Which Dem Candidate said that if they had been President, they would have gone into IRAQ?

[FrenchieCat]

When asked a year after the IWR vote, and after WMDs had not been found in Iraq, if as President, this Democratic candidate would have gone into Iraq, the answer was clear.

"I would have gone to Iraq.

I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

[TwilightZone]

1. Without looking at the link...

I'd probably guess the one that co-sponsored the IWR and has since apologized for it.

[acmavm]

2. Which candidate voted for IWR AND kyl/Lieberman and who hasn't

made any apologies? Which candidate can't be bothered to show up for any of the crucial votes and when/if he does votes 'Present'?

Just saying.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I don't know, Which?

Give a linkie so that we will know.

Thanks!

[acmavm]

20. Oh get serious. Your response makes you look either 1) unaware of how

the candidates vote and/or 2) disingenuous.

[FrenchieCat]

23. No, your post just seem to make Edwards words not worth anything.....

cause he said sorry years later, right before he started another run. Convenient?

[Bitwit1234]

3. Which candidate when giving an interview with a Chicago newspaper

said he would Iran and would definitely strike it with missles. NONE other than Saint Obama..but all we hear is Hillary Clinton voted to give bush permission to go after WMD (because bush lied) and he started a war instead.

But then people say...they should have known bush lied. BUT Obama said he would bomb Iran on bush's say so. (bush lied there also). Is Obama getting slamed for that hell no. Out of the 96 Senators who voted for the resolution to find WMD only Hillary is getting slammed.

[mruddy]

4. Geesshhh, give it a rest already

[FrenchieCat]

5. Why?

What candidates say doesn't mean anything? :shrug:

[EV_Ares]

7. How many anti-Edwards post are you going to run today? Just curious

so when I come back will know how many to look for, they are all good humor.

[FrenchieCat]

10. Does it matter?

John Edwards said what he said. I'm just posting it. I'm not making shit up.....and so, I'm not sure how I, a DUer become a relevant point of discussion cause I'm not running for President. :Shrug:

[EV_Ares]

11. No, just like my post asked you, just wondering because all of your

hard time spent posting against Edwards, I wanted to make sure I didn't miss any and I do enjoy reading and laughing at them. Just feel sorry for someone who is so anti someone.

[Blackhatjack]

12. It is the same thing as 'making stuff up' to create a false impression...

You are relevant because you created the OP with the false impression.

If you are going to post a quote like that, it would have been reasonable to post the rest of Edwards' answer... but you chose not to do so in order to promote your agenda.

And I know the routine that is about to happen here... so I will respond now 'no one is trying to silence you' by criticizing your OP here.

[cali]

24. you get so indignant about anyone posting anything critical

of Edwards. It's quite humorous really. And people accuse Clinton and Obama supporters of being touchy. I find Edwards supporters far touchier about their candidate being criticized. It's as if they think, he's so superior that no one could possibly have legitimate reasons to criticize him.

[Blackhatjack]

8. AND WHO? Took Edwards' Quote OUT OF CONTEXT to DISTORT his answer? You are Transparent.

The rest of that quote was:

"MATTHEWS: Right.

EDWARDS: I stand behind it. But if I were president of the United States, instead of going to the United Nations as an afterthought, which is how this president did it-If I had been president of the United States, I would have been building the case over a long period of time, bringing an international pressure on Saddam Hussein.

I think the result of the way he built up to this war was he made it virtually impossible to get United Nations support."

((AND YOU FAILED to explain this was a summary of Edwards' more detailed answer earlier in the interview)):

"MATTHEWS: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.
And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.
So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.
I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

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."
***********

I guess you can't be troubled to give a fair representation of Edwards' answer because that would destroy your false allusion you are working so mightily to create.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I find the full context to be far more damning than the small excerpt

given in the OP. :shrug:

[Blackhatjack]

17. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't see it that way. n/t

[cali]

27. You're kidding right?

You find that exculpatory? Yikes.

This is interesting- and not reassuring.

"EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.
And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people."

[Occam Bandage]

32. The full context is even worse.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

So Edwards proclaims he is in favor of war without UN mandate. Why?

EDWARDS: I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

Okay, thanks for providing the full, completely damning context.

[Blackhatjack]

9. You cannot post an obvious smear like this and people not notice . n/t

[maximusveritas]

13. Post a lie about Hillary or Obama with no evidence

and you'll get a bunch of recs.

Post the actual words from Edwards and you'll get attacked. That's the way it works here.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I'm just weirded out that I would be attacked and "laughted" at

as a DUer, but Edwards words don't mean a thing!

In fact, I am reading about why I posted his words, more than about the fact that he said these words. I find that strange.

[Blackhatjack]

16. LOL you must be kidding! Right? Oh I am sure you are impartial in your views here ROFL

"As a loyal DUer" I am surprised anyone one would be surprised once they are exposed in their efforts to create a false impression of a Candidate by cherry-picking their quotes.

You can claim to be 'above the fray', but you won't fool many people here.

[EV_Ares]

18. LOL, like I said this is funny, looking forward to the next Edwards attack.

[FrenchieCat]

19. Sad....that any discussion on Edwards, if not totally supportive of him,

is considered an attack.

Personally, I find it really disgusting, since you never discuss the words that he used...."I would have gone into Iraq" and why we want someone that thought this way, even if now it was a "mistake", to be considered sooooo progressive (and basically equated to an electable Kucinich).

Edwards ain't that good looking ya know!

[EV_Ares]

21. Evidently you don't read your own posts. Also, why should I have

to repeat the words of which the other poster has put here for you and to which you evidently don't know how to reply to him since he is correct about what you have posted.

To which you say you are seen as attacking Edwards, it won't matter because you probably won't get it anyway but the reason people do see it that way because all you along with another poster does is constantly post stuff like this and attack Edwards. If you have a candidate, why don't you try it and make posts supporting them and trying to persuade others to join you.

Those of us who prefer Edwards, Obama, Biden supporters are that way, Kucinich, we post positive things about him and reply to positive things on Hillary debating the issue instead of doing nothing but negative attack posts as you seem to prefer.

Now as far as the "ain't that good looking ya know", can only laugh at that one as don't know what that has to do with anything other than you have no reply to anyone here that has replied to your post. Don't let that bother you though as it is understandable.

Also, it is your right to do what you want and as I told you in another post, I prefer that you keep this up because the longer it goes and you repeat yourself over and over, the less credible you have already become and you are more uncredible as people see it as nothing more than a uncredible political negative attack.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Well, I am flattered that you are making it about me.....

as that detract from John Edwards words that he would have gone into Iraq if he was President.

Nice Try, and I'm sure that you have those on your side on this tactic.

I'll just stick to my political point in reference to what John Edwards said in a public interview, as opposed to who posted what he said.

[EV_Ares]

29. Don't have to detract from as you say John Edwards words which

is why you are afraid to reply to the poster who has taken your article and shown you where you conveniently missed some things and took what Matthews said, took him out of context, distorted what he said. Nothing I can add to what he has shown you in his post. Come on, everyone is waiting for your reply and to refute it.

Understand as there really is no way you can refute him.

[Kajsa]

25. Dredging up old news--

"Wed., Oct. 15, 2003"

That's really reaching.

[Cha]

30. That's my focus...cause Edwards is

one dude who changed..that's the reason I've voting for him..not because of the way he saw things in 2003.

I don't think we should have gone in AT ALL. But, I'm sure Edwards knew a few things about life that I didn't ..that I have changed my thinking on, too.

[Franc_Lee]

26. ------------------> Hillary

[mmonk]

28. As someone who opposed Edwards's view at the time

but has since listened to him in person, I believe him when he says he was mistaken and regrets it. I'm usually a hard person to convince on such matters. I'll leave you this thought from a veteran of the Iraq war for you to ponder.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sgt-john-bruhns/why-im-supporting-john-e_b_76515.html

[ecstatic]

31. Keep up the good work. I'll vote for him if he's shoved down my throat

but I want the people who keep touting him as the second best thing to Gore to always be aware of their hypocrisy.