John Edwards: "I was completely wrong."

[aquart]

About the IWR vote.

And he said it so easily, like a mensch.

I never heard sweeter words from a presidential candidate.

Didn't make him seem a bit weak. Hear that, little George?

[LSK]

1. as he said, not the 1st time he said that

[Nicole]

2. John Edwards: "This is not the first time I've said it."

"I've been saying it".

[rocktivity]

3. He's halfway there

He also has to admit that the reason WHY he was completely wrong was because he was completely--and DELIBERATELY--decieved by Bush!

:headbang:
rocknation

[LSK]

5. no, hes all the way there

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3013044

Nov 13, 2005

Dear Friend,

I was wrong.

I wrote these words about my vote to authorize the Iraq war in a Washington Post op-ed piece and I want to share my views with you as well.

Almost three years ago, we went into Iraq to remove what we were told — and many of us believed and argued — was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake — the men and women of our armed forces and their families — have performed heroically and paid a very dear price. It is not right, just or fair that we made a mistake, but they pay for that mistake.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong — and to show that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the President — and that I was being told by our intelligence community — wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

[Nye Bevan]

65. I don't think he's quite "all the way there"

To be "all the way there" he needs to advocate for *impeachment*.

[sandnsea]

23. Bush lied, yep

That's more important than the vote.

[Lance_Boyle]

67. Please.

He was no more "deceived" than you were, or I was. Would you have voted for the IWR? I wouldn't have. I'm slightly smarter than to be duped by a weasel-dicked monkeyfucker of a moron like George Bush. John Edwards was in a politically vulnerable position, and chose (of his own free will) to do the politically expedient thing instead of the right thing. Just like Hillary did. Just like Kerry did. Just like far, far too many of our "leaders" did. They sniffed at the polls and did what they thought would save their political bacon, knowing full well that it was not the right thing to do.

[mdmc]

70. ditto

:kick:

[Critters2]

88. They voted for it. He sponsored it. Big difference. nt

[karynnj]

111. Not the direction he is going - he says Bush didn't mislead them and that is politics

He apparently he thinks that Bush did not lie about the intelligence.

From the week's NewYorker:


"Edwards is careful not to rule out the use of military force against Iran, but he would much rather talk about other things—his recent interest in Africa, and his antipoverty ideas, which are at the core of his candidacy. Edwards is genial in conversation, but he became almost testy when I brought up his vote, in 2002, in favor of the Iraq-war resolution. Edwards has repudiated his vote, unlike Clinton, who has not renounced her own support for the war despite demands from her backers that she do so. Edwards worries that his vote will be seen as evidence that he was somehow fooled by the Administration into giving it his support. “I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons,” he said. “There was some disparity in the information I had about how far along he was in that process. I didn’t rely on George Bush for that. And I personally think there’s some dishonesty in suggesting that members of the United States Senate relied on George Bush for that information, because I don’t think it’s true. It’s great politics. But it’s not the truth.”

When I asked who was making this suggestion, he said, “I’ve just heard people say, I can’t even tell you who, I’ve just heard people say, ‘Well, you know, George Bush . . . misled us.’ You know, it’s just— I was there, it’s not what happened.” (Edwards would not single out anyone, but he appeared to be referring to, among others, his 2004 running mate, John Kerry, who has often said that he was lied to by the Bush Administration about W.M.D.s. “We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true,” Kerry told a rally of liberal Democrats in June of last year.)

“I was on the Intelligence Committee,” Edwards went on, “so I got direct information from the intelligence community. And then I had a series of meetings with former Clinton Administration people. And they were all saying the same thing. Everything I was hearing in the Intelligence Committee was the same thing I was hearing from these guys. And there was nary a dissenting voice. And so, for me, the difficult judgment was not about the factual information, which I was convinced was accurate. It was about whether I was going to give authority to this President I didn’t trust. That was where the friction was for me. I decided to do it, and I was wrong. I shouldn’t have done it.”




http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070115fa_fact
------------------------------------------------

The fact is that the Downing Street memeos contained information that the Bush administration purposely distorted the intelligence. Bob Graham (D, FL) also on the Intelligence Committe demanded that information givem to the Intelligence committee (which made him question the information) be given to the rest of the Congress. The summary report produced at his insistance cherry picked the intelligence and ignored any contradictory information.

The hardest part though is that you can't prove a negative. There was a possibility that in 4 years with no inspectors Iraq could have obtained some WMD. (They border a state of the former USSR and the AQ Khan network operated in this area)

It is presumptuous of Edwards to assign motives to the other Senators. I think the writer gets one thing wrong - this is likely more an attack on the Clintons than on Kerry. Bill Clinton gave that as the reason for all Democrats, except Lieberman.

Edwards is right that the question came down to whether you trust the President to follow the steps he promises and use the resolution as promised. He doesn't say it, but he was a co-sponsor of the resolution as written. The rest of the Senate had to vote yes or no on the bill as written - and it was a very bad choice.

It is also notable that when Bush clearly broke his word by invading when and how he did, Edwards did not(as Kerry did) publicly question the President he says he didn't truat. He was a cheerleader for the war at least until Oct 2003 (when he had a Hardball interview. Now, he is defending Bush on the intelligence.

[porphyrian]

4. I think he's the most conservative Democrat I like.

I'm not a big fan of conservativism in general. Not that this should surprise a lot of people.

[DaveinMD]

8. he's not conservative

he's quite progressive.

[porphyrian]

11. That doesn't change my position much. - n/t

[Clark2008]

48. Then why was he a member of the DLC?

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250711

[DaveinMD]

54. lots of people were

at its heyday because it helped get Clinton elected and was a pr tool to differentiate from the Democrats that lost nationally in the 80s. Dick Gephardt was a labor Democrat who opposed trade agreements and he was a member of the DLC.

Edwards' two Americas message was not a DLC message. And this year's campaign is as anti-DLC as one good get. And his campaign manager is David Bonior.

[mdmc]

71. drug war, death penalty, bankruptcy, nclb, clean skies

progressive

[Pastiche423]

6. Yes, he was wrong

That's why I will never vote for him. He's an opportunistic, finger in the wind salesman.

[stevietheman]

14. Or he could be a great progressive who was deceived...

by a criminal regime.

[Pastiche423]

18. Deceived?

Were you deceived? Were the high majority of DUers deceived?

Bull. He voted for the expediency of his political career.

[LSK]

21. did you have access to a classified FALSE NIE???

I know I didn't in 2002.

[fujiyama]

22. I'm glad Edwards has addmitted his mistake fully

but even as one that may yet support him, it's hard to excuse his judgment considering he sat on the intelligence committee.

Bob Graham also sat on the Intel committee and made it pretty clear the justification for attacking just wasn't strong enough.

[Adelante]

50. Half the Intelligence Committee voted No

Graham, Durbin, Levin, Wyden, Mikulski. The other half followed Bush.

[fujiyama]

106. Good point

I was thinking of the only other presidential candidate on the Intel Committee to vote no.

[Pastiche423]

24. Anyone that believed little lord pissypants

is either, IMHO, stupid or a coward.

[mdmc]

72. I didn't need to see it

If Iraq had nukes, it would be treason for Bush not to invade.

I knew that this war was wrong. You did too. Right?

[GreenArrow]

97. did you need to?

One need only consider the public lying they engaged in. It was blatant and transparent. There isn't much reason to believe that there was anything much different they heard behind closed doors. Except for in this country, few were fooled.

[Zhade]

20. But WHY was he deceived?

Kennedy wasn't. Kucinich wasn't. Wellstone wasn't.

Until I can understand how he was allegedly fooled when they weren't, this is at best half a measure.

[stevietheman]

36. I almost hate to say this, but...

frankly, this regime was very good at selling this war (read: lying through their teeth), including how they very carefully cherry-picked intelligence that was fed to Congress.

A lot of people were convinced that this war was necessary at the time.

Of course, many of these same people have become unconvinced as additional information has come forward to reveal the lies, not to mention Bush's usual bungling of the war effort.

I just think many people here are being too hard on Edwards.

[wryter2000]

86. At the time it wasn't hard to be fooled

I was against the IWR. Let me say that right off so there's no mistake.

However, I believed some of the lies. I was convinced there were some WMDs and that Saddam might be trying to build a bomb. I thought there were better ways to deal with the problems than invading.

It wasn't until Joe Wilson spoke out that I realized they were out-and-out lying to me. Remember the Willie Nelson lyric? "They wouldn't lie to me. Not on my own damned tv."

I expected spin. I expected wicked spin. I didn't expect outright, deliberate lies about something like this.

[Virginia Dare]

56. How can you compare the constituencies of...

those three with Edwards'? :shrug:

[fishwax]

109. so he was deceived because of his constituency?

Or, he allowed himself to be deceived because of his constituency?

[Virginia Dare]

116. No, he has a completely different consituency than those three...

it would explain his having to look at things a lot differently than them, just a a thought. I don't think it's fair to compare one Democrat to another in this way.

[sandnsea]

26. Nope, he said he was not deceived

He wrote the resolution, was on the intelligence committee, and fully supported the war. Nothing wrong with any of that, he specifically said he wasn't misled - he just shouldn't have trusted Bush to run the war right. From what I can gather.

[DFLer4edu]

38. I am not a supporter or opponent of John Edwards, but you've been deceived

if you think that a "great progressive" could have voted for, much less sponsored the IWR. John Edwards is many things. I like how he is willing to talk about poverty while most politicians won't touch it with a ten foot poll. However, giving the President the authority to go to war was not the work of great progressives. The Democratic leadership caved. It was not that long after 9/11 and they faced extreme political pressure, granted. However, great progressives voted against it. Great progressives had the courage to stand up in the face of enormous political pressure and say no. John Edwards may become a great President, but he will never be a great progressive. For when faced with what Senator Kennedy called the most important vote of his political career John Edwards did not blink, he sponsored the legislation.

[Jacobin]

51. Bad judgment or incredible lack of information

more than likely, he was like Kerry and didn't want to fork up his presidential bid.

either possibility shows a gross deficiency in a leader

[Chulanowa]

53. So, which of the following are running for pres '08?

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

'Cause those are your choices. Myself, I'm a forgiving sort with a one-strike limit.

[michaelwb]

55. Our choices

"Wellstone (D-MN)"

Hey, I'd vote for a dead Wellstone over many of the other choices I'm faced with most Presidential elections.

;)

[Pastiche423]

90. WTF?

Senator Wellstone has been dead since October 25, 2002!

[Nedsdag]

62. Then I guess you wouldn't have voted for RFK

in 1968. He was for the Vietnam War then he became an anti-war candidate like Eugene McCarthy.

You probably would've been a part of the "Clean for Gene" campaign.

[Pastiche423]

91. This thread is not about the Viet Nam war

This thread is about john edwards who voted for the IWR.

[Richard Steele]

7. Admitting mistakes does not make one appear weak. ADULTS know this.

George W B*sh does not grasp this, and I seriously doubt he ever will.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. I don't believe most Americans do

either, they may be against the war, but not at the expense of "losing face"

[Skwmom]

43. No - but neither does admitting to co-sponsoring one of the

biggest mistakes in U.S. history make one a great pick to run this country.

[Richard Steele]

76. Agreed. nm

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. It would be interesting to find out why he voted for it in the first place.

It was a pretty serious move. Why was it that some guy like me could see the whole future of it, how bogus it was, and he couldn't. Sure it's great that he admits it now, but it's troublesome that he apparently was so easily duped by bush.

[LSK]

13. N.I.E.

[The_Casual_Observer]

31. A casual reading of the news at the time allowed the average joe

to see most of what was in that NIE - it was all made public in various forms and draw the conclusion that it was all bullshit. It was frustrating to see these guys walk into it eyes wide open.

[mdmc]

73. if the nie confirmed nukes

bush should have invaded.

I didn't need to see the nie to understand that occupation and rebuilding Ira would take decades.

[w4rma]

19. He was conned. It's pretty obvious that his understanding of our foreign policy has improved greatly

since many years ago when the IWR was passed. He was a freshman Senator at the time with very little experience in the Senate.

Bush has been a very good education for most Americans on what **not** to do.

[tomp]

34. that level of naivete does not qualify him for higher office.

maybe he should go back to lurnin' in the senate. sheesh, the illogic of it all. compare kucinich to edwards. kucinich got it, why not edwards?

[aquart]

39. That's been my argument against Hillary.

In fairness, I have to apply it to Edwards, too.

I like so many things about him. But there's something to like in most of our likely presidential contenders. Faults and all, we have a fantastic bunch of people running or about to run for president. But our shiniest future candidates ran scared of the Republican media machine. I don't believe they were really fooled. But I think they chickened out on the war vote. It stunned me that both my Democratic New York senators voted for it. Stunned me.

I don't think it's wrong to insist they all account for that act of cowardice. I hope the constant challenge makes them stronger and smarter. They worried about the media when they should have worried about US.

[w4rma]

40. It's been over three years. That's enough time to get a college degree. It no longer applies.

Sen. Edwards was conned just like Sen. Kerry was.

[Critters2]

29. Or better yet, why he sponsored it. nt

[sandnsea]

30. He co-sponsored it

He spoke in its favor to his colleagues. He still doesn't say the intelligence was wrong, so I don't know why he's saying he shouldn't have voted for war if he believes the WMD intelligence was gathered in good intents. I can't figure out what he's saying for sure.

[w4rma]

41. Sen. Kerry voted for it. He really should have known better. I can't believe you're using that vote

to attack Edwards with as a strong supporter of Sen. Kerry.

[sandnsea]

52. He knows Bush lied

I've always said it's what people thought about the war that matters more than the vote. Lieberman and Hillary were WAR supporters. Kerry, in particular, was an inspections supporter. Edwards, I don't know. Obama and Feingold made specific statements about the weak intelligence, which was spot on. Those who believed Saddam had WMD, but voted no, don't even make any sense to me.

Kerry now recognizes what was going on in the Pentagon, the way the intelligence was manipulated, moving the money from Afghanistan to Iraq, the yellow cake, the war plans back in 2002, all of it. People at DU like to say they 'knew', but at least half this stuff wasn't known by anybody until summer of 2003. The yellowcake for instance. The war plans came out in Woodward's book. Nobody knew all of this. Edwards hasn't taken on any of it.

Kerry's the one that led on the DSM letter. He's the one that has been out in front on getting out of Iraq. He and Feingold wrote withdrawal legislation. Kerry was the first to call for Rumsfeld's resignation back in 2003. Kerry gets what happened.

Edwards says he wasn't misled on the intelligence. Since he was gung ho on the IWR, (he co-sponsored it), he must believe there was nothing wrong with the intelligence and, oops, it was just a big old booboo. That isn't acceptable to me. Bush Lied. I came to this site in 2003 for that singular purpose, to expose the war lies. It matters. And this guy doesn't even know it happened??? No no no, fuck that. If he doesn't know Bush lied, he doesn't know anything.

[mdmc]

74. I have a problem with that

I supported inspections as well. I don't remember Kerry taking it to the streets with the rest of us "inspection supporters"/ war protesters.

[sandnsea]

80. January 2003

He gave a very clear speech "Do Not Rush To War". Sorry you missed it.

The issue I have with Edwards is now. He says he wasn't misled on the intelligence. Obviously it's a political attack on Kerry, that I find juvenile. More importantly, that kind of shit is why Bush keeps getting off the hook for deliberately lying us into this war, which matters to me very much.

[mdmc]

81. again, Kerry didn't take it to the streets

I love the guy, and I might support him over some dlc moderate, but he didn't take it to the streets.

He should have acted out, and not spoken. People would have remembered him taking it to the streets. People (even a pol. sci. junkie like me) can't listen to his speeches.

I know Kerry was against the war (as was Edwards) - too bad they didn't take it to the streets like Sharpton and Kucinich.

[sandnsea]

98. I'm talking about the Bush lies

Like I said, my complaint has to do with Bush's lies and Edwards not understanding what Bush did.

Still, Dean actually had to apologize because he said Edwards had changed on the war and Edwards got very upset over that. I don't exactly know when Edwards changed his support for war, but he was truly pro-war for quite a while. Which, again, isn't really my issue with him.

"But Edwards, who spoke before Dean addressed the California audience, had pledged support for disarming Iraq by force and was booed and jeered by many in the crowd."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/26/dean.apology.ap/

[mdmc]

99. got ya

:kick:

[karynnj]

113. He gave the speech the Sandasea mentioned

and spoke out on talk shows. Dean in March 2003 was still agreeing that Saddam was a danger if he had WMD.

Kerry was likely still in a mode of thinking that persuasive arguments could cause Bush to slow down and likely hope that GHWB people would persude W to stop. He likely thought that he had more (though little) influence through channels (like op-eds, talk shows etc) to change Bush's mind.

Note that neither Dean, an ex-Governor or Gore took to the streets. My guess is that if Kerry had - it would have been seen as a publicity stunt. At any rate (as one who did protest) it would have changed nothing - Kerry (or Dean) didn't have that high a profile then and it likely wouldn't have even changed public opinion.

[mdmc]

119. no, but our party would have been solidly antiwar

and pro peace.

[karynnj]

120. The party would still have been split - with the center hard to hold

Given the numbers at the time, he had to win both the anti-war people (which he did) and a portion of the people who still supported the war, but thought he could do better.

You didn't have to listen to many Kerry speeches to know that he would never go to war unless it genuinely was a last resort. In 2004, I believed this because of speeches over his entire career - which made the IWR Senate speech combined with the Georgetown Jan 23, 2003 speech believable. I understood his philosophy on war and peace.

Last year, Kerry gave a remarkable speech that exposed part of the foundation that underlies his views. In addition to his foreign policy point of view and his experience with how horrifying war is, he has clearly studied the religious and ethical issues behind war. Kerry's speech at the Conservative Pepperdine College is at:http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212

Here's what he says on just war.
"Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war—the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends—should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one’s adversaries to behave likewise. Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger."

This context gives more weight to all the bolded phrases that were repeated daily in 2004. As I said I believed Kerry when he said in 2004 that he would not have gone to war. Reading this, I am certain that I can trust him.


"

[w4rma]

121. The reason he went to law school was so he could better fight for the little guy. (nt)

[Critters2]

78. Kerry voted for it. Edwards sponsored it.

See the difference?

[w4rma]

115. Not really. They both defended their votes, except Edwards stopped and Kerry is still defending.(nt)

[Just-plain-Kathy]

12. You know, politics is new to me

and I’m just an ordinary person, yet I know about PNAC, most of us here know about PNAC.

Being Cheney and Rumsfeld are PNAC’s co-founders, Senators should have realized it was part of this WH’s agenda to attack Iraq and Iran, even before 9-11. I think the senators who gave this WH carte blanche were spineless and should have asked more questions.

I definitely hold a grudge against candidates who trusted Bush.

[Elwood P Dowd]

15. If you think back to the 2001-2003 time frame

anybody that was against invading Iraq was labeled as anti-american and terrorist-loving bastards who supported the 3,000 deaths on 9-11. It was sickening.

[LSK]

16. wow, someone else on DU remembers 2002

Amazing.

[ChiciB1]

32. And WE Were All Leftiest Commies Too! n/t

[NYC Liberal]

45. Heh, I'm a pinko commie San Francisco-value liberal and goddamn proud!

:patriot:

[ChiciB1]

66. You Should Be Allowed To Be Wahtever You Want....

My comments were only stated to support what The Idiot felt would "sell" to Americans by calling others names IF they didn't agree with him!

His campaign from the get-go to paint others as UN-AMERICAN by using words to inflame his RW and Neo-Con supporters!

I despise him for what he's done!

[NYC Liberal]

68. I loathe the man as well!

I remember I was in that 10 percent of people, after 9.11, who STILL did not approve of Chimpy just because we had been attacked.

Might've given him some benefit of the doubt had he not botched the whole thing: sitting in that classroom for close to an hour doing NOTHING, then getting on AF1 and flying secret base to secret base, hiding out for hours like a coward.

And then they had the whole "let's paint anyone who's against our policies, in any way, as anti-American!" Sheesh.

[ChiciB1]

83. I Was Against The Idiot BEFORE 2000! There Was A Lot Of Information

out there about him AND the Neo-cons and it was in writing! I tried so hard to get the message out but too many just didn't listen. But then, The Idiot DIDN'T win either time out... so some got it!

I'm old enough to remember Viet Nam and had friends who died in that war, so I most definitely am one of those "pacifist" type people! Living down here, smack dab in the middle of Florida (Cruella's District last time out) you can imagine what kind of flack I got!!

I kept working all the time, but lately I've stopped calling & writing Congress, I still sign some petitions, but really think we need to mount a MASSIVE REVOLUTION and Storm the WH!! I've kind of called it quits for a while, been working to get a Re-Vote here in my District for Christine Jennings and was working with Mandate For Change... but feel I need a break because NOTHING will stop The Idiot! I'm just fed up, but somehow I always slink back into the fray!

When I talk about marching, I mean MASSIVE! And yes, I do know MOST people think marches don't work... but I do!

Time To Dump Some TEA!

[Just-plain-Kathy]

33. I remember how horrible it was back then,

but even now---there’s not one democrat who openly speaks about PNAC. I once heard Gary Hart murmur something about PNAC on the Daily Show, but John Stewart didn’t pick up on it.

I think if democrats spoke about Cheney’s plan of world domination during the ‘04 elections, a democrat would have been in the White House now, mending fences---not sending more troops to Iraq.

[Elwood P Dowd]

35. I agree

Something smells with that. I was reading the PNAC shit 7 years ago, yet not one Dem mentioned them.

[Adelante]

47. Cheney’s plan of world domination during the ‘04 elections

Wes Clark did and was called a loon for his trouble, even here on DU. He still does, though.

[loyalsister]

37. You're exactly correct

And, the sad fact that I wish many could admit is that it was a vote of ambition and self interests in many cases.
Edwards was planning his run for president during that run up. I have it on good authority from a lobbyist who met with him early on.

To me, it is not absolutely unforgivable if he's the candidate in the GE, but as far as during the primary.... It was a serious enough lapse in judgement to be a deal breaker. War should never be for sale in the name of ambition- ever.

[mdmc]

75. that lack of courage was very sickening

now the same folks are calling for cut and run.

You really couldn't write this stuff (too strange to be true, yet true).

[fishwax]

112. I wish more of our leaders had stood up to those charges

instead of being cowed into supporting the war. That was, indeed, a very sickening time. :puke:

[bobbolink]

17. I completely understand your points, and agree with you.

But.. I'm completely FOR Edwards, and that is simply because he's the only one WORKING ON POVERTY ISSUES!!!

Given that I'm in poverty, I MUST vote my best interests.

If you can get another candidate to work on poverty like Edwards has, then I'll have options.

Until then.....

[karynnj]

118. Plenty of people are working on Poverty

Edwards simply talks about it more.

Obama did work on it in the Illinois Legislature and was an activist before that.

Hillary did work on education as the wife of an Arkansas governor.

Kerry has done a large amount, for example, much of his work on the Small Business Committee was on things like making microloans available and centers to help minorities and women with guidance in creating successful business. He and Kennedy wrote the bill that was the blueprint for what became S-CHIP which was the biggest expansion of federal health insurance since Medicare.

Kerry also has worked with Youthbuild, which helps at risk (mostly minority kids) get marketable skills and mentored and has an excellent record for decades. This is an issue he has worked on since he was a prosecutor back in the late 1970s.

By the way - try this test. Go to Thomas: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r109query.htm then for the each the 106, 107 and 108 congresses:

see how many matches to "poverty" (in keywords)& John Edwards (in the dropdown Senator list) and
poverty & John Kerry ) you get.

You may be surprised. Kerry easily beats him each and every year. (I assume Kennedy beats either by a country mile)

[Hippo_Tron]

122. IMO, on an issue like povery, talking about it is a big deal

Simply because it's an issue that people don't want to hear about but they need to. Conventional wisdom among Democrats is that you win by talking about the middle class. Edwards is being gutsy by making poverty his number one issue because that defies conventional wisdom.

That being said if Edwards doesn't support bringing the troops home then I don't know where he plans to get the money to fix the problems of poverty.

[Skwmom]

101. I don't think it's really about the trust - it's about the political ambitions.

Either way - too stupid or too self-serving - one should be disqualified from becoming commander-in-chief.

What message does that send to future senators - Vote to send this country to an unnecessary war (costing thousands of lives and trillions of dollars when it's all said and done) and you too will be elevated to the highest often in the land. Hmmm... one would think that the focus would be on deterring such future votes, not encouraging them.

On edit: Oh what in the heck do I know - I'm not a political consultant, political pundit or other media talking head. Of course, I'd like to think I do have common sense.....

[Zhade]

25. They're good words to hear.

But I still don't want him anywhere near foreign policy.

[Nutmegger]

27. I know he's sincere. He came up to support Lamont.

Those who came up to support Ned Lamont (Clark, Kerry and Edwards) I put on a pedestal because they came up when it matter while the rest ran and screamed like morans not knowing what to do.

Besides, Edwards has recanted before. He's a decent candidate and I like him a lot.

[Critters2]

28. Vote?!! It was more than a vote!!! He sponsored it!!!

And I won't support him in the primaries because of this. I KNEW he was wrong at the time! Why didn't he?!

[Skwmom]

42. So someone can co-sponsor what many are calling the

worst foreign policy decision in the history of the U.S., one that leads to thousands dead, maimed (physically and /or emotionally for life), a plundering of the U.S. Treasury that many generations to come will be paying for and we should consider that person a viable candidate for the presidency because of what??????

[bobbolink]

44. Because he is working so hard for poor folk, when the rest of the Dems

have forgotten us.

[Skwmom]

58. Didn't he take up the plight of the poor AFTER running for

president? Plus, haven't a lot of Democrats pushed for increasing the minimum wage? I agree Edwards seems to have been working hard over the past couple of years - working hard at trying to become the Democratic nominee.

[bobbolink]

64. I figured, from your snarky tone, it wouldn't matter to you.

I doubt it matters to you what has happened to me, so I won't mention it.

Just a suggestion... when you want more people to vote, understanding who they are, and how they see things is most helpful, rather than shooting them down. But, you already knew that, right?

Edwards, if you've paid attention, has done MUCH more than minimum wage. As I said, if you spent the same amount of time and effort urging OTHER candidates to do the same, then I would have options.

But, I know that matters not to you. So, snark away. Clearly your objective isn't furthering understanding, so have the last (snarky) word.

It will do much to strenghten the Dem party. :eyes:

'Bye now.

[Skwmom]

104. Edwards sure doesn't bring out my warm and fuzzy side.

but I’ve never been partial to politicians like Edwards

By the way, I agreed wholeheartedly with Webb's editorial on class struggle. I just like the real thing - not political spin.

[QC]

69. Actually, he was talking class issues in his 2004 primary campaign.

Anyone who followed the campaign is well aware of that.

[Skwmom]

100. Let me clarify. After he BEGAN running for president. Wasn't he

running for pres in 04? I'm aware he revived a canned "Two Americas" speech from a prior candidate.

[Critters2]

79. It's mostly poor folk dying in Iraq. That's how much he cares. nt

[bobbolink]

85. To a large extent, yes. But his caring goes much beyond that.

The war is all that most Dems can see.

He encompasses more.

I appreciate and support that.

Further, as I keep saying, I wish he wasn't the only one.

[Critters2]

87. The war is the most important issue.

It's racking up deficit spending, taking the lives of young (again, mostly poor) Americans, damaging our reputation overseas and therefore putting us at risk.

And all because of a resolution Edwards sponsored.

He's no friend to the poor.

[bobbolink]

89. Well, to those of us who are in danger of going extinct, it's very important.

"He's no friend to the poor."

Geeeeez, you have that completely WRONG!!

In fact, I will say that all those who are saying that the war is ever so much more important than USians in poverty are CLEARLY no friend of poor folk.

So, we part company here.

'Bye now. Enjoy your last word.

[Critters2]

92. 460 Billion dollars wasted, that could have gone to social programs

because of a resolution he sponsored. He's no friend to the poor.

[bobbolink]

93. YEs, dearie... AND HE'S THE ONLY ONE DOING POVERTY WORK NOW!!

I will keep saying it--all those who say the war is the only issue, and keep harping on it ARE NO FRIENDS OF POOR FOLK!!

It's quite obvious from the lack of actual concern for poor folk expressed here, that those who only harp on the war issue ARE NO FRIENDS OF POOR FOLK!

Yoou're only interested in shouting me down... you aren't interested in showing compassion or any understanding of what I'm saying and why.

THAT, MY DEAR, SAYS IT ALL.

[Critters2]

94. I'm interested

Please don't tell me what I'm thinking. I'm concerned for the poor. I would like there to be social programs to move then out of poverty. I'd like there to be assistance to support them here and now. I'd like them to stop being used as cannon fodder. I'd like that $460 billion to be used for the poor. But it can't be, because it's being wasted in Iraq. And why is it being wasted in IRaq? Because John Edwards enabled it to be wasted in Iraq.

John Edwrds is your friend because he wants your vote. Just like he wanted the warmonger vote in '03.
He's a politician. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[bobbolink]

95. If you were "interested", you wouldn't be so anxious to bash and

belittle me.

Look at your previous words, then wonder why poor folk would even bother to go vote for Dems?

Just look at it with clear eyes.

Put yourself in our shoes.

Would you like to be talked down to that way??????

[Critters2]

96. I'm speaking to you as an equal.

I've said nothing belittling. I suspect you're making some assumptions yourself. I have been poor, if that's the issue.

I don't think poor Americans should be cannon fodder. I don't think money should be wasted on imperial wars when it's needed to care for the poor.

What is the problem?

[earth mom]

46. Good for Edwards!

How many others in congress have admitted they were wrong for voting for the Iraq War?!

Edwards impressed me with his Tonight Show appearance and I really think he will be a strong contender if Gore doesn't run-who is my first choice. But Gore/Edwards works for me! :woohoo:

[mmonk]

49. As someone who has heard him explain in person

this current situation and that he was wrong about the IWR vote and what's wrong with the US currently, I can assure everyone he not only is a safe bet for president but would be a good choice as well.

[Skwmom]

59. I wonder if the rest of the pissed of world will think an "I'm sorry"

is all it takes?

[mmonk]

61. Depends if his actions make them feel at ease.

I've heard him speak enough and he has done a lot of legwork speaking to leaders around the world that I believe they would be perfectly comfortable with him. I didn't support him the first time around because of this issue and I'm convined he would make a good president (and there's no one I know of more critical of the IWR and "conservative" democrats than me).

[mdmc]

57. still lovin the drug war and death penalty though right?

That doesn't effect rich white folks...

Anyway, good for you, John Edwards. You are on the right side of this issue.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

60. Howard Dean was right though

and yet Dean got lambasted for crticizing the war in the 2004 elections. The others played at war warriors, Kerry and Edwards were ill-advised. The can't beat 'em join 'em stance did not work.

I think John Edwards is a very capable man and wish him well in his run for Presidency.

[WinkyDink]

63. I like JE, but as someone who marched against the Illegal Invasion prior to it,

why wasn't I conned? How was I smarter or less naive than a United States Senator??

Put another way: Why didn't JE listen to Ted or Russ? THEY weren't fooled, nor were they willing to GIVE UP their Constitutional power to declare war.

And they sure as heck didn't trust Bush.

[Lex]

82. You should run for office!

Congress needs more like you.

[Zomby Woof]

77. I wouldn't support him otherwise

Some may say he is being opportunistic, but I say to that, even so, he is handling it masterfully by repeatedly admitting he was wrong, rather than Kerry's pretzel logic defense. The forthrightness of admitting being wrong beats word hockey any day. I am giving Edwards the benefit of the doubt and accepting his words at face value. Unlike Bush and the neocons, Edwards at least has the ability to SAY he was wrong, instead of obstinately "staying the course" and deepening the disaster.

His confrontation of America's class crisis is also the main reason I support him this time around.

[FrenchieCat]

84. I agree that Edwards was wrong, and I would like to see true atonement for his actions

in where he went above and beyond merely voting for the blank check; he advocated for this nightmare, and did so in the name of regional security for Israel's benefit.

You see, its easy to simply say that John Edwards did what a lot of Dems did; voted for the IWR Blank check, but that is only partially true. John Edwards was also an advocate for the invasion, and that is the part that I can't get beyond. He clearly understood or should have, the ramifications of his involvement. It was one thing to vote for this war with relunctancy even based on political calculations, but it was quite another to have provided a rational for our invasion that mirrored that of Bush and Cheney....which Edwards certainly did based on his written and spoken words at the time.

Not all politicians in regards to their IWR votes are equals.

Appropriate Atonement is not running for President and cannot be simply words, which are too easy to come by, in particular for a politician. However, everything else being equal, I will compliment John Edwards in that he is a good politician and understands politics very well, from what I currently see. That is not meant to be back handed compliment, as being able to position one's self in the world of politics takes skills, and so that is a definite plus on Edwards side, far as I can tell.

In reference to John Edwards' populism, I did not clearly see that as his trademark while he held elected office (which if we are going to look at someone's sincerity on an issue, then looking at one's actions when one had the power to do something meaningful would be much more indicative of their intent, and citing those efforts would negate what some believe is an issue that Edwards settled on as as an appealing platform for the purpose of running for President....and so if someone who supports John Edwards could point to the legislations that John Edwards introduced and or championed that were focusing on the plight of the poor during his six years in office (before 2003 would be even better-since he started running in 2003) that would correct the recollection of those in doubt and who are suspicious of Edwards's sincerity. I for one would very gladly accept the information and it could go a long way in garneting support for John Edwards and his run for the presidency, IMO. (thank you in advance).

Edited to add....some will see this as an attack on John Edwards (as I have been accused of this many times), while others will see it as a reasonable comment and opinion on one of our politicians
and those folks will afford me the right of participating on DU by allowing me to express such without jumping on me personally just cause they disagree with my view).

[Rex]

102. Wow, a politician that can admit to being wrong.

And mean it. Like a breath of fresh air.

[Skwmom]

103. A politician who admits he's wrong when the polls turn against

his prior decision? Breath of fresh air? Hardly.

[EdwardM]

105. I'm glad he admitted he was wrong.

But I will not vote for any Senator who voted for the war in the primaries. That includes Him, Kerry, Clinton or anyone else. I want someone who will not fold with the wind, and stood up to Bush when our country need them to. If a Senator who voted for the IWR, I will vote for them in the general, but only because I'm voting against McCain or Guilani or whoever wins on the republican side.

[Triana]

107. He Admits His Mistakes - That takes guts and...

...maturity. I like that in a politician - esp after The Weaselly Lying One.

[bluewave]

108. I would prefer if he admitted why he was wrong.

I would hope he would include: preemptive war is immoral and against international law.

[GreenArrow]

117. interesting how that is missing from his "apology,"

along with any mention of the ongoing death, disruption and destruction this country has visited on the Iraqi people, all of which was unnecessary under every particular offered in its justification. Somehow, suddenly discovering that he was "wrong" on his "vote" just doesn't cut it.

[Lord Byron]

110. It's easy to admit you're wrong now

3 years ago it wasn't so easy. But 3 years ago I knew Bush was wrong.

Don't mind Edwards' stand on the issues, but come on!

[David Zephyr]

114. John Edwards is making a great spokesman these days for our party.

I am a supporter of Wes Clark who is proud of John Edwards.

I especially like how he is sticking the "surge" policy from the White House onto John McCain. We should all follow that lead.

Go John!