John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote

John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote
By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist | April 17, 2007

AS HE runs for president, John Edwards has cast himself as a candidate who puts candor ahead of politics by saying he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution.

<snip>

Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.

<snip>

"I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take," says one person in attendance, who paraphrases Edwards's argument this way: "We need to stick to this. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That's what the Republicans want us to do."

Adds a senior adviser who was there: "There was a discussion about how to answer the question: 'Was your vote on Iraq a mistake?' John Edwards had a very strong opinion that we should not waver, and it would show a sign of weakness if we did." A third source confirms those accounts.

In late September, Kerry struck a different tone at New York University, calling the Iraq war a "profound diversion" from the war on terrorism and making it clear he would not have gone to war knowing Iraq had neither WMD nor ties to Al Qaeda. In campaign discussions preparatory to that speech, Edwards is said to have argued again for sticking by the war resolution votes.

"His view was that we shouldn't be having this debate, that we should stick by the vote, and more broadly attack the management of the war," says the first person.

Adds the second source: "He could tell the tide had shifted, but he made one more attempt at having us not change our position. He thought it would show weakness."

Asked about the difference between the advice Edwards was giving in fall 2004 and his stance now, campaign spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield would say only this: "John Edwards's campaign is about looking forward and not backward and bringing about the kind of real change that we need in this country."

Still, though the Edwards campaign would prefer not to look back, his counsel in the 2004 campaign raises this question: Is today's John Edwards really the candid candidate he would have voters believe? Or is his supposed candor itself just more political positioning?

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

There are plenty of good things about both JE and HRC, but I have a tough time getting around their war positions. Since Bush's story was clearly bogus to so many of us from our living rooms, I have to think those votes were purely political.

And they're all over the fucking map.

Why would HRC go after Edwards, especially since the focus on his hair will likely result in calls for equal time? Why would she, or her minions, want to bring up --a-fucking-gain-- that whole Iraq Vote Mistake thing?

Nope, sounds to me like an early effort at "lumping." Get some articles out there, and then, later, down the line, use the links to do some "lumping."

Classic RNC strategy. Seeding the clouds...awaiting a future rain.

A similar article appeared regarding Obama's haircuts with no apparent purpose other than to reveal to the world that Obama's barber is a Muslim (oh no! Obama has friends who are not Judeo-Christian! Oh the Humanity! :eyes: ).

Perhaps these are coincidental. Perhaps they are not. If so, the logical question is who stands to gain from these two stories? We know the answer...

"he was for it before he was against it" meme?
Please. This is garbage.
"says one person in attendance, "..is this the same as "some might say".
Anyway...:rofl: at the attempted smear. Carry on.

Iraq will ALWAYS be a thorn in nearly all elected democratic leaders heel, because they caved quickly on the nationalistic lies created by the bassackwards admin. to propagate wide support for the invasion... it's on the bassackwards admin. conscience what happened, what Edwards is accused of, if true, is not that important as the insinuation is that their opinion on Iraq changed the vote, when in fact the election was stolen just like in 00 and 04, to bitch about our people implies IGNORANCE on the fact that the will of the people was ignored, I get so sick of attack pieces on our people, but I have no problem with saying you don't like a candidate, but to post old stuff like this is just baseless....

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

We have 3-4 threads on his haircut and now 2 on the Boston Globe smear article.

Sorry for the dupe. I haven't checked in here for a couple of weeks.

Well, I'll be off now...