless, all we have when considering how a candidate will perform in a future crisis is their past actions. That is why when I've looked at Obama, even knowing that he has little experience, I've considered going to NH for him.

Currently Wes Clark is working to try and stop a war with Iran, which he calls the iceberg. Last week Clark did 5 radio spots and a TV appearance talking about nothing else. He has said that our current course is headed straight for that iceberg. He has written two op eds and started a letter writing effort to try and stop the troop escalation. So don't blame Clark. You might investigate Edwards' junket to Israel where he said that we might have to bomb Iran. Good grief.

This world is in bad shape. We need someone with good judgment in the WHouse because we don't know what the future holds. It is my judgment that Edwards is not that person.

[Schema Thing]

269. Because he's a professional POLITICIAN

and that's what they do, vote the wind.

He has good instincts for politics; I don't think he has good instincts for statesmanship or leadership.

[SaveElmer]

273. Do you believe that about all Democrats that voted Yes?

eom

[Schema Thing]

276. About their instincts?

To an extent, yes.

However, Edwards especially to have been grooming himself to be president from day one, it seems to me. I don't think that's evil, but I don't find it particularly admirable either. And when it makes you fuck up as badly as co-sponsoring the IWR and the Patriot act, simply because American's wanted that sort of shit fed to them, and why not be the *leader* in feeding it to them... it's pretty serious.


We can do much, much better.

[Moderator]

290. Locking.

This flame war has run its course.

[Moderator]

291. Locking

Ahem. For the second time.