Why I support Edwards, IWR vote, apology and all.

[renie408]

I am not a black/white person. I continuously see shades of gray in nearly everything. I am almost always willing to look for the 'less evil' reasons for human behavior. I truly believe that REAL evil is actually very limited. (Of the Bushies, the one I see as being closest to what I could consider TRULY evil is Dick Cheney. That man creeps the shit out of me) I look at any situation and try to see it in context. I try to evaluate the players and work from my understanding of them. My understanding of Edwards is that he is a good and sincere man. Given that, I have looked at his IWR vote and tried to reconcile it with that understanding.

I will flatly say that I like John Edwards. Not for his hair and only partially for the way he speaks to an audience (Mostly I consider that a plus for getting his message out). I have read about his life and I think I understand why he went into politics. I look at the people around him and the things he has done with his life in the last ten years and I think he is the real thing. I like his wife. She is smart and real. I appreciate the story about his son Wade. I can see so clearly how that could have driven Edwards to what he is doing now. I consider my fifteen year old son to be one of the best people I know. He is honest and politically passionate and his outlook is so damn pure and untainted. At fifteen, he is so convinced that we can all band together and change this world for the better. I can very clearly see how I might do what Edwards is doing now if I had the resources and I lost my son.

When I hear Edwards apology, I hear sincere regret. I hear someone who is saying, "I fucked up. I can't get it back, but this is how I can go forward." And my friends, that is all any of us can do. Forward is the only direction open to us. HOW we go forward is what really counts. I listen to Edwards and I hear an exciting way to go forward. I believe him.

NONE OF US KNOW WHAT IS IN OUR CHOSEN CANDIDATES HEARTS. If we say we do, we are kidding ourselves. We can only follow our instincts on whether they are sincere or not. My instincts tell me Edwards is sincere. Someone else may get a different feeling. We are all just doing the best that we can. I honestly understand how the IWR vote could be a deal breaker for some people. I-GET-IT. And I respect it. What I also honestly think is that holding that view is not any more righteous than being able to forgive that vote. It is just another way of seeing things.

[AtomicKitten]

1. there are no gray areas of war and torture

in my opinion

[renie408]

2. You're kidding!! Is that what you think?? I didn't even KNOW that!

I understand. I have understood that the other 9000 times you have told me. I get it. Really.

[AtomicKitten]

3. So, I guess that makes us well understood to one another.

Having already understood the 9,000 times you've explained your position to me.

Done.

[renie408]

5. Done? Is this the day hell was due to freeze over?? n/t

[AtomicKitten]

10. no, it means precisely what I said ---- we're done discussing this

[chefgirl]

4. Maybe not

But lets remember, he voted to give the little idiot the authority to go to war as a last resort.

He didnt start this shit, nor did he authorize torture, etc...

I couldnt agree more with the OP. I hear real sincerity in Edwards' apology, and quite frankly, I'm more interested in what he'll do from here on, not one wrong vote from the past.

If we continue to look for perfection in candidates, or even a candidate who will appeal to every single Democrat, then we're being just as naively idealistic as we've been accused of being soooooo many times by so many Republicans.

-chef-

[renie408]

6. This would be how I see it.

I have constantly said that if we are looking for the candidate who has not made at least one serious mistake in his political career, we will have to vote for someone who hasn't actually HAD a political career.

[AtomicKitten]

7. It's the gravity of that "one wrong vote" -

that is the subject of disagreement here.

You are more than welcome to your opinion on this, but I assure you those that take issue with the implications, ramifications and consequences of that vote are miles away from accepting that vote as "one wrong vote."

[renie408]

8. Gee, and I didn't eve realize that my understanding was so deficient.

How thin is the air up there on that pedestal?? Cause you are WAAYY up there.

I think that was honestly one of the most obnoxious posts I have read here. And all the more so because you don't even realize that it was.

[AtomicKitten]

15. it's your willingness to sublimate your understanding

of the situation in order to excuse the "one wrong vote" that is the problem; I would never presume to comment on intelligence, just the ability to set aside what you probably already know on behalf of a politician.

And, you know what? Obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder.

[talk hard]

50. where the hell did that come from?

I think some of you purposely twist words to start arguments so you don't have to answer the tuff questions. Bleechtt. Pepole are entitled to not think the way you do you know.

[renie408]

75. I am just spitballing here...

but I think it came from being told that I and others who share my opinion lack an ability to understand the importance and implications of the vote....Yeah, I think that was it. It's hard to remember exactly what was written. But I am not normally quick to hit my "Fuck You" button and I know whatever she said, it triggered that.

[talk hard]

82. did you read it?

I don't think you did. She said those that "take issue with" the importance and all that of the vote -- not that you dont' understand it -- youre' wrong & and your response was nasty and wrong

[renie408]

91. Ahhh

She edited it. Originally is said, "those that UNDERSTAND the issues" blah blah blah. She changed it from 'understand' to 'take issue'. I had put her on ignore and had to take it off to see that it had been changed.

[talk hard]

97. so you have

a problem with what it says now? I sometimes reword what I write when it doesn't say what I mean. I think you just want to take the jackass stance here and youre' doing a great job of that.

[Critters2]

9. Agreed. I keep saying this....

Even I, a complete nobody living (at the time) in rural Iowa, with no professional experience in politics...yes, even I could see that we were being lied to, that there was no justification for this war, that the "last resort" meme was bullshit. I called my congress-critters, begging them not to support this travesty.

It's not too much to expect more from the POTUS than I expect from myself. I do expect candidates for the office to be wiser than me. Some would suggest that's a remarkably low standard to meet. Others would suggest I vote for those incapable of meeting it.

Long story short---no one who voted for IWR will get my vote in the primaries. Period. Exclamation point.

[chefgirl]

12. Wrong

I fully understand the implications and ramifications of that vote. Wrong as it turns out to be, in hindsight. Some of us even knew how wrong it was at the time. I'm simply able to see the larger picture, and without wanting to hang someone for a mistake, especially when that person could offer so much in the way of rectifying that mistake.

My point is, this is not John Edwards' war. This is George Bush's war.
Sorry, but I cannot, WILL not lay the blame for that at John Edwards doorstep.
What Edwards did was trust the President, like every other Senator and Congressman/woman who voted for the IWR. I cant fault him for that.

He's apologized. What more would you ask of a person than a sincere apology and a willingness and desire to right a wrong?

-chef-

[renie408]

16. I REALLY REALLY don't have a problem with people who

feel strongly about the IWR. When I say I respect that opinion, I mean it. All I am asking is the same kind of respect. It isn't as if I have gotten to where I am easily or glibly. I had to really weigh both sides before I wound up here. It's one of the things I have been pondering for the year I took off from the DU.

But to me (and only to me. If I am wrong about any individual who holds this position, I apologize right now)many of the people who find the IWR a deal breaker use that opinion as a righteous cudgel. They see so CLEARLY that they are RIGHT, that if you don't agree with them, you must be A) an easily led sheep, B) morally bankrupt or C) stupid. They are RIGHTEOUS in their moral turpitude and woe to those who do not immediately realize it.

(edited for clarity)

[AtomicKitten]

17. no, you don't respect that opinion

particularly when you try to frame your opposition to it in the face of conditions (A,B,C above) that are all imagined and never alleged. Invoking martyr status is just a manipulation to shut down discussion. This is and never was a personal issue, but you have campaigned for the support to make it that. Brava! No worries. You have plenty of company here with people that will commiserate with how horrible it is to be confronted with a dissenting opinion on a discussion board of all places!

[seashorelady]

33. I agree,

Not very long ago the word of the President of the United States meant something. People took that word at face value, had no reason to doubt it. Unfortunately with this president that's no longer true. It's going to take a lot to restore the credibility that we once had.

I for one, think John Edwards has the vision, energy, brilliance and honesty to lead us to victory.

[Clark2008]

40. Fine - forgive him, but why the fuck would I want to vote for him?

I can forgive him, but that doesn't mean I should REWARD him.

Geesch.

[renie408]

41. Ok. n/t

[The Count]

48. Yup. The old "taking responsibility" trick. I say the words, now reward me.

It surely worked for bush well - they are now trying the trick with Edwards.
And for the record, I don't forgive anyone who promoted, helped start this war, no matter how loud they recant.
Powell, Edwards, all the PNAC-ers who are now doing an about face - still have blood on their hands.

[talk hard]

51. hell no -- none of them deserve to be rewarded

If we cant' express that at the ballot box, where else? Flapping our gums here?

[Pithy Cherub]

13. Reducing and Minimizing life decisions to that degree

says something about what one values above all. It is not the same as choosing whether or not to purchase a pair of jeans. By all means if washing away someone's life decisions is that easy and Edwards can apologize for co-sponsoring other people's death warrants and still have other people join you on the campaign trail, then why not do it again. Past behavior is indicative of future performance.

A president needs moral authority - to have squandered his already validates a lack of gravitas and seriousness to be Leader of the Free world. But hey, there are plenty of people out there that believe a shallow apology will be enough to excuse the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people because somebody made a fatal mistake of judgment. Got it - they can't vote.

An IWR vote is taken seriously by serious people and those Honorable few who voted No were the only serious people present on October 11, 2002.

[chefgirl]

19. Oh Please

Reducing and Minimizing life decisions to that degree
says something about what one values above all.

Well, I suppose, but Inflating and Villifying a person's mistakes says something about the inflators incapacity to see life through the eyes of experience and reality.

He made a mistake. He did not start the war. He did not vote to authorize torture. He reconsidered a decision that he made, and came forward and offered an apology, and an explanation.

You don't want to vote for him or ANY candidate that voted in favor of the IWR, thats your choice, but can you honestly say that Edwards wouldn't be a FAR better President than the current moron?

I can only wonder who that 'perfect' candidate is, and when you find him or her, let me know, would ya? I'll bet I could probably find something about that person that some idealistic Democrat somewhere would take issue with.

I've seen it so many times in my life, its getting to be old hat. So often we Dems are our own worst enemy.

-chef-

[Pithy Cherub]

23. Flaws or not you won't find those candidates heedlessly

rushing to enable George Bush in his pre-emptive doctrine by cosponsoring a Death Bataan march like Edwards. Then a public mea cupla because they still want to be thought of as a leader after abdicating all the competencies needed to be taken seriously. My candidates will have demonstrated Courage not public moral cravenness on matters of Life and Death. That is non-negotiable, but some excuse it easily.

[renie408]

24. Can we put down the flaming swords for a minute

and just talk about this?

Why do you assume that the people who voted this way did so in a 'heedless rush'? I sincerely want to know why the ONLY answer for voting this way for you is moral cravenness. I swear, I just don't see that. Not that I haven't looked hard, but I just don't see it.

And who is your candidate and why. I really want to hear it. If we can front a good candidate for the GE that didn't vote for the IWR, I am all about it. I just need to hear more than "IWR VOTERS ARE EVIL COWARDS". Since I don't really believe that, it doesn't compel me to look at other people any differently than I look at them.

[Pithy Cherub]

30. Robert Byrd is actually the key

as the Senate's historian, he said it was a violation of the Constitution and the War Powers Act and there was no need to rush. He had voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and regretted it much like Edwards does today. This was Gulf of Tonkin II and Byrd laid out on the senate floor saying there was a need to be diligent and take the time to get it right.

Patrick Leahy said it was giving a blank check to the executive without oversight. A first term senator with NO national security credentials co-sponsored it, Edwards. The Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham said that the evidence was not there and he voted no. The first term senator had a wealth of expertise around him saying caution that he did not heed in his zeal to champion it. That lack of caution for those who have made the mistake in the past - see McGovern was part and parcel why it was heedless. Edwards chose to believe Bush rather than the elders who had seen combat and made his mistake already. It was not as if there were no powerhouse Democrats saying don't do this.

Edwards showed a profound lack of national security judgment and courage. Vietnam war hero Kerry who I respect should have known better and his rhetoric displayed deep misgivings, but he capitulated. Hillary had it poll tested rather than relying on principle after she worked in the senate for the impeachment of Nixon. It is those who believe they deserve a pass on their worst political decision ever to now become president that cause my strenuous objections. An apology is a beginning not the end all of the matter.

[renie408]

34. Thanks.

This is the stuff I need to understand and said in a non-confrontational or superior way. So really, thanks for that.

I understand how you would feel that an apology is a starting point. What would you feel like would be the best way to go forward from the apology? I mean, putting yourself in Edwards' shoes. Let's say that you really recognized that you had screwed up and honestly felt that you had something serious to offer the country as President. Is there ANYTHING he could do that would make you feel better if he won the nomination? I am not saying that would make you vote for him in the primary. I understand that is not going to happen. But what might make you feel better about Edwards should he get the nomination?

[Pithy Cherub]

37. Presidential history

is replete with people who believe they deserve the office. Edwards does not merit a promotion to the highest office in the land because his judgment on matters of war and peace remain poor. All of his international travels did not involve issues of state. There are others who truly merit the Office of President.

My consideration is after sending other people's children off to an ill conceived war under Bush's inept command, Edwards can not nor will he be Commander in Chief. The IWR was used to send the military off to Iraq without equipment and a plan while the cosponsor in and others in Congress abdicated its responsibility to make them as safe as possible. That is not an oops, but an affront when someone receives condolence calls. For that reason alone he should not run for president, but instead dedicate his life to an issue or a cause that gives his life meaning. Running for president after such a mistake is intrinsically about ego gratification. Part of a real atonement is to find a way to make amends without glorifying one's self in the process otherwise motives will always be impugned. Edwards needs to find a way to regain his honor through service, not campaigning - but he will do it without my vote.

Principle and Honor should always be defended vigorously especially when the lives of so many who are lost were treated casually as if that IWR vote was the equivalent of an earmark. People died because Democrats gave cover to an incompetent president on matters of national security. That will draw a response as those who remain silent are assumed to have consented to the viewpoint.

[renie408]

38. "Remain poor"

Why do you think his judgement remains poor?

Also, every one of the guys who runs thinks he would be good for the office. That's why they run. That doesn't mean that they DESERVE to be elected. I was asking that if he is sincere, is there anything he could do to make you more comfortable voting for him in the general election. And your answer is 'No'. What is going to happen if your choice in the GE comes down to a Republican and a Dem who voted for the IWR? Will you abstain from voting, which might hand the White House back to the GOP?

[FrenchieCat]

64. John Edwards' judgement remains poor on issues of Foreign policy

because he is still talking like a hawk, but his words have now shifted to other countries.

Iran
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

and is apparently calling China our Greatest "threat", which in my opinion is a bit more than what is required. I consider China a challenge and a competitor, but a "threat" is not the type of framing with need after all we have been through.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3034415

[renie408]

68. The Chinese government does not play by the same rules

I have been over that in another thread. I do not think that 'threat' is too harsh in light of their envoronmental, economic and human rights record. What do you think would define a threat?


You don't like him. Fine. But this is reaching.

[AtomicKitten]

39. thank you

for your eloquent description and I share your concerns. Unfortunately that POV is erroneously tagged as arrogance when it is really a gut-level conviction that I couldn't shake if I wanted to; I would be remiss as a citizen if I tried to do anything other than try to resuscitate the last remnants of a country I no longer recognize. It stands between us and going along with the tragic ride that is the course of events Bush has put into motion.

[Surya Gayatri]

79. How well said, Pithy Cherub...

..."Edwards does not merit a promotion to the highest office in the land because his judgment on matters of war and peace remain poor."

..."Running for president after such a mistake is intrinsically about ego gratification. Part of a real atonement is to find a way to make amends without glorifying one's self in the process, otherwise motives will always be impugned."

A handsome face, a winning smile and a well-packaged message will not suffice for the perilous epoch we're living through. SG

[talk hard]

87. well said

((applause))

[chefgirl]

26. Self righteous much?

And with one vote, John Edwards abdicated "all the competencies needed to be taken seriously" ?? :eyes:

And you still didn't answer the REAL question I asked. Can you honestly tell me he wouldnt be a FAR better President than the current moron?

-chef-

[renie408]

28. Hey, I am with you. But 'Better than Bush' ain't exactly a stunning endorsement. n/t

[chefgirl]

29. You're right, it isnt

The point I'm trying to make is, I think, very akin to your OP.

If Democrats would just stop being so naively single minded, as has been the history of this party for a lot of years, we would have a much better chance against the corrupt Republican machine.

Edwards, and quite a few others, fucked up when they voted in favor of the IWR. Ok, but, now what? Do we eat our own, even though ANY Democrat would be a much better choice for America than His Royal Dumbass? Or do we accept his apology, listen to his positions on the issues, and move forward based on that?

-chef-

[renie408]

32. People have to do what they feel is right.

All I am asking is that in that process, if they could stop beating me up for doing what I think is right, I would appreciate it. I agree with you strongly. VERY strongly. But I recognize that what we need is not for everybody to agree with us. Which is a good thing, cause it is NEVER going to happen. What we need is for people to accept our right to our view.

[talk hard]

88. ha-ha-ha

you are slamming people left & ritht that dont' agree with you

[renie408]

92. Noo...I am slamming YOU

Not everybody. I have argued with some people, but I reserve 'slamming' for those that slam first. I am not shy, but I typically don't start anything. I figure that anybody that jumps in with snotty one liners is fair game. But there are several people here with whom I have fundamental diasgreements with whom I have had very civil discussions. You just don't happen to be one of them. I tend to react in kind. Treat people nicely and they respond nicely. Act like a jerk and you are likely to get treated like one.

[talk hard]

98. your posts come across

as nasty and just plain mean. Period.

Spin it any way you want -- your nature has been spilled out on these boards pretty damn clear. People can disagree here without being nasty. Your posts are nasty.

[talk hard]

59. not self-righteous -- just right

[The Count]

45. Besides, future performance promises to be...more wars anyway:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
will he apologize for this one too when it goes bad?

[renie408]

69. Which candidate says that he will guarantee not to use force

I will vote for him. Which one would that be?

Edwards said he would not take anything off the table. That is not precisely beating a drum.

[talk hard]

89. Bush was BSing about the reason to go to war.

that's the vote and decision people have a problem with --- and Edwards not only supported it, he sponsored it --- can't get away from that truth no matter how rude and nasty you get.

[The Count]

42. Hear, hear! Life and death - no gray in between. The dead can't forgive.

[talk hard]

53. no kidding !

Some people act like it was no big whoop!

[renie408]

74. Who? Who acts like it is 'no big whoop'? And what is a 'whoop', anyway?

I think that most people on both sides of this issue have put a great deal of thought into it. That's why they can do more than fire off juvenile one liners.

Well, I did say MOST people.

[talk hard]

85. the only thought

youve given this matter is whethre or not it hurts your candidate --- which it does

& making fun of people is rude and a sign you have zero confidence in your argument -- it would be easy to out insult you but you aren't worth it

[renie408]

93. Could you possibly go back and peruse your thoughtful additions to this conversation

and tell me how you just wrote that with a straight face?

[talk hard]

99. I stand by what I said

It is pretty damn clear you restort to nastyness pretty easily and without being provoked. Pretend all you want, dear. It's out there.

[Ninja Jordan]

62. There are no gray areas of war? That's probably true...if you ignore the history of the earth.

[talk hard]

86. the subject of war is so serious

there should be no gray areas in the decision -- I do agree with that

it's only people that need to cover their candidtaes' butt that are willing to see gray areas

[Catchawave]

11. You are brave and compassionate person Renie

Thanks for posting your honest feelings on DU, I'm sure you're getting smacked down right now, so I just wanted to give you a :hug:

[renie408]

14. Thanks, but I am not sure how much of either I actually am. I just discovered the 'Ignore' thing n/t

[Catchawave]

18. Ignore is your friend :)

I just don't understand this IWR thing on DU lately, and it mostly seems to be applying only to Edwards. That's why I'm glad to see your post. Just don't take anything personally or you'll go nucking futz :silly:

[renie408]

21. I understand it and I don't.

I know WHY it is so hot lately. It's because Edwards is getting so much good press lately. I also understand that if another candidate gets hot, they will start getting ripped to shreds and Edwards will fade away. The part I don't understand is this whole 'eating our own' mentality that seems to run rife here.

[FrenchieCat]

65. John Edwards co-sponsored the IWR; even Hillary didn't do that!

Do you understand what that means? It means that all of the "Yeah" votes were not quite the same in terms as to the whys. John Kerry appears to have voted to give Bush Blank Check authority although he didn't seem to want to do it. You can hear it in his speeches on the Senate floor. Meanwhile, John Edwards was actually using the same logic as Bush and Cheney in pushing the war, hence Edwards' op ed that wasn't asked for, and was so good, Bush posted it on the Official Gov. Website! John Edwards went further than most Democrats in rationalizing Bush's actions. You may not see that, but it is so.

Edwards supporters will for sure get "miffed" at me (cause I've been given quite a reputation thus far simply because I choose to look under the rock) for posting the following because its not what they want to see, but they cannot argue with what is there. They may personally attack me as well, but it will not change what happened 4 short years ago.

Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"
February 24, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/24/le.00.html

October 7, 2002
This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering.

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel.
snip

After 11 years of watching Saddam play shell games with his weapons programs, there is no reason to believe he has any real intention to disarm.

At the end of the day, there must be no question that America and our allies are willing to use force to eliminate the threat of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction once and for all. And I believe if America leads, the world will join us.

Eliminating Iraq's destructive capacity is only part one of our responsibility, however.

We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. 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. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
snip
We must also remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. This is a problem much bigger than Iraq.
snip
Even as we lead the world to eliminate the Iraqi weapons threat in particular and global proliferation in general, we must maintain our resolve in the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaeda.

I reject the notion that this is an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we are up to the challenge. We fought World War II on four continents simultaneously. America worked to rebuild Germany and Japan at the same time, under the Marshall Plan. We waged the Cold War in every corner of the globe, and we won.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5441/americas_role_in_the_world.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/edwards/edw100702sp.html

December 18, 2002
What we do here is, of course, cast in the context of America's responsibilities abroad. I have said this before and I want to say it again: I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.

We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security – because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/5440/homeland_security_address.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2F9641%2Fjohn_edwards%3Fgroupby%3D3%26hide%3D1%26id%3D9641%26filter%3D2002

But by supporting the Iraq war so intently, Edwards has carved out a position of a far more credibility than the increasingly bitter Gore. And so his speech today should be seen less as a serious attack on Bush than as a statement that he is the true inheritor of Gore’s previous centrism in the Democratic Party. He’s wily, this guy. And flagging the speech to the Washington Post beforehand is worthy of Blair.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh100702.shtml

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away."

(BELOW, EDWARDS INDIRECTLY LINKS 9/11 ATTACKS TO WHY SADDAM MUST BE ATTACKED)

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"
September 12, 2002

"Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation."
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm
John Edwards Op Ed in the WAPO dated 9/17/02

Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

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.

In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074



"Edwards had always been a firm supporter of the war. I was at the fateful California Democratic Party convention in early 2003 in which Dean exploded onto the political scene. Forgotten from that convention, Edwards was booed for announcing his support for the war just a couple days before bombs started dropping.

But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/10/165059/30

[renie408]

78. I am not miffed.

It's the truth. I haven't disputed it. Can't.

It is also not 13 months after 9/11, Bush isn't carrying an 80% approval rating, I am not a junior Senator from a southern state which has strong support for the war and several major military bases, I am not being courted by a senior Senator who is a major leader of my party, I am not currently being fed filtered 'intelligence' and being told it is plain fact, and I now know that Bill Clinton was wrong when he was saying at the same time that Saddam had WMD.

I.....AM....NOT....SAYING....IT....WAS....RIGHT. I am saying that it was understandable TO ME. I was not prescient like everyone else here on the DU. I actually believed some of the stuff I was being told in 2001-2002. Also, remember that it was six months between when the IWR was passed and when we went to war. A lot changed during that six months.

[talk hard]

90. youre' just saying making dumb decisions is okeedokee wiht you

if your candidate does it -- no reasonable person was fooled by the BS

[renie408]

94. O-Kay

Read this and see if you can figure out why I am rude to you. Read the things you write. You are an icky person.

[talk hard]

101. hey, I thought you were putting me on ignore??????

that mirror thing applies to you -- you are the icky person here

"icky" -- hmmmm, what were you saying about being juvenile?

HA-HA-HA

[spooky3]

20. I support you also, and find your post quite reasonable.

People can be judged fairly if a pattern of behavior, rather than one decision, is considered. That is, IF the observer wants to be fair.

I also agree with your comments about the holier than thou smugness and naivete.

[The Count]

44. Too bad his/her compassion goes to the wrong person. I go for the dead and hurt

and tortured rather than the politicians who enabled it.

[Nikefutbol254]

52. well then...

you know that really is touching... but sadly the hurt and tortured and especially the dead can't do anything to help themselves. If you want something to change, if you want something to get better, your going to have to stop blaming people for mistakes (wait excuse me, mistake) they made in the past and maybe try to catch up and focus on whats going on right now. Your not helping anyone by stressing over a single mistake in a politician's career (which when you think about it, making only one mistakes is an achievement is its self). The way to win an argument isn't to denounce the other person's canidate... that would actually be the Republican way of doing things. You're only ever going to open people to opinion's by sharing their view and trying to open them to yours. You know, just as a tip.

By the way, who was it again that you think is going to save the country? The candidate with the blemish free record and perfect moral compass... I just wanted you to know that America will be a frozen hell before that guy comes along.

[renie408]

70. Be careful.

Tone will get you killed here. Sarcasm will, too. If you are going to swing that big stick, develop a thick skin. These people are not playing.

I liked the moral compass thing, though. And frozen hell was a nice touch of drama.

But over all, You go, big boy!!

[talk hard]

56. say it loud

you are so right

[renie408]

22. Excellent Post from 2004

I found this when I was looking for a list of those Senators who voted against the IWR. I think it puts into words how I feel far better than I have been able to.

>>For those still bothered by the IWR vote I'd refer you to this post from a fellow DU'er. Kerry has said his vote was a vote on principle and in truth he has supported getting rid of Saddam at least as far back as 1998. Is it any wonder then, that in this enviornment (described so well below) Kerry voted for a resolution that didn't declare war but threatened force as last resort?

Written by DU poster "youngred":

You would do well to remember the context of Fall of 2002.

On October 11, 2002 the Senate voted on the Iraq war resolution. Like many DUers I was glued to my TV screen watching and counting the votes as they were cast. Knowing early on that it would pass I watched with anger as Senator after Senator...those same senators that the GOP is so fond of calling Marxist Lie-Berals...betray the peace movement and give George Bush a war he and the PNAC folks had been planning for years. However, I understood.

At the times Bush's approval rating was in the low 80s and upper 70s, a slip from the previous october, but still a strong majority of the population. The November mid-term elections were less than a month away and the public greatly favoured the war. It was 13 months to the day after the attacks of September 11th and around the same time as the anthrax attacks put the capitol and major news organizations on their toes for any letter that looked like it had white powder of any kind in it. We had the full dossier from Powell declaring how many WMDs we "knew" Saddam to have. There was no hint (except on the far left and here at DU) from anyone that Bush could be lying or exaggerating his claim.

For Democrats it was a time of fear. Holding the slimest of slim majorities in 1/2 of 1/3 of government, and left with Senators such as Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman the Democrats did NOT have much of a choice or a chance. The Democrats held the senate 50-49, and if one of their senators defected the tie goes to Dick Cheney.

In that atmosphere votes against the IWR would have been political suicide. The Democrats as a whole realized this and many of them chose to vote against their conscience with the hope that the UN or Saddam would find a way to prove W wrong.

Hindsight gives you all comfotable assurance, but you didnt have to vote. You weren't faced with that choice. You weren't living with the prospect of death by WMD (anthrax) in your office or political suicide that would hand the reins of power to Bush. You had the convience of being non-elected partisans. The country no longer has that kind of luxury.

Some of our candidates made the wrong choice. Some knew the right one from the beginning. Some stayed silent and came to their position with the changing political winds. ALL of them however, (well except Lieberman) are going to bring our troops home sooner, and restore our image faster than George W. Bush. So, if you, like I really opposed Bush and the Iraq war, you would work your hardest to get him out of office...before he strikes again.

I may despise the Iraq vote, and my anger that day was only mitigated by grudging understanding of their position. You are all empathetic liberals, put yourself EXACTLY in that time and place and tell me how many of you would have voted against the IWR.

Peace<<

http://toughenough.org/2004/01/for-those-still-bothered-by-iwr-vote.html

[The Count]

46. But Edwards didn't just vote, he sponsored IWR. And war & polls- how crass!

Sorry, I can accept politics when it's about money, taxes and anything that can be changed once power switched hands.
To play with people's lives for politics - beyond disgusting.

[talk hard]

54. I guess "my bad" is good enough for some

[Eric J in MN]

47. Paul Wellstone's numbers went up after he voted against the IWR.

So much for "votes against the IWR would have been political suicide."

[The Count]

49. Excellent point! I always thought it's why he died too as BFEE was very

intent to keep this from being known. Schroeder in Germany was also elected after he refused to join the "coalition of the bought". BFEE was merciless with him too.
Truth is, there were intimidating times - and it was an act of courage to show integrity on the war issue.
But guess what? I want someone of courage in the White House for a change. Someone who can resist PNAC's next letter.
And it ain't the guy who said these things:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[Hippo_Tron]

67. Paul Wellstone did the right thing, but I'm not sure it would've work for others

I think that Wellstone's Nea vote on the IWR reminded people in Minnesota of why they elected him in the first place. Despite the fact that people supported the war, they supported Wellstone because they believed that he could always be counted on to do what he believed was right.

In Georgia, Louisiana, and South Dakota there simply weren't enough rational thinking people that Cleland, Landrieu, and Johnson would've stood a chance at re-election. However, that doesn't justify their votes.

Regardless of poll numbers, Wellstone put his ass on the line over the IWR just like he did with Welfare Reform in 1996. He was truly a model for how a Senator should act.

[renie408]

77. Why do you leave North Carolina out of that list?

I lived in Monroe, NC, until 2003. I live in SC now. There wasn't a ton of grassroots support for voting against the IWR here. There were/are a lot of military bases and ex-military...anti-Iraqi invasion, not so much.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Because Edwards wasn't up for re-election in 2002

[renie408]

95. Ok, I thought we were talking about the pressures

involved in casting the IWR vote. When did Edwards declare for the Presidency race and when did he step back from his Senate seat? The IWR vote was in 2002, right?

[citizen snips]

25. no matter how hard you push this issue

there are going to be posters who are still closed minded to your opinion. But I glad that you shared your thoughts about this issue.

[renie408]

27. I know. I think I just wanted to get it off my chest in one shot. n/t

[elizm]

31. Were you in Columbia today??

I saw Edwards at the Town Hall Meeting in Columbia today. Quite a turnout!

[Nikefutbol254]

55. I really wish I could have been there

I haven't gotten to personally see John speak yet but I can't wait for him to speak around here again.

[illinoisprogressive]

35. Politicans are human

and humans make mistakes. I am not an Edwards supporter but, I do not hold his vote against him. I believe he was gullible and maybe alittle to eager to join in with the majority. That is a human being. I am glad that both of my senators were against the war from the start but, alot of them were afraid of being seen as unpatriotic. It would ruin them. We all want to keep our jobs. We must remember the fear of speaking out and being assulted as terrorists if we did not give Bush godly powers and back him in everything. many people were afraid of the bullies. Unlike Hillary who does not regret her vote and supports the war. Does not see it as a mistake.
I am glad you have someone you feel good about and support. I do wish him luck
I personally support my senator if he runs. Obama. But, I don't feel any ill towards any candidate except Hillary. The others are just as good and decent people.

[renie408]

36. I like Obama, too. It won't hurt my feelings one bit

if he wins the nomination.

[The Count]

43. It was not just "a vote" He sponsored IWR. With Lieberman. See the difference?

Someone posted this - maybe you'll see how he wasn't like most democrats voting for war - he promoted it, help start it:

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

[talk hard]

58. nope -- "my bad" works for them

[renie408]

73. Well thought out and very compelling reply. Thanks for the dismissal.

And for proving part of the point I have been trying to make.

[talk hard]

84. your point that you just let stuff like war slide?????

ya, you made your point -- thakns

[renie408]

96. Nasty man, I am putting you on 'Ignore'. You have nothing thoughtful or original to say.

You snipe at people and then get pissy when they snipe back. In essence, you fight like a girl. Not a woman, mind you. A little girl. If I want to fight with a ten year old girl, I will try to get my kid to clean her room.

[talk hard]

100. see ya!!! I have better conversatoins with my dog -- he's smarter and nicer than you

[Nikefutbol254]

57. wow... thats pretty damn brilliant

I completely agree. People should spent less of their time butchering people for their human mistakes and more time paying attention to what they have managed to do right.

[Nikefutbol254]

60. okay whoops....

yeah I was talking about what the person said about politicians being human by the way... that was smart

[SOS]

83. It's really not about Edwards per se

In 2004 Kerry was boxed into a corner. He and his running mate voted for the biggest strategic mistake in American history.
Then the Republicans hammered him mercilessly. "He was for it before he was against it!' "Flip flop flip flop!"
Why would any yes-voting Democrat not expect the same treatment in 2008?

It's not a personal attack on Edwards' "human mistakes", it's about learning from the 2004 election catastrophe and not repeating it.

Only 21% of Americans now support Bush on Iraq. It is political poison.
That vote will be used by the Republicans to corner and pummel any yes-voting Democratic candidate.
Exactly as it was in 2004.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

61. Renie, I would like to add my two cents.

A few prefatory comments. Of course, from my avatar, it is clear I have a different candidate. But I find Edwards very attractive, at least on domestic issues. I would wholeheartedly support him as the nominee. I disagree with certain aspects of your argument, but like your tone and enjoy the opportunity to discuss this with you because I feel you are sincere and intellectually honest in your approach. It's refreshing that you are receptive to comments, both pro and con, when offered in a spirit of mutual respect, & I certainly want to follow that approach, because we will all need to work together once the nomination is resolved. Also that is the kind of discourse we need to promote, if our republic is to survive.

Having said all that, I think the post on Byrd (#24) is one of the most important on this thread. A yes vote on IWR is hard to explain, in my view.

1) There never was a legitimate case for war made by Bushco. Why did it ever make any sense?

2) The most common rationale I hear by politicians now is that the intel on Iraq in 2002 was distorted by Bushco. I am not persuaded by that rationale. First, because I don't think those distortions included any intel-based assertion by Bushco that Saddam was about to develop a nuke. I have never seen any evidence that even the Bushco distortions included such. Nuclear weapon infrastructure is very difficult to conceal from satellite surveillance. Further, even if Saddam *had* a nuke in 2002, US deterrence and containment (which were effective against the USSR, etc. for decades) were still the more reasonable approach, rather than invasion. Especially so against a thug like Saddam who was always ultimately interested in self preservation. So I think the Bushco-distorted-intel rationale for the vote is without merit.

3) There was in 2002 clear evidence of the bad faith of Bushco in its rush to war. Most prominent in that regard was the politicization of the IWR vote by Bushco in insisting that it take place *before* the 2002 midterms. I believe Kennedy pointed this out during debate. Byrd certainly did. I watched him on CSPAN holding a copy of the Constitution aloft and repeatedly shouting "Why now?" during the Senate debate. Gore said the
following on September 23, 2002:

Fifth, President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election.

Rather than making efforts to dispel concern at home an abroad about the role of politics in the timing of his policy, the President is publicly taunting Democrats with the political consequences of a "no" vote - - even as the Republican National Committee runs pre-packaged advertising based on the same theme - - in keeping with the political strategy clearly described in a White House aide's misplaced computer disk, which advised Republican operatives that their principal game plan for success in the election a few weeks away was to "focus on the war." Vice President Cheney, meanwhile indignantly described suggestions of political motivation "reprehensible." The following week he took his discussion of war strategy to the Rush Limbaugh show.

The foreshortening of deliberation in the Congress robs the country of the time it needs for careful analysis of what may lie before it.

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=84

So I think a rationale based on trusting Bush is also seriously flawed.

4) The conventional wisdom in 2002 (completely wrong), was that to be a viable presidential candidate in 2004, required supporting the invasion.

In conclusion, I think supporting the invasion of Iraq, the most colossal blunder in the history of American foreign policy, cannot be dispensed with merely by an apology or even reversal of position. It is evidence of extremely poor judgement in my view. Having said that he is not the first good Democrat to make a huge mistake (e.g. Bobby Kennedy started out his political career as a staffer for Joe McCarthy). Let me repeat: I like Edwards' domestic policy positions very much and will support him enthusiastically if he gets the nomination.

I applaud your sincerity and enthusiasm and hope your efforts to support his candidacy will be a path of learning, growth and personal fulfillment.

[renie408]

71. Gore is my #1, with a bullet.

But he currently isn't running. The subject of the week has been Edwards, and I like him a lot, too. I don't think he would take the VP nod again, but my dream ticket would be Gore/Edwards. I could live happily with Gore/Clark, too. I would probably have to back Gore in a primary because I think he would have a solid chance of winning the GE. I really don't want a Republican in the White House in '08. At this point, I can't imagine that they could pull it off. But I never thought Bush would win '04. I actually thought it wouldn't even be that close. I do not want to take any chances this time around. I am backing the candidates that have a message for GOING FORWARD that I can appreciate and who can win.

[gemlake]

63. I can forgive Edwards

if he is our nominee. I would just prefer, all other things being equal, that we find someone who didn't vote for the war. Like Obama.

[renie408]

72. I like Obama.

I have said many times that I like a lot of the potential candidates. I would happily support Obama. I am concerned that he will get shredded in a general election, though. It doesn't have anything to do with Obama. It's THEM.

[gemlake]

81. Well, if it looked like Obama would lose

the general election, then I would vote for Edwards over him. That's why I say "all other things being equal."

I understand what you're saying, and it's a good point. I just can't get over my disappointment with Democrats who supported this war.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. In Edwards' case I believe he was duped, which makes me question his abilities

He was still saying he would've invaded Iraq in the late primary debates. Unlike those who were doing it for political reasons, I think that Edwards genuinely believed that giving Bush authority to UNILATERALLY launch a preemptive strike on Iraq was a good idea.
The fact that he could not see that this was a bad idea makes me question his ability to be President.

Now I will say this in his defense. Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and perhaps he had information (or false information) than other Senators. Although, Bob Graham chaired that committee and voted NEA on the resolution.

[renie408]

76. Now, THAT I can agree with.

I have concerns here. People act like if you say "I understand his vote and can support him in spite of it." it must mean that you must think he is perfect and infallible. Actually, I thought I was saying the EXACT opposite. It's a flaw. It worries me. I tend to think that it was a sort of a 'flushed with the spirit of the moment' kind of thing and I think he has learned more caution. I can see with my own eyes that the last six years have aged him, at least physically. I am listening to him and thinking it has also matured him in other ways. But it still worries me. It's why if Gore gets in the race, I would probably still like Edwards, but I would go with Gore.

Maybe part of the problem is that some people seem to confer godhood onto their favorite candidates? Therefore, anything they do is perfect and any other candidate must be the DEVIL? I swear, if John Edwards wished the country a Happy New Year, there are people here who would look for the hidden meaning, say it was a political expediancy or say, "He's RICH! He should give all his money away and BUY us a Happy New Year!"

[nolabels]

102. It seems to me that there is a lot of convenient forgetfulness as of late

A lot of these people who voted for the IWR had some other types of calculating going on behind the scenes. They went with the gamble instead of going with the things they knew that where morally correct. They did this all for this thing called political expediency. They gambled with peoples lives that they had no authority to gamble with. They gambled and lost, it's that simple.

Do you have any examples of any of them admitting to this? I have heard none to admit to it so far :shrug: