Advisers made Edwards support the war (what about sponsoring the IWR then?)

[The Count]

Edwards Was Advised To Back War, Book Says
Democratic Presidential Candidate Now Says He Was Wrong To Vote To Authorize Attack On Iraq
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/13/politics/main2564285.shtml






WASHINGTON, March 13, 2007
A new book says former Sen. John Edwards, who is running for president, was pushed into supporting the Iraq war while in the Senate by advisers focused on his political future. (AP / file)


(AP) Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.

Edwards spokesman David Ginsberg disputes the suggestion that Edwards was making a political calculation with the 2002 vote that he has called the most important of his career.

"John Edwards cast his vote based on the advice of national security advisers and the intelligence he was given, not political advisers," Ginsberg said. "He got political advice on both sides of the argument, and made his own decision based on what he thought was right, not political calculation."

OK, so the vote was bad advice, but then what about...

SPONSORING IWR??????

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P
and what about all that enthusiasm in following the advice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244

[Mass]

1. I scratched my head reading this. Is Shrum trying to help Edwards?

Because it really makes Edwards look bad. Aside from the obvious question of co-sponsoring, Shrum is basically saying Edwards voted for a bill that could lead to war on political calculations.

No wonder Edwards says it is not how it happened.

[The Count]

2. yeah, I wondered too what the purpose was here. There's no good way of

getting out of this one. There are only 2 options: craven or dumb. Which do we prefer in a candidate?

[GreenArrow]

11. why not two for the price of one?

Craven and Dumb all for one low price!

Not that I think Edwards is dumb; I just don't think he's a smart as he and his supporters think he is, and on this issue, craven may be worse than dumb. I certainly don't believe John Edwards is dumb enough to have believed all the obvious lies used to sell this war, lies in fact, which he helped sell.

It always helps so much when there is someone to blame -- bad intelligence, the Clinton people, advisors...it makes things ever so much easier when you later have to apologize for your wrong vote.

Funny, funny stuff. Hilarious, even.

[EVDebs]

15. IWR vote 77-23 in Senate...Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 goes a way into explanation

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12634250/

John didn't act alone it seems. However, the Clinton era Iraq Liberation Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

""The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives<2> and by unanimous consent in the Senate.<3> US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets."

This may explain why many continued to 'go along with the program' as the military likes to put things. Passage by unanimous consent in the Senate also at that time. Don't look for angels on earth and even our heroes have feet of clay. I hold Edwards in higher regard because he has admitted his mistake. What Clinton dynasty folks want to do is keep people mired in the past. And Iraq.

Time to move on and get out of the Middle East and on to a oil free future.

And maybe the unspoken DoD plans from '73 had a hand in all this and no one told Edwards or the other 77 that "Saudi Arabia" had been crossed off and "Iraq" substituted:

Document reveals Nixon plan to seize Arab oil fields
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

""...if Edwards had followed his instincts..." Indeed, good instincts. This thread helps Edwards immensely if you dig into it ! I hope that if Edwards and the other 77 IWR votes in the Senate had knowledge of this planning to seize oil fields that they would have been pressing for alternative fuels while in the Senate. Hey ! Edwards was. Shucky darn.

[The Count]

16. How did his instincts lead to his sponsoring IWR? And an amendment with Joe?

(no one else went on THAT one) How much are we going to twist the truth?

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how
you would have been different in president if you had been in office
the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

[GreenArrow]

19. it goes back farther than Iraq LIberation Act

See the "Carter Doctrine" for another relatively recent example of US foreign policy thinking in that area. It's really not enough (for me, anyway) that Edwards apologizes for his "vote". He has yet to apologize to A) the people who have been most dramatically and immediately effected by this war, namely, the people of Iraq, a country which had done nothing to provoke us, which had no connections to 911, and which offered us no immediate threat -- who is the wronged party here, us or them? -- and B) those varying people who were correct in their assesment about the war and whose voices are as conspicuously absent and minimized in conversations about what we should now do in Iraq as they were in the arguement about invading and occupying the place to begin with.

Additionaly, the war was of questionable Constitutionality, of questionable international legality, and just plain morally lacking. A vote in favor of IWR wasn't a simple mistake like spilling a glass of milk or typing in a 6 when you meant a 7; rather, it was presumably the product of careful deliberation, rigourous fact-finding, and balanced fair and reasonable judgements. The writing was on the wall at the time of the vote. If some, if many, went along with the invasion in keeping with long term US foreign policy goals, some others went along with it with personal political ambitions in mind. It's interesting to note how many of the Democratic Senators who voted aye on IWR, later ended up having Presidential aspirations. There are at least four in the current race, and the previous election saw us treated to the spectacle of a Democratic ticket with not one, but two Senators who had voted in favor of it. The only exception I can think of is Bob Graham, who did vote against it, who did toy with a run for the Oval Office, and curiously, who headed the Intelligence Commitee on which Edwards sat, a commitee whose Democratic members, at least those with no Presidential ambitions, ended up voting against IWR.

The issue is less about our heroes (and I certainly don't look at Edwards as one, or pol-lie-ticians in general, for that matter) having clay feet, but more about the direction this country needs to take. We benefit little from apologists for the same old imperialist world view, who offer up cynical self-serving "apologies" when their calculations go astray, and it ought to be clear that if things had gone better in Iraq, Edwards would not be "apologizing" for his "vote" but instead, trumpeting his foreign policy acumen, either way ignoring the moral vacuity exposed by his vote in support of a preventive war. While it's plainly unhelpful (that's being generous) that Edwards voted for IWR, his feeble judgement there is compounded by his co-sponsorship of it and his vocal support of it; his Washington Post op-ed in favor of an aye vote was so well recieved by the Bush administration that the State Department ran it on its web-site.

Given a "mistake" of this magnitude, one might think that honor and shame would rule out further ambitions on the part of those making the mistake, but it's sadly reflective of the political climate that two of the top three Democratic candidates have this indelible IWR blot on them, and it seems to raise not even a ripple of disgust.

[GreenArrow]

55. I intended to add

""...if Edwards had followed his instincts..." Indeed, good instincts. This thread helps Edwards immensely if you dig into it ! I hope that if Edwards and the other 77 IWR votes in the Senate had knowledge of this planning to seize oil fields that they would have been pressing for alternative fuels while in the Senate. Hey ! Edwards was. Shucky darn."

If one considers that the Senators were likely cognizant of the "Iraq Liberation Act" and the Cold-War era "Carter Doctrine", which gives stress to our "vital interests" in the Persian Gulf, then one might reasonably assume that the Senators understood well enough the "vital interests" to be control of Iraqi, and more broadly, Middle East oil supplies. I think few of them, regardless of whether they voted aye or nay, disagreed with the ends, though those voting nay at least disagreed with the means.

[The Count]

17. he wouldn't have changed his vote even if no WMD info available:

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/


Instincts my foot!

[venable]

54. read it again, if you think this looks bad for Edwards

- he denies this meeting ever took place, and Elizabeth Edwards confirms this on DailyKos
- he takes full responsibility, so drop calling him craven
- the bogus co-sponsorhip charge is disingenuous and pointless. He had one vote. his cosponsorship is a meaningless charge. one vote. one vote.
that's all. quit harping on this redundancy as if it's something new.

and green arrow, there is nothing funny about this if you're older than 12.

[Milo_Bloom]

56. You are right, the vote alone disqualified him for higher office.

Whether he co-sponsored the bill or not is of no import. Just voting for the IWR disqualfied him for higher office. A mea culpa 5 years later doesn't change his baffling lack of judgment.

[venable]

72. at least that's honest

that's your opinion, and at least you're not acting like the co-sponsorship is a SEPARATE mistake.

I disagree with your assessment, but appreciate your rationality regarding the accusations.

[Czolgosz]

23. You act as if it was Edwards saying this. It isn't. It's self-aggrandizement from a former adviser

[Czolgosz]

22. Shrum is trying to help Shrum

[wyldwolf]

3. Yeah - saw this story yesterday.

Strange thing, huh? Quite possible Edwards is "planting" this story to further distance himself from his IWR vote. If I were writing the political script, it would go like this:

Edwards has Shrum tell this story to create doubt in people's minds. "Hmmm... Edward was REALLY against the IWR from the start but was strong armed into the vote by those evil Democratic strategists!"

Then Edwards has his spokesman deny the charge: "Edwards cast that vote based on intelligence reports, and not because of evil Democratic strategists..."

The desired result? "Ah ha! Edwards IS anti-war, his evil Democratic strategist tricked him into making that vote. But Edwards saying it didn't happen that way so he won't appear too weak on National Security! But we know NOW! It's them evil Democratic strategists... I bet Carville had a hand in it, too!"

The rebuttal: "Well... could Edwards really be that dumb to be fooled by an evil Democratic strategist then claim to have been fooled by evil doctored intelligence reports?"

The reply to that: Why are you bashing Edwards????

[The Count]

4. And the Count with the perpetual: what about sponsoring IWR?????

But, I think you're on to something there.

[Adelante]

7. Heh - the reply to everything

Why are you bashing Edwards????

[EVDebs]

82. When Sen Warner (R-VA) wants to revisit the IWR...bashing Edwards seems dumb

Read the IWR language, and the Sept AUMF of 2001 also for that matter, since each AUMF (the IWR is an AUMF also) has the language "...at his determination..." meaning Bush gets to determine EVERYTHING.

This is clearly in violation of the '73 War Powers Resolution, which requires "clear" "circumstances" and "situations"

Play the YouTube piece What's So Funny
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0TnqUlB4Gg

Those laughing are the 'journalists' or should I say stenographers who are the ones most culpable. Edwards was being reeled in just like the others on the intelligence committees.

[BeyondGeography]

5. Edwards spin: I'm not the decider

Good luck with that.

[Czolgosz]

25. THIS IS NOT EDWARDS'S "SPIN". This is simply an ex-adviser exaggerating his role, no more.

[seasat]

6. If Bob Shrum was an advisor that explains a lot.

Shrum seems to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. No Democrat should hire him and Donna Brazile.

[htuttle]

8. His advisors *made* him support it? What were they -- Sith Lords?

[Czolgosz]

28. No one but the adviser says "his advisors *made* him support" anything. Take it will a ton of salt.

[A Simple Game]

9. Edwards supported the IWR for political reasons?

My, my, what will the Hillary bashers say?

[Sparkly]

10. Yet a president inexperienced in foreign policy is okay if they have lots of advisors....

Or so it's been said. :shrug:

[ecstatic]

12. wow. nail meet coffin. I'm not sure who thought this approach

to explaining his vote would be a good idea, but it failed. Miserably. He should have left well enough (for the masses) alone.

[SaveElmer]

13. I like Edwards...but this just makes him look weak, like he can't speak for himself...

IF his IWR vote was as politically motivated as claimed, well then his apology is certainly warranted, but does cast alot of doubt on his effectiveness as a Senator...

And if it was not, then he has nothing to apologize for and doing so indicates he won't stand by his own judgment...and that he simply knuckled under to the "apology now" crowd for political reasons...which also makes him look weak...

[NDP]

14. Actually, it doesn't. Every Senator has "advisors." This goes right along with what Edwards has

been saying, recently.

1) He doesn't listen to consultants any more.
2) He was getting advice from former members of the Clinton administration.
3) He struggled with the decision to give "this President" the authority to go to Iraq.

If anything, what Shrum says just proves exactly what Edwards has been saying, and Edwards has learned his lesson. Of course, if you support someone else, you're going to say something as foolish as you just did. I expect it from Republicans as well.

I saw this as "good news." I'd much rather that Edwards "struggled with the decision" than to believe that he was all for giving Bush the authority. All "Presidents" over the course of their terms get bad advice, and screw some things up, so Edwards did his while he was in the Senate. He's learned his lesson.

[The Count]

18. So, then, threatening Iran was his very own idea? No scape goats for that one?

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

In a speech at a conference in Herzliya, Israel, former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down."

[venable]

21. Shrum is not telling the truth

the meeting he describes never happened, I'm told.

the meeting where Edwards made his decision was with two former NSC people, and it was made in conjunction with a meeting Edwards had with Tenet. Edwards made his decision on national security considerations, that, sadly, were based on faulty intel.

Shrum was once on the Edwards campaign. He then was no longer. The reason for this split goes a long way toward explaining why Shrum is writing this stuff now.

Shrum had been very influential in getting Edwards elected to the Senate. In terms of a national campaign, they decided to go elsewhere. that's my understanding of it, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong.

As far as this giggling harping on his co-sponsorship - if you believe that the nation is at peril, you vote yes for the IWR. Further, if you believe the nation is at peril, you put forth legislation to protect it. This is one action, not two. Keep harping on the co-sponsorship as if it was some sort of UBER-Vote. It's not. It's one vote, taking one position.

He was wrong once. Not twice.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. What about the Levin amendment?

What excuse does Edwards have for voting against the Levin Amendment?

[venable]

37. he is not making excuses

he was wrong. ONE TIME, which had three, at least, iterations: IWR vote, IWR co-sponsorship, vote against Levin amendment.

He was wrong. He said he was wrong.

He made ONE mistake, and that was in support of the war and attendant Executive Branch powers. They are all the same ONE mistake.

It is not completely honest to separate the mistakes as a series.

If a pitcher beans a batter, he has done one thing wrong. You don't ask him to explain his wind-up, the speed he threw with, his aim, the success of his aim....no, you don't because he did ONE thing wrong, not a sequence of separate wrongs.

This is a red herring. I wish he had acted the opposite of what he did do, and I wished it then. but this is a red herring.

[Milo_Bloom]

53. Many more than one mistake

This is just one of his mistakes... This particular "mistake" (more like incredibly poor judgement) happened to directly lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of people. If you really want to list his mistakes, you can add in his support of the Patriot act, his support of the bankrupcy bill.

This mistake, however, alone, is such an agregious error in judgement that it warrants completely an utter dismisal of him as a viable candidate for office.

In the case of a pitcher, if a pitcher threw a ball directly at a batter's head, while that batter was warming up, before he put on his helment, and killed him... that would be the end of that pitchers career and Edwards "one tiny little mistake" should be the end of his... as it will.

[venable]

73. please explain who said it was a 'tiny little mistake'

it is not fair to suggest that edwards supporters make light of the war, any more than Edwards does.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. Guess sarcasm is lost on you.

I was mocking your use of ONE mistake over and over again, because it deserved to be mocked, just as Edwards deserved to lose his career for his ONE mistake.

[venable]

85. yes, the sarcasm was lost on me

because I thought this was an honest argument.

my mistake.

[Milo_Bloom]

87. Honesty and sarcasm are NOT mutually exclusive.

Or don't you get the Colbert Report either?

[venable]

90. oh, dear

let's not have this discussion.

best to go our separate ways.

[Milo_Bloom]

92. I plan on making sure Edwards is exposed for what he is...

If you choose to respond, that is up to you, but I am going to keep making sure that people realize how dishonest and insincere this man is and the potential consequences of nominating him (losing millions of Democratic votes to a potential third party), because that is what will happen if a IWR voting democrat is nominated.

[venable]

95. I believe you are quite wrong about what would happen if Edwards got the nomination

I believe he is the strongest choice to win in 08.

I guess we disagree.

fire away.

[Milo_Bloom]

97. Need only look at DU for your answer.

I personally know very few who would consider voting for Edwards in the General. (actually, I personally know none) If, god forbid, nominated, I will hybernate in DU and work as hard as possible to make sure he isn't elected, because I feel he is a dangerous person to have in the White House representing the Democratic Party.

[venable]

101. wow

you need to get out more. Edwards leading in Iowa, Ohio, in some polls in Nevada, SC, and close in NH.

You may have your work cut out for yourself.

let me just go on record as saying that I will work endlessly to get any democrat elected, other than Lieberman.

we differ, I guess.

I hope you are happy with the republican nominee, if edwards gets the dem nod.

shheessh.

[Milo_Bloom]

102. Denial... its fun to swim in it.

Not too worried about Edwards.. He has little to no chance of winning the nomination, despite what one poll says. The majority of polls show him far enough behind as to be inconsequential to the process at this point.

But, thinking long term, yes, I believe Edwards would be a dangerous person to have in the white house representing the democrats and would ensure long term republican rule following his term.

I would rather think long term good, than put someone like Edwards in the white house.

However, reality is that if Edwards, Clinton or any of their ilk get nominated, you will see a strong 3rd party emmerge. I suspect a democratic candidate like them will place 3rd in a general election.

[venable]

104. disagree

happily and in full recognition of reality.

ciao ciao

[Milo_Bloom]

106. Facts say otherwise.

But keep on swimming in that river.

[venable]

112. who is delusional, who is in denial?

if you think tht the base doesn't go for Edwards, check out today's poll in DailyKos, which Edwards leads.

denial, my eye.

maybe it's not Edwards who is delusional.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. You and you

Keep swimming in the river.

[venable]

114. Well, I'm afraid it's actually you...

as you declare that not a single Democrat wants Edwards (delusional),

and you fail to respond to the fact that he leads handsomely in Iowa, and as of this week, has a commanding lead in the DailyKos poll (denial)

I don't expect you will have an answer for this, save your bitter chest-thumping (ie, "I will make sure he doesn't get the nomination" or some such embarassment).

I would add 'dangerous' to the adjectives, as you have for Edwards, but I don't think you are, frankly.

[Milo_Bloom]

115. Lie Much?

"as you declare that not a single Democrat wants Edwards (delusional), "

Never said it or implied it.

"and you fail to respond to the fact that he leads handsomely in Iowa, and as of this week, has a commanding lead in the DailyKos poll (denial)"

First part is a lie. Second part is meaningless, especially since they left potential candidates off the list.

Keep swimming in that river. Its gonna keep getting deeper.

Edwards WILL NOT be president. Take that to the bank.

[eddy51]

103. Iowa view

I agree. He has the best chance to win the national election, and we must win. We can work on the details later. Way too important to let a disagreement on one issue let the Rep. continue their hold on this country. I believe Edwards is running well in Iowa. Just got the HealthCare cd today.

[Cameron27]

30. Who told you that?

[venable]

40. People who would know

and I do sincerely apologize that I can't be any more specific than that. I understand if my answer is inadequate, but I will say that I've been a supporter of Edwards for a long time, and was adamantly hoping he would take a different stand on the war and the IWR vote, and have, whenever possible, pursued the causes and rationales with those in the campaign. It is through such pursuit that I know this.

You know, I could even be wrong, but I don't think I am. I believe what I've been told.

And I don't want to stir up anything between Shrum and the Edwards people, but I do know that the departure was amicable but not necessarily COMPLETELY mutually decided. I'm getting in over my head right about now, because I don't know quite enough to make absolute assurances, this is just what I've garnered from miscellaneous tidbits over the last few years.

I'm an interested party and a supporter, so I catch things in the air, and hope that they are somewhat accurate.

I don't think that Shrum would be out to hurt Edwards, but I don't know where this is coming from. It is not the way I've understood that the vote came about. It had much more to do with Tenet and former NSC people who were advising Edwards.

It was not a political decision, it was a national security judgement, later proven to be tragically wrong.

[NDP]

32. I could equally post the other things that Edwards has said about Iran that have zero to do

with war.

Apparently you have made up your mind what you want to believe.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2907095

[venable]

48. Count, are you not paying attention, or is this willful?

Do a bit of research regarding Edwards on Iran, and you'll see that he has perhaps the most enlightened view of all candidates.

He is very clear about the power structure in Iran and the fact that Ahmadinejad has no authority, and that the Imams have declared nuclear weapons un-Islamic.

He has proposed a non-aggression pact with Iran.

He has stated numerous times how disastrous, in many ways, an attack would be.

Try to keep up.

Unless this is willful disregard of the truth.

[Jai4WKC08]

109. It' hard to keep up

When Edwards changes what he says depending on the audience.

When he's talking to AIPAC and Likudniks, he said "under NO circumstances" can Iran be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. That clearly means the military option is a likely course of action, and not just a bargaining chip. In fact, it effectively makes the military option a certainty, because once a president commits to something like that, he or she cannot back down.

When he's talking to prospective primary voters, he talks about diplomacy and how horrible armed conflict would be, and neglects to even mention the alternative of a nuclear Iran.

It's not that his statements are contradictory exactly. But his tone and emphasis sure are. It ain't by accident. It's because he's telling people what they want to hear. It's politics as usual.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Shrum is a liar. Maybe he is lying about this, or maybe he is mistaken. I don't know. But until someone who should know comes forward and gets him to back down, what I know is this. When the war was politically popular, Edwards was all for it. Even tho he had access to the exact same intelligence as Bob Graham, who voted against the war. He co-sponsored the IWR and voted against the Levin amendment. But now that the polls show most people think the war was a mistake, so does Edwards.

It's not like this is the only issue about which Edwards has said one thing at one time, and another some other time. Or when his words don't match his actions.

[Cameron27]

20. He struggled so much that

he didn't just vote for it, he co-sponsored it?

Take a look at the list of co-sponsors for that resolution.

[karynnj]

27. The problem is that he was running for President throughout

2003 and early 2004. Throughout that time, he spoke to many crowds and on talk shows etc. the fact of the matter is that other than Leiberman, he was more gungho on the war than most of the other candidates. Those appearances are still remembered by some people and some are either on tape or were reported on at that point in time.

The fact is that for at least 6 months after the war started, he spoke about how he thought it was the right thing to do - even if there were no WMD. He also was a co-sponsor to the legislation - there is NO hint that this was a tough vote for him and he voted against all the amendments - such as the Durbin amendment that would have restricted the reason to just WMD.

I already had a problem because he has said that at the time he voted he believed there were WMD and he never believed there no WMD.

Also, he is now claiming that he voted against the $87 billion because he had problems with the war. In 2004, he said he voted as Kerry did for the Biden version of the bill which paid for it with tax cut rollbacks, then against it when that failed and there was a bill that just increased the deficit. As he voted Yes, then No within a week - the 2004 explanation is likely the truth. That vote was around the same time as the October Hardball interview where he was still for the war.

Edwards did in November 2005 say that he was wrong. That admission put him in a better place than Hillary who is still avoiding that admission. Having said that, I really don't get this later attempt to go back and attempt to change history - in a time period where tape and articles from the 2002 - 2005 period are very easily available. It does bother me that his stories change so often.

[PresidentObama]

29. I think most who voted for the IWR were politically motivated in their vote.

Including Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and yes even Senator Kerry whom I look up to. They certainly didn't think Bush would do what he did, but I think all did so in bad judgment in voting for the authority they gave Bush. Do I think that disqualifys them in 2008? Absolutely not. But it should be taken for what it's worth. Bad judgment is bad judgment, period.

Does apologizing make it all better? It surely doesn't bring back the lives of those whom have fallen. It doesn't bring back the money wasted in the bloody fields of Iraq. But that shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, or others. That's on the shoulders of President Bush and his rubber stamp Republicans who will give him anything he wants. Bush rushed us to war, NOT Edwards or others.

And with all due respect, apologizing doesn't make him look weak. He admitted a mistake, which shows the confidence our candidates should have. If you can't admit mistakes, how will you lead? No one is flawless, our candidates are no different. I like Senator Clinton, but she made a HUGE mistake in not apologizing for something we all know was wrong. She made a bad judgment, and she should own up to it. Like I said I love Senator Clinton, and will vote for her gladly if she gets the nomination, but I think she was wrong not to apologize. And all to avoid flip flopping charges? Not good enough!!

In any event, what the Democrats whom are running for President offer to the table for getting out of Iraq is important to me. I hope they wish to stand up, and lead forcefully to end this war. Edwards voice seems loud in the effort to end this war. And I appreciate his effort!!

Oh, and since when do we listen to Bob Shrum?? :eyes:

[Milo_Bloom]

24. Yeah, why think for yourself when it comes to war?!

This must be a joke? The crocodile tears aren't working so now they try the fall guy approach?

And people wonder why some people wouldn't vote for him the general election?

[NDP]

34. Yeah, making the decision for war is always an individual decision. Yeah, right!

Just the fact that it requires looking at intelligence reports and listening to the advice of military personnel means that the decision is always affected by what you hear from others, or are you too ideological to understand something as simple as that?

[Milo_Bloom]

36. In the end, it comes to people dying

And if your instincts are telling you something is wrong, the very LEAST you can do is vote for the Levin Amendment, which would have required a trip back to congress with REAL PROOF before going to war.

But I guess Edwards "advisors" forgot to mention that to him.

[IA_Seth]

39. Which is irrelevant.

Of course everyone has advisors, it would be foolish not to. But the people had elected EDWARDS to represent them, not his people, and when it comes down to it, regardless of how a decision was made it was EDWARDS that made it. He is responsible.

Im not saying that Edwards is using this Shrum-shit as an excuse, he actually seems to be avoiding it pretty well, but the fact that he had advisors doesn't clear him for making the decision.

[venable]

50. it doesn't clear, him and he doesn't say it does...in fact the opposite..

he says it wasn't them, it was him.

It's called accountability, and he embraces it.

[Milo_Bloom]

52. WAAAY too little, WAAAAY too late

[venable]

74. thanks for your opinion

and please recognize it's no more than that.

millions of decent, thoughtful people disagree.

that of course is only their opinions, but it is no less relevant than yours.

[Milo_Bloom]

77. LOL

Well, what else could I post other than my opinion?!?!

Well, I can post a simple fact. Me and millions of other registered democrats would not vote for Edwards in the general election. That's not opinion... its a fact.

[venable]

84. alrighty then

[venable]

49. this is also why millions will vote for him

because he is honest, he admits mistakes, he is larger than those who cling desperately to reasons to dislike him, and when they don't have them, they fabricate them, like many posts on this thread, pure fabrication.

ie - I am shocked, shocked I tell you, that he sponsored the IWR that he voted for (as if the cosponsorship was an additional vote).

- he wants to bomb Iran (wildly inaccurate)

just to name a couple

[MethuenProgressive]

31. So, Edwards blames getting bad Intelligence? Hmmm...

Heard that one before.

[madfloridian]

38. No, that is not true. See my posts below this.

It was Shrum, not Edwards.

[madfloridian]

33. He denied that today, said Shrum was wrong...he made his own decisions.

I did not keep the article, but there was a picture with it also.

He took responsibility.

[benny05]

107. Self-delete

Responded to wrong poster. Sorry.

[madfloridian]

35. Edwards says Shrum was wrong.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/03/john_edwards_shrum_was_wrong.html

"Edwards: Shrum was wrong
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D) today rejected the assertion that political calculations were his overriding concern in casting his 2002 vote in favor of the use-of-force resolution against Iraq.

Political people talk to you all the time," he said following a speech on Capitol Hill to the International Association of Fire Fighters. "There is only one decision maker and that is me."

Boy, Edwards sure is a target here. Give the guy a chance to defend himself.

[venable]

41. please see my posts above

about Edwards decision making on the vote.

There are too many here that delight in an opportunity to blast Edwards, regardless of the veracity of the blast ammo.

[madfloridian]

43. Edwards is the new Howard Dean of DU.

I know exactly what you mean.

Same song second verse, different target.

[The Count]

44. So, his instincts weren't to oppose the war? "Defense" accepted.

Before accusing us of not allowing him a chance to do so, let me reiterate: His actions were indefensible. And inexcusable too. That goes for the IWR voters who didn't sponsor the IWR as well.

[madfloridian]

45. You are attacking him for what Shrum said. Unfair.

I defend those unfairly accused of things.

You are posting what someone else said, and my post defending him is dropping like a rock.

That makes you the winner.

[venable]

46. Count, why don't you answer just one time

what difference you think the co-sponsorship makes.

Does a vote for the IWR count more if you co-sponsor? Is it an uber-vote? does it confer special powers in the white house, or send troops in faster? No it doesn't. Edwards mistke was the support of the IWR, and he knows that. Anything else is just fool's gold to the haters.

Why do you keep harping on this, when you know it doesn't matter. His support for the IWR was implicit in his aye vote. You know this is a red herring, and yet you seemingly wake up every morning exercised over this newfound insight into John Edwards evil nature. You are wrong to do this and you have never once answered different posters requests as to why you think this is so earthshattering.

He voted aye. get exercised over that. drop this redundant nonsense. And if you can't see its redundancy, you can't be helped.

It is Bush's war, and you know it.

Please find something new to hate on edwards with. Hate his aye vote. Disregard his "I was wrong", but drop this other stuff.

Answer. Just once. Answer this.

Here's the question: Does Edwards cosponsorship give any additional authority to Bush, over what his aye vote does?

You won't because you know it makes no difference except for your own incorrect understanding of what a congressional vote means. The cosponsorship means nothing.

Answer, please.

[GreenArrow]

51. if you'll excuse me Count,

I'll answer. It's really quite elemenatary, and no doubt you'll discount it, but the difference is one of degree.

While a co-sponsorship doesn't equate to a second "ubervote" it does indicate a greater degree of involvement in the process, as does writing an op-ed in favor of the damned thing. He could have just voted for IWR and been done with it, but he went the extra mile in support of it.

To reiterate: he simply could have voted aye, which would have demonstrated his "toughness" on the foreign policy and defence fronts, and just left it at that. But he apparently wanted to make a splash. A sponsorship implies something of a leadership role, does it not? And who exactly pushed him into writing the op-ed piece that so pleased the White House that they saw fit to post it online? That he voted for IWR was one issue. That he apparently felt so strongly about Iraq that he was compelled to write op-eds in favor of it, and co-sponsor it simply compounds the question of his vote and shows that he wished to play a visible and influential role. So, we have a vote, an op-ed, and a co-sponsorship. Even Hillary didn't go that far. Doesn't exactly sound like the work of someone torn by doubts, but "in for a penny, in for a pound", I guess.

[venable]

58. It sounds like someone who puts his efforts and name on the line, not equivocating

as I've said before: I wish that he had voted against it, and I wrote several times asking him to listen to Ritter, and discount Tenet.

Just so you know that I'm not a blind follower.

When he made the decision that he must NOT discount Tenet, he did what any leader who held those beliefs would do - He put himself on the line for it.

Frankly, I'd rather someone who votes yes be someone who did so because they truly believed that the nation was at great risk ( no matter how wrong history eventually showed it to be).

Now, if someone does truly believe this, should they not step forward in as unequivocal a way as possible to protect the nation (remember we are talking about an understanding of WMD and Saddam's intentions that any Aye vote would presumably hold).

So, once more, his error was in believing the intel. He made that error. One tragic error. Not two, not three, but one.

Answer?

[GreenArrow]

61. we don't disagree that it's one issue

but we apparently do disagree on the level of involvement that one issue entails.

The aye vote means one thing, that on the most basic level, he gave support to Bush's plans for Iraq. That aye vote, coupled with his support in the media, and his sponsorship, regardless of his reasons for doing so, give him a greater degree of culpability than someone who simply voted yes and left it at that. It was one mistake, composed of several interwoven fibers. He was not only wrong, but emphatically wrong. The intelligence offered by Tenet was not enough to sway many of his Democratic colleagues, and the intelligence and rationales offered publicly were demonstrably lacking in credibility, and fooled few people outside of our borders. That political considerations played no role whatsoever in his decision is simply not believable.

[venable]

64. i understand that you believe there must have been political considerations

but I just don't. I take him at his word that this vote troubled him. I believe that there were two facets to the mistake: believing tenet, and trusting that bush would follow the path set forth in the IWR.

He was wrong to believe this. but believe it he did. so he voted yes.

I think that an Aye vote is 100% emphatic, cosponsorship or not. An Aye vote can not be partial. It's up or down. 100% emphatic.


What I really wish, as you do, is that he had never come to believe Tenet and those others who were saying that Ritter was wrong.

He wishes that more than you or I, I'd wager, and not because of the political consequences, but because of the immeasurable tragedies that have resulted from the IWR's licensing of w's war mongering.

[GreenArrow]

65. "this vote troubled him"

Then why go whole hog for it? If he had doubts, why not limit his vote to a qualified "yes"? Why not vote yes on the Levin bill, for example? Or even abstain? That the vote troubled him, I don't doubt, but I also don't doubt that at least some of what troubled him were political considerations; it's the nature of the beast, especially on something as highly politicized as IWR.

[venable]

75. there is no such thing as a qualified yes

it is an up or down vote.

as to why he didn't vote for the Levin amendment, I can't say, though I'll look for justifications.

I wish, of course, that he had voted no, and if not that, that he voted for the Levin amendment.

At this point it's really a matter of whether or not one takes him at his word. some do, some don't. I do.

[Milo_Bloom]

80. Which word?

Do we take him at the word he was giving in 2003/2004, where he claimed even without WMD, his vote was justified (remember, we already knew about all the lies by that point), or do we take him at his word today? WHICH WORD OF HIS DO WE BELIEVE???

[venable]

83. do you really not know what this means

take him at his word means you believe what he says.

in 2003/04 he believed his vote was justified.

as the war continued and the catastrophe unfolded, he felt that his vote, a vote that led to what he was now seeing, was not justified, that the removal of Saddam did not justify what was going down.

it's very simple. his word is what he says. an honest person might change what they believe in the face of evidence.

[Milo_Bloom]

88. No, he can't have it both ways.

Either he is lying now OR he lied in 2003/2004, so I just want to know which word I am to believe.

[venable]

91. good grief, are you joking?

this is as adept as your comparison of your 'sarcasm' to that of Colbert's.

ciao

[Milo_Bloom]

93. No, not joking.

In 2003/2004 he said that the information didn't change his opinion and he would vote the same way. NOTHING NEW is known today that wasn't known in 2004. The lies had already been exposed when he made that statement. Joe Wilson had already written his article. The truth was already out there.

However, now, NOTHING has changed, but sudden (when the polls are against him) John Edwards has had some miraculous change of heart. He now realizes that the vote that wasn't a mistake 2 years ago, is now a HUGE mistake, so much so that he is trying to use it as a campaign wedge, positioning himself as the only one who will apologize.

So which is it... was he lying in 2003/2004 when he said that all the evidence didn't matter and he would have done the same thing... or now, when he claims that all the evidence has shown him the way.

John Edwards deserves nothing but ridicule and scorn for what he has done.

[venable]

94. you don't think that the realities of the war have changed?

when he said that he stood by his vote, it was on the basis that saddam was gone.

the cost has mounted and that regime change does not justify the cost.

hence, as a result of the mounting cost, he regrets his vote.

at every stage he has said what he believes.

[Milo_Bloom]

98. No, Not in the least.

The realities haven't changed one bit since 2004. The only thing that has changed is the public view of it all. But the facts are exactly the same... or are you actually trying to say that the amount of death in 2004 was acceptable to Edwards, but somewhere between then and now, it crossed some magic threshold that made him now regret his vote? 1500 American Lives and 100,000 Iraqi's.. that was okay, but 3000 and 200,000 Iraqi's... that was unacceptable?

If that is your claim, than Edwards is even more delusional and dangerous than I originally thought.

[venable]

100. look, this conversation is pointless because you have your mind made up

that Edwards is delusional and dangerous. this is a very acute judgement which renders any rebuttal pointless. you are not talking, you are spewing your hatred. fine, if you want to do that. I no longer do.

however, i will answer your question, though I have no doubt it's subtlety will be entirely lost on you, given your previous remarks: it is not a matter of death toll, it is a matter of the pointlessness of the invasion/occupation, which has become increasingly clear will never result in the kind of stable democratic government so beloved of many Americans, not just neocons.

further, Edwards voted to allow this war to proceed. this pains him as he sees the lives lost. he did not want, early on, to tell the families of those who died that their sacrifice was in vain.

this is a man who knows loss. it is not honest to assume that he cares little for the lost sons and daughters, or for the suffering Iraqis.

at a certain point, in spite ofhis desire to not lend credence to the idea that the deaths were in vain, he knew that he had to do what he could to stop the bloodflow.

you don't need to respond, if it's with more accusations of delusional and dangerous.

frankly, i find you the savagery of your attacks pretty ineffectual, and recommend serious dialogue instead.

[Milo_Bloom]

105. So stop, you have the control.

Delusion is all I see here. When someone is willing to dismiss what is blatantly obvious, to take a position that is delusional (believing that Edwards suddenly came to some realization about the death toll) what else is left beyond the delusion of the candidate and/or the person trying to extoll this rediculous position.

Some very simple facts. When Edwards HAD power to do something about the war. He did nothing. The fact that it was based entirely on lies... that meant nothing to him (until popular opinion switched).

Once it was discovered the entire war was based on lies (as was known in 2003/2004) it had become pointless. Edwards continued to beat the war drum, not regretting his decision. He attacked Chairman Howard Dean when he spoke out against it, claiming that Howard Dean doesn't speak for him as a democrat.

Then, no sooner than public opiinion swings solidly against his position... its all apologies. Worse, he has the unmitigated GAUL to expect other people to apologize and tries to make a campaign issue out of his mea-culpa, which, if nothing else, proves that there is nothing sincere about it.

"he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq was a mistake."

Proud?? PROUD?

Who would take pride in admitting a mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives?

Edwards is a dangerous, delusional politician. You don't like hearing it, click the ignore button.

[Jai4WKC08]

110. See, that's the thing... the realities of war never change

It's the one thing chickenhawks never understand.

War is always the same. Sometimes it may be necessary, but you can't say, if we can do it cheaply or fast, then it's worth it. Because you can never count on cheap or fast when it comes to war.

[madfloridian]

42. Shrum and company strike over and over and we still fall for it.

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/04/million-dollar-assholes-carville-shrum.html

Edwards took full responsibility for his vote. Shrum's been hanging out with Carville too much.

[DemKR]

47. Just imagine if Hillary sponsored the war and the reaction nt

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

59. yeah, just because he voted (unless we claim it was his evil twin) for the IWR

and it ruined the country... he said he was "sorry".

Anyone who committs a crime in this country is always relieved of any further obligation if he/she says they are sorry. Especially if they appear to mean it.

I am sure he will mean it when he supports a Bush or Israel attack on Iran... and it goes bad... he will be just as sincerely say he is "sorry" he supported "all options on the table" mantra.

How can we turn down that poor, dear sincere man?

[venable]

62. give me a break

name a single person who takes options off the table.

instead look at what Edwards has endorsed:

a non-aggression pact with Iran.

and this is based upon very clear reasoning about how tragic and mistaken an attack would be, about which he has been very adamant.

and it is based upon his understanding that Ahmadinejad has no real power, and those that do have declared nukes un-Islamic.

do you care about this, these realities, or do you care to make more ill-informed attacks.


and why don't you respond to what Elizabeth Edwards said. can't find anything to trash, so you ignore it.

do you have the capacity to deal with these realities?

[Tom Joad]

67. okay, he followed the advice of his fp advisors (from hell) and voted for a

a war of aggression, and co-sponsored the bill.

No biggee.

Maybe i can use this if i rob a bank...
if i say i was sorry, if i say i got bad advice... surely i will not be held responsible.

[venable]

69. this conversation is not fruitful, IMO

you have your opinion, others have theirs. I don't see arguments, just attacks.

just let me leave you with this simple question: who, ever, said it was no biggie?

just think about whether anyone ever did, and, if not, why you suggest they did?

[dogman]

60. He said, she said.

Edwards was running for President long before this issue came forward. Common sense tells me there is a bit of truth in both stories. He had political advice and "expert" advice that reinforced the political advice. As you have stated, you did not support his stance on the IWR. Don't you think, however, that it is most likely that the combination of the two advisory tracks, leading in the same direction, had a stronger influence on his decision. It may have been a decision made in good faith, but none the less it was a poor decision. He must think so too, or he would not have apologized.

[venable]

63. He knows it was a bad mistake. I think he has no doubts about that.

He has said so, as we all know too well.

It is now a matter of believing his sincerity. I believe it. Others don't, pretty vocally.

[Tom Joad]

68. I believe it was sincere. I believe it disqualifies a person for running for

national office.

Just too stupid a mistake to make... gotta be other choices.

[venable]

70. fine. Others think otherwise.

n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

78. They weren't wrong.

His vote showed a lack of judgment that disqualifies him from higher office, the liteny of excuses and lies he has offered over the years to justify his vote doesn't change his disqualification... it just adds another lie to the pile.

[Jai4WKC08]

111. You don't honestly think this changes anything, do you? n/t

[Clark2008]

66. Bahahahahahahaha!

The Devil made him do it!

:evilgrin:

[venable]

71. grow up, n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

79. Asking again, WHAT ABOUT THE LEVIN AMENDMENT

We have ONE person in here claiming that Edwards made ONE mistake, but he didn't, he made 2 mistakes.

Voting for the IWR. MISTAKE #1

Voting AGAINST the Levin Amendment. MISTAKE #2


Why, if Edwards had ANY DOUBT at all, did he not vote for the Levin Amendment, which would have allowed the resolution to go through, with the proviso that bush return to congress to present more evidence, before he send troops.

Mistake #1 could be forgiven, IF Mistake #2 was not made. However, Mistake #1 and Mistake #2 TOGETHER = a complete abandonment of constitutionally mandated powers.

If Edwards had voted yes on BOTH IWR and LEVIN, he would have leg to stand on. However, by voting against Levin, he was vesting all power in Bush, despite a mountain of conflicting evidence. It is that second mistake which disqualifies him for higher office.

[GreenArrow]

86. he wouldn't have needed to vote on both

I don't think that would have given him any more of a leg to stand on. If he felt it absolutely necessary to vote in favor of some sort of agression in Iraq, then Levin was the way to go. He could have voted aye on it, looked adaquately tough, and voted no on the IWR.

Instead he chose a blank check something of dubious constitutionality, of dubious international legality ( a War of Agression) and helped sell it.

[Milo_Bloom]

89. It depends on his purpose...

If he truly believed that some stance against Iraq was necessary (despite evidence to the contrary), then Voting yes on IWR AND LEVIN accomplished that goal.

However, by voting No on Levin, his true intentions are clearly seen and he can't now apologize, express regret, claim a simple mistake or otherwise try to weasel out of what he did.

[GreenArrow]

99. he boxed himself in with his co-sposnsorship

If he was indeed struggling with mighty doubts, the Levin amendment offered him a way out. Given that he prefered and pushed a more blank check approach, he would have contradicted himself had he voted yes on Levin. It's all moot, as he was quite consistently hawkish throughout the process.

I agree completely with the rest of what you've said. His judgement was lacking, and his apologies ring false. It can't be said enough that there was niether a moral nor a national security rationale that dictated what we have done in Iraq. There was nothing moral, honorable or noble about it.

[Mass]

96. Actually, Edwards voted AGAINST every single amendment that would have

restricted Bush's powers.

He voted against the Levin Amendment, the Byrd amendment, and the Durbin Amendment.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236


Added to that the fact that he co-sponsored the bill, I certainly hope it was a strong vote of conscience because, clearly, he voted for the whole deal.

[jen4clark]

81. Senator Edwards

acted on political calculations. Some choose to believe that he no longer does that. Some don't. Obviously, I don't. He may be a great guy, but he's not qualified to be president, imho.

[benny05]

108. Congratulations

This post gets the first sheep bell of the political season.

Shrum is a multi-time loser who makes exaggerated kiss and tell comments in order to sell books. Most people know his comments aren't credible, and Edwards debunked this last on CNN last night and the Fix reported the same response from Edwards.

Edwards: Shrum was wrong
Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (D) today rejected the assertion
that political calculations were his overriding concern in casting his 2002
vote in favor of the use-of-force resolution against Iraq.


John Edwards addressing the Firefighters gathering in Washington on
Wednesday. (AP)"Political people talk to you all the time," he said
following a speech on Capitol Hill to the International Association of Fire
Fighters. "There is only one decision maker and that is me."

Former Edwards consultant Bob Shrum alleges in a forthcoming memoir that he
and several other Edwards political advisers counseled the senator to vote
for the resolution in order to maintain his viability as a presidential
candidate in 2004.

The melody of a DLC shill...reminds me of the sound of a sheep bell.