Edwards Attributes Obama's Pre-War Judgement to Rival's Lack of Congressional Intelligence

[Adelante]

I fully expect to be called every name in the book, being a Clarkie who has the temerity to question the word of a candidate for the Democratic nomination. I won't let that stop me.

Edwards says of Obama:

"He wasn't burdened like a lot of us with the information we were receiving on the Intelligence Committee and as members of the United States Senate. We were getting very intimate detailed information about what was actually happening in Iraq," said Edwards. "Sen. Obama, I think, what is it you said, was a state senator at the time, so he obviously wasn't in Congress and wasn't part of the decision-making. But a lot of those predictions turned out to be true."

Remarkable. Half the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee voted against the IWR. They saw the same intelligence as Edwards did. Yet they voted NO.


Russert asks:

"Why shouldn't voters in the Democratic primaries say, 'Obama was right, Edwards was wrong?'" asked Russert.

"I was wrong," replied Edwards. "They should say that. But the question becomes who is best suited to be president of the United States. Who has the depth, the maturity, and the judgement?"

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/edwards_attribu.html


He had the poor judgment to not only vote for, but cheer lead and co-sponsor, the very same IWR, based on intelligence that did not convince people like Bob Graham and Carl Levin and Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone and Barbara Boxer et al. Obama had the good judgment to speak out against the war. Yet Edwards has the fucking gall to suggest he should be president of the United States based on his depth, maturity, and judgement"?

Who showed depth, maturity and judgment? Obama or Edwards?

:crazy:

[smoogatz]

1. "Who has the depth, the maturity, and the judgement?"

Al Gore.

And, as Atrios would say, this has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

[Adelante]

3. You only have two choices though

In this OP.

I don't get Wes and you don't get Al.

[smoogatz]

15. Okay, well, hm, lessee here--

Who's got better judgment? The guy who looked at all that classified "evidence" and got it wrong, or the guy who just knew what he read in the papers and got it right?

Yep, that's a tough one all right. Seems like the guy who had more info and still got it completely ass-backwards is actually pretty fucking stupid, especially compared to the guy who, you know, used his BRAIN and came to the correct conclusion. Here's what I think: results matter. Getting it right the first time matters. A LOT. Being smart enough not to take Bush/Cheney's bullshit at face value? Priceless.

[Adelante]

19. Thank you, smoogatz!

We have winner.

[Clark2008]

You won't get called every name in the book - only "jealous."

For some unknown reason, Edwards fans think Clarkies are jealous of their guy. I don't know why. I mean, Clark was right about Iraq, Clark beat Edwards in five of the nine races in which they both competed and Clark didn't want the VP seat.

What exactly is there to be jealous of?

[Eurobabe]

2. I won't blast you WesDem, I rec'd you

Because I am not really liking what I am hearing from JRE these days. I find him abrasive and slick. All the things I didn't like about him in 2004 are coming 'round again.

[neoblues]

4. "Congressional Intelligence" sounds like it might be an Oxymoron...

Or is it a contradiction in terms? (I know, I know, Congress gets access to different "Intelligence" than the rest of us (and especially different from what the "President" gets)).

[ruggerson]

5. Yes, we know that many Clarkies hate Edwards

We know that Clark's son hates Edwards due to a puerile feud in '04.

And we know that Clarkies will go to great lengths to try to discredit Edwards, due to their pre-existing hatred of him.

Thanks for confirming this, time and time again.

[Adelante]

6. #1 nt

[ruggerson]

8. If you reread what I wrote

you will see that I didn't call you "every name in the book", matter of fact, I called you no names at all.

I just stated some facts.

[Adelante]

9. Will you answer the question?

Obama or Edwards?

Keep in mind that including Iraqis there may be 600,000 dead people resulting from Edwards' good judgment.

[ruggerson]

13. Both

I think Obama showed good judgement in opposing the Iraq war from the get go and I think Edwards has shown both good judgement and good character by admitting quite frankly and without obfuscation that his vote was a mistake and changing course, as responsible, mature leaders are wont to do.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I resent this "hater" label you feel qualified to apply to others.....

in your comments:

#1- "we know that many Clarkies hate Edwards" -
No, you don't really know that, and you are painting all Clarkies with a broad brush which is against DU rules. There are many Clarkies who don't "hate" Edwards, I being one of them. I find him unauthentic and a very good manipulator of his audiences in the art of political campaigning (which is not a bad thing), but I do not hate John Edwards. I would prefer that he not be the nominee for specific reasons that I have stated many times. Politics is not about Love and hate, and it shouldn't be. Politics is about right, wrong and indifferent, and that's how many that you criticize are approaching it, even if it's not everyone.

#2- "We know that Clark's son hates Edwards due to a puerile feud in '04."
No, you do not know this to be a fact, in the same way that your first statement is erroneous. I believe that Wes Jr. does distrust Edwards and would prefer that he not be the nominee, even if his father doesn't run. Wes Jr. also would prefer that his father doesn't run, and yet he loves his father....so however Wes Jr. feels about Edwards does not automatically translate into "hate" just because you say so. You have a right to your opinion, but that doesn't include making a statement as to what the opinions of others are...and so again, your statement is simply not a fact.

#3- "we know that Clarkies will go to great lengths to try to discredit Edwards, due to their pre-existing hatred of him."
Not a fact, the same as #1. You aren't answering the OP, and so one has to wonder why you are posting. Could it be that you "hate" Wes Clark and Clarkies, since it seems so easy for you to apply those emotions to others whom you do not know? The OP has taken the care to question Edwards' statement in reference to Obama, and you retort by talking hate and motives? By your statement you are implying that one should not be allowed to question what John Edwards says on a Network Teevee show unless they want to be called "haters". That's low of you, and reflects more on your lack of being able to intelligently address the op than on anything else.


#4- "Thanks for confirming this, time and time again."
The only thing that has been confirmed is that 1) you don't have a legitimate answer to the OP's post, 2) you believe that accusing DUers of bad behavior will cower them into possible silence something that the Bush people are very good and enjoy doing, 3) you don't hesitate in criticizing citizens at DU who have something to say, but you don't believe that they have a right to question someone who is running for the highest office of this land, making you one that runs counter to not only the Freedom of Speech ideals, but also that dissent is neccessary in a democracy, regardless of which public figure is the subject of such dissent.

In otherwords, you reflect the worse and run counter to what DU is supposed to be about. You accuse others of what you yourself do, and you want to stifle dissent on a very reasonable subject matter that is an example as to why DU exists to begin with.

I recommend that you look into the mirror when you determines who hates who. If you see yourself, then close your eyes and realize that politics are not personal to the point of where you have gone. You need to come back from that place.

I participate on these board for the sake of my children, and because I find comfort and pleasure in feeling that I have some small say....a voice. Please do not attempt to take away my voice on the subject of politics by making personal attacks on those who like me care more about the future of our children than you are willing to acknowledge or give us credit for.

(edited to add, that after all of the calling DUers "haters", you finally answered the OP question. It would have been simpler to have done this in the first place, and reserved your opinion of people at DU to your thoughts as opposed to publishing them)

[Clark2008]

27. And we also know, despite your failure to read posts, that

not all Clarkies hate Edwards because they like Clark.

Some of us dislike Edwards because he's a weinie on foreign policy. Some others of us dislike him because he talks out of both sides of his mouth, while others dislike him because he didn't do jackshit for the poor while he was a senator but now takes on that mantle like it's something he's always done.

Please.

[citizen snips]

31. really, I never noticed

:silly:

[Adelante]

32. #2 nt

[citizen snips]

34. I was being sarcastic.

[mzmolly]

37. Apparently the tactic is to pit Obama supporters against Edwards supporters?

I like both of them, as well as Clark. But, man this Edwards hate is really strange.

[Adelante]

39. #3

Don't even try to muzzle me, mzmolly, by smearing Clark supporters.

1-Is there a valid point to the OP? I think there is.

2-Is the point based on a lie? Not of mine.

3-Is the candidate running against a Republican or other Democrats? Duh.

That is my standard; I am under no obligation to meet yours.

When does John Edwards get to be responsible for what he says and does instead of Clark supporters?

[mzmolly]

40. "Muzzle" you? You are funny.

:rofl: And, as I said - desperate.

[Adelante]

41. Your answer?

When does John Edwards get to be responsible for what he says and does instead of Clark supporters?

[mzmolly]

42. Responsible for what? Running for office? Admitting he was wrong? Saying he's the best candidate?

Give it up. This is what people do when they run for office, they sell their individual qualifications. It's nothing new, and I expect you know that?

[Adelante]

43. Why should I give it up?

You're willing to turn over the presidency to somebody who enabled the Bush administration to bring the country to this disaster, that's your business. On the absolute most important responsibility a Senator could possibly have, John Edwards failed. That's what happened. It's not going under the rug.

[mzmolly]

44. And, did you say the same about Kerry? Or, did you vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket?

I think I know the answer, and I know what you're about here. I am going to tell you now, that what your doing is counter productive and as I said "transparent." You're hurting your candidate, frankly.

[Adelante]

46. I don't even know if he's running

And Wes Clark has nothing to do with this. I despise John Edwards on my own steam. Not that it's worth my breath telling you that, because you've got your mind made up on what I'm "about here." I voted for John Kerry, because although he voted for the IWR, he did not hawk it and he would have made a good president. He is an honest man and has a distinguished record. And because it was the Democratic ticket. I voted the Kerry-Edwards ticket in 2004 despite John Edwards. I am well beyond that now. It's two and a half bloodsoaked years later and I have had enough of war and war enablers. When there is a Democratic ticket to vote for, I have always voted for it. However, this is a primary race. Democrats against Democrats. Discussion is not "counter productive" unless we are expected to STFU, as you clearly are saying, in which case why bother having primaries at all?

[mzmolly]

48. More doubletalk.

In the primaries we can actually promote our candidate, without tearing down other good men. I hope to do that personally, rather then spend two years on ugly negativism that can only help the RW in the end.

[Adelante]

49. I think we've said enough

I don't think Edwards is suitable and you do. Let's leave it.

[rhombus]

7. With his maturity level on Iran, I don't think I can trust this guy one bit

John Edwards said Israel should be allowed to join NATO!?!?!?

Can anyone honestly trust Edwards judgements? I absolutely can't and neither do I want another fast track war with Iran. Edwards is a good guy but the presidency shoudld be about a very mature candidate particularly with the stakes so high now.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Edwards rationale is flawed.

Edwards had access to the pre-war "intelligence" but in hindsight lacked judgment while Obama did not have the "intelligence" but still exercised plenty of judgment.

[Adelante]

12. Right.. except

Other Senators on the very same intelligence committee had the very same access to the very same intelligence and voted no. Good judgment in hindsight for them and not for Edwards.

[jefferson_dem]

16. Right. We totally agree on this point. Sorry, i may not have been clear.

Cheers!

[Adelante]

20. I was adding to what you said

Cheers to you, to!

[Tom Joad]

11. This admitted "mistake" resulted in the worst war of the 21st century.

Not something you get out of by just saying sorry.

It was a criminal collusion with George W. Bush to wage a war of aggression against a sovereign nation.

Edwards should be wearing an orange jumpsuit picking up trash off the side of the highway for the next 20 years.

[Adelante]

17. At the very least

Not expecting the presidency as a reward for the tragic consequences.

[Tom Joad]

24. I'd be content with that. He should be licking envelopes for Dennis.

[Adelante]

25. Word! nt

[dogman]

14. They may call you names, but guess what?

Edwards has adapted Clark's stance quite rapidly in the last couple of days. Since his pandering position to the neo-cons was meeting so much resistance in the blogosphere he has adapted talking points that Clark has advocated for years. The interesting aspect of that for me is that I was a Clark delegate in'04. At that time I also attended candidate forums for the Illinois Senate. I was impressed because the prime candidate opposing Obama in the primary was in the same realm as Edwards regarding the Iraq War. I was struck by the similarity of the message Obama delivered and the message of Wes Clark. Of course Obama defeated Hynes in the primary and went on to defeat w simpatico Keyes in the general election. Obama showed depth, maturity, and judgement far exceeding that of Edwards. While I am not an Obama supporter for President, given a choice, Obama easily wins.

[Labors of Hercules]

18. Ah... fear not for Edwards shall not be nominated, nor receive a VP nod this time.

Obama is simply the better man.

[ShortnFiery]

21. Agreed. Sour Grapes Mr. Edwards? n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

22. A strange thought about Edwards as a "trial lawyer..."

I make a goodly part of my living as a forensic psychologist, doing psych evals of defendants in criminal cases, so I work with a lot of defense attorneys. One thing I believe I have noticed about them, as a class, is that they are genuinely somewhat more gullible than the average person in judging character. Many of them clearly and truly believe in the innocence of their clients even when there are strong reasons not to. This credulousness is not a bad thing in itself, and in fact may make it easier for them to do good defense work. It is often a part of my job to break it to them that their poor, put-upon, unfairly accused defendant is a little con artist who has them and lots of other people buffaloed.

I wonder if Edwards might not have extended his lawyerly credulity to Bushco when they were laying it on thick about the WMD.

[Tom Joad]

26. "Prematurely anti-war"? Like Prematurely anti-fascists of the Spanish civil war.

Reminds me of the idea that those who went to help the Spanish fight against Franco were "prematurely anti-fascist". The Abraham Lincoln Brigade and those folks, you know. They fought Franco/Hitler before it was fashionable, so naturally they should be suspect. No, i don't see any logic there.

No logic in this either. Edwards supported Hitl ..um...Bush in this startup to this war of aggression, and even now has the chutzpah to accuse someone who was clearly wiser of doing something wrong, voting against the IWR.

Somehow Edwards wants to have it both ways. It sure shows the insincerity of his "apology" for supporting it. That is nothing but a desperate ploy, nothing sincere.

[Withywindle]

28. Depth, maturity and judgment?

Well, IL's senior senator Dick Durbin had that, and he voted against the IWR--and was even up for re-election that year! (It didn't hurt him). Presumably he had the same "secret intelligence" Edwards did, and came to the same conclusion as Obama anyway.

He should ask JRE to explain that one.

[Schema Thing]

29. Hahahahahaahaahhahah!

This should finish him off.


We have two really competent, electable people with sufficient foresight, vision, and character to lead America in the race right now: Clark, and Obama. One of them is already a great leader, and the other shows real potential to be.

[Kolesar]

51. It's a short list, to be sure

I wish I had time to read Obama's book so that I can figure him out. I don't get much that is profound from his speeches, I must admit.

[Leilani]

30. Linc Chafee voted NO on the IWR

He went to the CIA for a private Intelligence Briefing.

He came away saying there was no evidence to go to war.

Linc Chafee bucked his party, his Prez, & yet lost his Senate seat.

And John Edwards is running for Prez?

[FrenchieCat]

33. That's why the gal in "dreamgirls" who got 7 th place in American Idol

became the Golden Globe/Sag winner. Because it is not about your skills in America these days, its about a package that more than anything must fulfill the "ideal" of what a President should look like, not what a potential president should have known.

We reward those that were wrong because they say sorry after three years, while many attempt to minimize and rationalize the big mistakes....

I'll take Obama having been right all day long.
To choose otherwise means that you are having a love affair with an image, and little else. Admitting that by those who are in that position would be a good first step.

[Leilani]

35. Not only the package of appearance

but the need to look behind the words being thrown around out there.

Look to what they do, not what they say.

Also, look to their audience. Do they say the same thing to everyone? Or do they play to the crowd?

[AtomicKitten]

36. I'm going to have to go ahead and say ...

[Morgana LaFey]

38. I'm not an Edwards fan these days, nor Obama's either

but I think Edwards has a point about the propaganda they were "burdened" with. Hell, most of them STILL don't understand what REALLY went on.

No, that doesn't excuse Edwards' vote in my mind. But I really do think it's much easer to see more clearly from OUTSIDE Washington than from within it.

[zulchzulu]

45. K&R

Obama nailed it...it's a dumb war. Period.

[SaveElmer]

47. The issue was not black and white...

That he voted for the IWR does not bother me obviously...I think that was a reasonable position to take at the time...

I am less impressed with his "apology"

On one hand he says he takes full responsibility for his vote...

And then on MTP yesterday he blames Bush's intelligence lies, and the incorrect word of some Clinton administration officials...

Sounds like he is talking out both sides of his mouth on this...

In fact I don't think an apology is required at all...if he took his original vote seriously then he was doing his job...if not, then his original vote was politically motivated...

His explanations make no sense here...

[Schema Thing]

52. "his job" for the last 5 years seems to have been

to his mind, becoming president.

[SaveElmer]

55. Well I don't fault him for that...but I think

He is being disingenuous on his IWR "apology."

[Bandit]

50. We were getting very intimate detailed information about what was actually happening in Iraq,"

Yet that very detailed information was false. Who gave you that information and how have they been held accountable?

[Schema Thing]

53. Let's see, Scott Ritter was giving intimate, detailed info

And he sure wasn't recommending an invasion. Nor was David Kay (? do I have the right weapon's inspector here?).

If a president is given lame advice, and good advice, I don't think it's asking too much to want him to virtually ALWAYS make the right choice.

[ripple]

54. I'm an Obama supporter, but in fairness to Edwards,

he was asked a direct question about the difference in his pre-war actions and those of Obama. He didn't bring Obama up, Russert did.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to criticize Edwards for his support of the IWR, but criticizing him for answering a specific question seems a bit unfair. His response to the question wasn't particularly surprising, nor was it an attack on Obama.

To answer the question, though, Obama wins hands down. ;-)

[Adelante]

56. "depth, maturity and judgment"

This is what I criticized him for saying in comparing himself to Obama, when Obama clearly had the better judgment. I think it's fair.

Obama wins :)

[ripple]

57. I see your point

but I look at that as throwaway rhetoric, I suppose. All of the candidates will be engaging in a great deal of self-promotion and a lot of it will consist of them saying they're better than their opponents. Edwards seems particularly fond of the sales pitch approach, probably due to his experience as a trial lawyer.

Edwards was dead wrong on his Iraq stance, even when most all of us saw the writing on the wall in bold, permanent magic marker. He and others like him weighed their options and made what they believed would be a politically expedient choice, for fear of being labeled "weak on terror". They and they alone own that decision. While I appreciate those who now said they made a mistake, I have yet to hear any of them state the real reason they voted for it. Misled? Bullshit. Didn't think Bush was going to war? Double bullshit.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama possesses more depth, maturity, and judgment than any other candidate running. Edwards can try to talk his way around that all he wants, but actions speak louder than words and Obama has proven himself to be a politician who puts our nation's interests ahead of his own political ambitions. Unfortunately for Edwards and the rest, this principled stance will work very much to Obama's advantage in the 2008 race. :toast: