Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards blames Clinton for his Iraq vote! Ooookkkkeeeey!

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 » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:04 AM
Original message
Edwards blames Clinton for his Iraq vote! Ooookkkkeeeey!
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 10:06 AM by wyldwolf
On Russert now.

I like Edwards, but the netroots likes to to say the excuse that the Senators believed Bush intel doesn't cut it because THEY knew better. How will the new "Clinton's people fooled me, too" meme wash?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
1. Hey, he's smooooth! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
160. This whole thread is mostly BS following misquoting of Edwards
He said he took responsibility for his vote, his position then and for quite a while afterward, and he had made a mistake. When queried about why, what info, etc. he said that at the time of the vote he had relied on the intelligence info from the Administration and he had also consulted with "Clinton people" for their assessment. (I took that to mean people who had been officials in the Clinton Administration.)

Much of this thread seems to be the same people repeating the same distortions, then contrasting this with their preferred candidate wonderful position. While I like Edwards on a lot of his positions, I have had concerns about his IWR vote, about some of his advisors in the past, and have been concerned that he still might not be cynical enough WRT to what constitues "facts" in these areas.

I was listening rather closely to MTP this morning and replayed parts and feel slightly better WRT his position on Iran. Overall, I thought he did well against Russert's repeated attempts to get Edwards to misspeak, to provide an "opposition" soundbite, or to lose his composure. I hope that all the Dems, in their turns, are able to present and defend their positions and ideas and show the strenghs of the Party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #160
171. I like that he was upfront about raising taxes on those making over $200K to pay for healthcare plan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #171
238. I wrote his website contact asking if he supported HR676/1200
No answer. Health care is one of those areas where we don't need to raise taxes. As Kucinich always says, "We are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it." If he supports further subsidy to our wasteful and counterproductive system, he isn't really in favor of universal health care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #160
230. this OP is worse than BS, it is a conscious untruth
anybody can hear that he did not blame Clinton, so to claim that he did is an intentional lie, a smear, worthy of Republicans.

shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
2. He is starting to look pathetic.
In his interview in the American Prospect, he said he did not trust *, but still voted for the IWR.

May be it would be time for Edwards to find ONE rational for his vote and stick to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snivi Yllom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
261. transcript here
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 10:04 AM by Snivi Yllom
Ehere is a fair amount of passing the buck. The mention of the Clinton administration, TWICE, was intentional and calculated. Sen. edwards also with some prompting from Russert, goes after Hillary.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

MR. RUSSERT: Let’s watch it and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, October 7, 2002)

SEN. EDWARDS: My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I’m a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein’s regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he’s used them in the past, and that he’s doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “ A grave threat to America,” do you still believe that?

SEN. EDWARDS: No.

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

---------------------------snip------------------------------------

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong. One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that. So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. I told you a few minutes ago I was concerned about giving this president the authority, and I turned out to be wrong about that

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. Bill, Hillary, Chelsea ?? Come on - inquiring minds need to know! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Bill
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
55. Maybe he's referring to the DLC?
I he has something to tell us about behind the scenes machinations in the Democratic Party, now is the time to come clean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
237. Socks
Now you know. Damn that cat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #237
282. Yes, damn that cat! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. ...but then he takes responsibility for his vote. Good for him. (?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. Unlike Hillary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #5
32. Did he mention sponsoring the IWR? Took responsibility for THAT?
The stealing of the 2004 election? Buehler? Anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #32
169. I also doubt he noted that he was the only Democrat in the
Senate Arms Services Committee to vote the resolution out of committee, too.

What did Kennedy and the others hear there that Edwards didn't seem to pay attention to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #169
209. circa Flip Wilson
"The devil made me do it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #209
229. Geraldine!!!
:hi: AK.

I see your experiment in another thread proved a hypothesis you were working on.

I read the thread, but, I still haven't figured out what goldfish have to do with war. I always thought they were against it. :7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #229
235. goldfish?
Damn, I was chumming for sharks!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
6. What?
Could you explain what you mean? What was said? I tuned in late to MTP and missed any talk of IWR.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. Translation
he knew well enough not to trust the administration, but he'd heard the same song and dance from Clinton, who'd been wise enough not to invade.

Face it, the Pentagon intelligence group had been given over to neocon ideologues, much the same way rabidly anticommunist ideologues had taken it over when we were getting involved in Vietnam.

Anyone in a position where decisions are being made has to trust what he's hearing from experts outside a group he doesn't quite trust. If they all agree, then that is the information he acts upon.

Clinton was as snowed by the neocons as anyone else, and he agreed with them.

It seems the people they all need to start listening to are US.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. They all miss the point
They handed over their responsibility to provide a check on the power of the president, and there was never a reason to do so. It was a catastrophic mistake. I'll consider voting for anyone who comes straight out and admits that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
8. transcript?
quote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. sorry - not usually avaiable until after the show is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. How about a quote or context?
I assume that's available immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. not unless I can go back in time 15 minutes... but..
... he said, paraphrased, "After I read Bush's intel, I went to Clinton's people and they told me the same thing."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. What if it's true?
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 10:28 AM by 1932
Clinton would be a good person to talk to since he (she?) was (married to a) president, no?

Oh, and I apologize for putting you to the trouble of giving a little context, but I think I understand now why that was a burden for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. poow wittle Edwards - bad Hillary fooled him! Vote for him to pay her back!
How dare she fool little boy Edwards (who co-sponsored the IWR, BTW) Nice going, but have you seen this stuff?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Did he refer to Bill or Hil?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #13
23. So he tried to verify with
President Clinton's people what Bush's people were telling him? Am I understanding this correctly?

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
47. "clinton's people"?

his administration was over. in what capacity would they operate
and by what authority? in fact, where would one even find, clinton's
"people"?

I'm not sure that makes any sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
9. The Evil Elf is nullifying Edwards which is why mtp and Tim will
always thrive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
14. Sorry, that just cost major respect points from me
I realize that many of our senators now have had 2nd thoughts about that IWR vote back in 2002 but you know what - BE A FRICKING (WO)MAN ABOUT IT - take responsiblity

If Edwards made that comment he's no better than all those idiots that blame Clenis for everything
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Ya see what I mean? MTP has a function.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #16
27. Don't worry, I'll still support the guy if he's nominated
and it was Edwards that said it - not Tim Russert

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #16
115. You mean..
... Timmy made him say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #115
128. I mean Elf asks Dem's a whole different batch of questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
15. Did he just imply Obama lacks the depth and maturity to be President?
In speaking about Obama, Edwards says he (Edwards) has the depth and maturity to be President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. Probably. Not the first time he did that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Did everyone notice how Elf asked about withdrawal of troops...
...and then cut him off? G.E. sends subliminal signals the entire hour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat 4 Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #15
28. I had Edwards on my short list until today's MTP - he is a smooth
politician, affable, nice on the eyes, smart, savvy but when he blames any Democratic person for his vote into this mess in Iraq they are gone from my consideration. Bush and Bush alone created this mess and for Edwards to try and soft pedal his vote for the war is somehow the responsibility of the Clinton administration is pure, unadulterated pandering.

Too bad it isn't Elizabeth running instead of John. I fear he has gotten the "I want it so damn bads" he will say or do anything to win.

Good ideas on many issues but until he also takes back any notion that the Iraqi mess is the fault of Clinton intel - which is exactly what the neocrazies will seize on - he is off my list.

Mark my word tomorrow on Faux, CNN, MSNBC all you will hear is that Edwards blames Clinton for the Iraq War. That's not exactly what he said but if they can spin a Hillary joke about "bad men" or a Kerry funny about "how dumb Chucklenuts is" into a two week news event they will make this an issue in the '08 election. This is mother's milk to KKKarl and John Edwards just offered up a tit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. THAT was very well put.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #28
37. Yup. That was my prediction too. See # 26
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 10:44 AM by The Count
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #28
41. What if it's TRUE?
Does it matter to you whether the Clintons were pushing this war behind the scenes??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat 4 Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #41
52. What ifs don't mean a damn thing to me. If a bullfrog had wings it could fly.
I don't think for one minute that Clinton or his administration was pushing behind the scenes for war with Iraq. Big Dog was handed the PNAC agenda back in 1998 - if he wanted to make war he could have done so with the neoridiculous' blessings. I believe that the intel from Clinton was pushing to let the inspectors do their job not banging the war drums.

What IF Chucklenuts has an IQ of 26, no wait...what if Dead Eye had a heart...

What ifs can be endless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. He opposed it??
Show me where either one of them spoke clearly and consistently against the vote or the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
60. What, exactly, would be their motivation for that?
Especially considering all the times Clinton refused to give the PNAC their war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Tough on Defense Dems - it's the DLC blueprint n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #62
69. It's the blueprint for Democrats, but not the new left
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #62
71. And wasn't Clinton part of the DLC when the PNAC asked him to invade Iraq?
Yes and he didn't. So... next theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #71
80. He was being impeached
He was under attack for bombing, let alone attempting to launch an invasion.

This is hysterical. The Clintons are being remade into anti-war heroes. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #80
96. Impeached? By the people who wanted him to invade Iraq. Right?
That vast right wing conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #96
100. The public knew all this??
No. They just knew he was being impeached and attacked for starting wars to avoid dealing with his impeachment.

And you want to pretend that the bullshit from the 90's is evidence they didn't support war in 2002???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #100
103. You said their motivation for all this was being "tough on defense Dems"
because of their ties to the DLC. I am questioning your broad assertion, simply because it doesn't make sense to me. If the Clintons are war-mongers why didn't Bill invade Iraq in 1998 like the PNAC asked him to? Seems it would have offered a nice diversion and he would have been entered into the good-ol'-boys club, which more-than-likely would have enabled him to escape his impeachment later that year. I mean, if every world event is controlled by only a few puppet strings, (i.e. Clintonian and Rovian puppet strings - They are to blame for everything, right?) I think my theory simply makes much better sense than yours.

January 26, 1998



The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC


Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.


Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.


Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick


It used to be the Republicans who blamed the Clintons for everything. Some people on the left side of the aisle seem all to ready to carry that cross for them of late. I guess it's nice of you to help them out, considering their all drowning under their own shit lately.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #103
109. 9/11 and Hillary's Presidential ambitions
that's all the motivation they needed to turn war hawk in 2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Sorry, I don't believe either of them are the type of people who would kill
hundreds of thousands of people and bankrupt our country just so Hillary could be president.

As far as 9/11... I think we all got pretty shaken up about that. I think I can safely say the Cheney controlled CIA might have had something to do with the way lawmakers viewed the whole Iraq issue after 9/11. Hell, some people think 9/11 was a MIHOP just so the people and their legistlators would go along with attacking Iraq. With everything so convoluted under the Bush regime, I don't think it's quite fair to single out a couple of well-known politicians to blame this war on. Do I like that Hillary voted for the IWR. Hell no, but this is Bush's war. Period. Quit trying to blame it on the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #111
114. Have they confronted the Cheney controlled CIA?
Or did Bill go on Larry King and recommend that we just forgive them for those 16 words??

I don't think they supported willingly slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. I think they never could have imagined Bush would fuck it up so badly. I think they thought the whole thing would be over in a few short weeks and would be a distant memory by now. You bet it's Bush's war, but the Clintons aren't doing anything to hold Bush accountable for this war because they're afraid some folks will step up and point the finger in their triangulating direction too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #111
158. I agree that it is Bush's war - but Clintons siding with Bush on the military decisions
more than they did with Kerry who was campaigning AGAINST Bush's military decisions was not helpful throughout the campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #158
166. So, this is all about Kerry then? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #166
170. I was speaking for myself. Clintons DID side with Bush's DECISION to go to war
and defended Bush's war at crucial times over the last 4 years - for some of us it was especially SIGNIFICANT that they did it throughout the lead up to the 2004 election.

Would YOU have preferred the Clintons sided closer to Kerry and against Bush's MILITARY decisions on Iraq or are you SATISFIED that Clintons sided closer to Bush than Kerry during that election cycle?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Miss Chybil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #170
208. If I remember right, Kerry voted for the IWR, too .
But, I voted for him. So, what does that mean? From what I can tell, you did, too. I would venture to guess most of us did. So, why does he get the pass and Hillary doesn't? Because she didn't speak up sooner and Kerry did? Do you think Kerry would have spoken up when he did had he not been running for president? That, we'll never know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #208
219. Kerry was against the DECISION to go to war. He supported IWR for weapon inspections
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 07:20 PM by blm
and diplomatic efforts but said he was against Bush's DECISION to go to war even up until the point Bush invaded and expressed often that Bush rushed into it when he didn't HAVE to.

OTOH, the Clintons both sUPPORTED Bush's DECISION to go to war and supported it even throughout the general election.

And yes, Kerry would speak out no matter what - his public record has always been against illegal wars and he helped to bring an end to them AS senator.

There isn't a person in DC who has a longer record of speaking against illegal war and exposing corruption in government than Kerry has. And that has always been the bane of the DC establishment who have targeted him for over three decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 03:02 AM
Response to Reply #219
243. he supported a resolution that abdicated war-declaring powers
to the Idiot Boy-King. Quack all you like otherwise ... it's right there.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #243
268. Funny how they go silent when it's right there in black and white for them to read. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #219
267. Just as I thoughT. Kerry's decision to support the War was totally innocent. HAHAHAHA!!!
I've read both speeches on the floor of the Senate that day, the one by Kerry and the one by Clinton. If anyone had less of a hawkish speech, it was Hillary...not the perfect "I never voted for the war because I thought we might go to war" Kerry. That is just hysterical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #166
186. what isn't about kerry ?

edwards is about kerry. clinton is definitely about kerry.

everything is about kerry except "who lost the 2004 election?", in
which case it is everyone except kerry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #186
242. slam dunk post
high-five
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #186
248. Advise me on an anti-corruption leader to support who's done more than Kerry ,
And I do focus support on Kerry because he's the anti-corruption leader in DC who happens to be the most MALIGNED by those whose main goal is to PROTECT secrecy and privilege, even here at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #248
250. you will have to explain to me what a "pro-corruption leader" is first. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #250
252. One who ignores, denies and cover ups for entrenched powerstructure (BushInc)
BushInc couldn't have grown into a force as powerful as it became by 2000 if there hadn't been Democrats in the 70s, 80s and 90s who had willingly cooperated with the coverups necessary to get past their covert dealings and crimes of office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #252
263. ah, yes. I see.

and THAT turns out to be everyone that isn't john kerry, correct?

isn't that the universe you are describing? where The Kerry stands
alone against the corruption of literally everyone else in the damn
universe?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #263
269. Nope - anti-corruption included Joe Moakley, Henry Gonzalez, Henry Waxman
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 11:53 AM by blm
Maxine Waters and John Conyers. They have all worked hardest to expose corruption in government, but there are others as well who have taken on smaller issues and battles.

Why does it bother YOU so much that Kerry's record happens to include being the top lawmaker in DC against serious government corruption and that there exists Democrats who SUPPORT the notion of HONEST and OPEN GOVERNMENT above 'power at any cost even if we have to cover up for Bush' dealmaking?

I am also surprised that anyone who calls themself a Democrat wouldn't be able to name any of our known anti-corruption Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #269
272. inconvenient that none of them are running for the nomination.

ain't it? gosh, what does that one seem to imply?

and as far as your little backhand allegation about my progressive
bona fides goes, my challenge to you was NOT to name "anti-corruption
democrats", but "PRO-corruption democrats" (other than the clintons),
since that was clearly the message you were sending. tell us who the
cancer is, specifically, since you seem to be the only one that knows.

you can forget trying to turn that one inside out. that just isn't
what I said.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #272
278. I happened to notice that YOU wouldn't name another anti-corruption Democrat,
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 01:28 PM by blm
hence my reply.

Lee Hamilton and Chuck Robb are two major coverup Democrats. And there are way more than me who would say that.

But you do avoid the basic premise that Kerry has been the TOP lawmaker in uncovering government corruption, so why direct so much scorn at him and his supporters who back him because of it?

Why should those Dems with anti-corruption, open government priorities become the target for some of you? When you attack anti-corruption, open government Democrats so consistently it could make one suspect that the attackers are pro-corruption, pro secrecy and privilege Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #278
279. that's because I think ALL democrats are, for all intents and purposes, "anti-corruption".
and you can be more courageous and precise than pointing to
to two LONG-SINCE-GONE senators as corrupt, can't you? what's
the point to your whole alleged anti-corruption crusade if it
isn't to sniff out and expose current lawmakers that are
crooked?

if that isn't your goal, why even bother? what possible good
would it serve to expose 20 year old graft? who gives a damn?

And since when does anyone personally own the "anti-corruption,
open government" mantle? who conferred the right to make such
a proclamation?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #28
86. I'm drifting away from Edwards a bit, too.
Maybe when he reveals his plan for health care I'll be swayed back. It's way too early for chiseled in stone decisions anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:04 PM
Original message
"This is mother's milk to KKKarl and John Edwards just offered up a tit."
And there's another problem with absolute cluelessness that Democrats will need to address if they want to win.


RAMPANT SEXIST BULLSHIT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #28
108. No, you'll only hear that at DU. It's a LIE. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. This whole thread
is FOOLISH. Edwards said he talked with some people in the Clinton administration whom he trusted. HE DID NOT BLAME CLINTON. But that won't stop a hundred people from jumping in this thread, "He said THAT - well there goes MY support!!."

Sometimes I wish some posters here had a bit more sophistication and much less malice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #108
121. I thought these statements by Edwards had been made recently,
and I was deeply disappointed in him. Not any more.

I don't give tuppence if he wasn't as shrewd as he might have been a couple of years ago about the war in Iraq. What deeply disturbs me that is that this thread and the many others like them, here, will be full of posts by vandal, Republican trolls, for whom Edwards would be only the next worse President to Kuchinich; and there may be a number of you on here who have been take in - without asking yourself about the motivation, the true, New Deal, Democratic credentials of these people who have suddenly started vilifying Edwards over his earlier positions(s) on Iraq.

The fact is that a dog, trained only to fetch a stick, could not devise and prosecute a worse, more wretched policy than the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, so Edward's credentials in that, IN THE PAST, are, AT WORST, no worse than those of all the other politicos bar Kuchinich. But how many of these lamentable, "anti-Edwards line" pushers are so in tune with Kerry's desire for a New Deal for the people of America, that he might have chosen their favourite candidate, rather than John Edwards, as his prospective Vice President? I'll bet you could could them on one fist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #121
179. Oh, no.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 04:12 PM by Clark2008
I think Edwards would be MUCH worse than Kucinich as president. And my favorite candidate didn't want to be VP (plus it would have been a waste of his talents), so you'll not find me on that list.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #179
182. Pretty safe with that, aren't you. Though, mercifully, not as safe as the prospect
of your favourite candidate making it to the Oval Office, I would think. Nothing personal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #182
196. Sadly, you are correct in one aspect.
The corporate media's blanket participation in ignoring my favorite candidate makes it difficult for people to realize that the words they hear now from everyone else actually came out of my candidate's mouth two, three, sometimes four years earlier.

However, I disagree that his failure to reach the Oval Office is merciful. My candidate is an honest and decent man with the ability to predict many things that have thus-far become CW. I'm sorry you feel you must hate everyone who served (and I get that from a composition of all your previous posts - not anything you've said today).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #196
220. Well, I'm afraid you have a crippling literacy problem. Clark is held in
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 07:30 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
very low esteem by people he served with (not least his superiors), both American and European. Of course that doesn't mean they all did. Most wouldn't even have known him, many, even by name, for all the seniority of his office. Perhaps you haven't read my posts referring to General Smedley-Butler, John Kerry, the troops being blown to bits daily for people not fit to do up their bootlaces. Go back to sleep.

Old Clarkie sounded pretty gung-ho about Bush's triumphant conquest of Iraq, didn't he? Made Bush's bombastic, vainglorious challenge, "Bring 'em on" sound positively diffident, didn't it?

I'm not going to argue with you, because you Clarkistas simply ignore the plain facts of his long record in the forces and politics. Not nuanced positions or attitudes, laughably unambiguous ones.... until they would bring down wholesale derision on him, then it's all excuses how his words were misunderstood.

And as for the "corporate media's blanket participation in ignoring your favourite candidate", they simply know it would be the kiss of death for his chances, since his association indeed involvement, with large organisations (and indeed at least one sinister-sounding one), involved I believe in surveillance of the public, is well-known. He's the imperialist neocons' fall-back position. In their dreams.

I'm afraid most DUers will have a great deal more time for Wayne Madsen's opinion of Clark than that of his acolytes here, so basically, I think you're wasting your time trying to convince them. But, heck, its' your privilege to keep on trying.

Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #220
231. Really.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 10:30 PM by Clark2008
Considering I'm married to a "people he served with" who happens to adore him, I find your response laughable beyond belief.

And, no, he didn't sound gung-ho about Bush's alleged triumph. I read the entire op-ed and know that the whole piece was a backhanded slap at the Bush Doctrine, proving, of course, that my literacy IQ is fine - but I might question yours.

By-the-by, Wayne Madsen is, well, rather out there, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #231
244. wowie wow wow
That had to be the most uninformed post EVER. You are a calm woman, my dear. Hannah will be proud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Chi Minh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #231
275. In a word, No. Very far from it. But your accusation vindicates my
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 12:45 PM by KCabotDullesMarxIII
belief concerning your far-right position.

Heck, his own boss dismissed him from office serval months early on character grounds. And he didn't even have the benefit of checking Clark's subsequent record as a Blair-like chameleon; saying whatever he thinks people want to hear at any time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #28
178. New malady: The iwisdabas.
I Want It So DAmn BAds = the Iwisdabas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adelante Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #15
38. He said that very recently
Not watching the interview today, but I know he is repeating what he said a week, two weeks ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
17. Very interesting that Russert let this comment pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. You know how timmy loves the Clintons, non? It may become a soundbite yet.
yesterday, all ABC covered from the DNC event was Biden's apology. Now, Edwards blaming Hillary may be abother media honey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
22. Let's see: Edwards sponsored IWR (and a Joementum amendment) and insisted
that he wasn't fooled - being in the intelligence committee knew it all - just chose to trust bush.
OTOH, Hillary just voted for it. Who has more responsitbility here?

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00046:@@@P

and of course:
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.much, much more here

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
54. Not only that but he admitted ignoring the NIE.
Now he says we must ignore the new NIE. It has taken him five years to recognize his mistakes. Can we wait another five years for him to catch on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
188. "Who has more responsitbility (sic) here?"
Does it matter? Which is better, to kill a puppy by strangling it or shooting it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
29. Bill. clarified in post 4.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
30. What? Did he say he was FOOLED into voting for the IWR by Clinton? Someone please explain
exactly what he meant and what he said. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #30
39. He stated that the information he got from this administration was wrong
but he did not rely only on that information, but he also checked with the Clinton intelligence team in making his decision to support the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
journalist3072 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #39
74. So he's saying that he was an idiot and relied on intelligence that was YEARS old?
Why would he rely on intelligence from the previous Administration? Unbelievable. More and more, he's giving me reasons not to vote for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #74
155. Edwards was on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee with Bob Graham who voted no on the IWR
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
152. Pathetic. He's a politician of the worst sort. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
33. The other funny aspect - Bill made it clear that Saddam had no WMDs, power
at least before the war started. Which of course makes Hillary's choice even more untenable, but it also makes a fool out of little boy Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #33
40. No. He. Did. Not.
He said he did not know when he left office which is why it was important to go forward with the IWR and inspections and war if inspections didn't work. Bill's wishy-washy statements about the WMD was the biggest problem the Dem Party had in 2002, his remarks about the 16 words didn't help in 2003. They orchestrated the 2002 IWR vote, getting it out of the way before the election. The Clintons are definitely responsible for this war, as much as Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. so this still proves Edwards might be a touch dishonest
If Clinton said he did not know, why would Edwards say Clinton admin officials confirmed Bush's intel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Because they leaned towards the WMD fears
They did their typical triangulating, walking both sides of the issue. Bill never stood up, point blank, and said we don't need to rush into war, we targeted all the WMD sites in 1998, and bombed xxx % of them. He never ever did that. Hillary didn't either.

I've long thought she was the architect of the IWR, tough on defense, pass the authorization in 2002 strategy. I believe Edwards on this. Although I also think he's full of shit on the Bush intelligence and that he believed that too, he just doesn't want the 'duped by Bush' meme.

Too many people playing too many political games which is why Bush is getting away with his shit. I think that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrat 4 Ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #40
58. Sorry but entire statement is bull shit. Your opinion does not translate into facts.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 11:14 AM by Democrat 4 Ever
Like/dislike the Clintons but you aren't allowed to offer up your impressions and/or opinions as fact. That's a Faux Noise ploy. Clinton did not start this war. Cucklenuts and The Cabal played with the intel for two years (and don't forget they were already talking about war with Iraq in February 2001 - long before 9/11) and forcibly, dishonestly pushed this country into a fake war using tainted intel.

Edit - my reply is to post # 40 - didn't want any confusion to whom I was addressing my remarks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #58
89. She supported WAR
Not the IWR as a means to get inspectors in and avoid war - but war. See her floor statement posted below. Those were not the remarks of somebody who was concerned about Bush rushing head long into a war for ideological purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #40
67. sorry. Show me a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #67
87. OMFG - this is unbelievable
Here's Hillary's floor remarks - gung ho go to war. I can't believe people are so blind to the Clintons.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #87
123. HRC's statement says no such thing!
the last paragraph of HRC's floor statement:

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

"Thank you, Mr. President."


Why do you continue to LIE to your fellow DU'ers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #123
127. Aw geez, read the whole thing
She was far more supportive of Bush than against him. They did not urge extreme caution over the WMD claims, they did exactly what Edwards said - supported the notion that Saddam was a threat and had WMD.

"Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #127
134. You consider that statement to be a "Gung-Ho call to War"?
I consider it an intentional misrepresentation of facts:

please test yourself:

Reading Comprehension Test

http://www.readingsoft.com/quiz.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #134
140. 30 posts
and attacking the person and not the argument. Gee. Do you think that's original??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #140
141. It is irrelevant to your point of misrepresenting HRC's statement!
all you do is change the subject and play the fallacious argument game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #141
149. No it isn't
Attacking me isn't relevant to the subject, the war, Hillary Clinton or anything else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bling bling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #134
156. For real.
:yourock:

Welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #87
164. that link doesn't say "Bill Clinton did not know when he left office."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #87
239. "If we were to attack Iraq now....it would set a precedent that would come back to haunt us" Hill
said. She went on to say,"A unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts, is not a good option".

Those floor remarks seem pretty far from your characterization of "gung-ho".

You mentioned something about people being "blind";-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #40
120. I see the disappoited kerry contingent crusade against the Clintons at work
But actually Clinton did tell at the CFR conference in summer 2002 that he didn't think there were any WMD left in Iraq and Bush better porsue OBL. Which makes Hillary's vote all the worse (but hey, Kerry's ain't smelling like roses either). Edwards SPONSORED the IWR - so he should STFU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #120
131. Here's what he said
"Saddam Husseing presents no CONVENTIONAL military threat... The problem he presents to the world is that he has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons. And they would be working to produce nuclear weapons if they had any weapons grade plutonium. We know that from the people who have defected, we know that from what he's done in the past. We launched a military operation in 1998, after he threw the inspectors out in an attempt to destroy as many of those facilitates as possible. So would it be a good idea if he weren't there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren't siding with him, since he's a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends. And you may want to ask me more about that, and I'll try to weave that into my remarks later on."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4620/our_shared_future.html

Bill Clinton let this misinformation stay in the public's mind, he and Hillary did not do anything to dispel all the bullshit flying around about WMD in Iraq. This is the exact complaint Scott Ritter had about them in 1998. Yes there was probably traces of WMD and yes Saddam may well reconstitute his programs - but the Clinton Administration kept playing games with the truth about Iraq because they didn't want to take responsibility one way or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MannyGoldstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
34. What Am I Missing Here?
1. The decision on whether to wage war is the single most important responsibility we hand to our elected representatives.

2. A large group of elected representatives totally blew it on going to war in Iraq. They voted to let a known serial liar rush us to war over "evidence" that virtually nobody else on the planet thought was grounds for going to war.

Why on Earth should I give my vote to anybody who could blow something so important that badly?

Is there zero accountability in the most powerful offices in the land? Need someone only say "Clinton made me do it" or "Bush made me do it", and they are then absolved of their sin? I don't let my little boy get away with this line of reasoning - but somehow I should let a member of our Congress use it as an excuse to be promoted to the Presidency?

Preposterous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
35. Ooooh boy! Can't wait for this transcript, finally!!!
Has someone told the truth of Bill and Hillary and the war and her presidential ambitions?? If so...

:bounce: :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
36. We'll have to raise taxes ,when was the last time you heard that kind of honesty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #36
214. Walter Mondale said he would raise taxes
& look how well he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
43. He said or implied no such thing. Keep up the DLC's work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. I'm not the only person in this thread that heard it
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 10:52 AM by wyldwolf
As a backer of the DLC, I would be delighted to see Edwards win the nomination
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #45
50. He EMPHATICALLY took FULL repsonsibility for his vote - with NO fudging.
What part of THAT didn't you get?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. which I've also stated in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #50
65. And Hillary said there are no do-overs.
What is wrong about that? It' all simply CYA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #50
119. How about hos sponsorship of IWR? Any responsibility for that one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unc70 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 02:57 AM
Response to Reply #119
241. Give it a break or we will have to drag out what Clark said in 2003
About how he was more like the Dems who had voted for the IWR, that he most likely would have supported the resolution, etc.

So you and C2008 and all the rest, give it a break

And yes, Edwards once again took responsibility for his vote and support for the IWR, which (as you well know) he now says was a mistake on his part.

While there were Dems in 2002 who were definitively opposed to the IWR, Wes was not one of them. And Bill Clinton made strong statements in support of using force to remove Saddam (easy given Iraq's weakened military), but wanted to try one more time to get inspectors. (on Larry King, among other places)

Many of those who voted for the IWR described part of their reasoning being the possibility of getting inspectors back in Iraq as the only way that might avoid the war. And that might have happened given that Saddam did allow inspectors, if only we had had a sane Administration instead of Bush, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #43
81. Ok, I missed this part of the interview
but you are a pretty level-headed, cut-to-the-chase poster. Until I see the transcript I refuse to be caught up in the hysterics of this thread and it saddens me so many are willing to jump on this manure truck due to a few shrill statements that are devoid of any evidence.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #81
181. Well, Julie, the fact that many here believe Edwards panders
to his audience and changes his positions to suit his needs - which has been evidenced over the past two weeks - gives many people reason to believe this.

It's his track record (and the reason why I, personally, don't like him and NOTHING to do with my candidate, who, isn't running as of yet, so it matters not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
180. Edwards IS DLC, so I'm confused.
Edwards, by virtue of the fact that he no longer holds an office, isn't active DLC, true, but he's still pretty much a DLC boy.

Therefore, I'm not understanding your outrage.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
44. Bill Clinton WAS telling Senators that they should vote for IWR based on what HE knew.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 10:50 AM by blm
Edwards is right about that, why should anyone pretend it didn't happen? Democratic senators trusted that Clinton was telling them what they needed to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #44
48. What he KNEW, or FEARED
Did they advise based on best intelligence - or fear of being wrong. I think they triangulated on that war, when we needed them to be honest, be leaders, and stop the Bush 'intelligence' lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beaconess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #44
49. Clinton's people always said they believed, based on the intelligence they had, that Iraq had WMD
But they didn't think the intelligence was strong enough to support an invasion.

Bush has been trying to hide behind Clinton on this for years - insisting that his administration had the same view about WMD that Clinton's did. That's true - but what really matters is how the two administrations acted upon the information. The Clinton Administration acted responsibly. The Bush Administration did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #49
51. correct. And further, with very few exceptions, Clinton's people said "WMD PROGRAMS"...
...or that Saddam was trying to obtain the capacity to build WMDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #51
64. Which helped confuse the public
Not clarify the need to NOT go to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. sorry. Show me a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #66
84. Oh hell no, you provide your anti-war links n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #84
249. my anti-war links to what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #49
56. True - but Clinton PROVIDED THE COVER and helped bring in the Dem senators votes that Bush wouldn't
have had. Plus, Clinton CONTINUED To side with Bush PUBLICALLY on his military decisions all throughout 2001 - 2005 and how was that helpful at all to Dem candidates running in 2002 and 2004? When BOTH Clintons PUBLICALLY sided more with Bush militarily than they would with Kerry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #56
59. an ex-president providing cover to sitting senators?

you just don't get it. sometimes, your vendetta against
the clintons becomes absolutely comical.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #49
63. Sorry. Provide a link.
You show me where they consistently and clearly opposed this war. I don't mean they're triangulating, wishy-washy, maybe this maybe that. I mean point blank said Bush was hastily pushing us into a war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #44
57. so what? (even if it is true)
the man had left office. it's hardly relevant.

but any excuse to slime the clintons . . . . :eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #57
68. Clinton left office but had the access to classified papers that no Senator had.
He ADVISED them based on what he knew and what he suspected. Why pretend he was NOT a factor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #68
70. why pretend anything you say these days is true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. National Security Archivesand actual EVENTS back me up - Clinton apologistitis fuels your replies.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. So, present us with some of those National Security Archives and actual EVENTS
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #73
77. I am sure it will be the same collection of links . . .

things people said someone said, a sentence from clintons autobiography,
stuff someone saw on television.

same load of gibberish.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. The best one used for this type of propaganda is "I heard it on Larry King!"
:tinfoilhat: time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:37 AM
Original message
my dog told me . . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #79
95. Clinton's LKL interviews didn't count?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #73
82. You say I lie about everything - which event did I lie about that you want proof?
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 11:38 AM by blm
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. that isn't what wyldwolf said.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 11:41 AM by hijinx87
you said you had proof from the national archives. wyldwolf said to prove it.

don't change the subject.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #85
91. He said that anything I said is untrue - I replied.
Which event is he saying is untrue?

It couldn't be that Clinton had access to classified information that senators didn't have, because EVERYONE knows that a president has access to classified information that senators don't have - and EX-presidents still get briefings when they request them, so why would THAT be disputed by wyldwolf?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #91
173. "National Security Archivesand actual EVENTS back me up" True?
In every subsequent post, you never attempted to verify this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #73
83. Clinton - the anti-war hero????
Are you fucking kidding me? With all the ridicule they heaped on the anti-war left - now you're going to pretend Clinton was against the war???

This is insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #83
174. did you reply to the wrong post of have your super bowl festivities started early?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #72
75. your unbridled and irrational hatred of the clintons just amazes me.

I hope there is a 12 step program for it somewhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #75
78. I used to be YOU. Then I read Clinton's book and I KNOW he was untruthful in matters that
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 11:35 AM by blm
that many of us anti-corruption, open government Democrats care about. So I stopped defending him in the kneejerk way I used to. We care more about honest government than personality worship.

You don't - we do. Keep attacking us - but don't retend you exist on any high ground in the debate - you side with Clinton in protecting secrecy and privilege, you side with Poppy Bush whether you recognize it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #78
88. you were never me.

I assure you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #88
93. If you read my first 5 years at DU or bartcop or MWO before I read Clinton's book
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 12:03 PM by blm
I WAS a FIERCE Clinton defender. And THAT is what YOU are now. THAT part I assure you is true. Except I didn't just insult people as you do - I used facts about the Clintons to defend them from RW lies. The problem for you is that you know I am not lying when I say Clinton DID allow many matters to drop which protected Poppy Bush. And that I am not lying when I say parts of his book were major disappointments because he didn't address matters that were relevant to fighting the previous administration's corruption and crimes of office.

If you liked Poppy Bush's crimes of office than you would naturally defend Clinton. I am well aware that many Democrats are believers in secrecy and privilege and are not big on open government matters themselves. IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning and the few number of Democrats willing to pursue those matters is proof enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #93
172. but you NEVER give any solid proof of what you claim
..always "Read this book or that book where someone unnamed says something vague and check the national archives blah blah blah."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #172
176. If you haven't read Clinton's book, and you refuse to accept Robert Parry as a source
and CNN quotes from Clinton aren't good enough for you - - Well, what else? You denigrate everything as mere Clinton-hating.

You claim I am just a Clinton basher, but know DAMN WELL that this came about only recently after his book, because you used to be an ALLY here at DU and told me in a PM in 2005 that you were happy I was still here, so why are you insisting that I am just a Clinton hater now, when you know that I always supported Clintons in the past?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #176
177. I have read Clinton's book. As so many here have nicely pointed out to you...
...the puzzle pieces you think you've put together are full of vague and anonymous sources, inuendo, and wishful thinking on the part of those like you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #177
189. Baloney - Robert Parry became a nonreporter WHEN? And you can't explain Clinton's
avoidance of BCCI in his entire book.

And you can't explain the denying of the CIA drugrunning story in 1996. Do you really want to believe that is some fantasy made up from Clinton-hating, when you know damn well that I supported Clinton on the internet forums for YEARS and you used to applaud my sensibility back then.

Interesting that YOU have no questions at all about Clinton's choices on the outstanding matters on IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate, and CIA drugrunning, or his staunch support of Bush on Iraq. I am not any authority but you question my questions about Clinton's decisions with more ferocity than you question Clinton who HAD authority.

If you are satisfied that Clinton DID ALL HE COULD as president regarding the pursuit of Bush1's crimes of office, then SAY SO. Better yet - show me where I am wrong and that Clinton DID pursue Bush diligently and show me HOW he did it and where in his book he explains his pursuit of Bush1's crimes of office.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #189
192. 'tell ya what, blm. Let's pull every post where you've made the claim...
...but lost the debate.

Starting in this thread where you made a ridiculous "National Archives" claim and in the thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2981139#2984952

Where The Magistrate took you to task. Great quote here:

How many times have you put this wheeze up in the last week or two? It proves nothing, and simply states that the course adopted was not the one the author would have preferred. Unfortunate for the pride of the author, perhaps, but of no signifigance otherwise.

Nor is this, it must be pointed out, an excerpt from any book by President Clinton. You have stated on the basis of reading that that you "have many questions regarding his loyalty to the Democratic party and to the constitution." You are going to have to be a great deal more specific, Ma'am, and on your own account, too, if you wish anyone to take that with a straight face. There do not seem to me any grounds on which to question the loyalty of President Clinton either to the Democratic Party or to the Constitution of the United States.


and...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #192
194. Lost the debate in your fantasy. Answer the question posed - you never do because
you CANNOT. So you attack along the periphery because you can't attack the actual substance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #194
198. well, if you call winning the debate being less than honest about "Clinton's Book" and...
... quoting anonymous sources...

because you can't attack the actual substance.

Because there is no substance to attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #198
202. Then show me where Clinton describes dealing with BCCI and CIA drugrunning.
Because I missed that part - or maybe I have a defective copy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #202
205. bring his book by the house and we'll explore those parts together...
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 06:15 PM by wyldwolf
...and see if they match your claims. They don't seem to be in my copy of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #205
207. My claim about Clinton's book is that he avoided all mention of BCCI and CIA drugrunning.
Is it in yours or not? And if it is does he have an explanation of HOW he pursued Poppy Bush's crimes of office on these matters, because THAT is what seems to be missing from my copy, as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #207
246. but you always present this vast conspiracy theory, then scream, "read his book."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #246
253. Not writing one word about BCCI and his apparent inaction on it as Pres. speaks for itself.
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 09:37 AM by blm
Now, if you can present me with some evidence that PROVES Clinton did take action to bring Bush1's crimes of office to some justice or light, please share that information.

The Marc Rich pardon would have been a perfect time for Clinton to discuss Rich's BCCI crimes but isnt it interesting that he was being pardoned only as a tax evader? You believe that? No one who followed IranContra or BCCI believes it.

Why is Robert Parry now a suspect source to you and other Clinton apologists?

Why is Gary Webb not credible to you?

I don't GET how you all claim that every link and article I put up is somehow untrue, even when the record of actions and INACTIONS correspond with their articles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #253
254. ...maybe because there was no case for him to make on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #254
255. And why would that be? Marc Rich's involvement was 1 of the 20 OUTSTANDING matters
that needed further scrutiny and documentation from outside governments that Bush1 had refused to access or request for the senate invetigation. Did Clinton even DISCUSS in his book why he chose to not faciliatate the acquisition of those documents - not just more on Marc Rich but there were 19 other OUTSTANDING issues on BCCI that needed further scrutiny.

It amazes me that even after 9-11 some people would prefer to believe that ignoring the matters of BCCI was the RIGHT thing for Clinton to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #255
256. I dunno. Maybe because it had been settled?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #256
258. It wasn't settled. That list came out in late 1992, and there was no way Bush1
facilitated the acquisitions before he left office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #258
260. had there been trials and pardons?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #260
262. only on a minor peripheral matter in NY state. Robert Mueller was the US attorney assigned
to the case, and he refused to indict and prosecute anyone in the federal courts so Kerry gave evidence to NY state to prosecute an additional matter with the purpose of keeping the case ongoing and open to new discoveries of evidence.

Robert Mueller is now our FBI director. Want to guess he was tapped for his intense loyalty and to continue the protection of BushInc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #262
264. so... evidence only supported a state trial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #264
265. NO WAY - Mueller WOULDN'T indict because he's BFEE thug. You think he's FBI director
now because he's an honest man?

What are you thinking? All of a sudden Poppy Bush isn't a criminal and BCCI never mattered just because Clinton wouldn't pursue it? That is DAFT and seriously disingenuous. Do you even realize that you are now downplaying BCCI in an effort to shore up Clinton's integrity on it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #265
271. ooh. More unsubstantiated claims to make your puzzle pieces fit.
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 12:22 PM by wyldwolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #271
273. It's useless to try and get someone to understand BCCI who has an interest in NOT UNDERSTANDING it.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #273
274. about as useless as it is to get someone like you to understand the difference in facts and theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #274
276. You don't even KNOW the most BASIC facts about BCCI so you are no judge about what
IS fact and what is theory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #276
280. ...but I know the meme you're pushing is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
76. I have a feeling that once I read the transcript, this entire thread will appear
to be pure unadulterated hogwash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #76
92. No transcript yet, but read this from Newsbusters. Wyldwolf got it right. Heard it, too.
Russert: Obama 'On the Money' in Calling Iraq 'Dumb War'

Posted by Mark Finkelstein on February 4, 2007 - 11:05.

Not that there was ever much doubt where Tim Russert aligns, but it was nice to get concrete confirmation on today's Meet the Press. Grilling John Edwards over his vote to authorize the war and his expression of support for it as late as 2004, Russert pointed out that Obama had staked out a firmly anti-Iraq war position before the conflict began.

Russert displayed a two-part graphic, which concluded with the words: "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Russert then shot at Edwards: "His judgment was on the money."

View video of Obama clip at link below.

Aside: on two occasions, Edwards, in explaining his vote to authorize the war, said that he relied not merely on the information supplied at the time by the Bush administration, but had also consulted with former Clinton administration officials. They apparently confirmed the views expressed by the Bush administration. Translation: Hillary's folks are partly to blame too.

http://newsbusters.org/node/10600
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #92
94. "former Clinton administration officials" does NOT equal "Clinton"
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 11:59 AM by Seabiscuit
as posted in the OP, whether by "Clinton" the OP was implying either Bill or Hillary.

And "consulted with" does NOT equal "blames".

There simply is no excuse for mistranslating "also consulted with former Clinton administration officials" as "blames Clinton".

That alone is enough to refer to this thread as "hogwash".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #94
99. Am not sure of Edward's exact words, but do think he knew exactly what he was implying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #94
101. Edwards isn't the issue - the Clintons are
At least to me. They made it very difficult to oppose this war, Bill got in the way of momentum againt Bush on several occasions. Hell, he's the one that stood up at his library opening and praised George, when the majority of Democrats were horrified at Bush the way the bulk of the country is now. I don't understand how people can be defending these two, it's incredible to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. I am not defending the Clintons, but Edwards seems to be shifting responsibility for his IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. He doesn't blame Bush's lies
That's the problem I have with Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. Sure he does. And NOTHING in the Russert interview = "blames Clinton"
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 12:50 PM by Seabiscuit
OTOH, Hillary supported the IWR and the invasion and falsely defended her original position until a week or so ago.

And Bill has kissed up to the BFEE, including Poppy, far too many times and in too many ways to be trusted.

So undoubtedly, whatever "previous Clinton administration officials" Edward spoke to back then were feeding him the same misinformation he got from the Bush administration. Washington was bristling with war hysteria and misinformation from all kinds of current and former "officials" at the time.

That does NOT translate into Edwards "blaming Clinton".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #110
117. Sounds like we agree
As I said, I don't care about Edwards 'blaming' anybody. I agree with everything you said, except I don't care one way or the other whether he 'blamed' the Clintons. If he did, they deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #110
118. He always said he wasn't misled by Bush. Even when "apologizing"
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 01:25 PM by The Count
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

Bush didn't lie to him. Only the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #118
277. Quoting an October 13, 2003 interview with Edwards is disingenuous.
Edited on Mon Feb-05-07 01:42 PM by Seabiscuit
We all know that Edwards at that time supported the war.

We all know he maintained that position throughout the 2004 presidential election.

By 2005 Edwards has said numerous times he was "deceived" and "misled" by the Bush administration over the WMD claims, and that his vote on the IWR was wrong and that if he knew then what he has known since 2005 he would not have voted for it.

Hillary Clinton's never completely admitted to any of that.

He has NEVER "blamed" the Clintons, and has NEVER claimed he was "misled" by the Clintons or that they "lied" to him.

Your link to the October 13, 2003 Matthews interview does not support your claims in the least, all of which are false.

Your post is another example of the misleading "hogwash" contained in the OP. Apparently, you're just another Clinton supporter deliberately distorting the record in order to smear another candidate.

I was never an Edwards supporter. I was a Dean supporter. But I have no tolerance for any Rovian smears against *any* Democratic candidate for President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #101
184. Edwards' judgment isn't about Edwards?
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 04:50 PM by hijinx87
HOW does that work?

Was Bill Clinton also at work behind the scenes in the
Florida recount in 2000?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
90. What about Feigold, Kennedy, & others....
...Who heard what Clinton was saying but also listened to other as well and voted against the war. I thought Edwards bringing in Clinton made him look pretty weak, and I have been leaning towards Edwards, thus far! He had the same information as all of the others who voted against the IWR but through faulty judgment of HIS OWN, he jumped on the bandwagon and was a big supporter, as SHOWN in the clips today. Trying to lay any blame on the Clinton administration only made him look worse, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #90
154. Thank you! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
97. Hmmm. How did Gore manage to know this War was a recipe for disaster then?
OT - Hey, wyldwolf, do you know much about Richardson's stance on the Iraq War prior to the invasion? I think he was somewhat supportive but as a Governor he doesn't have that stupid vote on his record.

If Gore doesn't jump in, I'm going to have to give Richardson a very serious look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #97
105. Brilliance!!!!!! Gore, should sued in to service.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
98. I guess he decided to use a Republican tactic
Blame somebody named Clinton when you've done something wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeatleBoot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
102. This Entire Thread is Just Too Funny!!
It's even more hilarious than reading freeper posts.

Don't waste too much of your time on this stuff. Or do so.

Too funny!

Enjoy your day everyone.

There's a real world out there awaiting me today, where pertinent shhtuff means something!!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #102
112. I AM KICKING THIS STUPID THREAD, JUST SO PEOPLE CAN READ YOUR COMMENT.
This is FREEPER FUNNY!

Morans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
104. Fucking idiot.
The gop is going try to nail every Democrat who voted for the IWR to minimize their own party's responsiblity, and now Edwards tries to link it to the Clintons....insane.

Does he write for ABC in his spare time?

First rule of the Democratic Party; DO NOT HELP REPUBLICANS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #104
126. HE DIDN'T BLAME THE CLINTONS
STOP SAYING IT.

Threads like this make me want to never come back to this otherwise interesting site.

It is filled with lies and smug BS.

Shame. Shame. Shame on this pathetic attempt to collar Edwards.

Not a single word on WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID SAY.

The thread about how well he did (AND HE DID) has 18 replies.

this has a million....all but a handful are lies, by lying liars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #126
150. Maybe only 18 people think he did well. Some of them making a buck to
post so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #126
175. OK, I get it,. My bad. "Clinton administration officials" is not the same as "Clinton." Right.
Everyone remember that when you're discussing Bush and a Republican says, "It wasn't Bush, it was people in his administration,"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #126
223. Stop yelling at me,
and STOP telling me what I can or cannot say...

See post #175

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
113. I don't care for Hillary..
... but I HATE it when people blame others for their mistakes.

Edwards is dropping like a rock in my estimation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #113
142. you are falling for the Rovian tactics of the anti-Edwards group
He did not blame Hillary or Bill...he said he got info from Clinton people - ie an entire friggin administration, that had been monitory Saddam for 8 years. It is the responsible thing to do.

this is Rovian slander from the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. There was only Edwards and Timmy on my teevee. No Rove. Edwards' words.
Once again, you'll explain to us what he meant. The guy who was in the Senate Intelligence Committee and said no one misled him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #147
216. I'm referring to the fact that many on this thread say he is blaming Clinton
he is doing no such thing, and those claiming so know it.

I disagree with his vote, and did at the time, and wrote to him incessantly to not believe the intel.

I believed Ritter.

Edwards made a mistake. I am not going to try to whitewash the vote.

The Rovian way is to take his words today to say he is blaming Clinton

(even, as some say here , blaming Hillary. absurd)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #142
159. Well I'll have to find..
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 03:43 PM by sendero
.. a clip online since I did not see it and subtle differences in what was said can be very meaningful.

Rovian? Puhlease... Edwards is responsible for what he said and what he did, period. Rove did not hang the moon, and he did not put words into anyone's mouth. I'm sick of hearing about Rove. Rove is as responsible as anyone for the "legacy" that George Bush will have, and nobody, not even the 'genius' Rove himself, can salvage that legacy of utter and complete failure.

Rove did not invent the political smear. Not even close.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #142
187. This is somehow better--to favor former Clinton folks input over current intel, unlike Bob Graham?
Graham was on the committee with John Edwards and he was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War Resolution. Did John Edwards not do his homework and read what was available to the committee--or is this yet another rationalization of why he voted for the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #187
217. Edwards voted wrong, I've never said otherwise
I'm talking about people here taking his words on MTP and saying he is blaming Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leilani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #187
218. Bingo!
Bob Graham as head of Intel Committee had MORE info than any Senator.

Plus, he had been around a long time & was well trusted.

He said NO on the IWR, but they didn't listen.

Linc Chafee, a Republican did not believe the Admin & went to the CIA for a private briefing. He voted NO.

The info was there folks!!!!

Some people didn't want to find the truth. They were too busy running for Prez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
116. Honesty is needed
"I voted for the Iraq War, and I was wrong." Don't blame anyone but yourself for the decision you made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
122. That's just as pathetic
as the "unification" or "trusted gwb to use it appropriately" bullshit I've heard from others.

They all need to give it up. There was no acceptable excuse, there is no acceptable excuse, there never will be any acceptable excuse for that vote. Those looking for absolution will find it when they do the appropriate penance:

Permanently drop out of the current crop of primary candidates, publicly swear, repeatedly, to never run for president again, and publicly apologize at least 10 times for every death that has occurred due to U.S. presence in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
124. THIS THREAD IS SHAMEFUL AND FILLED WITH LIES
He said exactly what happened, and blamed NOBODY.

He didn't trust the Republicans, so he asked the Dems who had been IN POWER FOR 8 YEARS. They assured him privately that the intel was strong - BILL CLINTON ALWAYS THOUGHT THERE WERE WMD.

Edwards never mentioned Hillary.

Those blasting Edwards for this are shameful and dishonest and I just can't take this crap anymore. There are so many smug lies on this thread it should combust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #124
125. I am PRAISING EDWARDS FOR THIS
I think it's about damn time somebody made the Clintons accountable for letting Bush get away with his war lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. The Clinton people are not the Clintons-
just as you cannot disseminate the difference between the words:

"WMD" and "WMD Programs"

you can cite the dictionary, looking up the word 'program' and add it to WMD.
Then it may dawn on you, there IS a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #129
132. That was part of the Bush misinformation strategy
That the Clintons didn't help to clarify. That's what I'm saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. So you choose to continue to confuse rather than clarify-
Doesn't bode well for your credibility. Does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. Clintons have the credibility to clarify
You mean you expect ME - a 50 year old grandmother from rural bumpfuck nowhere - to go out there and clarify where the Clintons wouldn't and won't???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #132
143. But Edwards maintained he was not mislead. At least not by Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #143
151. And he is wrong on that
Bush lied. The Clintons let him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #125
148. You would. And attacking Iran. And sponsoring the IWR. he is sooo charming,non?
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 02:57 PM by The Count
I bet you'd love to have a beer with him too. But this is why you would be wrong. When Edwards was sponsoring the IWR with Joementum,


Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 02:15 PM by The Count
Clinton leads the revolt against the war

> Mr Clinton also warned that a strike against Saddam would
> strip the Iraqi leader of any incentive to hold off using
> chemical and biological weapons. He said: "Saddam Hussein
> is not a good man by our definition. There is no question
> that he has significant stocks of chemical and biological
> agents.
>
> "I think we have to assume that if he knows we're coming,
> he'll do everything he can to use them. He has maximum
> incentive not to use the stuff. If we go in, he has
> maximum incentive to use it because he knows he's going
> to lose. That's a risk and it's an issue the President-has
> to address."

I had many more in my archives, but smartgroups folded so I lost them.

found a link - non-working from another source
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/news/top_story.ht... \
_review_text_id=661436
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #148
153. More personal attacks
Apologize. I'm not going to respond to ridicule and condescension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #153
161. Aren't you the queen of personal attacks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #161
183. No
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 05:04 PM by sandnsea
I don't put reading comprehension links and ridiculing comments likening someone to a Bush voter. I may question someone's motives in posting misinformation, but I don't attack people's basic intelligence or honesty.

You type this shit and then have the gaul to call me a drunk up in post 174!! Unbelievable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #183
193. yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #124
130. Misguided, but thought provoking.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 02:07 PM by orpupilofnature57
130 opinions ain't bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #124
133. Sad, isn't it....
So many playing by the Rovian Playbook for Dummies....and writing the RW script.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #133
136. Any wonder why Kerry was unable to succeed in the last election?
Or to gather a formidable team from this motley crew?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Count Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #136
145. Diebold? How did I do?
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 02:52 PM by The Count
Because this "motley crew" voted for both warmongers on the ticket. But I do appreciate you insulting all of us, having a clue who you're speaking for. I'll keep this in mind when I'll see the next Edwards blog entry trying to reinterpret his own words on TMP, like he did with the Hertziylea speech on Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silence Dogood Donating Member (215 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #145
146. Very well, dear, Count.
I've read many of your posts and you appear sane, conscious and living in reality.

Am I close?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #145
215. Count, you just edited your post..
just before I was going to ask you. What do you mean a dollar a post for the poll?

You mean for the poster creating the poll?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #133
139. Thats why he should be in prison, Misanthrope bastard that he is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #133
185. We Duers are not afraid to vet our primary candidates. We do not march in lockstep like the R's!
NOT. BACKING. HILLARY. or any other DLC/AIPAC suckups!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #124
144. I Keep Following You Venable... You're Fighting The Fight I Want To!
I STILL can't turn on Edwards myself, but these attacks on him seem to be reaching some sort of "boiling point" for me! What is going on here??

I generally blog here and only check out the others occasionally. Are ALL the blogs talking this way??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #144
210. Yes - and there's a reason for it.
Edwards keeps changing his tune to fit his audience. That's why everyone is "attacking" him. And I put that in quotes because it's not an attack. It's a fair assessment comparing what he said two weeks ago to what he said Friday to what he said today - all of them different.

The point isn't whether or not you agree with what Edwards says today - it's whether you agree with what he says tomorrow because it's apt to change.

THAT is the problem.

I don't care if he blamed it on Clinton, a black Labrador or Providence. I care that he changes his positions to fit his audience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #210
232. OOkkkkeeeeeyyy.... I JUST NOW Watched What Edwards Said
on MTP! He DID NOT blame the Clintons!

What you say about IF I agree with him today COULD, COULD be valid, but you know what? At very least he admits that he made mistakes! So much better than THE DECIDER!

I will say I will watch closely and be vigilant about these things, but this constant blasting of Edwards is a bit shameful IMO!

I'm NOT going to argue over and over about this, but I must say it disturbs me. It disturbs me because some things are being taken out of context, but then again I guess that's the "climate" of politics today! I know one thing for sure... why ANYONE would put themselves through this kind of meat grinder is BEYOND me! In the end I may find I can't support him, but for right now I actually feel a little sorry for him. And that's only me... at THIS POINT IN TIME!

What I'm seeing here isn't "honest debate" IMO, and I don't know why this man has become such a Pariah to so many. Reading some of this stuff really makes me sad and I find it a bit over the top.

But as of THIS day, we each are allowed to speak our mind... I just did and I'm not going to try to DEFEND everything I say each time I post something. Tell me I have blinders on, call me stupid, say I drink Kool Aid too, but I'm pretty unhappy with the constant bickering.... not just about Edwards, but with so many!

There are enough NEGATIVE battles we have to fight because of those who are trying to take away our rights and I prefer to campaign for OUR side as opposed to fighting here all the time. So that's just my tiny two cents worth and probably of little consequence, but I'm getting weary of the "Gotcha" game. And it will probably do me a lot of good to stay away from DU for a while. We're almost two year's out of '08, I can't even imagine what it will be like in 6 to 9 months.

And no, I'm not looking for pity from or for anyone!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #144
213. Me TOO :)
Edwards is scaring the beejebus out of the RW, which is what concerns me about DU's Smear Gang.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #144
221. No, other blogs don't blast like this
DU is, for some reason, the vortex of Edwards hatred. Many good Edwards people have quit coming here.

I've only been on for a year or two, can't remember exactly, but many have told me in private posts that there is bad blood between Clark supporters and Edwards supporters. Having to do, some say, with Kerry's choosing Edwards for VP.. Other's say it preceded that. I have no idea. It's bizarre.

This thread, for example, is made up of nothing - Edwards did not blame Clinton. He did what he thought best, reasonably, that he would check with the Democratic administration that had been following Saddam for 8 years. Everyone knows that Clinton thought Saddam had WMD, but had the good sense not to attack, as it was a contained situation.

Tenet told Edwards point blank - Saddam will unleash a mushroom cloud - so Edwards made the fatal vote based upon misinformation.

I wish he had paid attention to Scott Ritter. He listened to Tenet, and the Clinton folks who believed, like everyone, including the wise general, that the WMD existed. I can't blame him for that.

Trusting Bush to follow the IWR was his fatal mistake.

Anyway - DU: The vitriol, and in the case of this thread, blatant misinformation, is not common on other sites. Edwards is doing gloriously in the rest of the left-leaning blogosphere. He is the choice of the most progressive, by my reckoning.

Good to have your honesty and openness and critical judgement. It's very valued by me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #221
227. It has nothing to do with the VP thing, I can tell you that.
Because Clark didn't want VP, so that's a moot point.

What it has to do with is simple: Clarkies tend to think foreign policy is a big issue and we don't think Edwards has made good FP judgments.

It's really that simple.

There may be some "bad blood" between posters, but, overall, it's the FP issue that makes Clarkies - and supporters of other strong FP candidates - dislike Edwards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #227
228. that sounds fair, but where does the vitriol come from
it's not like his arguments are reasonably argued against, or even slighted...he is trashed like he just murdered a family, and you know that's true. Why does that happen, as it doesn't sound like they just think he is not experienced enough in FP, it sounds like he is the personification of all evil in the world.

You know that he is treated here like that. And that's not fair, and has to do with something other than who John Edwards is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #228
233. Actually, they ARE argued against, complete with links,
examples and fleshed-out thought.

I mean, FrenchieCat writes entire books to support her opinion. Tom Rinaldo is eloquent and non-divisive, but he DOES argue against Edwards positions with reason and intelligence. Skwmom is a former constituent of Edwards and knows how he ignored her state.

So, I don't agree with you that Edwards' positions aren't reasonably argued against because they are.

Now, as to the vitriol, or perceived vitriol, as the case may be: I would suspect that it's because he gets so many free rides from the press - which may or may not be his fault. But the more discerning DUer wants to make sure that other DUers KNOW what a free ride Edwards is getting before their fellow DUers decide on a primary candidate. So what you consider vitriol isn't vitriol to a non-Edwards supporter - it's simply the other side of the story.

Let me explain: when he was a senator, he had all sorts of power to draft legislation to help poor folks. He didn't do it. As a matter of fact, he did quite the opposite in some legislation he wrote to help the banking industry. Yet, once his "Two America's" speech caught on (thanks again to the press), he suddenly re-framed himself into the "poor-caring" candidate - and no one in the media questioned it.

Now, in the past two weeks, he's taken a number of different positions on Iran - depending upon which audience is giving him their ears - and no one in the media is questioning it.

Instead, the media talks about his likability and his cuteness and all that other froth that turns political junkies off. The media has, to some extent, questioned his war vote, but no one points out that he not only voted for the Iraqi War, he co-sponsored the legislation.

Now, in this particular thread, the OP isn't a known Edwards disliker, at all. In fact, the OP is a strong DLC supporter and has known to throw his support Edwards' way from time to time. The fact that this particular OP has posted this particular thread should give you some enlightenment as to exactly what non-Edwards supporters have been saying all along: Edwards changes his tune to suit his audience. And the OP, I believe, finally sees this.

I'm sure Edwards is a nice enough guy to be around and not at all "evil," but, quite honestly, he isn't Presidential caliber. He's really just an average politician with nice hair and a, dare I say it, big house.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #233
236. do you really want to suggest he is treated fairly when
words like 'murderer', 'scumbag', 'pathetic slime ball' are just a few of the literally dozens of things he is called here regularly.

is this the reasonable discerning DUer or is it someone who has a somewhat unbalanced head in regards to Edwards, for reasons that simply cannot have to do with their view that he lacks FP experience? Let's be honest here.

Don't like him, fine. But this place is so ugly, I know several people who just don't want their minds polluted by the vitriol. I don't know how much longer I can take it myself, in spite of the fact that there are Tom Rinaldos and some other reasonable people.

Also, posting tomes is not argument - honest, open discussion, bolstered by strategic facts, but always within the context of respectful and decent language.

With all due respect, I think you are being a little inaccurate when you describe his opponents as so quaint and scholarly (my words).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #221
234. I Just Posted Something Before I Read Your Reply... Thanks, I Do Need
to give it a rest for a while myself. For some reason I'm beginning to feel that no matter what any of us say, there will be an attack of some kind. I didn't join DU for this.

But I will say that I think Edwards is really getting nailed to the wall, and many many of my friends don't feel he's such a sorry bastard! I do know many who do support him.

I'm a political junky and have been one for quite some time, probably always will be, but need a break for now. I seriously doubt I'll ever kick my junky habit, but for now I must not have enough stamina going!

I do respect you for hanging in there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inspired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
137. I CALL BULLSHIT. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
157. Transcript now up.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 03:24 PM by flpoljunkie
MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/

more...

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong. One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that. So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. I told you a few minutes ago I was concerned about giving this president the authority, and I turned out to be wrong about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #157
163. OK, I get it,. My bad. Clinton administration officials is not the same as "Clinton." Right.
:eyes:

Everyone remember that when you're discussing Bush and a Republican says, "It wasn't Bush, it was people in his administration,"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #163
165. Wyldwolf, I don't think it matters whether he said Clinton administration officials or Clinton.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 03:50 PM by flpoljunkie
Edwards was trying to deflect responsibility for his Iraq War vote from himself, in either case. Edwards was on the Senate Intelligence Committee with Bob Graham and should have known better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #165
167. ...sadly, I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #167
206. Clever left handed strike at Hillary..
with an accent so sweet, I can use it to pour over my pancakes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #167
225. I know you and I don't always agree, but I want to hug you
about now for being open-minded enough to "get it" and post this thread, despite your fondness for DLCers (of which Edwards was one).

:hug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #165
222. not deflecting responsibility - telling how he came to his decision
he has already said his vote was wrong and it was nobody's fault but his own.

Why is that oft-repeated statement ignored here? Because it doesn't fit the need to smear him, that's why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhombus Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
162. Lets just say we would never see a Clinton/Edwards ticket. Ever.
Edited on Sun Feb-04-07 03:46 PM by rhombus
Too much dislike for each other. From where I sit, the Clinton campaign will soon unleash an attack strategy against Edwards. Its just a matter of time and it won't be pretty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #162
168. Petty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
190. Why is this so hard for some to believe?
The same large corporations that run the Republican Party also run the DLC Democrats.
Edwards checked with the Clinton (DLC) Democrats, and of course they were on the same page as bush*. Edwards, being a good, young DLC Democrat, then authored the Rush to War Resolution (IWR).
I see no inconsistencies. The dots all connect.

I was more troubled this morning by Edward's Universal (?) HealthCare Plan.
The Edwards Plan is NOT Universal HealthCare (Medicare for All) in the conventional sense. It is a Subsidize the Big Insurance and Big HMOs with taxpayer money plan. It seems that many BigCorpo Democrats are muddying the water with this issue. Beware of Democrats selling "Affordable Healthcare.

Edwards is charismatic and the TV loves him. He sounds like a populist, but read the fine print before hitching your wagon to his campaign.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
191. No he didn't
I just got done watching the relevent portion of the interview and he didn't say what you said he said. Please don't post until a transcript is available or until you have tivoed so you know what people have said.

For the record he said, accurately, that Clinton's people said that Iraq had WMD (bio and chemical) and was trying to get nuclear. He didn't say blame, he didn't say Clinton as opposed to Clinton's people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #191
195. so "Clinton administration officials" isn't the same as "Clinton?"
You do realize, then, that "Bush administration officials" no longer means "Bush" if we discuss things based on your rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #195
197. No FORMER Clinton administration officials aren't Clinton
anymore than FORMER Bush administration officials are Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #197
199. ok.. As long as I know where you stand on it for future reference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #199
200. Yeah I stand this way
and have constantly. You seem to be implying I don't so if that is the case please back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #200
201. I make no implications. Just to be clear on your stance
..former administration officials of any president who speak out on the policies of their former boss are speaking for themselves and not drawing from any official intelligence or policy opinions from their former jobs.

Right?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #201
203. for the most part yes
I would say that someone like Scowcroft, or Albright might well be a combination of speaking for themselves and for former bosses. But Colin Powell or Robert Reich wouldn't be. Edwards no where says who the people who spoke were nor does he use the word blame any where.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #203
204. got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
211. Well, Clinton was ok with it pretty much.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1032

CLINTON: "I think that our policy to change regimes is a good one. We should support a new regime in Iraq. And I think we should try the arms inspection one more time, because I think we also have big long-term benefits in cooperation with our allies through the United Nations.

I don't think it will be a great military problem if we do it. You know, our guys did great there the last time, in the Gulf War. We're stronger, and he's weaker than he was then."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
212. He didn't blame Clinton..he consulted with people in his Admin....and this is what
the Clinton Admin. DID: They set the stage for Bush with the
Iraq Liberation Act on Oct. 31, 1998 which reads: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

He caved to intense lobbying by PNAC and CPSG (Center for Peace and Security in the Gulf chaired by Richard Perle).

The ILA authorized the president to provide "the Iraqi democratic opposition" with $2 million in support of radio and television broadcasting and $97 million in military and other defense support. The money went to the Iraqi National Congress--the most recognized leader of the group was Ahmed Chalabi, convicted in absentia for embezzlement and fraud while chairman of the Petra Bank in Jordan.

source: The Bush Agenda, Invading the World, One Economy at a Time by Antonia Juhasz--a MUST read....

Clinton sold out a long time ago and that's why I don't want that bunch back in office again!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
224. I am not about to tolerate the dems blaming Clinton for everything
too. You had the same evidence, John, so you shouold have made a better decision or at least should assume the blame for your own blunders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philly_bob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-04-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
226. I remember Hillary thought there were WMD's in run-up to Iraq
She was probably referring to old WMD programs. But her saying so influenced my opinion a lot, right up there with Blair's "Iraq is 45 minutes away from launching nuclear weapons."

Sorry, I don't have a link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
incapsulated Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 02:44 AM
Response to Original message
240. Someone musta *made* him do it!
:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 04:53 AM
Response to Original message
245. Got a direct quote for us --- rather than your personal gloss?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #245
251. read threads much lately? Direct quote for "us" already posted here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #251
281. Ya cain't back up yer claim with a quote? Well okie-dokie then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
247. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
257. This thread is complete and utter BULLSHIT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
259. Edwards is talking out both sides of his mouth...
On one side saying he takes responsibility and it's no one's responsibility but his...

On the other, saying he voted the way he did cause he was lied to by Bush...

Which is it Senator?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
266. Hey, that's almost as funny as Clinton getting blamed for sabotaging Kerry! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strawman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-05-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
270. I was disappointed with Edwards' performance on Russert
I thought he spoke out of both sides of his mouth. I was wrong but I wasn't wrong. I want to stop the escalation, but I don't want to cut off funding.

I wanted to be impressed, but I just wasn't.
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 Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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