Bush himself is to blame for chaos in Iraq, Edwards says

REUTERS , HOUSTON

US Senator and possible Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards blasted the Bush administration on Friday for the chaotic aftermath of the Iraq war and said US President George W. Bush, not his underlings, is to blame.

"If you look at what's happening, there's a lot of discussion and debate around the country about Don Rumsfeld and whether the secretary of defense should be fired and whether he should resign," Edwards said in a fiery speech to the Texas Democratic Party annual convention.

"Let me say this very simply -- the person who is responsible is the commander in chief," he said to loud applause from the enthusiastic crowd in Bush's home state.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/06/20/2003175832

Those that opposed the war predicted that chaos and an increase in terrorism would follow a US invasion of Iraq. Bush is guilty, as is Cheney, but all of those idiots in Congress that voted for this war are just as guilty. When it comes to Iraq, there are very few politicians whose hands don't have innocent blood on them.

If we were to apply Edward's argument to the Holocaust, Hitler would be the only one held responsible while all of the butchers, from Himmler to the lowest SS guard, would be blameless.

things about Iraq..like wmd and links to bin Laden, same as the rest of the nation. If the nation could have voted to go to war then it would have passed because we and congress were extremely jittery yet from 9/11. Also Bush promised to go through the U.N. which he ultimately also lied about and didn't do. Bush lied his way to war and with a Republican congress everyone is stuck with it. He should have been impeached a multitude of times and it hasn't happened. Now he should be tried on war crimes..that is yet to be seen.

That disgraceful presentation swayed a lot of people.

The constant pounding of war drums by various members of the Bush Admin. and their persistent lies were relentless and the Media was complicit.

WE all knew is was crap - you're telling us they didn't know? HE STOLE THE F***ING ELECTION - perhaps that should have been THEIR FIRST CLUE.

know....are they all dimwitts....

yes enablers.....they are....if we help make excuses for them...we become enablers too....

the congress failed the country too.

It was the senate that really let us down. And I do believe that many of them voted for the war for political reasons.

PS.... if you want to know what democrats had the sense to do the right thing it was most if not all of the progressive or liberal members.

We knew it was crap and why would anyone believe a man who stole the election. Once bush had his dumb ass installed in office every single democrat in office should have stone walled everything he did.

and Lincoln Chafee, stupid?

I think it the other way around

Here is what the brave rep. Barbara Lee had to say after 9-11

<snip>

But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war. It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events - anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit.

In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack, and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.

http://www.ucolick.org/~de/WTChit/Lee.html

There were people who quite clearly saw through Bush's ruse. The majpority of them hid behind giving him the authority, instead of following the law of the land and reserving for Congress, the only vehicle legally mandated to declare war, the responsibility to do so.

If they cannot adhere to our Consitution, then let them be honest and remove that clause. They have not respected it.

They, the "smart" politicians, the beltway bloviators, had to know what they were doing. It is inconceivable that they "trusted Bush"
I for one cannot excuse them--they played the game, knowing full well they could then criticize Bush if it did not go well. That is exactly what they are doing now--and at the head of it all is Kerry, and Clinton, who I believe is being helped and readied by her husband for her preseidential bid, so he must support her vote to go to war, Edwards, who was the first of the candidates to declare it just, and all the rest who seem to be operating with blinders on--they only allow a straight ahead vision toward money and power, no side vision to the agonies of war and the tens of thousands now dead.

what my conclusion is.

I *think* that those of us outside the beltway who had a predisposition against the war and against boosh strongly believed the whole justification was bogus. We didn't know then about Joe Wilson and the Niger uranium, we didn't know for sure about the total lack of WMDs (though we had our suspicions and our supporters, like Blix), we didn't know for sure about the chemical weapons, we didn't know about the Republican Guard and whether they would stand and fight or melt away and fight later.

I remember talking to my husband over dinner one Sunday just before the invasion and wondering what would happen, because it was all a Catch-22: if there were no WMDs, boosh's justification was voided, and if there were, what guarantee did we have (absolutely none) that Saddam wouldn't just launch all he had? Even at this time we knew, thanks to Moyers and NOW, that the chemical warfare suits the troops had were too few and falling apart, so we knew there were obvious risks going in. We -- hubby and I -- had a dreadful feeling that it was going to turn ugly, very ugly. We're old enough to remember Vietnam from the beginning.

And we wondered how so many seemingly intelligent people in congress could vote for boosh to have the authority to do this.

But we admitted, and I have thought all along, that we went into the proposition opposed to it -- opposed to the war against Iraq, opposed to the booshies, opposed to the whole thing. And we had no experience in the beltway workings.

If anyone wants to accuse me of being an apologist I suppose that's okay too, but I *think* it's *possible* that those who have spent time in the higher workings of government, who have spent time with the others who are there, who make decisions based on such criteria as political expediency (remember, 87% of the US population supported the invasion at the time) as well as what's really right for the country and the world, that maybe these people don't see things as clearly as we do -- or maybe it's the other way around.

By that I mean that we who hated boosh from the beginning, who "knew" the war would end up this way, we were the ones not seeing things as clearly and as pragmatically as they were. Now, as it turned out (so far, at least), we've been proven correct. The war is a mess, there were no WMDs, boosh has alienated almost all the rest of the planet.

But if just one of those things we had anticipated as absolute truth -- if, for instance, Saddam DID have a cache of chemical weapons -- we anti-war folks could have been proven wrong. If the invasion had been handled differently, if Halliburton hadn't gone in and Enroned the Iraqi economy, if the US had worked with the Iraqis on rebuilding the infrastructure, if a lot of things had worked out better, we might not have a quagmire and we would be the ones with egg on our faces.

I *think* we're engaging in a lot of "I TOLD YOU SO!" because we were proven right, but in a way maybe we were just lucky rather than a whole lot smarter than the folks who voted to give boosh the power to conquer Iraq.

So I don't think it's wrong for someone to say "I was misled by Boosh's lies." I think that's an admission of what happened. And maybe these people had a predisposition to believe the information that came from the White House because it's inherent in their job to trust the commander in chief.

I'm not making excuses for them; they don't get a free pass. But I think understanding how and why they came to the decisions they did and made the choices they did gives a better foundation for going forward.

A Catholic acquaintance explained to me the other day how it is that priests who abused children are still allowed to take communion but abortion-supporting politicians aren't: "It's the continuing of the sin," she explained. "According to the church's rationale, the priests admitted their sins and vowed to sin no more, so they are back in the church's good graces. But a politician who endorses abortion rights or gay marriage is saying that he or she intends to willingly continue to sin, and that's why they're being denied communion." Now, I don't know if she's right about this, but it makes sense. And it makes sense to me too to grant some absolution for those congresscritters and senators who voted for the IWR if they now admit it was a bad thing, that they made a mistake, that they are now going to try to undo at least some of the damage.

Many of us tend to see what we want to see. I suppose it's possible that some of the folks who voted for the IWR *wanted* to trust boosh because not to trust him would have shaken the foundation of their entire belief system. The 2000 SCOTUS selection shook a lot of ours. So maybe I'm a wimp or not a strong enough Dem, but I'm willing to entertain the idea of forgiveness and adopt a let's move forward attitude, rather than condemn everyone.

Because if we condemn everyone who doesn't agree with us on every issue 100% of the time, it's gonna be a pretty lonely party.


Tansy Gold, who should not think this much on a Sunday morning

their power and this lady had her brain in tact.....
I remembered when they voted and I thought then....what does Bush have on them....why are they doing this....

do you by any chance have a list of who exactly voted AGAINST the war.

who either has it or can post a link.

IIRC, the senate vote was 93-7, but i could be way off on that, so don't quote me! ;-)

I guess the thing that bothers me most, and makes me put more blame on boosh than on anyone else, was that the vote on the IWR was set for before the general mid-term elections. It put everyone on notice that their votes could and would be held against them: one-third of the senate and the entire house. With polls showing that support for the war was high, that put an extra ounce or two of pressure on even the Dems. If they didn't vote for it, they could be held up as unpatriotic and not paying attention to the will of the people. If they did, they could be painted as not loyal to their own precepts.

That's why I was sooooooooooooooooooooo pissed at Daschle, who failed to use his position as majority leader effectively.

voting by your career is not voting by the people...there were so many war protests......Daschle, I am finding votes with rethugs on a number of items.....he is rethug lite tooooo

So did Congress. You gonna try to convince me that they were conned? That we are more informed. BS. Every effing one of them are culpable including Edwards.

If they are that easily swayed without looking and finding information then maybe they should not be in a position of power for the people.

They all have a responsibilty for this. They must accept that and figure out how to be more informed in the future.... they still keep voting for crap now.

IF they don't know how to use the internet, then they better get some help and researchers who can find out the information on each and every one of the issues they vote on.....

I knew it was wrong. Kerry and Edwards should have known it was wrong. In fact I think Kerry did know it was wrong. Edwards is just too right wing on some issues. He probably still thinks it was the right thing to do.

supporting Bush's decision but Bush having the timing wrong or whatever. Thank God. I have been racking my brain trying to come up with a reason Clinton would come out and say this now, and it looks like this might be why; if we are going to have pres. and vice-pres. candidates who voth voted pro-war, then they are going to spin it that it was a good decision, bad timing, and bad execution and poor planning by Bush, something good that Bush turned into bad. Well, that may work, they are just farther ahead in vision than us, they have to be, because they are going to have to have a spin for debate purposes.

I don't care, it's a moot point whether or not the potential v.p. candidate voted in favor of the war, because the pres. candidate did. I'm jumping ahead of course, but it's comforting to me to know they are all putting their heads together and showing a united front. I hope people don't keep their panties in a knot about the war vote for too much longer, because the soldiers and innocent civilians that got killed in the war are dead and nothing will bring them back. It's time to move forward.

...are equally culpable. So are the yes-women Dems, like the eager Hillary.

It's simply no excuse to claim now that one was "misled," as these sheep are trying to do. In fact, war opponents marshaled piles of evidence to counter Bush's lies. Cowardice, the wish to be seen as tough on defense, and obedience trumped the evidence.

Yes, John Edwards, Bush has fucked up royally. And you helped him.

If their No vote would have stopped Bush, then yes, they'd be culpable. It wouldn't even have slowed him down if every single Democrat had voted No and they knew that. A No vote was symbolic and it was a statement that some could afford to make and others couldn't. Serious contenders for the presidency couldn't at that time. Now, it would be different.

So it was a vote in the best interest of those politicians furthering their careers, not in the best interest of the people they represent. I agree.

:puke:

sorry but that is a lame excuse.

that he was "deceived" by the Bush administration with their "cooked" intellegince, and if he knew then what he knew by the time he made that admission, his vote would have been different.

Don't blame Edwards. Blame BushCo.

Your argument that they are equally culpable is ridiculous--may as well say those who voted for Nader are equally responsible for Bush and everything he's done in office. The arguments don't make sense--voting for an authorization isn't the same as using it to create a murderous quagmire. Voting for Nader isn't the same as voting for Bush or endorsing his policies. Those in Congress who voted for the IWR deserve blame, but not on the level that Bush and his administration deserve it.

Bush LIED and cooked the intelligence reports.

We can criticize Edwards for being fooled and for making a very stupid vote.

But to equate him with Bush in culpability or to twist his words to say no one else in the administration is culpable is just, well, ....spooky naderspeak and bunk.

Edwards did NOT cook the intelligence books and LIE to get this war started.

Scurrilous charge and beneath you Indiana Green

as they come. This was back when most people were still firmly in the "give him the benefit of the doubt" camp. Many of them had not been well armed or dispassionate (like we were here at DU and other similar arenas) as they later came to be.

It required UN support AFTER inspections. The inspections were aborted and we went to war without UN approval. That's not what the Dems voted for.

Bush's strategy has always been, the buck doesn't stop here. Even Gore fell for letting Bush off the hook. This year, people have to get it into their heads that Bush is not allowed fall guys.

it could be argued that Bush didn't know and was deceived....see this is a slippery slope.

If we at Du knew this was a bad decision, and we had access to the Internet to find out details ....then our congress people could too.

I was incredulous when congress gave Bush sweeping powers. I though why are they rolling over dead for this man, WHAT did he have on them is what I thought..

I knew it was a bad idea. I was not ELECTED to protect my constitution and serve the people. They were and didn't. Using excuses now....is enabling if we accept them. The Congress are also accountable.

When they gave away the power, they in essence said they TRUSTED the fool to make the right decision. If they did NOT already know they could not trust the fool. Then they too are sick.

I am tired of the excuse they didn't know he would use it that way. You give someone far sweeping powers and give away the check and balance of a system that is already out of balance, you have a problem......

Those here at DU would not have voted for War, so why did our Congress. Their motives and intentions were not in the people's best interest.

I'd rather not get into the finer vicissitudes of culpability until after the guy who seems to ride on the notion that he's never to blame gets blamed.

including Bush, who voted for the war in Iraq, is accountable and must take responsibility - Repubs AND Dems.

I'm usually a very flexible person, but on this I stand fast.

NO EXCUSES! If they voted for the war, they are partially responsible for the consequences.

It is just now that he wants to be VP that he is hitting bush on this issue.

I am very angry at Kerry for his vote, but I will probably vote for him to get rid of bush. Then if Kerry rules from the center I will do my best to get rid of him in 2008. However It will be almost impossible for me to pull the lever for Kerry if he doesn't put someone progressive on the ticket. Someone who was against this war or who voted against the war.

I am not interested in Edwards or Gephardt or any of the other DLC loons presently being considered.

Iran and Syria here we come.
4 more years of corpses with your morning coffee, or as L7 puts it:

Wargasm! Wargasm!
one two three
smutty bloody corpses
ecstasy!!

Hand grenades and dropping bombs!
The Pentagon knows how to turn us

TURN us ON!!

WAR gazz UMMM!!

I don't see us hitting Syria and Iran with a Kerry/Edwards ticket, or if Kerry/war-vote-whoever wins. If Cheney (bush) wins, absolutely anything is possible, and in fact probable.

him.

He's not free-trade enough for them and both in his legal career and as a Senator he's held corporations accountable. They don't seem to like that.

Come on Kerry, enought pussyfooting around, just pick Edwards.

I think hed add alot to the ticket.

Sure he'd add a lot.

This is a man who channeled the voice of an unborn child in a courtroom.

I frankly can't see any Democratic pro choice woman who knows this supporting him.

Because of people like Edwards and suits against obstetricians for syndromes like cerebral palsy that may have occurred from fetal anoxia weeks to months before delivery, there are fewer and fewer obstetricians available in many parts of this country for woman. And even fewer who are available for high risk pregnancies. And even fewer than that for terminations.

Edwards has personally assisted the decline in the availability of good health care for women in this country.

And his foreign policy experience is even less than that of George Bush - just what we need right now - another novice for on the job training.

I voted for Edwards in the Wisconsin primary, but I saw a Gore speech recently which sounded like Edwards on steroids. Gore could be Kerry's surprise VP pick. I know I'd vote for them.

Just about all of us at DU were against the war. I know I could see through it immediately.

BUT, so what!!`Let's act like Republicans and win this damn election!!

Repubs KNOW that GWB lied about the reasons for going to war...they are voting for him anyway.

They know that GWB has an IQ on the dark side of 60 and they are voting for him anyway.

We know and the world knows that Edwards and Kerry voted for the war --- so what!! Let's move on. I don't care what Kerry and Edwards voted for, that is water under the bridge -- I am VOTING for our ticket anyway because I want Bush OUT of the WH.

KEEP OUR EYE ON THE PRIZE NOT ON YESTERDAY! :bounce:

Is there any F@$@ing courage anymore????

I guess everyone wants to live in Bush's Fascist fantasy that will
be our reality if we allow these schmucks to continue!!!

It is time we support the ones who stand tall......
by the hundreds of thousands!!!!

Get up and walk!!!!

And bring your lap tops if ya can't get away from information!!!