Edwards: "they should not submit a single funding bill without a timetable for withdrawal attached."

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Edwards is right and it is great to see Edwards leading on this issue instead of remaining silent while focus group data is being collected...

==Edwards said it was time for the war to end.

“It’s time that Congress does what the American people put them in charge to do, and that is to put an end to this war in Iraq; they should not submit a single funding bill without a timetable for withdrawal attached,” Edwards said.==

==Edwards spoke for thirty minutes to a crowd of several hundred at Serb Hall in Milwaukee. He emphasized America’s failure as a prosperous nation to provide universal health care and criticized the recent troop surge policy.

”We don’t need a surge in Baghdad, we need a surge in New Orleans,” said Edwards to great applause.==

==“I don’t think George Bush has damaged our reputation in the world. I think he has destroyed it,” said Edwards. “We have to be the source of hope again, the light for the rest of the world. We used to be that light.”==

Read the rest at http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=104484

[ecstatic]

1. He co-sponsored the IWR then fled the scene

It's easy for him to say those things now, but you have to wonder what he'd actually do were he still in the Senate.

[AtomicKitten]

2. whatever it takes to lead the parade into or out of Iraq - Edwards is flexible

[Milo_Bloom]

3. We don't have to wonder at all.

We know what he would do... capitulate. It is what he has ALWAYS done, his entire political career.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Let's examine these common memes

1) It is 2007. Being wrong in 2002 does not mean you are wrong in 2007. Conversely, being correct in 2002 does not mean you are right, assuming you bother to take a stand, in 2007. I said the Eagles would beat the Packers last week; I was wrong. Does this mean I am automatically wrong when I say they will defeat the Redskins this week?

2) What difference would his presence in the senate make as to his political positions? That is a very weak, albeit common argument. Would sitting in a senate seat suddenly make him for funding the war?

Kerry is a great example. He voted for the IWR yet has shown as much leadership as anyone in trying to end the war since 2006.

The truth is Edwards is correct now and showing leadership. I'll take that any day over silence...

[karynnj]

60. Your comparison to Kerry doesn't cut it

The only think they have in common is the IWR vote.Kerry and I think Harkin were the only people who voted for the resolution then spoke out when Bush did not use it as he said - that does make them different - even though they voted for it. Kerry was against going to war when Edwards who co-sponsored it was a cheerleader. In 2004, I knew Kerry's views of when he would take a country to war - I don't know Edwards. Kerry has deep rooted foreign policy credentials and was one of the few Senators concerned with non-state terrorism in the 1990s. Kerry was an activist in both the anti-war and environmental movements in the 1970s. He had the best life time LCV score. Kerry has also spent the last 2 and a half years leading on Iraq. Edwards chose his extremely anti-war slot no earlier than the end of 2006.

Edwards is NO John Kerry. Make your argument of why Edwards changes are OK based on Edwards.

[NCarolinawoman]

63. And Edwards has never made one trip to Iraq.

Edwards is a talker, not a "doer".

He was quoted after the 2004 election as saying "he liked campaigning a lot more than he liked being a Senator". Thanks, John. We in North Carolina had to learn that the hard way.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

78. If you declare it to be so, it must be so! nt

[NCarolinawoman]

99. He's local. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

79. Your post doesn't cut it

You made your stock speech on Edwards without understanding what you were responding to. The point was simple: worshiping at the altar of the IWR is idiotic, especially when it is used to excuse being wrong today or dismiss someone being correct today.

==Make your argument of why Edwards changes are OK based on Edwards.==

Thanks for displaying your arrogance. I'll post whatever I wish to.

[karynnj]

86. I can see that you will

I fully understood what I was responding to. I understand what you are saying. That vote is not the end all and be all of a person.

My point is that John Kerry had to answer to it for John Kerry. In his case, he says the vote was wrong and the war immoral. He was never for the war and was very clear under what situations he would go to war. He also is doing what he criticized the leaders in 1971 of not doing - he is working as hard as he can to get the troops safely out. This is an argument in favor of John Kerry - based on John Kerry.

My point is that your case for Edwards reduces to - John Kerry voted for the IWR too. Oh, and Edwards is leading on the war now.

On the first - Kerry was never a cheerleader of the war, Edwards was - It was not just voting for the bill he co-sponsored. It was being actively for the war for at least the rest of 2003! Make your case, but do it based on what Edwards himself has done. This is at least the 5th time that I have seen you implying that because Kerry voted for it somehow means it was ok that Edwards did.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

94. Fair enough, except for the last line

==This is at least the 5th time that I have seen you implying that because Kerry voted for it somehow means it was ok that Edwards did.==

No, what I am saying is clear: it is idiotic to worship at the altar of the half a decade old IWR and use it to dismiss someone being wrong today (what perverse logic holds that being wrong in the past makes you wrong today?) or to excuse someone for being wrong today.

[karynnj]

100. Then why mention Kerry?

What does he have to do with your point?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

103. He is the best example of the flaw in worshiping at the altar of the IWR

Choosing Kerry is a compliment. There is no one who voted for the IWR who has done as much to work to end this war than Kerry, especially in the past two years. :patriot:

[karynnj]

113. I understand that

That will of course be the case that Kerry will easily make for himself. Every one runs on all that they has said and done in addition to their vision for the future. Kerry did this in 2004 and won the nomination.

My point is that you are an Edwards' advocate. The IWR is not the only thing Edwards ever did. It is up to him and his supporters to make the case that the whole picture on him, not John Kerry, integrated over HIS life, not John Kerry's, gives confidence that he would make the right choice in the future. Pointing to John Kerry and all he has done, advocates that John Kerry can be trusted, which I clearly agree with. It does not tell me anything about John Edwards.

[CarolNYC]

71. Kerry's vote for the IWR....

...was nothing at all like Edwards' all out incredibly enthusiastic support for the war, which continued for quite a while after the invasion. You'd never see anything written by Kerry show up on the White House website in support of Bush's invasion.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. So there are now "good" votes FOR the IWR?

:wtf:

[CarolNYC]

90. Just sayin' that there's a difference between voting for the IWR...

...and being an enthusiastic cheerleader for the invasion. I don't know how you can logically argue that point but I imagine you'll try. :eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

92. And that has what relevance to the original point? nt

[jefferson_dem]

95. Edwards was a proud co-sponsor of Chimpy's IWR.

Bad move, Johnny...!

...

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

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

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons.

As I've said before, I believe the Iraqi threat demands action by the U.S. together with our allies if the United Nations Security Council is prevented from acting to enforce its own resolutions. But I also believe that this is a very good example of how American leadership in the world will produce a better result than American disregard.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/

[draft_mario_cuomo]

96. As we all have known since 2003. What relevance does that have to the issue at hand?

I predicted the Eagles would win last week. They lost. Does that mean I am automatically wrong when I predict they will win this week? Conversely, is someone who chose correctly last week automatically correct this week? That is the type of flawed logic being used by IWR worshipers who are not disputing Edwards' position in the OP.

P.S. it must suck that the IWR card doesn't have the magic you and others hoped it had when it was deployed in earnest in June. ;)

[karynnj]

102. The best predictor of the future is what he did in the past

What I would like to see is for candidates to explain under what circumstances they would take the country to war. If I knew their philosophies on this it could be used in conjunction with what they did in the past. For instance, I know Obama would not have gone to war with Iraq because he spoke against doing so in the run up to the war. I know Wes Clark, Howard Dean, Al Gore and John Kerry would not because they publicly spoke against going to war before it started. Each also gave reasons why. I know that Biden wouldn't because his view of it was contained in Biden/Lugar which tried to constrain the President more.

I do not know what Edwards or Clinton would have done, because Hillary was silent and though Edwards was very publicly in favor of the war, I would hope no Democrat would have made up the lies that took us to war.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

104. Look at Iran. They are similar on that and BO is actually slightly more hawkish

This is another example of why it is flawed to look only at the IWR. When you do that you miss their positions on foreign affairs in general, including matters of war and peace. Where are they on Iran? Pakistan? North Korea? Venezuela? Israel-Palestine? And so on. When you do that, as well as look at their overall records on Iraq, suddenly they are all very similar in their general approach to world affairs.

Do you honestly believe Edwards or Clinton are more likely to go to war with Iran than Obama because of the IWR?

[karynnj]

112. Obviously not because of the IWR

I do not feel I know enough of ANY of their philosophies on foreign policy or when they would go to war. I did read Edwards' foreign policy positions in 2004 and since. I don't see him as having much strength or depth here. I have also read what Obama has had to say. I think both are very dependent on their advisers on detailed issues - Edwards MORE than Obama. I have also listened to Obama at many SFRC hearings over the last 2 and 1/2 years. This does give me some perspective on how he approaches issues. I see a more integrated point of view on issues coming from Obama than from Edwards. With both of them, looking at who is advising them will be important.

My problems with Hillary Clinton on this are different. I saw the Clintons stay silent in the run up to the Iraq war, when they were the Democrats who could most easily get public attention. They were the natural leaders and they did not lead. I also saw that in 2006 as Iraq went into civil war, they put politics over policy. This was wrong in that the soldiers deserved better and because they got it wrong on the politics as well. The Democrats did better because they had an alternative plan on Iraq. It is clear that the political center had moved when Hillary and Bill Clinton are now saying that only a deadline will work in Iraq - ignoring that they fought Kerry's saying just that in 2006.

[jefferson_dem]

5. Sad to say ... Edwards has been relegated to gadfly status.

His shtick has run its course.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. That must explain why he is catching the Obama juggernaut in the polls

:rofl:

[Clark2008]

10. I don't wonder - he'd do what Nancy Pelosi alleges he always did

Ask if a poll had been taken FIRST.

;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

When did Pelosi, who never served with JE, make that alleged statement?

First, it is amusing to see a Clark fan of all people calling another candidate a phony opportunist...this seems to be a perverse obsession with Clarkies regarding Edwards. They never have any substantive criticism of him and chose the must absurd line of attack against him. :rofl:

What you said is interesting and another common myth. Which polling data supports Edwards' position? Do you think Clobama are not aware of polling on this?

[Clark2008]

21. I dislike Edwards because of HIS OWN ACTIONS.

Clark isn't running.

Edwards can kiss my family's ass - the family he dissed in North Carolina, thank you.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. That is what all the Clarkies say. They all individually decided to dislike Edwards

It is just a fluke virtually every Clarkie here dislikes Edwards and at a far higher rate than supporters of every other candidate. :rofl:

Face it: Clark lost because he was a lousy candidate due to have 0 political experience and because he was easily painted as *drumroll please* a phony opportunist! The notion that Edwards, who was a second-tier candidate when Clark blew his lead, is responsible for Clark losing is absurd.

Clark isn't running? So why are Clarkies still waiting for him to join the race?

[Clark2008]

27. He beat Edwards five out of the nine races in which they both

competed and didn't have to run for two years to do so.

Sorry - them's the facts.

Oh - and as to why Clarkies are waiting for him to join? Have you seen the lousy candidates we currently have? Not a one of them will win the general election.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. What does that have to do with Clark going from front-runner to battling with 2nd-tier Edwards?

As to that misleading myth, Clark beat Edwards in small states because his big budget allowed him to run ads for weeks in several states, i.e. the western states on 2/3 and places like Tennessee. The fact we are even having this discussion underlines how bad his campaign was. He never should have been competing with a guy who, as you noted, after 2 years of campaigning was at 4-5% (behind Sharpton, often behind Braun, and on par with Kucinich) in the polls while Clark immediately took the lead and reached the 20's when he entered the race...

==Have you seen the lousy candidates we currently have? Not a one of them will win the general election.==

Yes, we have a great field of real Democrats. :bounce: Clark has never won any election. He was a horrible politician (the guy ran as an anti-war candidate and on his FIRST DAY campaigning said he would "probably" have voted for the IWR!) when he ran last time. Yet he is going to be "the savior" and win the GE? We were sold that bill of goods last time...

Clark has other qualities but he is a weak candidate until he gets some political experience. He should run for governor of Arkansas first. I am sure he has a good chance of that, especially since both parties courted him when he was "nonpartisan" in 2001. ;)

[karynnj]

61. I was for Kerry, not Clark

but I took his comment that he would "probably" have voted for the IWR as unusual honesty. I saw it for what it was, an admission that the IWR was a no win proposition. He had testified to all the problems that attacking Iraq could have, yet he also knew that it was not a situation that could simply be dismissed - there were enormous risks of lifting the sanctions - which was coming - and what Saddam would do. He later said he would have voted for the Levin amendment. Clark's willingness to concede that he had not been forced to vote and that it wasn't black and white, impressed me more than Dean's using the IWR that he did not vote on as a club in the primaries - though from his September statements his view was not black and white either.

As to political experience - Edwards has won only one more election.

[spooky3]

64. That is simply not correct, according to CNN.

Here are the primary election results:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html

Edwards topped Clark in delegate counts in the majority of races in which (a) both names appeared on the ballot and (b) one or both of them won at least one delegate:

Iowa
Michigan
Missouri
South Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
Wisconsin

Clark topped Edwards in these states:

Arizona
New Mexico
Oklahoma
North Dakota

Both tied or got 0 delegates in these states:

Delaware
Maine
New Hampshire
Washington

Further, Edwards won a number of delegates in states after Clark gave up.

[PurityOfEssence]

91. See? Just a little bit of garlic, and you can actually get some peace around here...

Good thing, too; I was down to my last stake.

Aaah.

So quiet, so very, very quiet...

[PurityOfEssence]

77. Your facts are absolutely wrong; Edwards beat him 8 to 5, and this is ONLY where they both competed

Are you extremely ignorant or deliberately deceptive? I'm not counting the Iowa Caucuses, because the late-arriving savior decided to not contest this race. He had some good runs, but he got his ass kicked conclusively. I've posted this before, but no Clark supporter has EVER disputed these facts, which come from CNN. (As Daniel Patrick Moynihan so aptly put it, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.) For all the furore and bluster, Clark stumbled terribly. At the end, he resorted to lying about Edwards' and Kerry's votes on the Bush tax cuts to try to salvage his futile cause.

These are facts. Please contest them. Please. I'd love to hear any equivocation.

It went like this:

Since the messiah didn't contest Iowa, we won't talk about how Edwards took 32% there.

--Clark took 3rd in New Hampshire, besting Edwards' 4th by four tenths of a percent (27,254 v. 26,416) Oooh, a whopping 838 votes.

--Clark walked all over Edwards in Arizona taking 2nd with 27% against Edwards' 7% (60,109 v. 15,583)

--Edwards took 3rd to Lieberman in Delaware by a heartbreaking 26 votes, but still beat Clark. (Edwards: 3,657 or 11%; Clark: 3,145 or 10%)

--Edwards beat the living shit out of Clark in Missouri, taking 2nd with 25% of the vote (103,198) while Clark could only scrape up a 4th place showing with 4% of the vote (18,328)

--Clark then clobbered Edwards in New Mexico by taking 2nd with 21% of the vote (19,828) while Edwards gasped to 4th with a mere 11% (10,953)

--Clark also stomped Edwards in North Dakota by taking 2nd with 24% (a tiny little constituency of 2,502) while Edwards came in 4th with 10% (not much of a party with only 1,025)

--Clark actually won a primary (Oklahoma) but it was a mighty thin victory. Edwards was second and Kerry was third. The margin of this ONLY VICTORY FOR CLARK was anaemic to say the least: less than four tenths of a percent, a very similar margin to the triumphant trouncing in New Hampshire. (Clark: 90,526; Edwards 89,310) Let's stop here for a minute. The only victory Clark had in the primary season was so very very thin.

--Now we come to South Carolina. Edwards absolutely annihilated everyone. He took the state by 45%, while Clark could only cobble up 7%. This was one of the biggest blowouts of the whole campaign. Edwards: 131,174; Clark: 21,011.

--Michigan: Edwards took 3rd (13% and 21,919 votes) while Clark could only claw his way to 5th (4% and 10,986)

--On to Washington. Edwards got his ass kicked with a 4th place showing (7%, 1,571) but Clark floundered at 5th (3%, 768 votes) Let's revisit that: he couldn't even get a thousand votes.

--Maine continued the trend: Edwards was 4th with 8% (1,167), but Clark could only eke out a 5th with 4% (564 real live entire persons)

--Tennessee was where Clark staked his hopes, lying about Edwards and Kerry voting for the Bush tax cuts, but even there he could only manage 3rd (Edwards: 26%, 97,746; Clark: 23%, 85,182)

--The deathblow came the same day in Virginia. Once again, Kerry won, but Edwards was 2nd with 27% (104,813) while Clark spluttered in with 9% (36,474)

--I’ll be fair and not count that Edwards WON the North Carolina Caucuses, because this was after he’d dropped out.

***Final Tally: Even subtracting 2 bestings, it’s Edwards 8, Clark 5

I've heard this idiotic claim of Clark besting Edwards before, and I've posted these statistics many times. I defy anyone to deny these facts. Clark got his ass kicked by Edwards. The facts are irrefutable. Do any of the harassing Clark extremists have a scrap of decency or maturity to admit this? (Actually, one has on a previous posting of this…)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

85. And the Clark numbers are inflated by him running ads for weeks in many of these states

Tennessee is a great example. Clark, a big budget candidate with a lot of support from Clinton types in the party, had ads on the air there since December. He also ran ads in the western states that he did well in--he was actually leading in some of those states before Iowa.

I find it cute how some Clarkies dismiss Iowa. That was the biggest caucus/primary in the race. Edwards' finish there propelled him from obscurity to top-tier status. Listening to some it is no big deal, "Edwards did well in Iowa but Clark wasn't there so it means little. Clark beat him in North Dakota, after all!"

As to New Hampshire, Clark was at 23% there and quickly closing in on Dean, then the front-runner before Iowa. He should have done much better there since he was camped out there while the others were splitting time between Iowa and New Hampshire.

In the end Clark lost for two major reasons and a tactical error was the death blow to his campaign:

1) Brilliant guy, lousy politician. He was drafted as "the savior" because he opposed the war in 2002. What does he do on his first day in the race? The worst possible thing he could do: says he "probably" would have voted for the IWR. That really cut into the two premises of his candidacy (Iraq and electability). Iraq is obvious but it hurt the electability card because of how big of a gaffe it was and how it underlined the fact that he had zero political experience at the time. Holy Joe had a field day slamming Clark on his various statements on Iraq over and over again.

2) He was easily painted as--get this!--a phony opportunist. Perhaps the bitterness of this is why they are obsessed with trying to paint Edwards (D) as such?

Clark had the balls to lie about Edwards (D) and Kerry (D) voting against *'s tax cuts? That is hilarious since at about the time of the tax cuts Clark was raising $$$$ for the Republicans while Democrats like Edwards and Kerry were fighting the * tax cut...

Great post. :yourock:

[PurityOfEssence]

105. Many Clarkies will dispute this

Damn your quotes and stats and clips and reality, it's like the old joke about the Soviet Union: it was a country with an ever-changing history.

They will deny that any of the Bush Administration's foreign policy moves were ugly before Clark's fund raising speech, even though the list is long and revolting. He was ALWAYS against vouchers, even though he was for them early on. He never counseled anyone to vote for the IWR and he wouldn't have himself even though he was clumsy and on the record about both of these points.

The tax cut lies were the worst. Kerry didn't take much heat from home to vote against them, but Edwards certainly did. Kerry's snippy little quip might have been right: Edwards might NOT have been able to win re-election for the Senate, but if that's true, it would have been from voting more to the left of his interesting mixed-bag of a state and doing it out of conscience.

The laughable thing is that Dean pulled this same lie months before and got called out very publicly about it. Well, maybe "laughable" isn't the right word; "inexcusable" would be better: inexcusable on a moral level, and a boggling example of slobbering incompetence as a tactic. Yet somehow this sits just fine with most of his supporters. A few--literally three, that I've noticed--have expressed dismay, and that's to their credit, but this really does stand out: the vast majority duck it completely.

It's a deliberate, huge lie about something these two men held dear and one of them really risked his future for, and a sniping dilettante who never had to stand up and be counted on the subject lied frontally and repeatedly. (I've only seen one video clip, but it's disgusting.) Quite a few Dean supporters expressed disillusionment when Dean did it earlier on, but this was not the case with the Clark camp. When Edwards confronted him with it in a print ad, Clark responded by not even referring to the challenge AT ALL, and countered with further distortions of Edwards voting record. Character: it's an issue.

They're aghast and offended when this misbehavior is thrown back in their faces, which is tiresome enough, but when they play the unjustly accused virtue schtick, it's enough to make you gag.

Once again, it's not ALL of his supporters, but it does seem to be a whole bunch.

He's better, they're better, and somehow this is all fine. It's shameful.

[spooky3]

114. Thanks, POE, bookmarking. I've posted data

in response to similar allegations in other threads, but haven't done it as thoroughly and well as you have.

[Cameron27]

32. Why do you think Clarkie's blame Edwards for his losing?

That's something I've never tried to do, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone else try to make that point. Face it, dmc, this isn't your board, and as long as Clarkies pay their dues, their opinions can be posted no matter how much you hate it.

You've got maybe a month left before every Clarkie here gives up the hope that Clark will announce, most don't believe he will right now. What are you going to use to attack us then?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. I was told it wasn't Shelton so what else could it be? Clark's loss seems the most likely reason

The reason Clark had to leave the race was because Edwards beat him to become the "southern" candidate. Remember Tennessee and Virginia? Clark was toast by then, anyway, with or without Edwards.

[Cameron27]

38. I started out thinking Edwards was a great candidate in 04,

it was only when I started really digging into his record, that I dropped him and started supporting Clark. You've got the sequence backwards, it wasn't Clark that turned me and (I think most of us) off to Edwards, it was Edwards' own record that turned me on to Clark.

Now, when are you going to allow me, as a fellow DUer, express my own opinion about John Edwards, without assuming that you know just why I'm doing it?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Yes, it is just a big fluke. Look at the rates of other candidates' fans who dislike Edwards

And it is a fluke that virtually all Clarkies share the same perverse obsession with Democrat John Edwards being a "phony opportunist." :crazy:

Where did I try to censor you? I am not one of those who smears another DU'er as a liar (without any supporting evidence) and then gets that DU'er suspended for responding to the smear.

[Cameron27]

47. What are you implying?

Do you think that there's a some bizarre Clarkie strategy to "attack" John Edwards for nefarious reasons? I actually do happen to think he's a phony opportunist, and lately with his SUV, and health care mandates, I think he's got a touch of the authoritarian in him too. Guess what? I thought up that opinion all by myself.

You attempt to censure Clarkies everytime you point out that it's a Clarkie who's posted something, everytime you drag Wes Clark into a thread about Edwards, when it has absolutely nothing to do with Clark. You attempt to censure by hinting at collusion whenever a Clarkie expresses an honest opinion.

Who the hell do you think you are? Your name isn't Skinner, you don't own this board, and my opinion is mine alone, and has just as much weight on DU as yours.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. What does the word censure mean?

I don't care what or why Clarkies do what they do. My guess is 90A% of them are bitter and broken over Clark's loss and somehow blame a guy who was a second-tier candidate when Clark went from 1st to a distant 2nd for it. So they attack him and for some perverse reason chose the "phony opportunist" angle (not collectively but a couple started it and the rest liked it and have parroted it for 4 years). I don't care much about what Clarkies do. It is hilarious--especially the phony opportunist thing. As if it took Edwards (D) 2 years to decide which party to join after being courted by both sides and raising money for both sides (what principle!). :rofl:

If Clark fans had legitimate criticisms of Edwards (D) that would be one thing but they chose the most laughable line of attack on him. They act is if Clark's record is that of a consistent Democrat when the guy was not even a Democrat 2 years before he ran for president!

[Cameron27]

50. Waste of words

Do what you want, it doesn't matter. I'll post what I want, because your opinion doesn't matter.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Just minutes ago you said our opinions were equal. Now you are saying mine doesn't matter?

Who is arrogantly trying to "censure" others now? :rofl:

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

84. What makes your opinion of what is or is not worthy important?

:rofl:

[CarolNYC]

73. I don't get it myself seasonedblue...

I think that it's some kind of projection from those who blame Clark for Edwards not getting the nomination...There are some here who seem to think that Clark had some nerve jumping into the race, that by doing so he took the nomination away from Edwards and gave it to Kerry...After all, Edwards had been running for this for so long and all....I was even told once here that Shelton's smear was fair payback for the fact that Clark's jumping into the race was leaked the same day Edwards was making his 'official announcement' that he was running.. :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

83. Edwards' poll number were unchanged by Clark's entry into the race

Blaming Clark for JE's loss is like blaming Obama for Biden being where he is in the polls today.

[CarolNYC]

72. This "virtually every Clarkie here dislikes Edwards" line...

is such a load of bollocks. Maybe you honestly haven't seen the posts by a good number of Clarkies who support and defend Edwards but they are there...I don't know why but there are a number of Clarkies on this board that really like Edwards. Go figure....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

82. Such as? Names? nt

[CarolNYC]

93. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go hunting past posts down now....

but I will PM you links to the posts as I see them in the future, if you don't mind....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

97. Sure

I'll give you a quick list, though, of some of the most prolific Clarkies here:

You
Clark2008
WesDem
seasonedblue
FrenchieCat

The only prolific Clarkie I can think of off the top of my head he is at least neutral toward Edwards in his posting is Tom Rinaldo.

[rateyes]

14. Nancy has no room to talk. nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Don't expect Clark2008 to show a poll which favors Edwards' position

There is a reason Clobama and most leading Democrats have not taken this position...Clark2008 will not post the relevant polls due to this.

[Clark2008]

20. I don't post polls, period, no matter what they say.

Clobamwards fans do it ad nauseum. Too much, in fact. In any case, I don't have a clue what you mean by the fact that I won't post a poll because of some position that Clinton and Obama have or haven't taken. I'm not a Clinton or Obama fan, either, btw.

And, to the post above: Nancy Pelosi, while in the House, surely knows Edwards. She DID "serve" with him, meaning they served at the same time. I'm not sure why someone would think House Dems wouldn't talk to Senate Dems.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. You implied JE's position is based on polls. What polls?

When did Pelosi make that alleged statement?

==I don't have a clue what you mean by the fact that I won't post a poll because of some position that Clinton and Obama have or haven't taken.==

Simple: there is no poll that supports Edwards' position. Why do you think Clobama have not advocated this?

[Clark2008]

25. I meant that Edwards would ask which way the wind was blowing

before he'd take a position.

Geesch. Analyze much?

NOTE: I DON'T LIKE OR TRUST EDWARDS AND WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM - EVEN IF HE IS THE NOMINEE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WESLEY CLARK AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HIS LOUSY JOB AS SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA. NOR DO I CARE MUCH FOR CLINTON OR OBAMA. IN FACT, I THINK OUR CHOICES AS DEMOCRATS SUCK THIS YEAR.

(Do I really have to put up that disclaimer?)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Which way is the wind blowing on this? Hint: against Edwards' position

Nice switch. You said Pelosi said it and now switch it to "I meant"...

==IN FACT, I THINK OUR CHOICES AS DEMOCRATS SUCK THIS YEAR.==

At least they are all credible Democrats this year...

[Clark2008]

30. If you think Iraq-war, NCLB, PATRIOT Act-supporting people

are 'credible' Democrats, then get down with your bad self.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. So three cherry-picked issues define an entire political philosophy?

Do you think Arlen Specter is a Republican?

Party ID is a big deal and based on fundamental beliefs about the role of government and what kind of society we should have. Some took years before "discovering" their views on such things. Yeah, but others are the real phonies! :rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. Clark and CAPPS. Remember what you said about records and not "purdy rhetoric"?

Speaking of the Patriot Act, which passed with only one "nay" vote...

==By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page A08

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

Clark, a Democrat who declared himself a presidential candidate 10 days ago, joined Acxiom's board of directors in December 2001. He earned $300,000 from Acxiom last year and was set to receive $150,000, plus potential commissions, this year, according to financial disclosure records. He owns several thousand shares of Acxiom stock worth more than $67,000. ==

==Clark declined repeated requests in recent weeks to discuss the lobbying and his thoughts on information policy. After announcing his presidential ambitions, Clark quit working as a consultant for Acxiom but maintained his seat on the company's board==

== In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.

With officials from an Acxiom partner sitting nearby, he explained that computers would examine the data -- massive amounts of information about housing, telephone numbers, car ownership and the like -- for subtle signs of terrorist intentions. The system would authenticate the identity of every passenger, he told the government officials at the meeting. ==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.html

[CarolNYC]

74. Some more info on Clark and CAPPS...

From WesDem....

Robert O'Harrow wrote in the Washington Post in September 2003:

A senior executive at Acxiom said Clark began knocking on doors for the company, without pay, out of patriotic impulses shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. Jerry Jones, Acxiom's general counsel and business development leader, said the company also wanted to do its part in the war on terrorism.

Acxiom is a data integrator that manages billions of records for some of the nation's top banks, retailers and marketers. The company said it has "the largest collection of U.S. consumer and telephone data available in one source" -- data that is used in part to enhance others' records and authenticate identities.

-snip

Clark also has met on the company's behalf with officials at the Department of Justice, the CIA, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and Lockheed Martin Corp., the defense contractor that is heading up CAPPS II.

Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to "properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxiom's effort to win government contracts.

In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.htm


CAPPS I, the system in place at the time, was developed after the TWA 800 crash in 1996, and had flagged four people who died in PA and Washington on 9/11, but not the ones who crashed into WTC, and would later that year, Richard Reid. So airline passengers were already being screened based on their presonal data.

http://www.corpus-delicti.com/051902_aharder.html


Refining CAPPS I to more accurately pre-screen passengers, much of whose personal data was already in the pre-screening system, to be matched with that Acxiom had in its databases, which comes basically from banks and insurance companies, doesn't have to be viewed as the natural precursor to the nefarious form it took in CAPPS II in late 2002, when Clark was no longer involved with the project, was in the national interest. And that's how Clark viewed it. He had, keep in mind, already volunteered his expertise to the White House for the emergency and been rejected. But his neighbor worked for Acxiom and explained the possibilities of the system in terms of security; apparently this approach was at the company's behest.

Washington Post 1/29/04:

Clark initially turned down an offer, made just after he left the military, to serve on Acxiom's board. But after the 2001 terrorist attacks, he agreed to tell government officials about the firm's capabilities without charge.

"We were doing some work with the FBI . . . and we contacted Wes again to get his ideas on how best we could help," said Acxiom chief Morgan. After the initial shock of the attacks, Clark and Acxiom saw the opportunity to make money, Clark as a lobbyist for the firm and Acxiom as a federal security contractor.

Clark registered as a self-employed lobbyist for the firm in January 2002. In May of that year he registered as a lobbyist for Acxiom on behalf of SCL LLC, an entity created to keep Clark's work for Acxiom separate from his work for Stephens. He was a lobbyist for Acxiom through Sept. 17 of last year, earning just under $500,000 total for his work, according to lobbying disclosures.

In a debate in New Hampshire, Clark said he was motivated by a conviction that "their technology will improve our security." Clark added, "I was insistent that we do so with a firm grip on the privacy issues." Morgan agreed that in board meetings and private conversations, Clark was fixated on making the best use of Acxiom's data without violating people's privacy.

"The last thing Wes wanted to see happen was for the information to be improperly used," Morgan said. "He was heavily engaged on the issue. He was interested in how to maintain separate repositories of data, walls between data sources, that could be linked on demand when authorized."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58300-2004Jan28.html


Somewhere in the DU archives are copies of Clark's lobbyist reporting. He lobbied the government for about four months and then renewed, although he did no further lobbying under the renewal. All of this was at one time posted to the Clark04 website, which is no longer active, along with his service record, financials, fundraising records, voting registration records, etc.

.........

For what it's worth, the Democratic Party itself uses Acxiom's database services:
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/expenddetail.asp?txtName=ACXIOM&Cmte=DPC&cycle=2006

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3253331&mesg_id=3258107

From Tom Rinaldo...

Do you know who Robert O'Harrow Jr. is? If not than google him. Start with this: REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST; AUTHOR, NO PLACE TO HIDE. There is no greater advocate for or writer more informed about the needs for privacy in the electronic age than he.

At a conference entitled: “NO PLACE TO HIDE: WHERE THE DATA REVOLUTION MEETS HOMELAND SECURITY”
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/0504transcript.pdf

O'Harrow said this about Wesley Clark and Acxiom:

ROBERT O’HARROW:
"...There is a guy that I think many of us in the room respect and admire deeply, General Clark, and he serves as a great example of someone who was deeply involved in representing a company called Axiom. And Axiom was one of those companies that responded with – I know that from my reporting – very patriotic motives. They had a lot of that as a marketer and they shared it and they shared it to good effect; it helped. They also saw ways that they could change their business model and become part of the security industrial complex. And one of the people that was helping open doors for Axiom in Washington was General Clark. The reason I raise that is because I kept finding that General Clark got to places before I did and people spoke admiringly of his ability to say what he knew, to say what he didn’t know, to play it straight, and to in every case do it in the smart way, which is why people respect him."

And in reply Clark said a number of very interesting things, of which I will quote just two, but the entire conference transcript is available at the link above and makes for very thought provoking reading:

"WESLEY CLARK: Well, thanks. First of all, I have read parts of this book and I followed all of Robert’s work in the Post. I think it’s good work and I am a strong believer in the fourth estate and public scrutiny and – you know, I grow up like most of this did in the ‘60s on Eisenhower’s statement about the military industrial complex, but we are in the very early stages of looking at data and security.

I respect Senator Church and what he said in 1975 and it was visionary and the results of it were that the U.S. military was barred from collecting information on U.S. citizens. It was so bad at one point that as a battalion S-3, I couldn’t get the telephone numbers of the people that worked for me because they said, “Sir, this is protected by privacy,” and, you know, when you tell the military to do something, we do it and we do really well. So we really guarded each other’s phone numbers from each other, and I don’t mean to make fun of it. I mean if this is a legitimate concern; we just have to get the balance right..."

"... WESLEY CLARK:
...Can I just say one more thing about this impulse to privacy that you’ve mentioned, Bob, because when I was doing this – and I want to say this because Nuala is here, because when the government starts working programs and it does know where they go and where they going they are always cautious because everybody knows that these programs that do data are very sensitive. Before the government could even get a grip on some of these programs, when the word comes out on them they are blasted before people even understand it. So on the one hand, I understand exactly why there is an impulse for privacy. People – companies like Axiom were told, “Look, you just can’t compete for this contract if you talk about this to the press because we don’t know what the program is and we want to have – we want to be able to –“ this is – I’m speaking for the government – “We want to be able to see what data you have available. We want to figure out if we can use it, and we don’t want to have to answer a million enquiries from the press about it until we get it done. Then we’ll run it through.

You know, my instinct on it was a little bit different than the government’s, but I didn’t have any influence on them. I mean, my instinct would have to bring in the ACLU and to say, “Please create a group that’s sort of like a trusted group that we can bounce ideas off of and we want to run these ideas by you. And if you have strong objections, we want to hear them. We want to hear them right upfront. What we ask is that you will work with us in a collaborative sense so that – you know, you tell us before you run out to the Washington Post the next day and we have got (unintelligible.)” So, you know, we are just exploring ideas. We want to try to put this together and I do think there is a need for that. There is a need for enough privacy in governmental decision-making that the government can come out with programs and then have a chance to explain them, not to take anything away from the press because that balance is a dynamic balance. It’s fought by and maintained by hardworking reporters who make a lot of phone calls and get turned down a lot, but it’s a very important public duty.

So I am not sure if the balance is right is what I am saying. I don’t know if it’s right and that is one of issues we ought to explore..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3253331&mesg_id=3257148

[draft_mario_cuomo]

98. If all that is true his position sounds kosher nt

[PurityOfEssence]

58. I wish General Norma Desmond would finally come down for his close up

so you guys would have something constructive to do.

Ready when you are, C.B. (That's MISTER DeMille, to you...)

[last_texas_dem]

106. Do you have a link to the alleged statement from Pelosi?

[UrbScotty]

107. .

:applause:

[Beaverhausen]

7. I would love to hear the current senators who are running also say this

Dodd already has, right?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. I agree. I am not sure but if he hasn't I bet Dodd will speak out soon, as will Biden

Biden is wrong on this but he is not a coward and is honest enough to openly state his position, instead of going the coward's route of remaining silent and then quietly voting at the last minute. Dodd lead last time so I am sure he will lead again, as will others not running like Kerry and Feingold.

[robinlynne]

19. Richardson too, albeit not a senator.

[sandnsea]

8. Maybe he should pressure Republicans

They're the ones blocking the timetable.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

11. We have a majority. The bottom line is we stand firm we win

If Democrats stand firm and refuse to pass a bill that does not include a timetable for withdrawal * would have no choice but to back down.

[dflprincess]

26. Yup.

If they pass a bill that he vetos then they either send the same bill back to him or let his veto stand. Either way the lack of funding becomes his fault.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. Exactly. I agree with Edwards. Send the bill back over and over again until HE caves

It was a travesty how quick Dems were to cave last time after just one veto.

[karynnj]

65. I don't think you can do this without voting it out again

Last time we had 52 on our side. Had they voted for the same bill again after Bush vetoed it, it would likely lose votes and fail. Some Senators who origninally voted for it would not be willing to get into this kind of fight.

[sampsonblk]

108. Great, then nothing happens.

Just the way we want it.

If Bush and Pelosi's roles were reversed, would Pelosi be getting any money? Hell no. Once vetoed, that funding bill would never see the light of day again if Bush were speaker. And Bush would have made that clear prior to the veto.

[sandnsea]

29. It requires a veto proof margin to support the timetable

That requires Republicans. But Edwards won't say that because he's manipulating the hard facts on this war, just the way Dean did in 2003. To say you won't vote for funding without a timeline is nothing but grandstanding if you don't call for pressure on Republicans which is where the real solution lies.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. That is false. If * has no choice but to accept a timetable he will have to do so

He can veto it 20 times but if we stand firm eventually he will cave.

The real solution is doing what Congress elected you to do. The notion that over a dozen magic Republicans are going to come to our rescue is false--and we were sold this bill of goods in the spring. Where are our Republican saviors now? :eyes:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. You're moving the goal post (DU mods, what are the rules again on calling someone a liar?)

The original issue was what would happen if Democrats stood firm. It is clear that if that happened * would lose. Whether the Blue Dogs will not cave is a completely different issue. On that, though, it is quite a stretch to think "moderate" Republicans are going to come to our rescue when fellow Democrats will not do so. There is too much made of empty labels such as "Blue Dog" at DU. The first vote on Reid-Feingold had support of all Democratic factions. Where were those precious dozen "moderate" Republicans? Where are they now? We were told they would magically see the light by September as a justification for the spring caving. Well, where are they?

As to the mods, I was under the impression it is against the rules to call someone a liar. I just want a clarification. I won't respond to his claim until the rules of the game become clear. If such comments are allowed surely a DUer has the right to respond to such attacks. There cannot be a serious standard in which you are allowed to make smears but the target is prohibited from responding to them.

[sandnsea]

44. You misquoted me, alerting on you again n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Where did I misquote you?

I can back up what I say.

Oooohh are you going to get me suspended again? :rofl:

draft_mario_cuomo (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep-11-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. That is false. If * has no choice but to accept a timetable he will have to do so

He can veto it 20 times but if we stand firm eventually he will cave.

The real solution is doing what Congress elected you to do. The notion that over a dozen magic Republicans are going to come to our rescue is false--and we were sold this bill of goods in the spring. Where are our Republican saviors now? :eyes:
"With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection."--Why Rove and co. feared Edwards the most in 2004
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep-11-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. This is a bill of goods, a lie

Bush will veto and the Blue Dogs will vote with him before they ever leave our troops without funding. The only real solution is the moderate Republicans and anybody who says different is bold-faced lieing.
Fired Up! Ready to Go!

[sandnsea]

46. I am discussing candidates n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. You should be clear about that nt

[sandnsea]

53. I'm clear that I won't be misrepresented n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Good. You shouldn't. What you said was in reply to a DUer who said what you called lying

That naturally could lead to some confusion...

[karynnj]

66. She is calling the statement a lie - not you a liar

The hypothesis is not likely to hold - for the reasons she articulated.

[spooky3]

69. Not necessarily, if they have the political will

If no bill for funding is brought forward, Bush has nothing to veto. He can be told that the choices are:

1) a funding bill with a reasonable timetable and
2) no funding bill.

The political cost of this may be that voters will perceive that the Democrats are not supporting the troops by not offering any funding bill other than one with a timetable. In this game of political "chicken" it could potentially leave the troops stranded without any funding, if Bush simply vetoes the bills. Will the Democrats be blamed for this by the voters, or will Bush? With today's lapdog media it's easy for me to see why the Dems. are concerned about they'd be portrayed and perceived. But the point is, technically, they do NOT have to have a veto-proof majority, because if there is NO funding, then there is nothing to veto.

Because the Dems. control Congress (at least the House--depends on how you view Lieberman in the Senate) the only bills that can come up for a vote at all are those that the Dems. allow for a vote.

[Mythsaje]

12. Who's allegedly in charge of congress these days?

That's who should be addressed.

[rateyes]

15. Not the adults. nt

[sandnsea]

24. The ones trying to get the votes

Which the entire Democratic Party should be echoing. But the Republicans will win again, for the very simple reason that they know how to be an echo chamber.

[harun]

118. They can't get the Blue Dogs to come around

http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070907191110516

Woolsey: Ok, here’s something. I believe that Nancy (Pelosi) is with us, and she’s counting on you guys and Barbara and Maxine and me to push from the Left in the Congress. But the people that need to hear are the moderate Democrats who are holding up the whole thing. They’re the ones who have to know that their people care, that they bring our troops home. They swear they don’t. They swear that they’ll lose their elections if they do the right thing.

Lerner: House Majority Leader Hoyer is against her, right?

Moran: Well, I don’t want to name names, but…There are members who have somewhat other agendas. Principle one is, of course, to maintain a Democratic majority in the House. We cobbled together a majority by winning in a lot of seats that tend to be conservative: in the South, in the rural Midwest, and so on. These members are very much afraid that if they get to far out front, they’re going to lose their seat, and they’re be advised to not take risks so we can sustain this majority.

I don't see how they can SWEAR they'll lost their elections when stopping this craziness was the reason they were elected. Being a Dem is hard work, jeesh.

[Mythsaje]

123. Principle one, of course, is to DO THE RIGHT THING.

If you do the right thing, keeping the majority will follow automatically. They weigh and measure and hedge everywhere they can, but people are dying for their hesitancy.

The war was a damned stupid idea, they KNEW it was a damned stupid idea, and they did it anyway. Nothing we do now can fix it, we're losing lives and money at a sickening rate, and it's no time to play politics with the fate of thousands of human beings in the balance.

They need to have a little moral fortitude.

[jillan]

13. Agreed!

[mikelgb]

16. Edwards is WRONG:

they should not submit a single funding bill. PERIOD.

no funding

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. No funding? So how do the troops get home? nt

[sampsonblk]

36. The two are completely unrelated

I hope you were kidding.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. Educate me. They need funding to redeploy, right? Can they leave overnight?

Or would they have to stay there for a while and need money during that period?

[sampsonblk]

67. No

We can fund the redeployment without funding the occupation. In fact, the Pentagon already has more than enough money to redeploy the troops if that's all it was used for. Offensive operations are sucking up the money. By comparison, a redeployment is cheap.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

87. Good points, it sounds very plausible nt

[harun]

120. It isn't like the funding is the only money they have, they have

the entire DOD budget to draw from if they need it.

[PuppyBismark]

49. It is time for the Dems to Filibuster!

Edwards is exactly correct. No bill should be let out of congress that does not have a time table for withdrawal, does not have set of concrete objectives for both the Iraqi government and our military, or does not have a requirement to find a real political solution.

If any contrary bill reaches the floor for final vote, then the Dems must FILIBUSTER! We ARE supporting the troops by getting them out. We are killing the troops by letting them stay and fight Bush's war. If there are just forty Senate patriots who believe this war must end, then those individuals must put a stop to the war. Gridlock sometimes is much better than the war.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[beachmom]

56. So is Edwards prepared to get us the 6 Republican votes for that?

I'm not saying I disagree with his sentiment. I'm just stating the facts of where we are. We have 54 votes in favor of the timetable. We need 6 to overcome a filibuster, 13 to overcome a veto. I wish it were different, but it isn't.

[jmp]

62. Why do we need to overcome a filibuster?

If Republican Senators want to cut off funding for the troops ... why stop them?

The same goes for the President. If he wants to end the war with a veto ... I'll back him 100%.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

88. We only need 51 votes to do what Edwards is calling for nt

[Catchawave]

111. We could sure use some help from....Biden, Dodd, Hil and BO

Where's our "groundpounders" in the Senate anyhow :shrug: Feingold can't do this alone :)

[harun]

119. It is simple, they simply don't fund. Then B*sh will have to appropriate

money from other DoD items to fund it. Once he is out of office they can work on the withdrawal.

They don't need 60 votes to not fund. They just don't bring it to the floor of the House or Senate. The Blue Dogs can then blame the lack of funding on the leadership (so what).

[calteacherguy]

57. Edwards is unrealistic. We simply don't have a majority to do that.

And even if we did, it's very hypocritical of him so suggest it. Edwards is our weakest candidate running. He's simply pandering to the naive.

[sampsonblk]

68. You don't need votes to do what he suggests

[draft_mario_cuomo]

81. Where were you in November of 2006? nt

[jenmito]

59. Edwards talks big when he has no responsibility...

When did he turn against the war exactly?

[waiting for hope]

76. November 2005.

[jenmito]

109. Thanks. So he started boldly speaking out against the war when he no longer had to vote on it

and the war was unpopular. That's what I thought.

[waiting for hope]

117. Let me edit -

There are other candidates that voted for the war and have yet to take a stand on their decision. Obama doesn't count - who knows how he may have voted if he were in the Senate at the time...well, I guess it could be said that it's okay for Obama to make anti war statements since he wasn't in office to do anything about it.....

Your visceral hate against Edwards is showing -

[superkia]

70. Didnt Kucinich say there was enough money authorized to start withdrawal?

I don't think they should give anymore money even with a timetable if there is already enough money authorized to start it now. I know the military complex and the corporations would love another chunk of change but is it needed? No more games, just get it done!

[waiting for hope]

75. Thanks for posting this!

He's showing leadership - something I find the other candidates lacking.

K&R!!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

89. Thank you

:) :hi:

[Nutmegger]

101. Edwards is showing true leadership skills!

R&K for Edwards.

[ripple]

110. He showed his leadership skills in 2002, as well

And led us right into Iraq.

[MadHound]

115. Hey, John, how about this

Just don't fucking submit a supplemental war funding bill and let the withdrawl timetable take care of itself. It will bring the troops home a lot quicker than dicking around with a timetable that Bushboy will stretch and strain to the point of breaking.

Defund the war, now. It is the only logical, moral and correct thing to do. Anything else is simply playing politics with peoples' lives.

[TSIAS]

116. Celebration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=201918

[CreekDog]

121. You can't submit a bill without passing it

They can only submit a bill that they already have passed and that will require the votes to pass it.

Are they there? Not quite yet.

[flpoljunkie]

122. Easy for Edwards to say, but what was his record when he was in the Senate on the IWR?

S.J.RES.46

Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 10/2/2002) Cosponsors (16)

Related Bills: H.J.RES.114, S.J.RES.45

Latest Major Action: 10/3/2002 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 630.

Note: For further action, see H.J.Res. 114, which became Public Law 107-243 on 10/16/2002.

COSPONSORS(16), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)

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

[Vidar]

124. Sounds good to me.