Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What's with this internet myth that Edwards was "first" in regretting IWR

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 03:58 PM
Original message
What's with this internet myth that Edwards was "first" in regretting IWR
McJoan has this post, and I correct downthread, but it makes my blood boil, when these bloggers don't possess the facts!!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/18/155927/221

My comment is near the bottom:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/8/18/155927/221/91#c91

And since I'm in a cranky mood about Edwards (something just rubs me the wrong way with that guy), what do you guys think about this?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/18/91417/5941

Why is he talking to a plant?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, bother -- looks like he told a reporter in mid-October
but the article didn't come out until November.

Okay, I guess I was wrong but as far as the "world" learning about it, it was still November.

I guess I'm the idiot. Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Damn the torpedos I'm sticking to my guns here
So he told ONE reporter for which the article was not printed for a few weeks. The op-ed was D-Day for John Edwards, and that was AFTER 10/26. Kerry was first, goshdarnit!!

Anyway, I'm just talking to myself here, so don't mind me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrafty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. John Kerry is a serious opinion leader on Iraq.
Try not to get too caught up in the timeline - we know who's working hardest to bring the troops home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. You're right -- I'm just getting petty here.
I'm not going back in that thread anymore. It's a waste of time. Thanks for the perspective, Democrafty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrafty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. It's all petty.
The whole argument. People are dying, and you are definitely right to wonder why so many folks are clinging to an op-ed that was written, like, 10 months ago, instead of moving the heck on.

It's hard, knowing that no matter how much JK works to acheive his amazing vision, there's always going to be someone there to say, "Yeah, but that's not as important as when so-and-so said such-and-such on dd/mm/yyyy."

It all drives me crazy, too. But it would drive me crazier if Senator Kerry weren't such an amazing example of what a perso can achieve when they look forward instead of back :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. I say let Edwards' camp say what they can. He's a good guy, but people in
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 10:39 AM by blm
his camp, SOME of them, are not - some of them are spreading the bullshit that southerners will not vote for a Northerner. I don't think Edwards believes that or will use that meme, himself.

Anyway, his camp insults him when they pull stuff like this as if it's ultra-important what was said - - they do it to cover up for the fact that Edwards doesn't have the experience or the knowhow to actually CRAFT a withdrawal plan for the military. Just like Feingold could SAY a timetable should be set, but was unable to craft one that made military sense, because it's simply not part of who he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. Yeah, we know who the real deal is and who the wanna be is. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Yep, but when Kerry said it privately to somebody. Who cares?
Edited on Fri Aug-18-06 06:26 PM by Mass
He may have said that weeks ago. This is really the type of stupidity that gets to me.: that, the fact that he rushed to be the first one to be seen with Lamont and that he brags he was the first one to get him on the phone.

What is it: kindergarden?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Didn't he say it to a whole group of media people
in December 2003? - per the Truthout article that Will Pitt wrote - back when Edwards was still pro- war. (Problem is he argued the meaning of the vote as Clinton did a couple of weeks ago all 2004.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Wow, what a coincidence, right around the time Kerry gave his
October speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. There's also a huge difference
Edwards was a sponsor of the IWR vote AND was pro-war ALL 2003. For Kerry it was a close vote for reasons given AND he was NEVER for the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. It's also
the flavor of the month thing too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. Anyway, neither Kerry nor Edwards were the first ones to say that.
Harkin said it months before they did (I mean publicly, of course).

As for Edwards, something rubs me the wrong way also.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. I feel the same way about him. Untrustworthy? A bit of a phony?
And that smile seems forced at times. I wonder if his face hurts at the end of the day after having to smile like that. I know, it is all very petty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blaukraut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Funny you should say that...
Edwards never seemed quite right to me. There was always something less than genuine in his smile and other facial expressions. His body language around John Kerry (after he was picked as running mate) often betrayed that he felt less warmly towards JK than he let on.
Could be I was imagining it, but I don't think so....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-18-06 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. These Dems voted for IWR on 10/10/02
Who has renounced the vote? When did it happen?

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA) * Retired from the Senate in 2004
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO) *Defeated for re-election in 2002
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA) * Defeated for re-election in 2002
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD) * Defeated for re-election in 2004
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC) *Retired from the Senate in 2004
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC) * Retired from the Senate in 2004
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA) (Renounced vote in at least Sept of 2004 - see video of Letterman appearance.)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA) * Retired from the Senate (and sanity) in 2004
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ) * Retired from the Senate in 2002


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MH1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Sept of 2004?
Really? Or was that 2005?

I don't watch Letterman - is there a clip or transcript posted anywhere?

(I personally don't consider this question very important at all, but unfortunately others in the left blogosphere seem to think it is, so it would be nice to at least show them the facts)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
14. Trying to make this
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 07:26 AM by ProSense
about renouncing the vote is silly. I'm glad Kerry did it. I'm glad they all did it, but this is the kind of stupid confusing talk that got us into this mess. People who want to confuse are being allowed to shape the debate. Kerry did not support this war. The continuous renouncing the vote discussion gives the impression that this vote was a vote for war. It was not. It's one thing to regret voting that way because the perception has been created falsely linking the vote to the war, but that goes to my first point. Everyone needs to listen to Kerry's Veterans' Day statement. This is the Bush administration's crime, no one else's. eriod.

This is just as stupid as silly flip-flop discussion. The war will never end if people keep talking about the way Democrats' voted instead of focusing on what Bush did: lied to start a war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luftmensch067 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well said, ProSense
As usual, you live up to your name!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Exactly
That vote didn't mean shit to Bush, he was going no matter what.

I was always against going to war, but, I thought bringing the Inspectors in was a good idea and a way to stop King George from his insanity. At the time of that vote more then 70% of the American people wanted the Inspectors in. That is exactly what JK wanted.

From the William Pitt interview Dec. 2003 (thanks to the Unofficial Kerry Blog)

PITT: Do you feel a kinship with the peace movement that exploded around this Iraq invasion, given your background? Or do you feel alienated from them because of that vote?

KERRY: I felt enormous understanding, empathy, sympathy and respect for the voice they were articulating. I completely understood it. I came from there. I understood the confusion over why someone with my long history, why there was confusion over my position, why people were questioning it.

KERRY: But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn?t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn?t have, obviously.

KERRY: Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate, but in retrospect I will never trust the man again. That?s why I am running against him. He deserves to be replaced with someone who is trustworthy.

Salon also asked Kerry about the IWR vote in an interview on May 28, 2004:

SALON: According to recent polls, more than 50 percent of the American public now believes that the war in Iraq has not been worth the cost. Do you agree with that assessment?

KERRY: I've always believed that the president went to war in a way that was mistaken, that he led us too rapidly into war, without sharing the cost, without sharing the risk, without building a true international coalition. He broke his promises about going as a last resort. I think that was a mistake. There was a right way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and a wrong way. He chose the wrong way.

SALON: But you voted in October 2002 to give Bush the authority to use force in Iraq. Was that vote a mistake?

KERRY: No. My vote was the right vote. If I had been president, I would have wanted that authority to leverage the behavior that we needed. But I would have used it so differently than the way George Bush did.

SALON: Would there have been a war in Iraq if you had been president?

KERRY: I can't tell you that. If Saddam Hussein hadn't disarmed and all the world had decided that he was not living up to the standards, who knows? You can't answer that hypothetical. But I can tell you this. I would never have rushed the process in a way that undoes the meaning of going to war "as a last resort."

SALON: And that's what you thought you were authorizing -- war as a last resort?

KERRY: Absolutely. You know, we got a set of promises: We're going to build an international coalition, we're going to exhaust the remedies of the U.N., respect that process and go to war as a last resort. Well, we didn't.

KERRY: And not only not go to war as a last resort, they didn't even make the plans for winning the peace. They disregarded them. They disregarded Shinseki's advice, disregarded Colin Powell's advice, disregarded the State Department's plan. The arrogance of this administration has cost Americans billions of dollars and too many lives.

Kerry has been consistent in supporting authorization to go to war as a last resort if we are endangered, but did not vote to go to war. Understanding this difference will also show why Kerry was not flip flopping, but was consistent in his principles, when he voted against the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War resolution was a true vote to go to war, and Kerry did not support going to war without exhausting all other alternatives. The more recent IWR only authorized war if diplomatic efforts failed and we were endangered, allowing Kerry to cast a yes vote in the expectation that George Bush would abide by this resolution instead of rushing to war unnecessarily and without proper preparations.

posted by Ron Chusid at 7:00 PM

8 Comments:
Ron Chusid said...
From John Kerry's Senate Floor Speech at the time of the IWR vote:

Mr. President, I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. And I will vote "yes" because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the Administration, including the President, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means that "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. . .

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.
http://kerryblog.blogspot.com/2004/08/bush-gets-his-answer-then-changes.html


Then the signing statement, more proof of overstepping and out of control abuse of power. This signing statement is full of lies.

Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 114, a resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." By passing H.J. Res. 114, the Congress has demonstrated that the United States speaks with one voice on the threat to international peace and security posed by Iraq. It has also clearly communicated to the international community, to the United Nations Security Council, and, above all, to Iraq's tyrannical regime a powerful and important message: the days of Iraq flouting the will of the world, brutalizing its own people, and terrorizing its neighbors must - and will - end. Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so.I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely.

The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary.(flip-flop or in a more arrogant Bush style with the smirk, (hehehe) I can do whatever the fuck I want ) While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

OUTRIGHT LIESThroughout the past months, I have had extensive consultations with the Congress, and I look forward to continuing close consultation in the months ahead. In addition, in accordance with section 4 of H.J. Res. 114, I intend to submit written reports to the Congress on matters relevant to this resolution every 60 days. To the extent possible, I intend to consolidate information in these reports with the information concerning Iraq submitted to the Congress pursuant to previous, related resolutions.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386


This is Bush's War.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. Thankyou, ProSense. We sure could've used you around here in 2003.
I must have had that battle a couple thousand times here at DU.

Thanks to the corpmedia that spun it into a black and white issue to protect BushInc, even many Dems and DUers were duped to prolong that perception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. It was so obvious that Kerry was upholding the Presidents
right to take swift action, as granted under the Constitution, to deal with immediate enemies of the US in that vote. (That alone, for me, give a lot of pause. That is no small thing to think about.) But the war, as waged, was not the war as presented to Congress. Sen. Kerry's letter demanding an investigation into the Down Street Memos shows intent to say this, this is not the war as presented to Congress.

The Congress was lied to. John Kerry was lied to, by, among others, Colin Powell. (Who has also voiced regret for his actions in justifying this immoral war.) And so forth an so on.

John Kerry didn't lie America into this catastrophe. Bush the Retard did. So did Darth Cheney and all the other minions of the would-be Evil Empire that the necons wanted to build based on their actions in Iraq. This is a Republican War. They thought it up, they mismanaged it and ran it and they are the ones who are responsible for how it went, not the Democrats and not John Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fedupinBushcountry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Kerry was lied to
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 02:17 PM by fedupinBushcountry
they were all lied to. In his speech at Georgetown in Jan. '03, there is a question thrown at him about his vote and actually tells Kerry he used that vote to win the Presidency. Like others, Kerry did not dodge the question and he showed the consistency of why he voted the way he did.

http://c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=John+Kerry&SortBy=date&ResultStart=100&

Scroll down it is Foreign Policy Speech, go between :58 and :59 into the speech and hear the question then the response.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. That's excellent! Thanks! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Living up to your name again
I do think you're right about the continuous rejecting the vote does make it seem a vote for war. Kerry has often added (like on the St Patrick Day's Imus - also added what he voted for and why.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whometense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-19-06 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
22. Just between us,
Edited on Sat Aug-19-06 06:22 PM by whometense
Edwards puts me in a cranky mood too.

There's something essentially surface-y about him that irks me. But I first started feeling that way way back in 2004, when I realized that his stump speech was memorized (after hearing the same speech for the gazillionth time.)

That and the fact that he is just not that good on his feet (see: all the debates) put me off him.

I know a lot of others feel differently, but that's just how I see it. Just so you know you're not alone. :hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Your not alone
I that Edwards - who is clearly currently being pushed by some in the media - does turn off many people. I am so sick of hearing that he is incredibly good looking (He looks like a typical mid level manager - basicly attractive but not enough that anyone in a non-political world would care), and that he is charismatic and a fantastic speaker.

I heard many people say they were extremely dissapointed in his debate performance and to a lesser degree his convention speech. I've since seen him on a talk show - and I agree, he not that good without prepared text. Even with his speech - he had ONE speech that he didn't vary. I thought it interesting that his fans in one thread a few weeks ago spoke of how his new speech hadn't come together yet - because he was just starting to use it. Is he an actor and the show hasn't opened yet?

I have as much problem that his "plans" have little content - but seem to say what people want. He is slicker than Clinton, who at least had some substance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC