Reply #82: Hey 1932, I have I think some useful advice

[Tom Rinaldo]

If any part of your intention about pursuing a debate about what Wes Clark's views were at the time toward the IWR that John Edwards co-sponsored is to somehow provide support to John Edwards now, I think you should consider this, it is something that I have noticed some other John Edwards do with some degree of effectiveness:

Stick to arguing that the fact that Wes Clark can endorse Hillary Clinton now despite her voting for that IWR means that IWR vote is not the end all point of debate for who now is worthy of becoming President in 2008. You can probably score some points for Edward with that one.

Your current approach begs an ongoing argument with Clark supporters over the relative roles that John Edwdards and Wes Clark played back then when the Senate was asked to decide how much confidence they had in giving George W. Bush that blank check for War. You can't win by having that debate now even if you somehow believe you will come out ahead on points. Wes Clark is not running now, John Edwards is. It is not useful to John Edwards to get us Clarkies all riled up and searching through all of our saved bookmarks to find all the quotes we have comparing how Wes Clark and John Edwards behaved back then. It is not where John Edwards wants the focus of discussion on him now to be, is that hard to understand?

Now the reason you get us all riled up is not so much an attempt to get at John Edwards, it is our sense of responsibility to defend the integrity of a man who we drafted to run for President in 2003, a man who we know did all that he could to keep the United States from invading Iraq and initiating the nightmare we all now are living through. We will not be silent when in our (very correct I might add) opinion anyone now attempts to do revisionist history regarding where Clark stood then on Iraq. So come at us over this if you feel you must but don't delude yourself into thinking you are helping John Edwards by doing so. If you insist in revisiting the history of one of John Edward's worst moments, we will go back to 2002 with you and that debate will be on, endlessly for as long as you insist on having it. We will be back to quoting from John Edwards Hardball interview defending Georg W. Bush's invasion of Iraq even after it was clear no WMD would be found there and all the rest of it, if you insist on fighting over that turf.

Let me cut to the chase. We think the facts support our view and you seem to think they don't. Bottom line though is we have Wes Clark's word on what he meant then in addition to a historic record that one can always attempt to cherry pick out of it's appropriate context, but which we believe overwhelmingly supports his integrity in this matter.

Why, you might ask, is that the bottom line? Because if you do not accept Clark's account now you are calling him a liar, but it goes beyond that. Doubts have been raised in the past by those not in love with John Edwards, not exclusively Clarkies by any stretch, that John Edwards acted the way that he did when he co-sponsored the IWR out of political expediency, trying to buff up his credentials for a Presidential run. Doubts have been raised in the past, not exclusively by Clarkies by any stretch, that John Edwards waited as long as he did to apologize for his role in passing the IWR because it took that long for a majority of the American public to turn against the IRaq war in polls. What is the best defense John Edwards has against such attacks? His own word about what his true intentions were at the time. He asks Democratic voters to accept his explanations for his past mistakes based on the integrity of his word.

You may or may not have noticed that I have never called John Edwards a liar about any of that. I do not challenge him on his word. I have questioned in the past whether errors I think that he displayed in judgement might indicate a continuing lack of sufficient relevent experience, but I never accused John Edwards of lying about what he did then to cover his political tracks. However I consider your continued efforts to refute Wes Clark's own explanation of his intentions and actions then to be exactly that; a decison by you to accuse Wes Clark of later lying to cover his political tracks. Those to me are fighting words 1932, and I am not alone in so feeling. May I remind you that those who live in glass houses should never throw stones?