Four questions: Has Durbin endorsed Obama? Is Durbin the only source for all this fury about Edwards

[Czolgosz]

and what unspecified information Durbin suggests he, Edwards, Rockefeller, Feinstein, Bayh, and the other select intelligence committee members were privy to?

Has Durbin given any explanation about why he had to keep quiet about this "lie" he's been living with for four years and what changed in the past month which freed him from his oath of secrecy which was so important that he kept quiet while over 3,000 US soldiers and almost a thousand times that many Iraqi civilians have been killed?

Has anyone yet asked for David Geffen's view on this breaking news?

[Tejanocrat]

1. I don't understand the reference to David Geffen, but as far as the other stuff, I was surprised to

learn about Senator Durbin's endorsement of Senator Obama because I'd have thought that would have come up more often in these anti-Edwards threads. http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/durbin-obama-is-political-phenomena.html

[FrenchieCat]

2. Sen. Durbin has spoken about this before.........in more general terms....

And his current statements support past statements and provides specific enough information for those who care to do the research both about what Durbin is talking about, and what he has said in the past.

In terms of "Fury", the person to have caught the wrath of many here is Sen. Durbin...who has been labeled a coward by many.

Edwards has only been implicated as a bi-product along with others. Those incensed with Durbin's revelations have since figured out which senators were on the committee, and how each voted; hence some are furious at those senators, which would include John Edwards. Maybe because Edwards is running for President, some may have questions in reference to John Edwards' actions; although "fury" is a misnomer....a label used by not necessarily supported.

On the bright side of things, Edwards may now feel liberated and may shortly reveal what he did and didn't know, as all committee members were sworn to secrecy. He may have a plausible explanation as to why he chose the course of action that he followed.

I will say, however, that getting at the truth is always a good thing....even if it is unpleasant for some at times....so I see the back and forth here on DU in reference to this issue to be a positive occurence......Fury, not so much.

If Senator Durbin calculated that his statement would sink the Edwards' campaign and bring support to Obama, he's a better calculated politician than I would have originally given him credit for. It would mean that as calculated as he is now, he didn't have the political sense to avoid being called a traitor back in 2003 (as he almost got himself kicked off the Intel committee back in 2003 for daring to make a statement in relations to the Intel then). Personally, I don't think that what Durbin said was so much about John Edwards as much as it was about the process that took us to war. Sometimes certain issues are larger than simply a primary fight in where various individuals support various candidates. Sometimes, politicians make statements for the betterment of America as a whole.

Considering that the media is staying relatively silent on this, and that John Edwards' name is not being brought up by the corporate media, this would mean that either the Corporate media likes John Edwards enough not to focus on reminding us that Edwards was on the Intel Committee, or it means that whatever nefarious motives you might want to infer in reference to Sen. Durbin, it ain't really working very well.

See more info here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3245989&mesg_id=3246448