Edwards Gaffe at the Debate

[copithorne]

There's one thing that Edwards did at the debate that made me furious. I've brought this up in another thread, but I think it deserves its own thread.

Tom Brokaw asked Kerry a question:

"Senator Kerry, let me ask you a question. Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it."

Later, Edwards went back and volunteered that the Bush administration hadn't exaggerated the threat, that it wasn't possible to exaggerate:

"Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."

I believe that the Bush administration used the threat of terror to sell its war in Iraq. I believe it exaggerated that threat. I believe that has been proven this week. Jon Edwards is going to give the Bush administration a pass on the whole lot. He bought the exaggeration. He didn't have the judgment to see through it. So it's not an issue to him.

I was beginning to warm to Edwards, I was beginning to like him. But I get angry about this. I think Dick Cheney would be embarassed to say this. I think Condoleeza Rice was too embarassed to say this today. But not Jon Edwards.

[AP]

1. Why don't you tell us Kerry's answer to the question?

Why don't you even give us a link to the story?

[w4rma]

2. Here is the transcript. Edwards is not easy to understand, IMHO.

...
BROKAW: But in fairness, David Kay also told me the other day that he thinks now, looking back, that the two years before we went to war was the most dangerous period in Iraq in a long, long time because it was spinning out of control. Saddam Hussein was not in charge. There were people coming in and going out of the country, including well-known terrorists.

You saw the defense -- you saw the National Intelligence Estimate, Senator Edwards, as a member of the Intelligence Committee. Did you believe it when you saw it? And was that the basis for your vote, which you enthusiastically talked about when you made the vote to authorize war against Iraq?

EDWARDS: Well, it wasn't just the National Intelligence Estimate, it was a whole -- it was actually two or three years of sitting in briefings and receiving information from the Intelligence Committee, not only about the weapons issue, which is what Howard just talked about, but also about the atrocities that Saddam was committing against his own people, gassing Kurdish children in northern Iraq. And I have to say, I think it is not for the administration to get to the bottom of this. It's actually not for the Congress to get to the bottom of this. The American people, we, need to get to the bottom of this, with an independent commission that looks at -- that will have credibility and that the American people will trust, about why there is this discrepancy about what we were told and what's actually been found there.
...
BROKAW: Senator Edwards, do you think they would get enough help from our so-called Arab allies in this fight that is going on between those members of the Islamic movement who believe that we're unworthy and heathens in this country, and what the Bush administration is trying to do to close that schism that exists in too many areas?

EDWARDS: I think the answer is no, we don't get enough help in a lot of areas.

For example, the Saudi royals, who we're so dependent on Saudi Arabia for our oil, and we've not moved this country in the direction we need to go toward energy independence, which is desperately needed; cleaner, alternative sources of energy, more fuel-efficient vehicles, because we're so dependent on them for oil, the fact we don't get the cooperation we need from them.

And there's a complete disconnect between the leadership, not only in Saudi Arabia, but in a number of these Islamic countries and their people and their attitudes toward America.

Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.

I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.

And number two, the president actually has to be able to do two things at once. This president thinks his presidency is only about the war on terrorism, only about national security. Those things are critical for a commander in chief. The president of the United States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be able to do two things at the same time.
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61340-2004Jan29?language=printer

[HFishbine]

46. Oh yeah

That was the most convuluted yet insightful answer of the evening.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

3. he answered it perfectly

in my estimation. How can you exaggerate the threat of terrorism as an American after 9/11? It's impossible.

He could have been drawn into the trap, and tomorrow the headline would read "Edwards says threats of terrorism 'exaggerated'".

The key is it sounds like Edwards is making a distinction between Sept.11th and Iraq. This is crucial and it shows Edwards' accumen.

[copithorne]

4. Here's Kerry's answer

KERRY: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing...

BROKAW: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?

KERRY: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.

Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.

I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.

I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four.

That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.

And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are.

[copithorne]

7. I'm getting the transcript from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61340-2004Jan29_3.html

I saw the debate myself and my jaw dropped when I heard Edwards say this.

I find it hard to believe that there are Democrats who don't believe that George Bush has exaggerated the threat of terrorism to prosecute the war. Even if you do believe that, it would be foolish to select a candidate who cannot and will not attack this weakness of the Bush administration.

[spooky3]

9. why don't you calm down, and re-read Kerry's & Edwards' answer?

YOU are the one who is trying to reword the question into something completely different by saying, "has exaggerated the threat of terrorism TO PROSECUTE (sic) THE WAR." The question did not ask about the rationale for invading Iraq. That is a DIFFERENT question.

The quoted answers from Edwards and Kerry said NOTHING about Iraq when answering Brokaw. YOU are the one who is adding that in in order to mischaracterize their comments.

I find that very offensive.

[shance]

35. Why dont YOU calm down and give us legitimate quotes instead

oF telling us how offended you are.

If you know the truth so well, then show us.

Obviously there is something here many DUers are concerned about, including myself.

If you can REFUTE it, then do it.

If you cant then quit attacking the truth and let it stand for itself, that the candidates Edwards and Kerry have resigned and/or enabled George Bush and the Administration to enact a situation that has cost atleast 500 American lives and THOUSANDS of Iraqi lives, which many seem to conveniently dismiss, or fail to remember at all.

The more we deny the truth, the bigger it falls on ALL OF US.

[AP]

15. Yeah. Democrats are going to win with the message, "we're not

going to be as vigilant on terrorism because we think the threat has been exaggerated."

Good message.

It has less to do with Bush than it has to do with the fact that there IS a threat of terrorism every day. Bush ignored it, and that's how we got 9/11. Let's not tell the voters that we'er going to ignore it too.

[HFishbine]

47. Oh yeah

One of Kerry's better answers of the evening.

[Gadave]

5. He is trying to win SC big

SC has a lot of military voters. It's disappointing but I think I understand why.

[w4rma]

10. The military folks are over there. I think that many of them KNOW that

this thing was exagerated.

Heck I have heard from pro-War Repukes that they are happy that Bush lied to get us into Iraq.

[AP]

16. What was exaggerated? Edwards says the US confronts the

threat of terrorism every day. Bush's actions exscalate that threat.

[anti-bush]

26. The threat of Iraq was exaggerated

The threat of terrorism was not exaggerated. You know how I know? Because Iraq has never killed Americans on American soil. Terrorists like Osama Bin Laden have.

[elsiesummers]

12. Yes. A regional remark. <eom>

<eom>

[spooky3]

6. Why are you continuing this when you have already posted about it

in another thread, and others have already pointed out the weaknesses in your logic, in order to mislead people about what Edwards said? And now, you are adding on comparisons to Repugs. Are you familiar with the DU rules?

[copithorne]

8. I apologize for posting it twice

I thought it deserved its own thread, because it was really a seperate issue from the other thread.

Weakness of logic? I haven't seen that pointed out. On the contrary. The defense of the Bush administration by Jon Edwards and his supporters is profoundly illogical.

And what Edwards said is a quoted transcript. I saw the debate. The transcript is accurate.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[copithorne]

14. The quoted answer from Kerry is all about Iraq

The quoted answers from Edwards and Kerry said NOTHING about Iraq when answering Brokaw.

Kerry's entire quote is about the war in Iraq. The quote is right above, so if you read it, you can see it. I'll post it again.

"Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, number one.
Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, number two.
I mean, I -- nuclear weapons, number three.
I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, number four. "

Are these four items not referring to Iraq? Is that your contention?

That's not even the decisive part, though. Jon Edwards says that the Bush administration did not exaggerate the threat of terror. That's what he said when he voted for the war. And he's sticking to his story, even as the administration is looking for someone to pin the blame for their deadly lies.

This guy's running for President?!?! As a Democrat?!?!

[AP]

21. You can exploit the threat, but don't tell Americans that

believing there is a threat is exaggerated.

Kerry said it was a little of both -- exaggerated and unexaggerated. His examples of exaggerations were from Iraq. Edwards reminded him and us that there was aslo the unexaggerated half and that is that there IS a threat of terrorism. You only need to look at 9/11 and look at the way bush is acting which is escalating the threat.

[delhurgo]

24. Yep, between the two of them they got it exactly right.

I think Kerry's answer came very close to being a major gaffe though. There can be no exaggeration when 3000 of our fellow citizens were murdered on 911, and we still have fanatics out their that want to kill us. Kerry was talking about Iraq though, so that was pretty deft of him. He took sort of a middle ground so as not to offend anyone. That wont play in the GE though - lesson learned, I hope. I thought it was interesting that Edwards piped in to help and make sure their was no confusion. Maybe I'm making too much out of this, but it seems in the last several debates Edwards has gone out of his way to agree with Kerry. It really looks to me like he's running to be Kerry's VP.

[AP]

17. You're entitled to post twice, but if you're running from lost arguments

in the other thread, it just looks bad.

[heidler]

13. This is consistant with him saying he is happy with his vote for war.

Edwards is IMHO one step worse than Lieberman who likes his vote on War, but don't like the way Bush is carrying out the war. In Edwards case he likes his vote and thinks Bush did the right thing. If anybody is unelectable that pair exemplifies them.

[AP]

18. Practice your arguments for why this vote removes the issue

of national security from the GE when it's Edwards v. Bush.

[Egnever]

19. Yea baby a whole thread full of democratic apologists for bush!

No wonder we are gonna get saddled with Kerry. I have bever seen such a weak kneed bunch in my life.

Cantt over exagerate terorism my ass!

[AP]

22. How is saying that Bush's actions are escalating terror threat an...

apology for Bush?

It was an idictment of Bush which Kerry should have taken the time to point out.

You can spin this any way you want if you don't like Edwards. But it is intellectually dishonest to deny that Edwards's statement makes sense.

[Sam Lowry]

20. You're wrong

Bush may have exaggerated the threat from Iraq, but the threat of terrorism can't be overstated. Do so at your own risk.

[Lex]

23. You missed the point

and that is why you are upset.

You said "I believe that the Bush administration used the threat of terror to sell its war in Iraq."

That is not what Edwards was referring to.

Edwards was referring to the threat of terror being something we can never take lightly again. Witness the Sept. 11th attack.

I don't find anything offensive about that answer. Once you put all your sping on it, of course you are getting yourself upset.

But you missed the point of what he was saying by spinning it that way.

[copithorne]

27. I don't really follow.

The question was "Did the Bush Administration exaggerate the threat of terror." Jon Edwards volunteers that the answer is no. It's not possible to exaggerate the threat.

AP says he wants to remove the issue of National security from the table. If you think that George Bush did not exaggerate the threat of terror and you don't want to bring the subject up again in the election, it makes sense that Jon Edwards is your guy.

I see a world of difference between what Jon Edwards is saying and what my preferred candidate, Wesley Clark said in the debate:

"But I want to go back to the question you raised a minute ago about Iraq, because I heard from the Pentagon two weeks after 9/11 that the administration was determined to go into Iraq, whether or not there was any connection with 9/11; that they were going to use it as a pretext for invading Iraq.

And that was common knowledge in Washington. There should never have been a congressional authorization for the president to have a blank check to take this country to war, because everybody knew that's what he intended to do. And they knew what the timetable was. It was a politically motivated timetable to go in the 30th of March, just like this 30th of June date. / We've got to change this government.

...This administration did not have its priorities right, and the president, not the intelligence community, and not the previous administration, President George W. Bush must be held accountable for that. That's the job of the president of the United States: to focus attention, to set the priorities, to take the actions to keep America safe. "

Wesley Clark isn't delegating responsibility to an independent commission to investigate. He will assert who is responsible as an expression of his own leadership. He will hold them accountable as an expression of his own leadership. He will confront George Bush on national security, not "take it off the table."

[Lex]

49. Sorry you can't follow

But it's really very simple:

The threat of terrorism isn't just about Bush's hyping Iraq.

There is a threat of terrorism against us which stands apart from that, i.e. 9/11. And that must be taken seriously.

[anti-bush]

25. I can't believe you haven't figured this out yet

The threat of terror does not equal Iraq. Have you heard this before?

Bush used the war on terror to attack Iraq. Does that mean that the threat of terror is overexaggerated? No. We could still be attacked by terrorists again, regardless of what is going on in Iraq. This just means that Bush justified his attack of Iraq using a real threat from an unlinked problem.

But for some reason, I don't think you'll get this. Let me explain a different way.

Imagine that Bush said the reason he was attacking Iraq was because our schools were underfunded. Then Brokaw asks Kerry "Are our schools really underfunded, or is that an overexaggeration?" Then Edwards replies "It is not an overexaggeration about our schools when we have kids who can't read or write." Is Edwards justifying the war in Iraq? No. He is answering the quetion about exaggeration, without mentioning the war in Iraq.

Now translate that back to the question about terror, and you'll see the fault in your logic.

[copithorne]

29. Brokaw didn't ask that question

He asked, "Did the Bush administration exaggerate..."

Now translate that back to the question about terror, and you'll see the fault in your logic. In your example, there isn't any subject in the second sentence. It's like you saying, "Bush exaggerated the threat of terror to attack Iraq. Does that mean the threat of terror was exaggerated?"

Um. Yes. It does. George Bush exaggerated it.

Do you believe that the Bush administration did not exaggerate the threat? If that's what you believe, then Jon Edwards is your guy. If you don't want to bring up this war business again because everybody loves war, then Jon Edwards is your guy.

[anti-bush]

32. No.

Brokaw didn't mention Iraq. Terrorism is not the same as Iraq. Edwards didn't mention Iraq.

Can you not separate the two?

[copithorne]

33. That's not how John Kerry understood the question.

You don't think that George Bush used the threat of terror to sell the war in Iraq? I do.

John Kerry thought so too.

John Kerry understood the question as involving Iraq and cited four specific examples of how the Bush administration exaggerated the threat of terror to advance the war in Iraq.

Even if you could rearrange the way the political debate has been happening in the past year and seperate the two, it wouldn't matter.

The question was not about the threat of terror. The question was about the behavior of the Bush Administration. Jon Edwards apologized for the Bush administration. He will not hold them accountable.

[anti-bush]

36. Maybe John Kerry misunderstood the question

George Bush MISused the threat of terrorism to sell the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean that the threat of terrorism is overexaggerated.

John Edwards understood the question as involving the security of the United States. Edwards answered the question as it was asked.

Have you not heard the candidates all stating for the past year that there was no link between terrorists and Iraq? Obviously he is able to separate the two.

The question was not about the behavior of the Bush administration. The question was about the Carnegie Institute of Peace's perception of the actual threat posed by terrorists as opposed to Bush and Co.'s perceived threat level. John Edwards thinks the threat level is higher than the Carnegie Institute for Peace does.

[copithorne]

39. If you look at the question again...

When you talk about the threat of terrorism being exagerrated you have to bring it back to a sentence with a subject. A person can exaggerate. Exaggeration doesn't happen in the passive voice.

I don't exaggerate the threat of terrorism. Maybe you don't either. George Bush exaggerated the threat of terrorism. Jon Edwards exaggerated the threat of terrorism when he said last year we needed to start a war against Iraq to protect us from their nuclear weapons.

The question, if you go back and read it, was about the European perception that the Bush administration had exagerrated the threat of terrorism and whether that perception was correct or not. It does appear at the beginning of the thread. So, maybe you mean to say that Jon Edwards did not answer the question as it was asked and I shouldn't be so literal.

And, as friendly as I can say it, "overexaggerate" is not a word. It's a redundancy. It's enough to say exaggerate.

[anti-bush]

40. I looked again

In no way shape or form does Iraq get mentioned in the question. For all I know he could be talking about the war in Afghanistan.

"Jon Edwards exaggerated the threat of terrorism when he said last year we needed to start a war against Iraq to protect us from their nuclear weapons."

First of all, if John (there is an 'h' in his name) Edwards had said we needed to start a war against North Korea to protect us from their nuclear weapons, would this be exaggerating the threat of terrorism? No. A state sponsored nuclear weapons program is not the same thing as terrorism. Separate the two things in your mind.

Edwards was talking about terrorism, not Iraq.

[sleipnir]

28. Hummm....Pro-war, Bush enabler, thanks again Mr. Edwards

What do you expect from a man who "loves" GWB's policies and wars??

He's no good and he'll never get my vote or support. I can only hope Edwards fades into the background with the blood of thousands of people on his hands. Perhaps a trial will be in his future? At the Hague?

[economic justice]

30. Edwards is right!

How can the threat of terrorism be overstated??? Where were you on 9-11-01??? If you expected John Edwards to say that the terrorist threat is somehow not real......not gonna happen. Bush played fast and loose with the truth to engage this country in Iraq, no question about it. But exaggerated the threat of terrorism? Nope.

[copithorne]

31. How to overstate the threat of terrorism?

It's not difficult.

You could say that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. You could say that he was a threat to the United States.
You could say that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were working together.
All these ideas have proven to overstate the threat of terrorism.

All of them were expressed by Jon Edwards himself -- so he overstated too. If he's apologized, I haven't heard it. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and thought he learned something in the past year. From the debate performance, I understand he has not.

I don't expect Jon Edwards to say that the terrorist threat is somehow not real. I expected him to NOT sign a blank check to the Bush administration to do whatever it wants whenever they mention the word 'terror' which is what your logic supports.

[anti-bush]

34. How to state the threat of terrorism

It's not difficult.

You could say that terrorists bombed the USS Cole.

You could say that terrorists bombed the World Trade Center.

You could say that terrorists bombed the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

You could say that terrorists flew two airplanes into the World Trade Center buildings and killed thousands of Americans.

And then ask yourself if the threat of terrorists is overexaggerated. If you think it is, then John Edwards might not be your candidate.

If you think that the threat of terrorists is a real threat, then you should be able to distinguish between the threat of terrorists, and the threat of Saddam Hussein. If Brokaw asks you if the threat of terrorism is overexaggerated, point to all these atrocities, and say no.

[copithorne]

37. anti-bush!

All those things you said are true! That's not overstating the threat of terror! You are correct that it is not difficult to state the threat of terror.

Once again, overstating the threat of terror would look like:

"Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction."
"Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States."
"Saddam Hussein is in close alliance with Al Qaeda."
"Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons."
"If we don't act, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud."

It would be good for me to get real quotes here, but we probably all have our favorites.

Because those things were said, then it is true to say that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated. It was exaggerated by George Bush. Honestly, and it pains me to say this, it was also exaggerated by Jon Edwards. I saw him exaggerate it last year at the California Democratic Covention and I'll talk about that more later.

[anti-bush]

38. All right this is silly

Neither of us is going to convince the other.

Can we agree on these things:

1. Edwards was obviously talking about terrorists as in Osama Bin Laden.

2. Kerry was obviously talking about Iraq.

3. Bush definitely misused the threat of terror.


As long as we agree about those 3 things, then the rest of the argument is pointless.

[copithorne]

54. Not to me.

No, I still think this reflects badly on Edwards' judgment.

You can agree on all those things -- and #1 is just speculation as far as I'm concerned. It's not supported by the text -- just your interpretation.

And still, it was clear from last night's debate, and this answer in particular, that Jon Edwards will not hold George Bush accountable for the mistakes and lies that led up to the war. He will not because he believed them and repeated them himself.

And to Edwards' supporters this seems to be a virtue because they see the war as so popular that it is good strategy to just try to sweep it under the rug. If this reflects your beliefs and your approach to politics, then Jon Edwards is a good candidate for you.

I don't think a person with that kind of disrespect for the lives of American soldiers should be allowed near the White House.

[cryofan]

42. Oh, puh-leeze! 5000 people die every day in America from cancer,

....heart disease, old age, etc. If you want to stop that much bigger threat, pull out of Iraq, and put that Iraq money into basic medical research.....

[annagull]

41. He lost some points with me on that one

also his answers on NAFTA were completely lacking, Not a good showing from him tonite,,

[Cheswick2.0]

43. Edwards is either hopelessly conservative

Or hopelessly stupid. The third option is that he voted for the war and he doesn't want to get caught trying to be on all sides of the issue the way Kerry has been.
He is toast in my book. By that I mean he is now another candidate I will not vote for in November. That list is Kerry, Edward and Lieberman so far. While I am not at all happy with the idea of Clark, he might actually have a chance at persuading me.

[AP]

53. or people who don't understand are hopelessly spinning...

...or wilfully ignorant.

[dusty64]

44. What makes one think

this was a gaffe. Seems to me he is telling the truth and thats a perfect example of why I don't support him. If I wanted a continuation of these insane policies I might as well keep the extremists in who created them.

[jenk]

45. maybe Edwards should've floated some conspiracy theory instead

seeing as how it's worked wonders for Clark

[ShaneGR]

48. REPEAT AFTER ME: SOUTH CAROLINA

Tell SC Dems you think the war on terrorism is no big deal and an exaggeration. See how well you do.

[BootinUp]

50. It'll play well with the pundits and the mega-media though n/t

[Justice]

51. Question Was Muddy - Edwards/Kerry Didn't Clarify Answer

The question was muddy, intentionally muddy IMO.

First of all, I don't think anyone accuses Bush of "overexaggerating the war on terror" - we acknowledge it exists, but disagree how to fight the war. That is one clarification that should have been made -which leads into Bush's failure to prioritize the issues, his failure to complete the fight against Bin Laden.

It is stressed to the exclusion of other issues, as Edwards said - Bush needs to walk and chew gum at the same time - but that means he needs to pay as much attention to domestic issues as he does to the war on terror.

The overexaggerating really applies IMO only to Iraq.

I don't think the answers of Kerry or Edwards were crisp in that they perpetuated the muddiness. IMO if either is on the ticket, their answers on this question will be used against them (and coupled with their votes on the IWR) to show that their criticisms of Bush are merely political.

[Hep]

52. They asked Edwards a question several months ago that he never answered

They asked him how he would keep medicare solvent if it continues to grow at the rate it is cuurently growing. He immediately changed the subject. This was amidst all the attacks on Dean for being willing TEN YEARS AGO to manage the growth. As was the trend a few months ago, they attacked Dean with NO solutions. No viable alternatives. No real understanding of the issue.

And they got away with it. Because they're either handsome or veterans.

[AP]

55. did he change the subject to a question that was

able to for fully address why he was running? I remember there was one debate where they gave meaty questions to other candidates, then watered down Edwards's questions, so he'd answer them in a sentence, and then go back and address the much bigger issues other candidates were allowed to address in their answers.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[On the Road]

57. I Understand Edwards's Desire

not to lose votes in the South by being anti-Iraq-war.

But he embraces Bush's positions so eagerly on Iraq, terror, and similar issues that he just loses me. As far as I can tell, what he's saying is that he would have done exactly the same thing if he were president.

This is a big, big problem -- not just with me, but with a lot of the Democratic base. And Edwards does not seem to understand that. By comparison, Kerry's waffling and parsing seems like a much better strategy.

[copithorne]

58. I keep thinking of Monty Python & The Holy Grail

John Cleese gets a message saying there is a damsel in distress in the tower of a castle.

He storms the castle, slaughters his way into the main tower hacking and stabbing, and finds a man who really should be able to take care of himself.

He apologizes profusely to the Lord of the Castle, who, upon learning that he is a Knight in the King's Court, presses him to marry his daughter.

The King and the Knight return to the castle square to see pools of blood with dead and maimed people everywhere.

The King announces the engagement.

"But he killed the bride's maid" someone cry's

"Let's not get into petty arguments," the King says, "about who killed who, or who stabbed who. This should be a happy occasion!"

The war supporters are in this grimly ridiculous position unless they repent. In last night's debate, that included John Edwards.