John Edwards to vote against Iraq funding

just breaking

On edit:

Judy Woodruff just broke the news on CNN. She is distraught!

to the other top-tier candidates.

I will add that I believe Dennis Kucinich was the first to say he would oppose the $97B to line the pockets of Halliburton and Bechtel, among others.

I also heard rumblings that Kerry was thinking about voting against it.

You are right.

Dennis was first out of the box on this. Kerry, in a debate, said he might vote against the funding afterward.

I'm really glad to see this by Edwards.

I was disappointed to hear that our own Senator Leahy voted for this (WTF). He and Jeffords voted against the war. Got to send him some e-mail about this.

Anyone who will vote to get our troops out of Iraq and home safely gets my vote but I really do support the folks who voted against the invasion in the first place.

Good man, Edwards!

the possibility that we need a southerner like Edwards to win the nomination so we can take some states in the south. I am not sure if they will go for Dean down there.

that Al Gore didn't -- NRA ranking is an A.

In a few more months we'll be rolling and junior will be indistinct.

I'm down here and I don't see Dean playing as well as some others. part of that is the cultural/persona thang. Could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

If you think Dean's A rating from the NRA is going to cause white Southern voters to somehow overlook the fact that he's from New England and holds very liberal positions on a wide range of social issues, ranging from abortion to gay rights to school prayer to the death penalty, you're living in a fantasy world. A Southernor like Bill Clinton could get away some liberalism on social issues, due to the the fact that he's a hometown boy. While Gore didn't carry any Southern states, he was still competitive in Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida, do in no small part to his regional connection. But Dean's a foreigner, and an NRA rating isn't going to change that.

and I'd like to see a good argument for why they'd support Dean over Bush.

For the NRA to like a Dem, that Dem not only has to be a one-time board member of the NRA, but he has to come up with witticisms like "jack booted thugs" as a description of federal agents, and he has to come from a district which would never ever produce a Republican anyway.

There's no way that Dean's NRA history is going to get him milege in the south which would offset the perception of him as a gay rights liberterian.

Wayne LaPierre has politicized the NRA, turning it into Republican cheerleaders.

Some NRA members, a distinct minority, want the NRA to going back to the non-partisan gun enthusiast and gun safety organization it used to be. One can defend gun rights without kissing Republican butt!

I'm down here, and I would go for Dean -- easy. Edwards is my senator and I'd really like to see him as VP or Attorney General.

This is no small development.

IG, Judy Woodruff is a longtime groupie of the Bush family.

after I read she and her husband were accosted by a drunken bush at a restaurant and verbally lashed by said bush.

edit~ insert a left out letter.

when she "broke" the news at the GOP National Convention that Reagan had decided to choose GH Bush as his VP running mate. Judy nealy pee'd all over herself with glee as she breathlessly panted, "It's Bush! It's Bush!"

She's been close to the Bush family ever since.

Way to separate yourself from the pack.

carte blanche on another 87 billion just rankles me. The management, with no plan except for rampant nepotism, clearly does not work. Good for Edwards, now are there any (many) more with the cojones to stand up and sound off.

giveaway to corporate America. Let's hear it from the rest!

*

Thank you! John Edwards! Don't give bush anything more of what he wants...separate yourself from that evil asshole.

This will keep the dialogue going. As a Dean Supporter, I hope the message about repealing the tax cuts for the wealthy catches steam in the media. We can go at Bush on all fronts!

And, Exactly what you say!

A big :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to Edwards!

Although he'll probably manage to miss the vote....

Glad to see him get some spine! Who else might go along?

The same way they tried to smear Graham's 9-11 investigation as "political."

Uh, when musicians do their thing it's called music, when athletes do their thing it's called athletics, when fricking politicians do political things IT IS CALLED POLITICS!!!

I'm liking this Edwards alot. He handles himself very well in the debates. Great VP choice if he can't hang in there.

The idea that it's wrong to play politics with the Iraq money as a candidate was just bandied about on Crossfire.

Man, that was quick.

Edwards was mentioned twice and his face flashed a couple of times during crossfire...They had better get with it, I had my fill of Judy Woodruff during the Arnold thing.. I only listen to CNN during Crossfire, I can't stand to look at her or hear her for an hour everyday.

Woodruff is worse! At least Zahn doesn't pretend to be a journalist like Judy does.

He just confirmed why.

I want John Edwards on the 2004 ticket in some way.

then she can pay Haliburton out of her own pocket.

Cheers to John Edwards!

eom

and Debbie Stabenow and told them I wanted them to vote agains it. We'll see...I'm not holding my breath though.

He did the right thing.

Of course, the wingnuts will accuse him of not supporting our troops.

I heard on the Mike Malloy Show last night that relatives of Soldiers
were buying "armor" for them! Because bush didn't have it in the budget! And bush is supposedly going to help arnie the swartzengropen?

Our Troops are in need of a new kind of vest to protect them,Blue Collar kids being killed every day , and don't have what they need, if this was Clinton...Rush and the republicans would run him out of the White House.

EK-CELLLLLLENT!!!:D :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Go John go!!!:kick:

Makin' me proud he's my senator...yet again!:7

B-)

:-)

lead and they will follow.

I liked both Graham and Edwards, but since Graham dropped out, Edwards is my man. And this just confirms it. Go get 'em John

Note to other candidates - if you are the nominee, take a serious look at this man for VP. This guy might just surprise all of us.

Hopefully more will follow. Yes IG DK was the first to oppose this. Another reason why I feel he kicks ass and is a great leader.

:kick:

Bush's buddies are going to be pissed!

To be fair, CNN has this story sort of buried. The one story CNN is pushing is the one about Mitch McConnell saying that the GOP will get enough votes to pass this so-called "grant." The McConnell story mentions that Joe Biden will vote for this travesty of a giveaway to Cheney's corporate friends.

Here is the CNN story about John Edwards announcement against the Iraq package:

Edwards says he'll vote against $87 billion Iraq package
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Posted: 5:27 PM EDT (2127 GMT)



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Tuesday he will vote against President Bush's $87 billion request for Iraq, saying it's time somebody "stand up to him and say no."

The North Carolina senator, who last fall backed the congressional resolution authorizing the war, said Bush needs to change his policies to win his vote.

"I believe we have a responsibility to support our troops in Iraq. I believe we have a responsibility to help rebuilt Iraq. But our troops will not be safer and this mission will never be successful unless the president dramatically changes course," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press.

He said Bush needs a plan to rebuild Iraq, work more closely with allies and take steps to make sure the money is not exploited by Bush's political allies.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/elec04.prez.democrats.iraq/index.html

http://edwards.senate.gov/press/2003/1014a-pr.html

...because President Bush(sic) has failed..."

That's the ticket!

He also cited recent disclosures that the President's 2000 campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh, has created a business to use connections with administration insiders to land lucrative business deals in Iraq. Allbaugh, who stepped aside last March as the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, recently created New Bridge Strategies to help clients take advantage of business opportunities in Iraq.

This bill is nothing but a giveaway to Bush's corporate sponsors. They don't care about GIs, all they care about is the profit line.

Yay John!! :toast:

:kick:

I knew you had 'em, just hadn't seen 'em in a while.

...only the way it is being executed. I don't favor American troops in Iraq period. They should be withdrawn. Acceptance of the occupation is wrong. American governance in Iraq is wrong.

The Iraqis are more than able to build their own infrastructure if we leave and give them their resources back. But the truth is we won't give up control of their oil, their military bases or their government and pretending otherwise is just a ruse.

There is more joy in Heaven over one repentant sinner than over a thousand saints.

Let's hope the other "Blair Democrats" also make amends for their past sins.

The stock in trade of both of these cranks is the disapproving sour expression worn whenever someone departs from the establishment line.

By their scowls shall ye know the turgid! Blech!

or then not following through with funding the troops that YOU authorized.

Unfortunately we have several candidates who have found themselves in the hypocritical doodoo over this one.

I like Edwards, but his hypocrisy on this isssue stinks.

Edwards has been saying for more than a year that Bush must carefully plan for post-war action in Iraq. This is nothing new for him.

For example, last October, he said:

"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.

"We know that military planning is in high gear, and that's good; but democracy planning needs to be in high gear as well. For example, we should be asking NATO now to start planning for a post-conflict peacekeeping role, and we need to start consulting with others now about sharing the financial burden of reconstruction."

Whether you agree with Edwards or not, you cannot claim that he is now being inconsistent. He's just following through on something he has been saying all along.

And, it's not as if Congress approves the supplemental this week and the troops get the money tomorrow. Delaying this request in the short term will not affect funding for the troops. But Congress cannot allow Bush to force the taxpayers to pay for a boondoggle for his buddies by tying it all to the military action. He's trying to blackmail Congress by making the same insinuations you seem to be buying into - if you don't give me the money, you're dissing the troops. Fortunately, many members of Congress aren't buying the okie doke.

The only way to get Bush to negotiate with Congress is for Congress to use the only leverage it has, put its foot down and say NO! to something Bush really wants. He'll have no choice but to work with Congress to get the money he wants - and that money will come in plenty of time to get the troops what they need. It's about time he learned that Congress is a co-equal branch of government entitled to full participation in the decisionmaking, not his personal ATM machine.

Frankly, I think it would have been better to have just voted against the IWR. However, it was a complicated document and a vote in favor of it could be interpreted different ways. For example, Senator Lieberman just wanted to invade Iraq. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, voted for a resolution that directed Mr. Bush (mislabeled "the President" in the IWR) to go through the United Nations first.

The resolution did not go far enough in this respect. It should have directed Mr. Bush to secure a Secuity Council resolution specifically authorizing force before launching the invasion. Bush went through the motions, but in the end invaded without an enabling resultion, thus making the invasion illegal under international law.

Thus, there are two reasons to have opposed the IWR. The first is that Bush was going to war whatever Congress passed or didn't pass. It was a travesty to pass the IWR directing Bush to go to the UN only to see Bush mock the UN and international law. There is room for disagreement on this matter.

The second reason is that Bush was lying about Saddam's capabilities and his reasons for going to war; this was evident even a year ago to those of us who were paying attention. Those who got there information from mainstream US sources like the New York Times may have been misinformed about the war. They thought Saddam was a real threat and that Tikrit and Baghdad were cesspools of biochemical warheads, just like Powell and Rumsfeld said. However, those of us who sought information from the foreign press and reliable alternative sources knew that Scott Ritter disputed the junta's rhetoric about Saddam's capabilities and that the OSP was formed in the Pentagon to cook intelligence in order to support the war. In addition, congressional hearings ahead of the vote on the IWR were stacked with pro-war witnesses. It was not a honest process.

About this second point, members of congress have less to say for themselves than they do on the first. They are expected to be better informed than they were in this case. Moreover, given the availability of the information, it can be said that their ignorance was willful and their willingness to accept the administration's lies can be characterized as gullible. In addition, their failure to examine all sides of the issue in hearings was a outright dereliction of duty.

Nevertheless, they've been bitten by Bush's lies on Iraq once. They should not approve any funds without tight strings attached. Those strings should direct the US towards a withdrawal from Iraq and a turnover of Iraq to a popular government sooner than Mr. Bush and his cronies would like and a general frustration of Mr. Bush's colonial designs.

This is as close as those that voted for war can come to redeeming themselves. I am more than willing to give Edwards credit for that. Had he announced that he intends to vote for the Iraq money, as Joe Lieberman has, Edwards would have been savaged for bending over to Bush once again.

Kudos to Edwards!

US BACKS TERRORISTS

The US government founded the Mujahidin Islamist terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. The terrorists America helped to creat are now waging "jihad" against American interests, thanks to US government policies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1059000/1059399.stm

"Afghanistan was an important Cold War battleground, where the US backed Islamic warriors in their fight against the Soviet-backed government in Kabul." (The last paragraph in the article.)

The location was Afghanistan. The terrorist warriors were Islamic. Various Islamist terrorists, including the Mujahidin and sections of the al Qaida network, used the US government's terrorist training camps. Islamist terrorism flourished with funding, equipment, weapons and terrorism-training provided by good old Uncle Sam. This training included hijacking aircraft and launching missiles at civilian aircraft (missiles supplied by the US & Britain). Both of these techniques have been used by al-Qaida and related groups as a result.

The US-backed Mujahidin are friends and allies of Osama bin Laden. They live to kill Americans and Jews. (Sound familiar?)


These are the words of Osama bin Laden himself:

"In 1998, the mujahidin warned America to cease their support for the Jews and leave the land of the two holy sanctuaries, but the enemy refused to heed this warning, so the mujahidin, with ability from God, smashed them with two mighty blow..."

After their American training and funding, and usin military explosives from the US army, the "mujahidin destroyed the American destroyer, the USS Cole, in Aden, in a martyrdom operation, striking a solid blow at the face of the American military"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2768873.stm


According to the US government themselves, the Harakat ul-Mujahidin - whose terrorist brothers the US government trained - armed and funded in terrorism in CIA/al-Qaida terrorist training camps in Aghanistan - are allies of Osama bin Laden:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1562403.stm

These and others are part of the vast and dangerous Islamist terrorist network that the Unites States government has supported.

Without funding, training and weapons from the US government, the network of anti-American Islamist groups that includes al Qaida would not have had the capacity that they now have to attack Americans and American targets.

First the US government helped lay the foundations of Islamist terrorism.

Then US government policies directed the threat toward America itself by using American taxes to fund, arm and support Israel's illegal occupation.

Explaining Arab Anger:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm


If you want to fight terrorism then start with the United States government.


ISRAELI OCCUPATION "ILLEGAL":

"Despite international laws banning settlement in occupied areas, Jewish settlement building has expanded continually since Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, increasing rapidly in the late 1970s when the current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, was housing minister":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3158036.stm



"A United Nations human rights investigator has denounced a controversial barrier Israel is building in the West Bank as illegal. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3152828.stm


Israel has continued to steal Palestinian land in order to expand. This has been pointed out by several Israeli soldiers, who refused to break international law in enforcing the illegal occupation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2236534.stm

As we have seen, American support for Israel's violent madness is the reason for Arab hatred of America:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1552000/1552900.stm


The Zionist US oilgovernment has vetoed an otherwise unanymous UN resolution against illegal Israeli attacks inside Syria.

The attacks are in clear breach of international law and the resulting crisis could engulf the whole region in violence.


Of course that is exactly what Israel and their US oilgovernment both want.

An escalation in violence could enable America and Israel to attack both Iran and Syria, in order to steal oil facilities and to install more Israel-friendly puppet governments.