John Edwards just lost my support.

[NightWatcher]

I had been supporting Edwards in the lead up to the primary, but with the revelation from Dick Durbin that the Senate Committee on Intelligence knew that the info that Bush used as a reason for war was fixed and was bad intel.

If Edwards knew that the intelligence was faulty, but still voted yes, he too shares the blame and guilt for everyone of the dead and injured troops. Apologizing for voting yes a few years later does not excuse his error. There are things so great and wrong that there is no apology, nor excuse that can wash the sin from your soul.

This news needs to come out and be in the forefront of the MSM in order to force Edwards to get out of the presidential race or at least address this matter. Everyday that he remains in the race and every dollar that he receives takes away from a legitimate candidate. Hillary may have voted for the war, but she may not have known about the obvious faulty intelligence as did Edwards.


Durbin's Quote from April 28, 2007
“A few hundred feet away from here in a closed room, carefully guarded, the Intelligence Committee was meeting on a daily basis for top secret briefings about the information we were receiving and the information we had on the Intelligence Committee was not the same information that was being given to the American people. I couldn’t believe it. Members of this administration were in active heated debate over whether aluminum tubes really meant that the Iraqis were developing nuclear weapons some within the administration were saying of course not it is not the same kind of aluminum tube. At the same time members of the administration were telling the American people to be fearful of mushroom shaped clouds. I was angry about it. Frankly, I could not do much about it cause you see, on the Intelligence Committee we’re sworn to secrecy. I could not go outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the WH is in direct contradiction to classified information that’s being given to this Congress. We can’t do that. We couldn’t make those statements.


“So, in my frustration I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq and thinking the American people are being misled. They are not being told the truth. That’s why I twenty-two members of my colleagues in voting no. I did not feel at the time that the American people knew the real facts.


“So what happened, we invaded, turned loose, hundreds if not thousands of people looking for these weapons of mass destruction. Never found one of them. Looked for nuclear weapons, no evidence whatsoever.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_kevin_ze_070501_durbin_gives_edwards.htm

[buff2]

1. I think everyone should get out of the race that I don't support

See how stupid that sounds? Just because you don't support someone is no sign that the rest of us don't. I hate threads like this.

[Clark2008]

2. Uhhh... the OP said he/she doesn't support Edwards anymore

I don't see how that's stupid.

It's based on the former senator's record - and that's what we SHOULD be looking at - their records.

:shrug:

[Der Blaue Engel]

36. Actually, the OP said

"This news needs to come out and be in the forefront of the MSM in order to force Edwards to get out of the presidential race or at least address this matter. Everyday that he remains in the race and every dollar that he receives takes away from a legitimate candidate."

[Clark2008]

112. And the OP is entitled to his/her opinion.

Opinions aren't "stupid" - they're just opinions.

Why do we get so worked up over opinions around here?

[NightWatcher]

4. I am saying, "shame on you John"

not suggesting that everyone that I do not like should get out.

[msongs]

3. wasn't this posted here a few days ago? nt

[NightWatcher]

5. sorry, I was working, I did not see it

[illinoisprogressive]

6. I'm an Obama supporter and I urge you first to write to Edwards and express your disappointment

why don't you first write to his site and express your feelings and disappointment. Maybe he can explain why and maybe he has a good reason.
Senator Durbin is my senator and I know the kind of character the man has. I am disappointed but, I also understand the mood, the thugs of the administration and what they did to people. he still has my support and my vote when he comes up for re elction. Because I know Sen. Durbin is an horonable man and has done his best. I know there were reasons. he has never been accused of being a typical pol. or callous. We in Illinois know what kind of person he is.

maybe Edwards has good reasons for doing what he did. I would first try to contact him and express your feelings.
does he have a blog on his site. I know Sen. Obama does and we express everything even people come and express that they don't support him or wonder about something. It's not all rah rah stuff. People criticize him there. does Edwards have the same thing? A good discussion with fellow supporters would clear the air well.

don't make a rash decision.

[NightWatcher]

7. I've done it already, I wanted answers before I exploded

[madmunchie]

23. "rash decision" is a decision to support somebody who knew the

facts and still voted for the war in Iraq and co sponsored the IWR..... "Clearing the air"? The point is that Edwards made the worst decision of his very short career in a political office knowing more of the facts than most of the other Senators and he CHOSE to support going into Iraq AND it took him years to figure out that it wasn't a good vote AND he is talking hawkish on Iran....I just wish to God, people would wake up and realize that giving people chance after chance after those people show that they just don't have the wisdom or experience to be POTUS, afterall, isn't that PRECISELY what the Repubs have done for Bush? There is absolutely no wiggle room for error anymore, Bush and going into Iraq has just about ruined this country, we absolutely need somebody that KNOWS what the Hell they are doing and has some type of credible record to prove it.

[GreenArrow]

50. he's got good reasons

He wants to be President. Can you imagine how cool that would be, to be President of the USA! Wow! Talk about the ultimate line on your resume. Talk about ego trips! From the millhouse to the court house to the White House! Just gotta look tough and strong -- Presidential -- on this Iraq issue, (maybe a co-sponsorship...and an op-ed for the Times or Post...) and then dazzle 'em with charm and populist rhetoric. It'll be as easy as 1--2--3,352.

[Schema Thing]

8. Good for you

I'm gobsmacked that anyone, let alone anyone who is a democrat, would consider voting for someone who showed such bad judgement about the biggest fuckup (not to mention pure evil) to trip up America in a long, long time.

Sorry John, Hillary, your political finger-to-the-winds-of-war was evil, stupid, and just.plain.wrong, and it should bite you in the ass. You aren't smart enough or good enough to hold the most important job in the world.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[NightWatcher]

12. I had been a supporter of Edwards. I praised him while attacking others

Do you want to see a receipt of my donation to his website for $20.08?
Do you want to see my pages of blogs from his One America Committee that I have long since signed up for. Do you want to see my myspace page with my comments of support?

[liberalnurse]

14. Yes.............

PM them to me.

[Bluebear]

16. :)

Good answer!

[NightWatcher]

20. here's a screenshot from my email confirming my registration to his blog

check the date MONDAY NOVEMBER 20, 2006

[The Count]

143. Way to corner the dissenter! Got yer torches?

You guys are amazing!

[Zensea]

15. bwahahaha

Couldn't have said it better myself.

-- zensea (aka 56kid in other places)

[The Count]

144. Apparently, the poster you praise so much got embarrassed...or banned.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

9. The Edwards campaign has struck home with a lot of the county

precinct folks in my area. They love him, in fact.

So do I.

I think he's our next president.

[Clark2008]

114. God help us if he is.

He's really no better than most Republicans.

Please, take a healthy look at his very conservative voting record.

[ClassWarrior]

10. So you want a president who will never admit when he's wrong?

Guess what? You already have one. How's that working out for ya?

NGU.

[NightWatcher]

13. I want someone who does what's right

Fuck me for stating my opinion

[ClassWarrior]

28. Ahhh, one who never makes mistakes. Thanks for clearing that up.

:eyes:

NGU.

[madmunchie]

31. Edwards took years to admit what all of us KNEW was a bad vote

Seems to me, maybe all of us are more qualified to be POTUS, since our wisdom and decsions were right and Edwards was WRONG......How does that WORK for you?

[ClassWarrior]

58. Run.

NGU.

[truebrit71]

152. It's not that he was wrong...it was that he voted FOR something he KNEW was a lie...

..which means he didn't posess the spinal fortitude to stand up for what is right...

If he wouldn't do it as a Senator, why would he do it as a President?

He can apologize and say it was a mistake, but when he says he was lied to, that simply isn't true...he KNEW the evidence was cooked, BUT THEN VOTED FOR THE WAR ANYWAY!!!

Thanks, but no thanks.

[KharmaTrain]

11. We Are Where We Are...

Methinks some here either are forgetting or ignoring the toxic political climate and the timing of the IWR. The pressure from the full-press media blitz and public opinion polls showing boooshie at 70% plus approvals, it forced people like Edwards and others to "split the baby"...deferring to the public opinion polls, media hype and their own political aspirations in "playing it safe".

The "conventional wisdom" was this invasion WOULD be a cakewalk. We'd go blasting into Iraq, hang Saddam and be home in days or weeks. No one could concieve a resistance that would be stronger 4 years on than ever. Well, let me qualify that...many here and in the blogosphere did, but we were so few and diminished, it's amazing to see how big the blogs have become over these years...and in many cases thanks to this decrepit invasion and occupation.

I'm not a supporter of any candidate, but to single out an Edwardsor anyone who voted for the IWR now and now regrests the vote as some sort of jellyfish or "unworthy" should take a step back and survey those who still stand by their vote and feel it isn't a mistake.

Now Chuck Hagel started out as a big supporter of this invasion and now he's the toast of DU and other anti-war sites as one whose "seen the light". Is the light he's seeing different than the one Edwards saw? I'm just askin'.

The pressure and intimidation surrounding that vote was intense...and in a state as Conservative as North Carolina, where pro-war sentiments were high, do you think that vote didn't represent that of his constiutents?

I'd rather spend our time and efforts going after the Repugnican enablers of this invasion...make those that did the deceptions, applied the pressure and created this mess accountable.

[NNN0LHI]

17. I also thought at the time that although Iraq was not a threat to us...

...Bush and his goons would find at least enough "WMDs" in Iraq to BS and scare the American people into justifying the whole thing. Americans were easily scared right after 9/11.

I think some politicians thought the same thing.

Don

[KharmaTrain]

40. Damn That Hindsight

I'm with you as I was expecting this regime to make something show up. Good thing they were so incompetent they couldn't plant them properly.

The amount of misinformation flying around combined with intimidation made this vote (as well as the UN vote in December) one of the darkest moments in this country's history.

Here's hoping those behind this war for profit are the ones held accountable, not those who got snowed over in the mad rush for blood and revenge.

Cheers...

:hi:

[Skip Intro]

18. I agree, but...

I need to know what his floor statement was when he cast his vote to give bush authority to attack Iraq, as a measure of last resort, I believe. I know that Kerry seemed to try to limit bush's power there. But I need to read Edwards' statement - his explanation - of why he voted the way he did, at the time.

But you know, considering "at the time" also demands context. It was an election year. bushco was very popular. anthrax was floating around. terror alerts and plastic sheeting. Democrats were being morphed into bin laden on tv commmercials for the patriotic rove-right. It was in full effect.

Can't help holding it against Edwards if he knew the war was bogus and din't do or say something. But I have to be fair enough and honest enough to recognize that conditions in the US then and conditions in the US now are two different things. It was dangerous to be a Democrat for a while after 9*11. Context is important.

I miss Paul Wellstone.

[Old and In the Way]

19. Was Edwards on the Intelligence Committee?

Based on Durbin's own words in your post, he couldn't share what he knew with anyone in the Democratic caucus.

"Frankly, I could not do much about it cause you see, on the Intelligence Committee we’re sworn to secrecy. "

[NightWatcher]

21. couldnt he come out and say, "these are lies"

without saying what they were. Or he could have voted against the war.

[Lochloosa]

125. No, he could not. But he could have voted against the war.

[Joe Fields]

126. If he had any guts he would have come out and said these were lies.

[Connie_Corleone]

25. Yes, Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee.

[Old and In the Way]

43. Didn't know...I guess he needs to talk a little more about his vote in light of Durbin's comments.

[Clarkie1]

60. Oh, I'm sure he'll do the tapdance. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Absolutely.

Yup.

[Mass]

44. Yes.\nt

[madmunchie]

48. The big point is that he knew more than the others and STILL voted

for the IWR.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Yes, he was. Here is the list:

Bob Graham, Florida

Carl Levin, Michigan

John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia

Dianne Feinstein, California

Ron Wyden, Oregon

Evan Bayh, Indiana

John Edwards, North Carolina

Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html

[MannyGoldstein]

22. Aren't You Letting Edwards Off Easy?

He CO-SPONSORED the IWR, not just voted for it.

And he voted for permanent 'free' trade with China.

Other than that, he's just a simple peace-lovin' workin'-to-save-US-jobs kinda' country boy.

(In a 28,000 square foot house)

Unbelievable :rofl: !

[Connie_Corleone]

24. Don't forget Edwards voted NO on the Durbin and Levin amendments to the IWR.

I'm still waiting for him to explain those votes.

On edit: I did email my question to the campaign.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Great Catch!

I didn't know that.

[madmunchie]

51. Please tell me more about that vote. Just another nail in Edwards

metal overloaded cross. It just amazes me that people on the DU would support somebody that #1 voted in support of the IWR, #2 co sponsored the bill #3 voted for the Patriot Act #4 took years to admit that voting for the IWR was a mistake and #5 now voted NO on the Durbin and Levin amendments??????????? #6 Edwards did not champion or sponsor any poverty legislation during the 6 years he was a Senator, #7 he co-sponsored a massive increase in H-1b Visas...

I look at what Edwards HAS DONE, NOT what he SAYS he is going to do.

It makes me sick that so many Dems are willing to let an apology (coming years after the horrible error in judgement) excuse Edwards, it reminds me of the Repugs supporting Bush.

How do you overlook this horrible error in judgment that has resulted in thousands and thousands of lives ruined and lost?

I knew better, why didn't Edwards? - - - -

[madmunchie]

52. Self Delete Dup

[w4rma]

26. I didn't need Durbin to tell me that. I already assumed it was true. I support Edwards.

He was a brand new Senator who was being helped along by the DLCers. He listened to them, thinking that these Clintonites were smart and knew what they were doing. He misjudged the DLCers. He separated himself from the DLC a couple of years later and has picked issues and solutions that are precisely his own.

Jeeze, shortsighted, single issue people like you may cause us to end up with Hillary who is right there at the root of much of the corruption in the current Democratic Party.

What is Edwards going to do about the situation, now? I think his solutions are the best and most honest.

[karynnj]

He was elected in 1998, fall 2002 more than half way into his one and only

Senate term - and most of the time after that was spent campaigning for President. Your argument that equates to "he was just a kid" to let you ignore that entire 4 year period - elimiates most of his experience.

He sounded as sincere with his 2004 platform as he was with his 2008 one. The vote for the 2001 bankrupcy bill bothers me even more. Edwards was not (and still isn't) a foreign policy expert, so he could have been "led astray" on that.

The 2001 bankrupcy bill - that Clinton (and of course Biden) voted for too - is completely the opposite of the populist stance he has now. He says his economic background makes him act for the little guy, but here it didn't. This was NOT an esoteric theoretical issue - this is something that can't be explained away as he was only Senator for 3 years.

[karynnj]

91. self delete - dup

[Rosemary2205]

146. My question is

He'll be "new" at being president too. If his judgement as a "new" senator got him in that much trouble what in the world will his judgement as "new" president get us into.

IMHO Edwards should stick to getting individuals legal justice. That's where his experience is and seems to be the one place he doesn't make these kinds of errors in judgement.

[GreenArrow]

156. The Courthouse,

NOT the Whitehouse.

[Cameron27]

157. You know it's very strange

that you can reel off that vitriolic quip about Hillary, and no one bats an eyelash, and yet there's a thread in GD-P right now, a good-bye to DU, where posters are calling many of us who question Edwards' vote on the IWR,(backed up with links mind you) concerned trolls, sickos, hateful, disrupters, and more.

I don't understand it. I'm not a Clinton supporter, but the hypocrisy is simply breathtaking.

[Colobo]

27. Edwards is a good man

Don't give up on him like that.

[OHdem10]

30. Why is it that so many especially at Fox News

are trying to really hit Edwards? People must be
really afraid he just might pull ahead????

I am sorry but your psot reminds me of ORelly whos
saying Edwards is going to lose over his position
on Immigration. I thought to myself--I do not
even know Edwards position on Immigration.

Nor have i selected a candidate.

[NightWatcher]

33. Now I'm being compared to OReally?

[MannyGoldstein]

42. It's Astonishing What One Can Be Accused Of...

For simply pointing out a candidate's voting record.

I'm routinely called a "Republican" who "hates powerful women". It brings such joy to my heart...

[MadBadger]

45. I was just accused of always swinging things to the right

because in a conversation about "Why the terrorists hate us," Somebody answered talkin about impeachment. I responded asking if they were answering the right question. I was then accused of bringing things to the right.

[Gloria]

32. He seems to have consulted Clinton Admin people.....and we know now

that that crowd really was OK with going into Iraq. Go to TPM and see the WaPo story on Mark Penn. Describes how they tried to go after Obama even before the debate. I'm thinking the cold body language between Edwards and Hillary at the debate coming after his jibes about "conscience" is partly due to his feeling betrayed. The advice he got from the Clinton crowd now seems to fit very well into their Rovian way of dealing with people. They'll be going after him next. Think about this.

[trudyco]

34. So were the Dems on the Intelligence Committee getting the

same info or were they being shut out? It seems like the Repukes shut out the Dems all the time.

[Rose Siding]

90. At Inslee's townhall meeting, he mentioned a room that held the

cumilative intel assessments that Congress had been given -I don't know if that was more or less complete than what was made available to the Senate Intel Cmte- but he said when he looked at it (many didn't even bother) all he could think was "this is it?". Seeing what they had *convinced* him to vote against the resolution.

[karynnj]

93. Durbin and Graham both explained this

The documents available in that room for te rest of Congress were cherry picked and many caveats were not there.

The intelligence committee which they were on had more complete information - which is why they can say what they did - that the information given the rest of congress was not a "fair" reflextion of what was known.

Daschle and Graham, as Majority leader and chairman of the Intelligence committee were the 2 Senate democrats in the group of 8 that got even more information.

Edwards also said in 2003 (Hardball) that he did not think Saddam had WMD but was a danger to the region. In a word where video tape exists - Edwards has contradicted earlier statements on what he believed to be true - at a given point of time.

[Rose Siding]

94. Then Inslee was even underwhelmed by the finished "product"

There was no good reason for anyone to support an invasion.

[karynnj]

120. That's the old it was a vote for war -

which it wasn't. The result would have been different if the resolution was an unambiguous declaration of war.

[Rose Siding]

159. I know the language in the res, as do the dems who regret their vote

They wouldn't be apologizing for it if they didn't realize now, as many of us did then, that bush would hold it up as a green light for his own agenda of war.

Sometimes "the old" is valid. Like Europe :)

[Le Taz Hot]

121. And yet,

most of us here at DU knew the truth. Really, all it took was a computer, an internet connection and the slightest bit of curiosity before voting for something that would likely impact this country for 100 years or more -- possibly bringing it down.

That "cherry picking" crap was been flushed long ago. I'm amazed that people still use it in the hopes that SOMEONE will actually still believe it. Amazing.

[saltpoint]

35. There's abiding loyalty to him. The people who know him say so, and

he's attracted a lot of diverse folks to the campaign.

David Bonior is the campaign manager. Bonior's no fool. He wouldn't attach himself to Edwards if Edwards did not reinforce the essence of what Bonior feels makes the nation tick.

I don't think Elizabeth Edwards would marry someone if she believed he would not be a loving father to their children.

[NightWatcher]

37. I never said he was not a good father. I said he should have acted differently surrounding the war

I'm criticising him for remainig silent when it appeared to people like Dick Durbin that the prewar intelligence was faulty. Dick Durbin at least voted agains the war. John voted for the war and later apologized for it. I simply said that I no longer support him. I wish him good luck and a healthy life. I prayed for his wife and even contributed money for flowers

[saltpoint]

47. I take a different path to our nominees. And to our representatives generally.

I'm aware of their voting records and many of the public statements. Joe Biden for instance, earlier today suggested that the Senate -- he may have meant the entire 110th Congress-- would "cram this down his throat." "This" was the troop-appropriations-with-finite-troop commitment bill; and "his" meant George W. Bush. I'm interested in whether Biden let this slip in just those terms or if he lit is slip on purpose in just those terms. My guess is the latter.

I'm aware of his sectarian reapportionment plan with the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, but more interested in the absence of a coherent plan by the Bush administration. In other words, I love it that Biden and other Democrats have proposal (despite the blather you hear to the contrary on the MSM) but the issue is, why do we have proposals for the resolution of the conflict and Condoleezza Rice, who after all is the Secretary of State, has zilch?

In that matrix, I'm going for the Democrats every time. Every goddam time. Because that is the matrix I vote in, and the matrix of the government -- of, for and by the people -- that I live under and am a part of.

In Edwards case, or Kucinich, or Dodd, or Hillary Clinton, or Gravel, or Obama, or Hart, or Richardson, or anyone else, I want a sum greater than the parts we can add up separately. I get that in our candidates, even if I don't agree with their wording, or their vote on a given issue, or even the style of their campaign. I'm interested in the resonance of their potential leadership against the backdrop of its absence. And in the overwhelming case of Democrats -- running this time or in any other election at any level -- I'm likely to prefer living as a citizen in THEIR America than in Mitch McConnell's America, or Jeff Sessions' America, or Norm Coleman's, or Ken Blackwell's, and so forth.

I'm interested in the resonance of their potential leadership against the backdrop of its absence.

[Old and In the Way]

62. Well said Old Crusoe!

I'm in total agreement. Watching that debate the other night, I saw the next POTUS...just not sure which one it will be. The Democratic brand stands for a rational and caring public policy for the majority of Americans. That's what I want. Really, the next person selected is going to be a "big picture person" who'll be have to articulate a non-Republican vision for America to us and the world. I want the best communicator in the top slot. Can't discount John Edwards ability to do that in spades.

The IWR is Bush's legacy, period. He did the lying and the illegal war starting. Democrats were reeling in 2000-2003 timeframe. They had the Supreme Court and the corporate media against them and minorities in both houses. They were playing "stay alive" defense. Times have changed and I'm looking forward to 20 years of serious payback when we take back the WH and build our majorities in Congress in 2008. I suspect that we'll see a very interesting attitude change in the Democrats when they are controlling 2 of the 3 branches of government.

[saltpoint]

65. Hi, Old and In the Way, and I followed your post there with respect,

and am embarrassed to say that you hit the essence on a much surer foot than I did.

Bush is the president and his lies, and his cronies' lies, are the heart of our darkness.

I'll be damned glad when these sons-a-bitches are long gone from the public sector.

[Joe Fields]

127. One way to do that is impeachment, and yet,

hardly anyone in congress has the testicular fortitude for it.

[madfloridian]

38. So many posts bashing Edwards....

So little reason for it.

We all know he voted for the war.

I am supporting him, and it makes me sick to see the posts here about this.

We all knew that some on the intelligence committee voted for the war. It has been posted here over over and over.

We all know of his vote, and many of us are supporting him.

We not only have the media against our candidates, but now we have DU against them.

[NightWatcher]

41. I'm not against him, I only said that I no longer support him

Nor I am "bashing" him. I am simply removing my support for the man.

[ChiciB1]

49. Ya Know... This Isn't EVER Going To Stop No Matter What You Say

or what I say. There was a time I thought Clinton was getting beat up a lot, but I've NEVER seen anything that compares to the ANTI-Edwards threads of late. In the past six months I've responded to so many that I rarely give them a 2nd glance anymore.

Still I do respond from time to time, but not like I used to... I suppose John Edwards must have "666" imprinted somewhere on the back of his head and we'll soon see it on YouTube!!!

Oh well, he's just a DEMOCRAT running for President. I mean what "if" he was a Repuke??? Just think of how really horrible we could get!! There must be MOUNTAINS of dirt we could dig up!!!!

Hey Eve.... pass that apple over here, I need just ONE MORE BITE!!!!

[Joe Fields]

128. You reap what you sow. You can support him all you want.

Personally, he's not worth a bucket of warm spit to me. In his moment of truth he failed us. I damned sure don't want him as president.

[BlooInBloo]

39. I'm sure he's crushed.

[fortyfeetunder]

53. Not so fast

A bunch of politicians got snookered by voting for the war. I am willing to let this pass if they can work as vigorously to end the war...

[GreenArrow]

59. more accuarately

a bunch of politicians want us to think they got snookered into voting for the war.

Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who have offered themselves up as our "leaders."

[jen4clark]

54. Good on you!

I'm happy you woke up before it's too late. I can't for the life of me understand why so many people are willing to support someone for the highest office in the country who either has incredibly poor judgement regarding foreign affairs, or based his votes on his own political future and not the good of the country.

I also have a real problem with his voting for the Patriot Act. It goes directly against the oath he took to defend our constitution. I have not heard him apologize for that.

And as long as JE fans are going to accuse me of smearing him, I will go on to say that anyone who's basing his platform on 2 Americas/poverty, should probably be a little more careful and tamp down his own expenses for a bit. He is setting himself up perfectly to be smeared as a hypocrite and I don't understand why he doesn't see that? Another example of poor judgement imho...

[Clarkie1]

55. You're doing the right thing. Edwards doesn't deserve the nomination; he hasn't earned it. nt

[saracat]

66. And others have? Geez .Give it a rest>

[Clarkie1]

56. Apparently Edwards cares more about his hair than integrity. nt

[w4rma]

85. Apparently *you* care more about hair than integrity. Hair is your favorite topic. (nt)

[Puglover]

160. My question is

why anyone with "Clark" in their name descends on Edwards "hate fests" like locusts? Seriously. This thread is a perfect example.

[Hobarticus]

123. Sour grapes? n/t

[Blackhatjack]

57. These 'concern' threads about Edwards just recycle every few days...

... and check the screen names of those promoting these threads --they show up right on time to allege the thread is credible.

If we are going to hold everyone responsible for every error they have made, and kick them out of the Democratic Presidential Nomination Race --there are not going to be any candidates left!

[HardRocker05]

61. They all knew. They betrayed America. The whole episode has been a disgrace to America.

I and millions of other people in america and around the world knew BushCo was distorting and hyping the intelligence to sell a war that they desparately wanted to have for reasons that had nothing to do with american security. any member of congress who voted yes on IWR should resign, and they definitely will not be getting my vote, in the primary or the general election.

[Joe Fields]

130. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally, someone around here

who sees things as they are, and not how they would like them to be.

Yes indeed, our leadership has failed us. Bush is a war criminal, and our dem leaders totally abdicated their responsibility. It is all about gaining and retaining power to them, and to hell with us, the citizens.

And when we should be defunding this war and impeaching Bush, what is going on? Temper tantrums and foot stomping, childish displays of drivel.

[The Count]

63. It's not that Edwards didn't share the info, but that it didn't STOP him from co-sponsoring

the IWR - in fact from championing it!
This is not about hindsight - HE KNEW at the time it was bogus - yet he told Tweety he's start a war himself if POTUS at the time.
This is not about admitting or not years later helping in the worst disaster Bushco created. This is about the judgment AT THE TIME - with the facts he had THEN!

Read all the stuff he did and said in 2003

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244
with the knowledge that HE KNEW at the time that the WMD accusation was BS!
Still forgivable? Still acceptable?

he knowingly advocated for a lie
How is this a mere "mistake?"

[saracat]

67. To quote Biden. "Yes".

[The Count]

68. I so hope there's a joke in here, somewhere - the Biden name gives me hope...

Clinton is still excoriated for his "I didn't inhale" (which was actually true), but Edwards get away with "I am sorry I covered for their lies and I did my best to help them put it into action"? :wow:

[saracat]

69. I was undecided as to my support of a particular candidate until today.

The onslaught of virulent and venomous posts regarding John Edwards by those who have never been in a position to cast a vote or contribute to society in any way but with their mouths in a negative way has put me in the Edwards camp. I have always liked Edwards but these disgusting attack strategy by those holier than thou Dems has put me in his campaign. Thanks for helping me decide!

[MadBadger]

70. With that attitude, we should all be Hillary fans.

[Cameron27]

71. !

:spray:

[saracat]

73. It would be nice if we could support all our candidates without

bashing them worse than Republicans. Hillary was never on my "short list" as I do not find her electable much as I would like to see a woman in the WH. I will wholeheartedly support her should she get the nomination. Among the others I think only Edwards can actually win. I am impressed by his honesty and willingness to admit he was wrong. I don't give a damn what he did years ago.I care about what he will do tommorrow.I can't place myself in his position and second guess his vote. Unlike others , he had one and had to cast it. He admits wrong.That is enough for me. I value that over someone who never had a vote but says it was wrong.

[MadBadger]

76. I agree it is honorable to admit that you are wrong.

However, I dont understand necessarily valuing that over somebody who didnt vote but said it was wrong. I dont think you can really compare the two. Though you have to remember that the one of those who never had a vote but says it was wrong, is on record as having been against it all along.

[saracat]

84. My point was the one with no vote had nothing to lose!

I was against the war all along too! BFD. It didn't matter what I thought. And there were no consequences for me as to what public statements or actions I took.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Boy, that was easy!

:thumbsup:

Based on that rationale, Hillary is a shoe-in! :rofl:

[bling bling]

77. It is easy. Isn't that how everyone chooses their candidate?

I just skim threads to see which one has the biggest hatefest and then I commit my vote to the winner. It's satisfying to then use it as a rebuttal to arguments. "I'm supporting so-and-so because you criticized him/her. You can thank yourself!! Blew it, dincha!! Ha ha!!"

We really need to come up with a label for this bizarre form of reverse psychology.

[Freddie Stubbs]

88. Perhaps he just interpreted the information differently

[jobycom]

74. I'm not an Edwards supporter in the first place, but it's a lot more complicated than that.

The IWR was not a vote to go to war. It was a vote to stop Bush from his rush to war. I know this is too hard to explain to anyone who wasn't involved at the time, but the basic, very quick, summary, was this: Bush said he was going to invade Iraq, Congress said you have to ask us first, Bush said he didn't have to ask anyone, Alberto Gonzales (who wasn't the AG yet) wrote up a legal argument stating Bush could invade any time he wanted based on existing resolutions and treaties. Bush was so adamant that he was going to invade that even his father criticized his "rush to war" in a speech in England.

Many of the Dems who voted for the IWR were trying to put restrictions on Bush's ability to invade. The rest of this long post is just further explanation of that, so let me sum it all up first, so you don't have to read if you don't want to. Edwards, like Clinton and Kerry and others, may have voted for the IWR hoping to slow Bush up, even hoping that the bad intel would be exposed if Bush was forced to go to the UN. Edwards is an attorney, and pragmatic, so he was more worried about the results than the process. Bush was going to invade. That was a done deal. There was no chance to stop him. If the IWR had been defeated, Bush would have invaded faster. It was not a vote for war. So Edwards may have been voting in the hopes that Bush's lies would be exposed before the invasion happened.

Now, the long explanation for those who weren't around then.

In September of 02, Clark made a big speech before the House Armed Services Committee laying out how difficult it would be to invade and occupy Iraq, but at the same time stating his belief that Hussein was dangerous and needed to be pressured out of Iraq. He also, basically, believed the claims about Hussein's WMD attempts, or at least went along with the claims in his speech. During this speech, he advised Congress to give Bush a resolution stating that Congress would authorize an invasion of Iraq if Hussein failed to comply with the UN's demands and resolutions.

In November both houses of Congress worked out such a resolution. It gave Bush the authority to invade IF he exhausted diplomatic channels first. The IWR clearly favored the Republicans, as they comfortably controlled both houses of Congress.

Democrats were left with basically two options, neither of which were pleasant. One, they could have opposed the Resolution. It would have still passed, and even if it had failed, Bush was claiming he had the authority to invade, so the invasion wouldn't have been prevented. It would have probably been sped up, in fact. But the Dems would have made a moral statement against it.

Two, they could take an active part in shaping the IWR. The Republicans in Congress were in an odd place. They wanted to give Bush the authority to invade, but they didn't want all the blame if it went badly, and they didn't want Bush to declare that Congress was irrelevant. So they had reasons to want an IWR, and reasons to want as many Dems to sign on as possible. This gave the Dems something to bargain with, and that allowed them to get some restrictions and requirements placed on Bush--such as requiring him to go to the UN in the first place. By giving the bill an air bipartisanship, the Democrats gave the Republicans what they wanted, and in return, the Democrats put restrictions on Bush's rush to war. The Democrats believed (some believed, anyway--like Clinton and Kerry, who stated as much in their speeches before voting for the bill) that this bill was the best opportunity to head off Bush's rush to war.

I didn't like the IWR. I said that at the time. I'm more supportive of those who voted against it, because they were wise enough not to trust Bush. But I don't blame the Democrats who voted for it (though I blame many for their later support of Bush). Some of them (excluding Miller and Lieberman and a few others) were trying to stop the invasion, not allow it. They chose a strategic move with possible real results over a symbolic gesture that would have no impact. They were naive to do it, and gravely underestimated Bush's bad faith, but that was their reasoning.

That's the full story. Not everyone got it at the time, and those who weren't following the nuances then probably still don't get it. Bill Clinton tried to explain that on Larry King the other night. Hillary has tried to explain it, but she gets accused of flip-flopping every time she does. Aside from them, a few scholars and academics try it, but many people just go along with popular opinion and say it was a vote for war.

Edwards, who was one of the most gung-ho supporters of the invasion in 2004, turned against the war when his poll numbers began plummeting, and now just claims he made a mistake, rather than explaining why he voted for the invasion. To me, Hillary's attempts to explain her vote are more honest and less politically smart than Edwards's. Obviously, I'm one of the few who sees Edwards as the flip-flopping opportunist and Hillary as the consistent, honest one.

Anyway, the reasons Durbin's revelation doesn't bother me about Edwards is because, first, Bob Graham already said much the same thing (So I don't get why Durbin has gotten so much attention), and second, because I don't really know what Edwards was thinking. Bush was going to invade, and the IWR made it harder. Maybe even though Edwards knew that the information was being fixed, he also knew that it was classified and wouldn't be released to the public, so voting against the IWR wouldn't really change anything. It might even speed up the invasion. Bush wasn't bluffing, as we should all know. He was going to invade. That was the entire reason he ran in the first place--he was the mouthpiece of a group who wanted to take over the Middle East, and bought and stole Bush into office to do so. There was zero chance Bush wouldn't invade if the IWR wasn't passed.

So Edwards may have voted for it even knowing the evidence was fixed because he thought it was the best way to slow Bush down, maybe even prevent the invasion if they slowed him enough. I don't really know. Edwards played politics a lot back then, and though his supporters don't like to hear it (although it's typical political behavior), his real views were hidden behind very strategic actions and decisions. He voted for the IWR, he was a gung-ho proponent of invading Iraq before, during, and after the invasion, and he criticized Dean's opposition to the invasion in exactly the same way that Biden criticized Edwards the other night--as being naive and out of touch. Now he's against the invasion. I don't know what he ever believed, but that's true of most politicians.

I'm not an Edwards supporter, never have been, aside from as VP to Kerry. I like a lot of what he says, I like some of his political schemes. I don't think he has the experience to handle the job. He's still trying to manipulate his message, and I don't think he's comfortable enough with his message to know what to give up and what not to give up. That may not make any sense to anyone else, I don't know. But it's very clear to me.

But I don't condemn Edwards because of Durbin's revelations. First, the IWR wasn't a vote for war, and second, I don't believe Edwards is evil enough to have voted for an invasion he knew was based on bad intel just for his own political future. I think the whole process was more complex than that.

[Cameron27]

75. You know, I could agree with you

if Edwards had voted for the Levin resolution, or any of the others that were better alternatives, but in fact he didn't. He co-sponsored the worst, Lieberman's and I can't find any reasonable explanation for that.

[jobycom]

78. The others wouldn't have passed.

I don't like what passed. But nothing better was going to. The Republicans controlled Congress, and they weren't in a charitable mood towards us.

[FrenchieCat]

80. But why not vote for it......no matter if it would or would not pass?

Why vote no on amendments that would have helped....even if one "Knew" they wouldn't pass. What principle is involved in that?

[jobycom]

81. Hm. Yeah, that's a good point. I didn't see what you meant at first..

Just guessing, but maybe there was some agreement mixed in with it. Congresscritters wheel and deal their votes so much it's hard to know what they are really voting on. But still, you're right, I don't see how supporting the Levin Amendment would have hurt him.

Like I said, Edwards isn't my top choice, or even close. I have some serious issues with him, including his gung-ho support of the invasion. I'm fairly sure that was all political posturing, but at the same time, his position then was more aggressive than most other Dems. He was alongside Lieberman and Miller, not Kerry and Clinton. Now he's trying to be the anti-war guy. Makes me wonder what he believes, and if he is really anti-war now, how could he compromise that much between 2002 and 2004, when he changed his position?

[FrenchieCat]

79. So Edwards did not support the Levin and Durbin Amendments

because they would not pass?

And so why did he do the PRo War OPeds, the IWR co-sponsoring, the passionate Senate Floor speech for the IWR, and the pre interviews then? Cause he knew the Iraq war was a "Go"? :shrug:

[jobycom]

82. I agree, I may be wrong about his motivations.

I didn't start that long, rambling thing to say I understood him, just to offer a possible explanation of Edwards's vote. I lost control of the explanation at some point, so I'm not sure whether it came out that way.

I'm with you, his pro-war stance was very aggressive until his conversion, and it bothers me. I think, and he said a few things that make me think this, that he felt he had to take that position to win in the South. Some of his criticisms of Dean and Kerry took the form that their position was a losing position, not that it was wrong. But Clinton and Kerry and others found ways to "support the troops" and avoid speaking out on the invasion without sounding so gung-ho. Their positions bothered me, too, but never as bad as Edwards's did.

[karynnj]

97. Kerry spoke out against rushing to war on January 23, 2003

at a Georgetown speech that had some elements of the reasons he used to say Bush "mislead" us into war throughout 2004. He said diplomacy was not exhausted and it was not a war of last resort. The latter words are meaningful as being a last resort is pretty much needed to be considered a just war.

The reason Bill Clinton in 2006 gave for the vote for Hillary and all non-Leiberman Democrats WAS Kerry's reason and consistent with it he did speak out when it was clear that Bush lied on those promises. The Clintons and most of the rest of the Democrats who voted for it did not speak out when it could hurt politically. Kerry spoke out even in the midst of treatment for cancer.

[joshcryer]

83. You should post this in a thread of its own.

Seriously.

[MadBadger]

86. I believe this is what Biden was trying to say on MTP on Sunday.

[karynnj]

98. Exactly - and Biden was one actively working on an

amendment that would further restrict Bush with Lugar. They were undercut by Leiberman announcing he was on board with the IWR making negotiations impossible. (I doubt that it would have changed going to war. It would have put the Democrats on a higher moral plane on this.)

[karynnj]

95. That argument would work better if they would have spoken

out in early 2003 when it was clear that Bush was not keeping his promises. Of the three mentioned, only Kerry spoke against rushing to war before it started. (He was also the only one who would have had an "excuse" if he didn't - he was dealing with cancer in early 2003.)

Even with speaking out before and after the invasion, Senator Kerry was accused of voting for political reasons - even though had the war been short and considered a victory here, those comments would have labelled him as anti-war.

Both Edwards and Clinton supported having gone to war after the invasion. Before it was provable that Bush lied (rather than was just wrong) on WMD, Kerry spoke of promises broken - Bush did not exhaust the diplomacy, let the inspectors do their job or go to war as a last resort.

[jobycom]

131. Which argument?

Not being snarky, but I made several points, and I'm not sure which you disagree with. That the IWR for many Dems was seen as the only way to slow Bush down is not an argument, it's an explanation. Whether Edwards was one of them, that's an argument, and a couple of posters above have convinced me I may not be right on it.

I agree with your basic premise, which (I think) is that Kerry deserves praise for speaking out against the "rush to war," and that his vote for the IWR was different than Edwards. You are wrong to say he was the only one who made that statement. From Clinton's floor speech before the IWR vote:

QUOTE--

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

snip

A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

END QUOTE--

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Clinton has gotten unfairly bashed over the war issue, when her position all along was similar to Kerry's, and much less pro-war than Edwards's. Or Biden's, for that matter.

I've said here since just after the IWR that I respect and support the Dems who voted against the IWR more than those who voted for it, but there were different levels of complicity amongst those who voted for it. Clinton's, like Kerry's, was not as high as Lieberman's or Miller's. I started out my long essay above (which I had planned to be a much shorter post) putting Edwards somewhere between the two. Now I'm not sure where I put him. But the attacks on Clinton (and Kerry) for their IWR vote and for their actions afterwards are sometimes unfair. Clinton, too, became an opponent of the invasions, and began calling for troop withdrawals and a change of strategy at the same time Jack Murtha did. People act like she never did. She has called the IWR vote a mistake, but has refused to apologize for it because, I believe, she knows her intentions were to stop the invasion, not cause it. Her floor speech demonstrates that. She owes no apology for that. She does owe an apology for not speaking out against the invasion more forcefully, and for not stopping it. But a lot of people owe that one.

I didn't mean to start a defense of Clinton, really. Just sort of came out. She has become my top choice, I think, though I still wish Gore or Kerry were in the race. And I still don't get a warm feeling of political happiness thinking of her as my choice, so I'm still open on it. I don't trust Edwards's experience enough, and I have some issues with Obama's experience, too. Hillary is winning more by default than by preference, and that can change.

:shrug: We still got time. I like long primaries. More chance to find the flaws.

[LaPera]

87. Surprise surprise...Give us ...uh...who's your favorite...you owe us that!

[dysfunctional press]

92. hey durbin...FUCK the "rules"...

the president swears to uphold the constitution, too...if LIES are being told, to drag the country into WAR, where people DIE- that's the kind of thing that TRUMPS being "sworn to secrecy".

and i USED to have respect for my senior senator.

[jsamuel]

96. What Durbin said doesn't make any sense. Even KO said it didn't make sense.

He knew then, but waited until May 2007 to say anything? It just makes no sense.

I don't know what Durbin knew and I don't know what Edwards knew.

What I suspect happened is that what Durbin "knew" was that the intelligence was being debated and the American public only saw one side. But that is it. That did not mean that they knew that the intelligence was wrong, just that the American people weren't getting the whole story. But we already know this is true from the information that came out soon after the war started in the newspapers. So to me, this is old news.

[Blackhatjack]

99. These Anti-Edwards posts tell us more about the posters than about Edwards...

Not a single poster here has said Edwards position on ending this war is wrong.
Not a single poster here has said they are against Edwards' attempts to address poverty.
Not a single poster here has said they think Edwards is wrong to address workers' rights.

And you have to question the constant regurgitation of issues by posters who KNOW the truth about the Edwards' home(10,000 sq ft NOT 28000 sq ft) because I provided them with the proof from the County tax records, but they disingenuously keep posting a lie. You know who you are.

Same with the '$400 haircut' --even though these posters have learned the truth about how that occurred, how it was properly reported on Edwards' campaign finance reporters(not hidden), and how once it was discovered Edwards reimbursed his campaign for the full amount. Once again you know who you are.

There are anti-Edwards rabblerousers and misleaders here, and they will continue to peddle their 'wares' because they do not wish to engage in a real debate of the issues and specifics laid out by all the Democratic Candidates. Of course the fact that most candidates refuse to provide specifics like Edwards has done puts them at a disadvantage to argue in support of their favorite candidate.

Take heart --those of us who support Edwards know that there is something significant pushing all these anti-Edwards threads, and that is Edwards can and would beat any Republican in the general election according to polling, and not a single Democratic candidate now running other than him can make that claim.

So flame on, recycle and regurgitate ... and watch what happens to your favored candidate once they are required to give specifics of their plans for addressing the problems facing our country.

I hope the posters here will remember that any one of the Democratic Candidates now running would be preferable to another Republican President --and when you unfairly attack Democratic Candidates other than your chosen candidate, you are helping Republican candidates in the General Election.

IMHO we will not lose the General Election for President to the Republicans UNLESS we shoot down our own candidates first.

[The Count]

109. Damn anti-Edwards people and their obsessions with war and how it was started!

Who cares who helped start it when some nice campaign speeches can put it all right again?
Except in his apology you keep throwing in my face he claimed he didn't know.
Only before, he told Tweety, he knew it all:

"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."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /
So, them anti-Edwards crowd maybe have a problem with continuous lying.

[Hobarticus]

116. "Helped start it"...uh, the war started WITHOUT any help at all from Congress

Dubya was going to war, regardless.

Edwards' or any other congressmen's vote would've made one damn bit of difference. Ask Obama, or Kucinish: what good did their NO vote do? Think that gave the warmongers pause? Hardly. They would found another way to get their war on.

I bet even if the bill had not passed, we would still be right where we are today. You underestimate the POTUS' determination to go to war, and overestimate Congress' effect on their plans.

Place the blame on this war firmly on the heads of those who conspired to start it. No one voted FOR war, if you read the bill.

[The Count]

138. What good did their "No" do? A lot for their conscience, credibility, the fact that

W didn't get unanimity of sheep in Congress - there were a few human beings. For you to ask this question it shows a total lack of ethics, humanity. I get it now. All we do is judged through the prism of getting us some advancement or not. Integrity is soo overrated! No wonder this guy gets traction - it appeals to the ruthless, soulless strategerists.
Given the choice,I'd rather look in the mirror and see DK stare back than pretty boy Edwards (not that I am not OK with my own face - just making a point about the value of a clear conscience)

[Blackhatjack]

133. Actually his statement you quoted here is TRUE.... but will you acknowledge the truth???

Rockefeller was given 'intelligence' that the rest of the Senate Intelligence Committee was not given, he wrote a letter to the Chairman protesting the fact that this intelligence was not given to the rest of the Committee and that other members of the Senate should have received it as well.

So yes, there was different intelligence that Rockefeller saw from the rest of the committee members like Edwards, but Rockefeller was not allowed to share it.

[ChiciB1]

117. Very Well Said... Unfortunately... Too Many Here ARE Shooting Our

candidates all the time. Maybe NOT with a gun, but with nasty venom! I saddens me to see this all the time, but I guess as TIME goes on we'll just have to adapt to Political Progress as it evolves. Politics have always been a "nasty" business and I know I would NEVER venture down the path, but I wonder if it's doing any GOOD for our country?

The "hate Edwards" threads are some of the worst I've ever seen. Many many people with less integrity have been elected time and time again. I'm sure we don't know the bottom line on far too many things! We talk about Harry Truman and his Greatness, but you know what... I truly dislike the fact that he dropped those BOMBS! It was a horrible, horrible thing to do, and I've only begun to say this in the past 2 years!! I only remember him from what "history" recorded, but I wonder how I would have felt if I was living back then??

One thing I do know... having seen BFEE in action for such a long time, NOTHING, and I mean NOT ONE THING, no piece of intelligence, no person screaming from the top of the Capitol, NOTHING would EVER have stopped them from the INVASION! NOTHING has stopped them from breaking any law that stands in their way to promote THEIR AGENDA! THEY WERE GOING TO INVADE... No Matter What!! It was written about in 1997 and signed by many many NEO-CONS!! I do think MOST here KNOW that!!! It didn't say "if" we win the Presidency, it said "when" we WIN!! Too many never paid attention!

I live in Florida and have been "disgusted" since 2000 when THEY screwed America for the FIRST time! I know it's documented SOMEWHERE how many times they've done it since, but I don't know the exact number myself. So to all of you who constantly want to keep this stuff front and center... go ahead, maybe it helps you control your anger by venting. I can understand that, but even so.... with ALL the knowledge that WE "think" we know was out there, or We "hear" was out there, in the end John Kerry picked John Edwards as his running mate!! Politicians of today are very different from those in the 70's and there are many reasons for it! Too many to list IMO.

IMO, we have begun to have some HEARINGS on what BFEE has done and I STILL don't see the REAL Asses being held ACCOUNTABLE!! The BEAT GOES ON!!!

I've been interested in politics since I was 11, but didn't get really "hot" until they shot BOBBY, but I have NEVER seen the likes of what is going on today!! We "supposedly" control Congress, I WONDER if ANYTHING is going to change. It's about C.Y.A. ALL THE TIME!

America is a Very Very SICK Nation! We need some SEVERE healing and yet we sit back and snake bite even our own on a DAILY basis!!!

[Hobarticus]

122. "NOTHING would EVER have stopped them from the INVASION!" BINGO!!!

You win the prize!

I'm disappointed by the naivete of those who honestly think that even if the bill hadn't passed, we wouldn't be at war now, and that somehow those few NO votes did anything to stop this madness. It's underestimating the administration's determination to go to war. Dubya would've just issued a "signing statement", or concocted some false-flag provocation to get his war on. Haven't people been paying attention, these last few years?

Frankly, comparing votes at this point is navel-gazing, and if a candidate has only that to hang their hat on....well, they won't cut it. There's so much more to this election.

[ChiciB1]

124. Thank You... n/t

[brentspeak]

151. There are concern trolls here on DU.

They've been running rampant on DU for a while. That's why you're seeing all these kinds of threads. Mods are not doing their job getting rid of the concern trolls.

[Blackhatjack]

155. You are so right --- same posters, same concerns, recycled and regurgitated....n/t

[Matsubara]

100. The intelligence was not faulty, it was fraudulent...

...and that fact was pretty much obvious to every thinking American in Fall 2002.

I think it's pretty much of a draw between Mr. Edwards possible complicity and subsequent apology, and Ms. Clinton's failure to apologize for her vote against the wishes of her constituency (who protested her office in thousands on the eve of the IWR)...



Honestly, I don't forgive anyone who voted for that resolution, but I will overlook it and vote for them if need be. Unfortunately, democratic politicians with backbones were in pretty short supply back then...

[bigwillq]

101. Read "The Italian Letter"

It says how every Congress member knew the intell was bad but yet so many people still voted for it.

I don't think I can vote for any candidate that voted for the war after reading that book.

[PhilipDC]

103. Edwards floor speech

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.

We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.

This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.

Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.

If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.

Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.

We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.

That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.

Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.

Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.

Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.

The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.

First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.

Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.

It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.

As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.

Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.

We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.

[insane_cratic_gal]

102. I'm guessing but I bet you never supported him

No?

even after he said the vote was wrong, I made a mistake. Hillary voted for it too, except she'll never admit it was the wrong choice.

Obama, would have voted for it, has he been there. Lets be honest, he doesn't have a whole lot of individuality. The fact that he would of voted for Alito speaks volumes to me.



I like Edwards, If I had to chose today, I'd vote for him.

But I can't help feeling, Unless Gore gets into it, we don't have a sure candidate and I'll be holding my nose no matter what.

[The Count]

105. OP was on issues - gets personal attacks (proven wrong). You are some lock step

unit, aren't you! No matter what the content of the post, attack the messenger...Gee, who else does this?

[Hobarticus]

119. Where's the attack?

Changing the context of the post, dontcha think?

Gee, who else misrepresents the other side of a debate?

[The Count]

140. Several people asked proof of his/her prior support - questioning credibility

The OP was put on defensive, made to present proof of his prior support. That, in my book, is an attack. Gang bang.
I see # 9 has since been removed. I had that in mind when I said "attack" OP was demanded to PM his "credentials" to some official Edwards operative who since left.

[insane_cratic_gal]

132. I'm not attacking anyone

I'm stating that it's more the Edwards who's wrong on the issue. I never attacked anyone, I asked a question.

As I pointed out. At this point in the race i'm holding my nose!

[The Count]

141. Bit early for nose holding. Now you get to chose. Not much, but honest people

are in the race as well. Not that celebrated in the media maybe, but honest.
And Obama is definitely easier to vote for that this guy.

[insane_cratic_gal]

153. Obama is very celebrated in the media

he's the superstar and the biggest contender against hillary. I'm actually quite shocked you'd believe he wasn't

The 2008 race has become the Hillary vs Obama show. I don't even think you have to worry about Edwards at this point, chances of a snow ball in hell are better.

Personally while I think Obama is a great guy, I don't really get excited about him, but I don't like Hillary either. Nor do I get overly excited about Edwards.

I just want someone who speaks their mind bluntly. Obama doesn't do that he dances around the topic too much.

Whats his plans for Iraq? The same.

Whats his plans for health insurance? the same

He and Hillary have been given the same play book.

They both just happen to be minorities. Take that away and your left with the same mold. If Obama was there in 2001, I think we can safely assume he probably would of voted for the Iraq war, he's certaintly not voting against it or making a big stink about it.

But your right it's early maybe he'll start coming out swinging or so something that impresses me. But for him to get my support he's going to have to have a timetable for withdrawl, a healthcare plan, and he needs to come out strong against this adminstration.

So far he hasn't drawn any lines in the sand, I guess I need him to do that before I can garnish support.

[brentspeak]

149. Who are you? A "concerned" tag-team partner?

[snot]

104. I don't see how anyone who really cared whether the intelligence was sufficient

could have failed to see that it wasn't. The Bush Admin had nothing to support the CRITICAL contention that the Iraq threat was so imminent that we could not afford to wait even long enough to allow the UN inspectors to complete their work.

I got my news about it from sources readily available to Senators.

A vote for the authorizing resolution can be explained in a number of ways, but in my view, must at best have involved negligence -- in one of the most important decisions facing the nation in decades.

I'd support almost any Dem over almost any Repub, but if a candidate voted for the resolution, I do count it as a strike against them -- one reason I wish Gore or Dean were running.

[The Count]

106. Edwards lied to us in 2005 too, in his "apology" - saying "he didn't know"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3245608&mesg_id=3245608
You seem to want to replace a liar with another...

[jsamuel]

107. Where did he lie? Do you have any proof or just accusations?

From what I can tell, and from what Durbin actually said, the only thing they knew was that the info being shown to the American public was not "the whole story." The info they were shown included the sides with disputes. The info was not proof that Iraq was a threat in my mind, but I can see that someone might make a bad decision and think it meant Iraq was a threat. Making a bad decision does not make them a liar. Trying to make it so is spinning.

[The Count]

108. He sure told Tweety he knew differently from that commitee:

Edwards"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."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295 /

Now, I have Graham and Durbin's accounts on one side, and Edwards on the other. Two war opponents vs an IWR sponsor who first said he knew, than he didn't know...who should I believe? Any suggestion?
:shrug:

[jsamuel]

110. So your saying that there was no "disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found"

Again Durbin said that they KNEW that the American people weren't being given "the whole story". What that means is the American people where only shown the "bad info" while the committee saw the "good info" too. Now, that means that a Senator would see the "good info" and the "bad info" and then would make a decision on whether or not Iraq was a threat.

Edwards decided Iraq was a threat. That was a VERY bad decision. But deciding that doesn't make him a liar.

[The Count]

111. I am saying that it was NOT the info they had in that committee

Tenet's book confirms it (if you stop attacking HIM for a second and read his message - there was never a debate on the war)
And the WMD lie was a BFEE talking point since early 2000 that we know of
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x26111
way before 9.11.
So, not just bad judgment, but complicity in a lie. A lie that many of us - and 22 Senators - were on to.
He sponsored and championed the IWR.

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

[jsamuel]

113. So you are saying that they were not shown info that said Iraq had WMD in the committee?

You know that isn't true. They were shown BOTH sides. We were shown only the side that was written by the war mongers. They were shown the war mongers' side and the good intel. They weighed the two together and made individual decisions. Some of them very bad ones. Plus, they were probably (knowing this admin) shown 3 times as much war mongering stuff as good intel.

[The Count]

115. Dumb or evil?

I can see why you'd prefer him to be an idiot rather than a criminal at this point, but man, what a choice! It's also oddly reminiscent of what we already have in the have in the White House!

[jsamuel]

118. He didn't lie and that is evident. He, unlike the guy in the WH is not a liar and he apologized.

And I believe that apology namely because he isn't a liar. Plus, this was back in 2002. I believe he has changed a great amount since then. Who HASN'T changed since then? I think that is evident to everyone. Some argue that the change is a show to "move to the left" to get elected, again suggesting he is a liar and again without any proof. I believe him.

[The Count]

134. THE APOLOGY WAS THE LIE! "I DIDN'T KNOW". Which Edwards do you believe?

The one who sponsored the IWR because all the info he got in the Intelligence Committee meetings? The one who didn't know the truth? The one who actually was presented with the facts in said committee?
I used to wonder how freepers keep themselves so insulated from facts. I am seing dogma in the making.

I believe Edwards. No matter how many versions of the facts he gives me, i believe them all

O-key dokey

[jsamuel]

136. The facts are that he was shown both sides and you ignore that.

Your the one ignoring reality to make a cheap political point.

You are saying that if one ever looks at two sides of an argument and makes a wrong decision, then apologizes for making the wrong decision and says they were given bad information, then they are lying. (PST... he was given bad information that he didn't know was bad)

He has only EVER given ONE version of the facts. Show me where he gives more than one or conflicting stories. Please, be my guest.

[The Count]

137. About 3000 lives cheap (and I am not talking of Iraqis either). DUMB then.

It's Dumb or Criminal - because the "cheap" issue is the war.

[jsamuel]

139. The IWR vote he made is NOT a cheap political point.

Saying he LIED about his apology as you have is.

[The Count]

142. Not just vote, sponsorship. many versions of the "why" bring the question:

Where you lying then or are you lying now?
Nothing cheap about it.

[jsamuel]

145. I asked you in a previous reply to show me where he "lied":

Regarding his apology.
"He has only EVER given ONE version of the facts. Show me where he gives more than one or conflicting stories. Please, be my guest." You have not answered this yet.


Edit:
Durbin updated his intent saying why he voted against the IWR. He did not say it was because "HE KNEW" they were lying, but because "the evidence wasn’t sufficiently compelling to justify such an extreme measure."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x807213

[cooolandrew]

129. Let's be honest here they all must of known, but with Barack he wasn't in the senate or Richardson..

... Although I feel there is remorse and at the time there was intense public pressure thanks to the spin machine. We can't cruicify them on this because the only way out is Dems and we've gotta have the majority to make the change. It's compromising but that's politics all over really.

Although with all this said Edwards new ad is so good, I am inclined to be a believer once again. link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnHkWfIAyHE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ejohnedwards%2Ecom%2Fwethepeople%2F

[The Count]

135. So, he lied, but he gives good ad - so who cares? Wow!

I'd say the Senators who were not in the Intelligence Committee bear somewhat less of a responsibility. Just as those who merely voted for IWR are less guilty than those 16 who sponsored it. But that's just me.
The rest - look at the shiny campaign ad over there!

[krkaufman]

147. Of course, who's to say that Durbin's statement wasn't politically motivated...?

He *is* the senior Senator in Illinois to Obama, and undercutting Edwards would certainly benefit the other Dem. Pres candidates. Just a thought...

[brentspeak]

148. Thanks for your "concern"

You must have a lot of time on your hands to get over 1000 posts in less than two months.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

150. I'm Sure He's Just Heartbroken. Thank You For Your Concern.

[Truth2Tell]

154. I really want to support Edwards

I'd like to support Edwards for his populist home front agenda - if it's for real.

But I want more information about his worldview. That's the bottom line - not that his IWR vote was a mistake - but what did that teach him? If anything?

I want to hear from John Edwards what he learned from his experience being duped by the cheerleaders for war.

Has this taught him that the U.S. should be more humble in our dealings with others? Has it taught him to be more skeptical of the conventional wisdom on American foreign policy? Has Iraq been an object lesson to him about America's role in the world? If yes, then how?

It's easy for Edwards to say he made a mistake. To earn my vote he needs to convince me that he learned the important lessons from that mistake - so that he won't repeat it.

[mzmolly]

158. I think people are over-blowing Durbin's statements?

:shrug: