Boston Globe: "John Edwards's Changing Tune on the Iraq War Vote"

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote
By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist

April 17, 2007

AS HE runs for president, John Edwards has cast himself as a candidate who puts candor ahead of politics by saying he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution.

But candor wasn't what he counseled as John Kerry's vice-presidential nominee, when he argued strongly against admitting error on Iraq, according to veterans of the 2004 campaign.

In waging his current crusade, Edwards has apologized repeatedly for his Iraq vote, not-so-subtly contrasting himself with Hillary Clinton, who has said she wouldn't vote the same way again, but who has also refused to express regret for supporting the resolution.

On a Feb. 4 appearance on "Meet the Press," for example, Edwards said he was very critical of himself for that vote, adding: "Anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got be honest and open, be willing to admit when they've done things wrong." Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote is "between her and her conscience," he said at Feb. 21 forum.

That confessional stance has won Edwards considerable credit with Democrats.

Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.

more...http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

[w4rma]

1. Woah, convoluted article. It does show who big media fears the most, considering they're starting

this now.

[Catchawave]

19. Sounds like Terry McAwful's book ?

First thing that came to my mind as I read this "hit".

[The Count]

24. But is it true? And what was that other IWR amendment he and Joementum sponsored?

You guys know it! 'splain it to us.

[GreenArrow]

57. see, that's the problem, it IS true.

And they can't explain it, can only rationalize or sublimate it.

[waiting for hope]

2. 2004....Hummm,

Edwards came out and apologized in November of 2005. Big difference.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Edwards was not positioning himself in late 2005 as anti-war candidate to go up against Clinton?

There are those who would argue that that is exactly what Edwards was doing when he wrote the op-ed in the Washington Post in the fall of 2005, "I was wrong"--trying to capture the considerable anti-war segment of the Democratic party--who vote in the primaries.

[The Count]

10. Kinda yeah...the whole Democratic convention 2004 failed to address the war

The whole 2004 campaign would have been very different.

[karynnj]

32. "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place"

"It was not a war of last resort"

"He went to war without exhausting the diplomacy."

"without building a true coalition"

"without a plan to win the peace"

"the US does not go to war because it wants to go to war but because it has to go to war"

---------------------------------------------

Did you hear any of that in 2004? Someone said them ever day!!

Someone who spoke against rushing to war in January 2003. Someone who called for regime change at home when the war was still favored by 70% of the people.

These were why Kerry was called anti-war through the first half of 2004.
---------------------------------------

The media conflated
- the vote
- whether a candidate was publicly for or against going to war in March 2003 (Kerry against, Edwards for)
- how to deal with the Iraq war and the War on Terror as President.

The latter is why some people here speak of Kerry simply wanting to fight a smarter war. He gave his plan for Iraq at NYU in September 2004, spoke of no permanent bases in the debates and spoke of some soldiers withdrawing in 2005. The elements of the 2004 plan were in subsequent Kerry plans - and are what the ISG now says was right.

On the War on Terror, Kerry said it should be mostly law enforcement and intelligence and occasionally military - and that was essentially special forces.
________________________________________

If by anti-war, you mean Kerry should have had let Code Pink and ANSWER stage an antiwar rally at the convention or that Kerry should have announced that he would withdraw all troops immediately upon taking office, you really wanted Bush to have a massive land slide.

The polls from that time still exist. Even now, "out Now" doesn't get a majority. In 2004, it's not clear he could have even won Massachusetts if that were his plan.

[flpoljunkie]

33. You make excellent points, karynnj. How I loved it when Kerry talked about "regime change" in US!

[The Count]

48. BS polls! Republicans would have voted en masse for Kerry along with us

had he had the courage to make the debate about war!
It was shameful how that convention totally ignored the war!
Mind you, kerry won anyway, I am just saying - more people - from all political stripes would have been energized if he had not equivocated.
Yes he did speak against the war (more than "anti-war Edwards" does it even now). But then he would back step with "I would have still voted for war" - which was a clear courtesy to the IWR sponsor on the ticket.
People in 2004 were already sick and tired of the war - and the beltway media was as out of touch then as it is now.

[karynnj]

68. On Du, yes - In the rest of the nation, no

Kerry did make several strong statements against going to war - in his NYU speech, and on Letterman and the Daily Show (which I recently resaw because there was a link to the 2004 one when he appeared for This moment on Earth. In addition, the phrases I typed in the earlier post were repeated often.

He also never said he would vote for the war, just the IWR.

If you were against the war, the choice of Bush and Kerry was easy. Kerry had a multi-decade record of speaking against war except as a last resort - form Vietnam, central America, to Iraq. Bush was the one who took us to war. I suspect some of the anger came from the fact that it was John Kerry who voted for the IWR - his history made people hold him to a higher standard.

But, in 2004 - if you asked yourself who would be more likely to:
- negotiate our withdrawal in Iraq
- avoid other wars
- have the US conform to the Geneva Conventions

it would not take more than a second to answer. Kerry needed the anti-war people plus those who were for the war but convinced Kerry could do a better job. In the last week of the campaign, Kerry made a lot of progress expanding the second group by speaking very effectively about the unguarded ammo being thrown at "our kids" - until the Bin Laden tape came and took over the news.

As to 2008, what I am looking for is understanding the candidate's views on when war is justified - which I may never get. Part of that comes from the fact that knowing where Kerry was coming from illuminated what he would likely do.

YThe answer came in 2006 with the Pepperdine College speech, it was like a missing link that tied everything together. That was why, at that point, I knew I could trust John Kerry 100% on going to war as President.

Kerry is not running and I am still undecided. At this point, I have yet to feel I know what criterion others would use to take us to war.

Edwards says "it was wrong", but not why. The reasons could range from because it didn't work, it wasn't in our vested issues to because it is immoral and not a just war.

Obama spoke against the war in 2002, but he was slow to join the forces wanting to get us out.

[Alexander]

74. But Kerry voted for the IWR. That vote will haunt him and Edwards forever.

When many were saying that we can't trust Bush to be diplomatic and that he would use war as a first resort, we were called "traitors", "crazy", "favoring Saddam" and the "far left fringe". Yet 25 or so US Senators, and most Democratic representatives (including our current Speaker), agreed with us.

Kerry talked a good talk - but his vote was essentially a "qualified" yes. In the game of American politics, there is no room for a "qualified" yes or no - it's either yes, or it's no. And people saw him voting yes, and then saying no.

Most of us understood his nuances, but I feel his trust was misplaced. If it really was the wrong war and all that, he should've regretted and apologized for his vote during the 2004 campaign, or voted "no" in the first place - he probably would've won decisively.

[karynnj]

84. He would agree with you that his trust was misplaced

he actually said that in the meeting he had with liberals at Franken's appartment that Will pitt wrote about. I really don't see where the extra votes would have come from, had he said that the vote was wrong. It may have made a segment of the people voting for him happier to be doing so - but there were very few votes for third parties on the left.

Voting No would likely have meant voting for the Levin bill - which would have been spun as giving teh UN control and in reality Bush likely would have still gone to war under this bill - because he never follows rules. Voting no for both, especially with his history, would have been spun as he doesn't care about US security.

[Alexander]

105. I think more people would've turned out, if there was a bigger difference.

I remember on campus people posting flyers of Bush and Kerry which said things like "You can't vote against WAR" and things like that.

The pro-IWR Democrats just made it easier for people to portray the two parties as one and the same, and many people I knew in Arizona thought exactly that. Granted, they were not very informed, however the distinction would've been clearer if Kerry voted "no".

Remember, Paul Wellstone said "That vote just cost me the election". Yet his poll numbers went up, and had he not died, I think we'd be laughing at "former Mayor Coleman".

[BillORightsMan]

101. 2004 Delegates were HUGELY against war

Published on Monday, July 26, 2004 by the Boston Globe
Poll: Delegates, Kerry Differ on Key Issues
by Michael Paulson @ Common Dreams


~snip~

The delegates are also deeply critical of the war in Iraq. Kerry initially supported the war, but now questions the Bush administration's handling of it.

Eighty percent of those polled said they opposed the decision to go to war against Iraq at the time it began, and 95 percent say they now oppose the war. A majority of 63 percent want US troops out within two years; only one in four say the United States should stay as long as it takes to achieve administration goals.

There you have it!
80% opposed the decision to go to war against Iraq at the time it began, and 95% say they now oppose the war.

So, remind me again, why was Edwards the veep nominee?

:patriot:

[Clark2008]

26. I'm sorry I voted to needlessly kill 3,100+ Americans.

When you put it that way, the apology sounds stupid.

[Catchawave]

27. He said that? n/t

[Clark2008]

34. No - but he might as well have.

That was the point I was making.

Apologizing for something he should have known better than to do in the first place is the equivilant of saying this.

[The Count]

50. "I am sorry I sponsored a bill that gave W the authority to start a war that killed....

Interestingly enough, if you watch that video, he never said the war was bad. Not imoral, not unnecessary - just bad intelligence/strategy.
Russert: Can someone who doesn't disagree with the war become POTUS? "Why not?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9REGbr0nfI

[GreenArrow]

62. no, no... there was a need

He really reallly n-e-e-d-s to be President. Won't you, Clark2008, help John Edwards realize his dream?

[The Count]

3. Not quite so convoluted - and very important ! Watch this video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x23104
for other startling (to me) Edwards' statements on Meet the press: "Someone can be POTUS WITHOUT admitting that the war was wrong" plus NOT ruling out he's start a war with Iran ("There's no answer to that...it's very bad Iran as nukes...we'll see"). POST APOLOGY Edwards, mind you! That's your "anti-war" candidate!
Several senators in 2004 have came out and said they were sorry - Kerry himself "off the record" in the meeting with media heads that installed him as primary winner before we got to vote. This made a big difference in the way the democratic convention went, and probably in the number of votes (not that they didn't win - then failed to fight for it)

[SpongeBob]

4. K&R We knew Kerry privately admitted to the press he was sorry and I was

very frustrated he never came out with it publicly.

[msongs]

5. ah ha, it's the UNAMED sources again..... nt

[The Count]

6. OK, then YOU splain it to me, why didn't they say "sorry" in 2004?

I know Kerry for one, was.

[karynnj]

38. I think that Kerry's answer narrowly considered the question

to be the vote, given what was know only at that moment and the reasons people were given to vote as they did. He knew why he voted as he did - and he listed what he thought the Bush administarion agreed to. It was what they publicly said.

I think the key to Kerry's dilemma lies in that list - which was -
- in his IWR speech
- in the litany of things he said Bush did that mislead us into war
- and in his plea before the war, that Bush abide by them

They were later, in 2006, in a fourth place. They were part of what Kerry stated at Pepperdine College was his interpretation of St Augustine's definition of a "just war". What Kerry was saying in 2004 was that because these conditions were not met - it was not a just war. (I vaguely rembered "last resort" from high school CCD classes.)

In 2004, Kerry was responding as to his motivations as to why he voted as he did and he continued to defend the logic and purposes - which were to give the President leverage, to get the inspectors in etc. He also refused to equate the vote with the decision to go to war - which from the beginning he said he wouldn't have. Given that he was covertly saying it was not a just war, he likely felt he had to make this distinction. I do believe Kerry didn't hear the phrase at the Grand Canyon because he had often said it was to get the inspectors in. (Oliphant said this)

If you look at Kerry's, October 2005 speech where he publicly acknowledged that his vote was wrong, there is intense anger that came from the DSM showing that Bush lied to get those votes. He does state that he was quilty of trusting the President when he shouldn't. At Takeback America, he simply said his vote was wrong and the war was immoral.

[The Count]

51. Never got why Kerry did this (after his correct 1992 vote!)

But I believe he wrestled with it, unlike Edwards who stuck his finger in the wind.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Unnamed, but these sources were part of the Kerry/Edwards campaigns, and privy to conversations

[The Count]

9. My understanding too..and it just ads up.

Considering that the only difference between Edwards and Hillary on war is "but I said I was sorry", it kinda matters. Ah, one more difference: Hillary merely voted on IWR, Edwards co-sponsored it.

[abburdlen]

11. remember also

Edwards was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence unlike Sen. Clinton. Whether that explains or excuses his 'mistake' I don't know, but I think it does add to the discussion.

[The Count]

12. It certainly does. It's what made him so damn sure he KNEW!

Of course, later it was "Clinton advisers who made him do it"

[Adelante]

13. It does not excuse it or explain it

Half of the Democrats on that committee voted NO on IWR. It does add to the discussion, but it's a discussion not very many seem to want to have anymore. The IWR has become the Great Unmentionable on DU.

[The Count]

15. Every time you say IWR, a kitten is hung up in a tree and left there....

I've been stared down by a few strategists with "War? What was that again?"
Edwards had a successful reinvention - he is now "our anti-war candidate" - ready as he may be to nuke Iran.

[venable]

45. With all due respect, WesDem

The IWR and Edwards seems to be the main, or sole, theme of a few posters, in complete disregard of anything else, including current anti-war positions.

[The Count]

52. Current anti-war position: attack Iran!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9REGbr0nfI
He can't tell Russert he wouldn't start a war with Iran!!!!!
I am sure you're familiar with this little speech:
Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'


Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

and don't tell me it was explained in American Prospect, because the MTP admission was POST EXPLANATION!
He wants another war!

[venable]

109. not true.

I'm not good at providing links, just because I'm not, but if you are so determined to nail Edwards on Iran why don't you see if he ever said:

We should sign a non-aggression pact with Iran.

He would not tell Russert that a President Edwards would forbid Iran to go nuclear, because there were so many diplomatic routes to follow that it didn't make sense to say they could not develop nuclear capability - ie exactly the opposite of what any other candidate is saying....Edwards is the only one saying that let's NOT assume we have to go to war with Iran, EVEN IF THE CONTINUE DEVELOPING NUKES.

If you're up for it, you might do some research on the above if you have a sense of fair play. If you find that he holds these positions and you still want to yammer that Edwards is itching for a fight with Iran, well, then I really give up.

[abburdlen]

112. this is getting well off topic

but Edwards *did* say "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons." and "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

does that mean if Iran was on the verge of developing the bomb we would attack them? Does that mean Bush's doctrine of preemptive attacks are sometimes justified?

I don't honestly believe Edwards would start a war with Iran were he elected. But it does look at times his answers change depending on who he's talking to.

[Adelante]

98. Current anti-war positions do not suffice for me

I can forgive on a personal basis, but I do not believe Edwards or Clinton have the right to even run in this primary based on the IWR vote and the tragic outcome of the poor judgment shown. They should not be rewarded with the presidency. That is my stand. You must understand something, venable, I am ashamed that my party has these candidates, truly ashamed. Don't expect anything else from me.

[venable]

110. your prerogative, of course

but if you want someone who never had any notion of getting tough (even so far as voting for, or voicing support for the IWR), you're going to need to go with Dennis or with people who are not even spoken of as potential candidates. You know what I'm saying. There's nobody on the landscape of POTENTIAL candidates that fit your needs. Again, you know what I'm saying.

You can also choose Obama, for his vote-era positions, but then you have to work out what you thnk of his pro-Joemenum stands.

[MH1]

21. He also did more than vote, he co-sponsored the bill.

It's been posted on DU that he "floor-managed" the bill as well - in other words, if I understand correctly, leaning on others to vote for it.

I don't know how to either corroborate or disporove that he floor-managed the bill though. But the cosponsorship is right there at thomas.loc.gov. I think it's disingenuous for him to always speak of regretting his "vote" but not mentioning that he was also a cheerleader for the bill that got passed, when there were other, possibly better bills on the floor that got shut down.

[The Count]

23. There was another amendment - that only he and Joementum sponsored

One far to the right - to counteract the Byrd and Kennedy ones. An Edwards supporter dropped the stink bomb by mistake - then removed the link before I could get to copy it. THEY know.

[huskerlaw]

14. So Edwards

kept Kerry from speaking his mind?

Puh-leeze.

Sour grapes, anyone?

[The Count]

16. Sour grapes? What a strange reaction! If you think I give Kerry a pass for it, you don't

know me. Kerry is responsible for his decisions about his platform (and telling the truth about theft 2004).
Kerry not running, I don't find this part of the story relevant right now.
But the fact that Mr "Oops"-entitles-me-to-your-vote - cuz-I'm-anti-war now" - extremely relevant to this race.

[huskerlaw]

17. I'm just checking...

The position you want to take is that John Kerry desperately wanted to come out against the IWR, but did not because his VP candidate, John Edwards, opposed such a move?

That's the argument, right?

Just checking.

As for the sour grapes comment, I wasn't directing that at you, but rather at the unnamed sources.

[The Count]

18. No, desperation never came into it. We know of a meeting with the press, king makers

Kerry had in January 2004, BEFORE any primary. He was asked how he feels about his vote and said "off the record? I regret it". This was months and months away from picking a VP, so he had plenty of opportunities to voice his regrets had he chosen to do so.
Back to Edwards though, his stances on war were so strong at the time - his speech was featured on W's campaign site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244
His mere pick as VP was a signal Kerry will not go anti-war.
What's staggering now it's the hypocrisy - as indeed he told reporters he was better than Hillary for saying "oops". You guys hold his "oops" as bona fide for his "anti-war " conversion - when it's becoming more and more clear it was a cold calculation to grab the anti-war base - which finally shows in polls.
I think the "unnamed sources" may be pondering some of the same questions.
Especially since Edwards also put out the empty "I wanted a recount, but Kerry didn't" before forever holding his peace on the theft. I believe some resentment is justified.

[huskerlaw]

29. You're going to read it how you want to read it

I guess.

However, Edwards has proven himself to be honest and forthright far more often than nearly all of the other politicians. Therefore, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt over some random unnamed sources. Especially since I really don't care what his position was in 2004. I care a great deal about what his position is in 2007, and nothing he has done recently has made me question his current position against the war.

If you have any evidence that he's being less than forthright RIGHT NOW, I'd love to hear/see it.

[karynnj]

71. Edwards actually has many shifts - not just on the war

I don't think he is a liar or a bad person, I think it was because he did not have a well developed political philosophy even when he entered politics.

He is not like Bill Clinton (or John Kerry)- who by high school were debating political philosophies and issues. He says he doesn't remember if he voted for McGovern or Nixon - i am around his age - you would have had to be unbelievably apolitical not to remember this vote - which in both our cases was our first.

So, I think he was easily influenced -

His signature issue now is poverty, yet he voted FOR the 2001 bankrupcy bill. When the 2005 bill was being debated, Kennedy spoke of the situation at that time (in the wake of the 2001 bill). He spoke of rates that would sky rocket if you missed a payment. He spoke of a woman, who in spite of taking a second job and paying more than she borrowed still owed more than the amount originally borrowed. That's tha bill Edwards voted for.

He also voted, as Kerry did for the Biden version of the $87 billion (that was paid for and with oversight) and then against the Republican bill. In 2003 and 2004, he explained it as "what Kerry said". Recently, he has referred to the "no" vote as a similar to the cut the funding votes now and Edwards supporters have pointed to it to suggest that this was when he turned against the war. I do have a problem with this because:
- Concurrent to that vote, he was still pro-war (Hardball Oct, 2003)
- The two votes were within a week of each other. As Kerry said, the latter vote was protesting how it was paid for - or Edwards changed 180 degrees between those votes - yet opted not to make a speech in the Senate or out of it.

[BeyondGeography]

20. He was against apologizing for the IWR vote before he was for it

Saw it didn't work, turned tail and begged for mercy, which he has apparently received, from a large segment of the netroots at least.

He was also among the more conservative members of the Senate when he was there, ran as a centrist in 2004, saw it didn't work and the mood of the party had changed now he courts the left assiduously. Also begged for mercy for his vote on the 2001 bankruptcy bill; clemency again granted by the netroots.

For the record:

<Edwards's average liberal rating for the five years he has served in the Senate (1999-2003) is 75.7 percent -- 20 points lower than his 2003 rating, which Republicans are touting. According to National Journal, in 2002, Edwards received a 63 percent rating; in 2001, he received a 68.2 percent rating; in 2000, he received an 80.8 percent rating; and in 1999, he received a 72.2 percent rating.
Furthermore, according to a January 31, 2003, National Journal profile (NationalJournal.com subscription required) of "The Presidential Wanna-bes," "Among the other presidential contenders, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been in the moderate-to-conservative range of Senate Democrats during his four years in the chamber." And in 2002, Edwards made National Journal's list of "Senate Centrists">

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/03/post_3195.html

Doubtful if the rest of the country will be so understanding about these gyrations. They might see (uh-oh) a calculating politician who doesn't stand for much.

[The Count]

22. The media is making sure voters stay uninformed. This is Edwards' SECOND

presidential campaign in which his sponsorship of IWR is kept under wraps.
Hillary & Obama get more coverage - but it's mixed - lots of attacks.
In spite of Edwards' fans outcry here against Couric, AP et al - his coverage is almost 100% positive and content free - even soft pieces in People.
All those people saying "he is a good guy" have no idea about his stands on Iran or his fervor on Iraq.

[huskerlaw]

30. That's completely untrue

Those of us who choose to be informed are fully aware of his co-sponsorship of IWR. And Edwards is not trying to claim otherwise.

There's a reason his media coverage is almost entirely positive. There's very, very little to attack him on. Unless you want to go by way of unnamed sources, which is pretty pathetic, IMO.

[The Count]

40. Very little to attack him on? such as ...sponsoring IWR? And another amendment

with joementum to counteract Byrd's and Kennedy's? Such as keeping mum about the 2004 theft (in spite of putting the word out - "I wanted to recount, but mean Kery...)
Such as his chest beating over Iran?
See? relevant, serious stuff NO ONE talks about.

[huskerlaw]

42. All of that is well-known

And people do talk about it.

In fact, many of us have talked about it and researched it enough to have decided that it's not nearly the big deal that you seem to think it is.

But, you know, God forbid we have a candidate who changes his mind. After all, "staying the course" does work so fabulously! :eyes:

[The Count]

65. Not true! I didn't remember for a fact he voted for the bankruptcy law!

Hillary's negatives are brought up every day - from left and right - yet somehow, Edwards actions at odds with his rhetoric are only debated on obscure DU threads...
What are you saying - he didn't do anything bad LATELY??????
I am saying everything he ever did cancels everything he ever said - and no one bothers to articulate it in the soft pieces appearing on him with nursing home visits and his wife's health. And you say "everything is known" HOW????? BY WHOM????

[huskerlaw]

70. I'm sorry that you didn't remember it

sounds like a personal problem to me. It is public knowledge. Just because YOU don't know something, it doesn't mean there's some huge conspiracy to ensure that everyone thinks John is a saint.

Everything that he did in the Senate...every vote that he took, every piece of legislation he sponsored, EVERYTHING is freely available for anyone to read up on. In numerous places, actually. Try www.thomas.gov for starters. M'kay?

And you know, maybe there's a reason that nobody talks about how he voted on the bankruptcy bill in the middle of a piece on Elizabeth's cancer. Like, maybe because one thing has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER?!

Whatever. Don't go creating some ridiculous MSM conspiracy of silence just because you're too lazy to educate yourself.

[The Count]

81. Personal???? I spend hours daily informing myself - I see pages and pages of

negative information on ALL candidates daily - EVEN REPUBLICANS.
Yet I fished the IWR sponsorship from a speech he gave "the law I sponsored" and looked a long time for a link....
The bankruptcy law hasn't been mentioned by anyone in years - not just its roll call - but the law itself. I still can't find a link for that other IWR amendment him and Joe sponsored. YOU probably know of it, but I do not...Will you share?
Don't tell me I don't inform myself - I was one of the few who knew in 2000 that Bush instituted Jesus Day in Texas - also an obscure reference in a sea of praise...

And it's really interesting how everyone sticks their fingers in their ears and goes la-la-la every time I mention "Iran". Not one comment on that - from all the "forgivers"
Well, he said in a speech that The American people can be convinced to go along - are you ready to follow Edwards in Iran? Are you?

[huskerlaw]

83. Whooooa

One issue at a time...

1. Perhaps the reason you don't see negative information on Edwards DAILY is because he doesn't do foolish shit everyday? Possibly, eh?

2. Do you expect him to bring up the IWR often? Why would he? He's admitted it was a mistake and now most of us are moving on.

3. The bankruptcy bill...what are you expecting him to do? Make that a campaign talking point? There's a big difference between not actively bringing something up and attempting to hide it. He's never attempted to hide it, never claimed he didn't vote on it.

4. The Lieberman amendment. It's right here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@D&summ2=m&. Took me about 30 seconds to find.

5. I don't give a rat's ass what you knew about Bush in 2000. That doesn't mean you're the least bit informed about John Edwards in 2007. One piece of information has nothing to do with the other.

6. Don't you DARE accuse me of sticking my fingers in my ears regarding Edwards and Iran. I've never spoken to you about it before, so you don't have any fool clue about my stance on the issue. Edwards' position on Iran, if you were to educate yourself beyond a soundbyte, is far more complex than apparently you think it is. It is true that he has said that nothing should be taken off the table. But it is also true that he wants to enter into diplomatic talks with them LONG before any military option would be explored. So I don't have to "follow him into Iran". He's not leading me there.

[The Count]

91. Oh, I know that complexity on Iran: threat in Israel, backtrack on the net

afterwards (I read the explanations), refuse to rule out war on them on MTP.
I had read all the "complexity" - and I was struck by 3 things:
- He doesn't seem to know about Iran more than W knew about Iraq
- the backtrack arguments were copied from other people's articles (i.e. Wes Clark)
- the (non) answer to Timmy proves that the backtrack was not thought out - at least not by Edwards as he was left speechless by the question...
I didn't accuse anyone PERSONALLY of ignoring Iran - but I was overwhelmed that it took hours for anyone to address that. Thanks for doing it.

And thanks for the Joementum amendment.
No, I do not expect Edwards to bring out his shortcomings - just a bit surprised media doesn't. Considering that even GOP candidates had theirs aired, it's downright strange.

[karynnj]

107. I agree - I didn't see the bankrupcy bill

until I responded to someone attacking Hillary for voting for it. thinking he was speaking of the 2005 bill, which Hillary was against - where I watched an incredible Kennedy making speech after speech in favor of amendments - all defeated - to make a bad bill better. He responded by saying he was speaking of the 2001 bill and gave the bill number.

I then used Thomas to find out about the bill and was even more shocked that Edwards voted for it. Like you, I read a lot. I have NEVER seen anything in the MSM in 2004 or 2008 that mentioned this. This very odd as it really should have come up in 2004, because it is not consistent with the 2 Americas theme. (If this had been Kerry, it would have led to reams of stories in the primaries)

[Cha]

49. The US "media" will most certainly always

make "sure voters stay uniformed".

[flpoljunkie]

28. Touche!

[Cameron27]

25. The netroots are willing to give him a pass

because he apologized, but the GOP won't and I'm not sure the voters will either. They're already framing his environmental policy as a rich vs poor issue ----> carbon offsets.

[abburdlen]

31. Edwards has changed his tune

spend a few moments reading through his 2004 website and the current one and you can plainly see the difference.

then:

In Iraq, Edwards supported the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and he has been an outspoken proponent of a strong US commitment to help the Iraqi people rebuild their lives and develop rule of law and democracy.

now:

Senator John Edwards believes that every day this war goes on it is worse for Iraq, worse for our troops and worse for our country. We cannot wait for the next president to end the war in 2009, we must act today.

I'm not saying I'm not glad he's changed his position, or that he's less than sincere in his apology for his vote. As someone who has a serious shot at being the next CiC I'm glad Edwards sees the error of his ways but personally I don't understand how some can call Edwards the anti-war candidate. He screwed up in a major way. He said he was sorry. I wish he could further explain how he got from his positions of 2003 to his positions of 2007.

[TayTay]

36. He has changed his tune on other things as well.

He did vote for the Bankruptcy bill that passed the Senate in July of 2001.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00236

There are other votes that are less than populist in nature and are at odds with the current stands of former Sen. Edwards on economic issues.

[The Count]

53. Now, which of the two Americas was he helping here? I thought I remembered he did

but I wasn't sure. In effect, this "very nice guy" did everything the opposite of the rhetoric everyone is buying now.

[saltpoint]

88. Senator Kerry thought enough of Senator Edwards to select him for

the 2004 ticket.

Who's changing the tune here, after all?

[The Count]

43. and, given the chance, will screw again on Iran - he told us that much!

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html
(and check the answers to Timmy - AFTER "clarifying" this speech for DU)

[ChiciB1]

35. "MMMMMMM" Edwards MUST Be Gaining MOMENTUM... IMO, This

is being put out there NOW, because of last week's MoveOn.org poll! Sorry, still not going to change MY Mind for now... Considering THIS information has been OUT THERE since 2004, the timing seems a little suspicious to me.

Iraq IS WHAT IT IS!! A Humongous Rape on another country and FAR TOO MANY people here in America or shall I say, U.S. of ASS got SUCKERED and fell on the SWORD in the NAME OF PATRIOTISM!

Shall we LEARN from this and make OUR COUNTRY better for it, or simply run around in circles bashing our OWN candidates??? Can we get Feingold elected??? Can we get Kucinich elected? Can we get Leahy elected? Or any of those "others" who were AGAINST the war??

HELL NO, we can't! There was a time I just wanted get up and LEAVE this country, MOVE OUT and go somewhere else, until I sat down and talked to myself and said... "this is OUR COUNTRY, not THEIR's and I'm not going to give it to them so easily!"

So for those of you who are not fans of Edwards.... it IS YOU RIGHT to continue along these lines, but even though I'm no Hillary fan, I'm NOT going to constantly hit her over the head. I will simply state the reasons I don't support her to others and go on from there. I've gone to many ANTI-War marches and events, however it has NOT nor do I think it the marches WILL end it! I just felt the need to lend my voice and vent my frustration!

Charlie Rangel is correct... bring back the DRAFT... this WAR will end very quickly! And don't get me wrong, I have an 18 year old grandson and I most certainly don't want him called up, I married my husband way back when to KEEP HIM OUT of Viet Nam, so I am conflicted about a DRAFT! I was raised as an Army Brat, and swore I would NEVER marry a military man. My father was SUPER, did not abuse any of his 6 girls in any way... but I always wanted NOT to be one of those military brats!

[flpoljunkie]

37. In Kos' poll he is runaway winner, but is holding steady at third place in Rasmussen weekly Dem poll

Edwards was at 11% in the Rasmussen poll before his wife Elizabeth's announcement that her cancer had returned. The next week Edwards polled 17% and he has held steady within a point or two of the 17%.

[abburdlen]

39. I hope we do learn from it

There are candidates out there that spoke out against the Iraq war from the beginning maybe we should support those that have shown a history of good judgment.

[Catchawave]

41. Were they in a position to vote?

HUGE distinction.

[abburdlen]

47. Why is it a huge distinction?

the vote was a public declaration in support of a position. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards all stated with their Yea vote they approved giving Bush the authority to use military action in Iraq. They could have voted Nay or abstained, but they didn't.
Many others in the public eye including some running for President made public statements against giving the authority to use force.
I'll grant you there is a difference but saying it's a HUGE difference is like saying it doesn't matter what Edwards or Richardson say on campaign trail because they don't get to vote.

What is the difference?

[The Count]

54. I agree. Going on record AT THE TIME of the vote - see Gore for instance, or Clark

is tantamount with a vote in my book (same goes for Obama). The RW-ers surely would (and did) attack them for their statements - we might as well ambrace them for it. Plus, IT REALLY MATTERED THEN!

[karynnj]

72. Except if you don't have to vote - you don't get caught in a yes/no dicotomy

The Senators had to vote on what was in front of them. Others could take exactly the position they wanted.

Gore gave an incredible speech against the original IWR, blasting many of the flaws in it - many were changes - including making it just Iraq. They specifically took out language that listed reasons such as that he was a problem to the region. If he were a Senator, may be he would have been able to "fix" the resolution more (if that could have mattered). Ultimately he would have had to vote.

One thing not known is whether any of the Senators actually traded their vote to get these changes - it is my understanding that on bills that can happen. The changes were significant if we had a President who obeyed the constitution. I've never read that this happened - but it could explain people like Harkin who can't be explained otherwise.

[ICantBelieve]

77. And Clark specifically stated

he would have supported the Levin amendment which Edwards voted against. There's no way out of this. Edwards fucked up. Live with it.

[karynnj]

82. I am not an Edwards fan - and I said nothing of Clark

[ICantBelieve]

76. They may have TESTIFIED BEFORE CONGRESS...

And convinced the likes of Ted Kennedy and Paul Wellstone to vote against it! LOL! I'm sick to death of "they didn't have to vote." Yep, that's right. Some of the people around now didn't have an opportunity to vote because they weren't in Congress. Perhaps if they had been in Congress, they would have prevented this war. Instead, we had blow in the wind types in there who gave into pressure and did the wrong thing.

[The Count]

46. Good judgment in a POTUS - what a novel idea!

[The Count]

44. Punish the profiteers rather than draft cannon fodder to raise consciousness...

As to my reason to continue along those lines - not only I don't believe his "conversion" on Iraq - he wants to go in Iran now !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9REGbr0nfI

before ANYTHING, I want another happy trigger man next to the buttons.

[waiting for hope]

85. Thanks ChiciB1....

That's what I had wanted to say but didn't have the time earlier to compose my thoughts. We all have our favorite candidates, and I know the closer 2008 nears, the more nick picking is going to occur. I think Edwards offers just more than his current stand on the war, and we need a President that is going to make this country stronger, from the ground up.

[ChiciB1]

103. Thank You Too. I Wonder Sometimes If We'll Be Able To Come

together enough as a Party to have a candidate for 2008 that isn't torn to shreds so badly that we alienate a lot of Independents and have them run to the PUKES! And then what do we have??

MORE OF THE SOS!! I've thought many times in the past it couldn't get worse, but week by week it just keeps getting "WORSTER!"

[venable]

everything ChiciB1 said

I agree with.

(except that I was a Navy, not Army, brat - or as we called ourselves, Navy Juniors - and I went from military kid to anti-war activities in the Vietnam era, continuing on to today. The only other difference is that even though I am congenitally anti-war, I liked the military dependent childhood and what it showed me of the world. My childhood was multi-cultural and international, in a way that most Americans, sadly, do not get to experience. That international exposure has informed and shaped and inspired my life since then. It is the surprising virtue of a military life.)

[venable]

111. everything ChiciB1 said

I agree with.

(except that I was a Navy, not Army, brat - or as we called ourselves, Navy Juniors - and I went from military kid to anti-war activities in the Vietnam era, continuing on to today. The only other difference is that even though I am congenitally anti-war, I liked the military dependent childhood and what it showed me of the world. My childhood was multi-cultural and international, in a way that most Americans, sadly, do not get to experience. That international exposure has informed and shaped and inspired my life since then. It is the surprising virtue of a military life.)

[Dr Fate]

55. I already knew that Edwards used to support the war. What is new here?

I've forgiven Edwards already- and appreciated his repudiation of the vote- I suppose the article is an attempt to re-open the wound.

[flpoljunkie]

56. The author questions whether Edward's supposed candor now is "just more political positioning."

Still, though the Edwards campaign would prefer not to look back, his counsel in the 2004 campaign raises this question: Is today's John Edwards really the candid candidate he would have voters believe? Or is his supposed candor itself just more political positioning?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

[Dr Fate]

60. Even if true, I've been waiting for some "political positioning" that I agree with for years.

I've never really cared about perceived pandering, I've been waiting for years for someone to pander to me. It's about time.

In any event, I think Edwards knows that his former DLC/Media approved positions of a few years ago are unacceptable to most current voters.

He has made a seemingly sincere repudiation of his old position, I dont know what else to ask from him on that.

[flpoljunkie]

61. I don't know if he's sincere or not, but I would love to know what Kerry thinks about Edwards.

And why John Kerry is not supporting anyone for the Democratic nomination--when his former running mate is seeking the nomination.

[Dr Fate]

64. Perfectly legit question. I'd like to know that answer myself.

In any event, I respect Kerry enough to also respect (although it's possible I may not agree with) his endorsement.

[The Magistrate]

63. That Is The Spirit, Doctor!

[The Count]

66. Does the fact that he's ready to start another war (Iran) affect your forgiveness

spirit?
And should the dead and their kin be just as easy in "getting over it" as you guys seem to be? What justifies that spirit? What deed convinced you? And I mean DEED not WORDS?

[Forkboy]

73. LOL.....Now you're cooking with gas!

:)

[The Count]

79. It's really pandering you need - or someone actually representing you?

Because to me, a guy who voted for bankruptcy Law, ain't gonna help the poor anymore than a guy who sponsored IWR, declared he may start another war is going to bring peace....But pander, he sure does...

[Dr Fate]

100. If Edwards keeps 80% of his word, then he will represent me.

If he turns out to be lying, then you will have a point.

Does he have a reocrd of lying? I know he has a record of doing things I disagree with from time to time- but lying?

[saltpoint]

87. Excellent point.

And visible to most primary voters, I believe.

[ChiciB1]

59. My Sentiments EXACTLY... I Was Just Wondering How Long We're

going to keep beating the SAME horse, day in and day out! I WISH it never happened, it did, we know it, and we hear it over and over and over and over and over and over and over!

John Edwards did a BAD thing, how many here DON'T know he voted for this THING??

I'm sorry he HAS to keep saying HE DID A BAD THING, I'm sorry I even replied to this thread, I REALLY do know better! I've even told myself I wouldn't comment on it again, but I DID A BAD THING TOO!

[The Count]

69. How about Iran? The thing he's about to do? Does another war count?

What credible action - at his own risk/loss convinced you he would not vote for Iraq today? because when I read the Iran speech, I was convinced nothing changed. Convinced me I am wrong - and mention some facts if possible, as opposed to just rhetoric.

[ChiciB1]

104. NOPE!!

I'm too stupid and my brain doesn't comprehend very much. I'm unable to make decisions on my own so why would I be able to do anything more than spew RHETORIC! Unfortunately, some of us can only see "pie in the sky!"

I'm a walking nightmare and have blinders on. I'm a direct decedent of those 3 monkeys, you know the ones.... hear no evil blah, blah, blah. I should be stricken down and hauled off to the funny farm... Come TAKE ME AWAY, PLEASE!

And you know something else? I can't read minds either!

[citizen snips]

58. This article is un-objective.

it refuses to acknowledge Edwards current plan with Iraq. Why should anybody trust this article if we don't know the sources this guy is getting his information from?

[The Count]

67. un-objective????? And how about his plan for Iran?????

Are we to consider THAT?

[jen4clark]

75. Now Count...

Edwards says what people want to hear. Isn't that good enough for someone to be president? Geesh. You actually want someone who's actions show their words are sincere? Come on Count. Just because his words happen change with public opinion, doesn't mean he's not sincere, does it?

I wonder how we're supposed to justify his $400. haircuts? Hmmmmm. Is that a smear to point out? Sorry. Sometimes truth sounds like smear. (No link -- it was discussed on The View this morning, and I didn't see it, just heard about it.)

[The Count]

78. It just all sounds so Manchurian candidate to me...I'll be good! i'll conform!

Eyes grow like saucers "...and all around a great guy"

[Cameron27]

80. It's not just being discussed here,

it's posted in the Boston Globe, LA Times, and Forbes among others.

[saltpoint]

86. You sure do turn up on a lot of anti-Edwards threads on DU, flpoljunkie.

In fact, you start a good many of them.

[flpoljunkie]

89. Yes, but I passed on $400 haircut non-story, Old Crusoe. This article is about Edward's character.

And I do not apologize for posting it.

[saltpoint]

92. Numerous and consistently presented, in fact. You appear to be the

instigating theme of the anti-Edwards threads.

It's getting downright predictable.

[flpoljunkie]

106. Morning! "Instigating theme" of the anti-Edwards threads? It's difficult to respond to incoherence.

The purpose of this board is not to cheerlead, but to persuade, inform and discuss politics. It is not the Democratic cheerleading society. It does not make any of our candidates stronger if we ignore their mistakes. I have been critical of Hillary Clinton and of Barack Obama, as well.

And, while I did not post or comment on Edwards' $400 haircuts, I do think that once the media is finished with the orgiastic coverage of the Virginia Tech shootings, they will delight in reporting about this And, no doubt, the comedians will have a field day, as well. It fits right in with the widely circulated youtube primping video.

[saltpoint]

113. Your keen focus on the party's goals to defeat the Republicans

dazzles us all.

[Catchawave]

90. So far 9 Votes ! That's sad and

That concerns me more...the circle jerk, ready, fire, aim :rofl:

Hi OC :hi:

[saltpoint]

93. Hey ya there, Catchawave. A friendly face and a genuine welcome from

a true blue Democrat are you.

There seems to be a problem with Democratic identification on the boards in some cases.

It's odd. I was only last night speaking with Virginians near DC who praised the selection of John Edwards by John Kerry in 2004.

Sound judgment on Kerry's part, I'd say.

Very sound.

Demonstrably sound.

So hi right back to you this evening. I hope all's well your way.

[Catchawave]

95. Yes, thanks ! Here's a little something for ya:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x23275

It's sure to sweeten this thread's "bitter taste", enjoy :toast:

[saltpoint]

96. Hey. Thanks for that link. I threw a quick post onto the heap

and hope it vibes its way into the real world at some point or other.

Your state sure does know how to grab a headline this week, Catchawave. I am very sorry for anyone you may know there in Blacksburg or at VT -- and even if you don't, it is a lot to bear for all of us. On Monday night many students went to sleep, or tried to, while their roommates' beds were empty. It had to have been horrible all the way around.

[ChiciB1]

102. Hey, Catchawave... I'm Still Hanging In There Too! I Told Myself I Wasn't

going to post on these Edwards threads, but sometimes things just get under my skin and I jump in with all FOURS! I KNOW better... taking certain statements from one place or another and stringing them together sometimes looks like adding 2 and 2 and coming up with FIVE!

I know many people really do think Edwards is nothing more than "walking white trash" and no matter what anyone will say it won't change their minds. And maybe they think the same about me! I think anyone here can find SOMETHING on every one of our candidates and make a case as to why we shouldn't elect them. Even Kucinich, who I share many views with made me uncomfortable about the FOX issue. And most assuredly he is the MOST Anti-War candidate out there, but I just don't think he can get elected.

I just checked back in to see how bad it had gotten since I last posted. I've stopped being surprised by the attacks on Edwards, I just need to quit stepping into them.

[Catchawave]

108. Hey Chic, as much as I hate kicking this thread

just remember, "that which doth not kill us, makes us stronger". :toast:

I used to take the DU ankle biters way too seriously until I read an article on a RW blog (not freeperish) that said "you can always tell who the strongest Dem candidate is when the Smear Gang moves in." That's GREAT news for Edwards here :D

Though my biggest concern are those who rec the "hit" threads, for any candidate.

Edwards has a strong and smart following on DU, as you can see the good threads far outnumber the bad. Many choose not to step IN because they're far too busy stepping UP :patriot:

Go Edwards !

[The Count]

94. Not counting (pardon the pun) but this was kinda relevant, doncha think?

Or attacking the messenger makes it less so?

[IndianaGreen]

97. Boston Globe did its share of swiftboating on Kerry back in 2004

and it now seems like it is doing the same on John Edwards.

Who do you really support for President, Scot Lehigh? Let's put our cards on the table, shall we?

[jsamuel]

99. This is really quite the hit piece. While it makes no direct accusations, it implies everything.

If nothing else, the use of the word "Changing" in the title instead of "Changed" is of note. The truth is that John Edwards CHANGED his mind about the IWR a long time ago. He has been anti-war for a while now. He has stopped "Changing." This seems to be an effort to paint Edwards as a trickster and full of deceit, but shows no evidence of any tricking or deceit.

PS - To all those recommending the hit piece: I will not recommend any diaries that are a swiftboating of your favorite Democratic Primary candidate. I suggest that we fight swiftboating in all its forms on Democratic candidates no matter who they are.