Who said this on 9/12/02???

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

"First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses."

September 12, 2002
Senator Edwards Calls for Overthrow of Iraqi Dictator
Filed under: Iraq War Intelligence, Iraq War Resolution, Intelligence Committee, Iraq War — is @ 6:17 pm
WASHINGTON–Senator John Edwards on Thursday called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. A member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Edwards said Iraq has defied the United Nations and represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies.”The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein,” Senator Edwards said.

“The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community,” he added.

“If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions.”

The first anniversary of terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, he said, is a reminder that Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction would wreak havoc if Saddam Hussein let them fall into the hands of terrorists. “The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.”

Senator Edwards said the case for removing Saddam Hussein needs to be made openly to the American people, to the Congress, which has an obligation to be part of the process, and to the United Nations and our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush’s father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed,” he said.

An American-led alliance against Saddam Hussein also must be prepared to provide security in Iraq after he is deposed. “We must be prepared to deal with the consequences of success,” he said. The Bush administration “must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root,” he said.

and read what the candidates were saying, of course we call out the administration for this kind of 'marketing' but give a pass to those in our own party.

Thanks

:toast:

hmmmm.

They were sure brainwashed, weren't they?

people who can be led astray by our own administration and how easily they might be taken in by foreign governments :(

...how quickly we forget who says what when and where. I recall when Dan Rather used to keep the candidates honest on their statements. Now the voter has to stay sharp and keep on our toes. We are dealing with used car salesmen as our representatives it seems :wtf:

DU'er whistle was quick with his answer.

IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO
(Senate - September 12, 2002)


http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 UN Security Council resolutions – including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These UN resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein.

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and it carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and almost certainly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush Administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a UN Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We must show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we must be prepared to deal with the consequences of success -- helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the Administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the Administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction – the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.


We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.


We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.


And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grass-roots.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event – or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse – to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

"The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker."

How So Typical of the GOP talking Points circa 2002-2005 on why we needed to invade Iraq! :eyes:

Posted in wrong place

don't answer, ignore it and let the thread die? They accept his apology I guess and I don't.

Your duct tape slipped :rofl:

HTH.

of switching to DK from Edwards and I wondered how many others did not remember this speech.

Here is the full post, I have never understood what Edwards meant when he said this at the Herzliya Conference in February 2007 and it gives me cause for concern. The situation in Iraq will eventually resolve itself, for now I'm concerned that we could be led to making a similar mistake in another country :(

".....As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2950246&mesg_id=2952398

Thanks for keeping the discussion active.

and come back. you won't be bringing this garbage, which has been trotted out and debunked one hundred billion times on DU.

He made it clear that 'what needs to be done in Iran' is that we engage, talk to, and allow them to address their internal concerns - ie Ahmadinejad vs the Mullahs - without bringing inthe rest of the world. He has, bar none, the most enlightened, sophisticated, non-interventionist position on Iran of all the candidates.

drop this garbage.

http://www.herzliyaconference.org/Eng/_Articles/Article.asp?ArticleID=1728&CategoryID=223

"...The challenges in your own backyard – rise of Islamic radicalism, use of terrorism, and the spread of nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction – represent an unprecedented threat to the world and Israel.

At the top of these threats is Iran. Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world. Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons..."


Edwards in 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons."


Edwards On Iran

TAP talks to John Edwards about America's foreign policy challenges in the Middle East.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=edwards_on_iran

"I don't think we're anywhere remotely close to having exhausted diplomatic avenues. I don't think we've done anything close to what we should be doing, and there are devastating consequences to a military strike. So, that's my judgment about where we are today and where we ought to proceed.

One of the things, one of the realities, I think, of the responsibilities of the president, are that, is that, the criteria for ever using American force is pretty clear. You know when there's an imminent threat to America, or our allies, when we have a treaty obligation, or when there's some huge humanitarian crisis."


Yes Edwards also believed Iraq was an imminent threat, can he make the same mistake again with respect to Iran? I'm not willing to take that chance.


A comment on the above interview that I agree with and during one of the debates Kucinich asked Obama 'Where is the evidence on Iran?'

http://www.cloggie.org/wissewords/index.php?entry=/20070203-edwards-on-iran.txt

"...This is a manufactured crisis. I haven't yet seen any convincing evidence that Iran is actually looking for nuclear weapons in any concrete sense, just lots and lots of accusations with little to back them up. It's the same bullshit as we heard about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. We're being snowed under by a media blizzard to convince us there is a crisis, but look at the heart of it and there's nothing there. In that context, Edwards reasonable and nuanced stance is only helping to intensify the crisis and make a War on Iran more likely rather than less.

See, he's still saying that a military strike, though acknowledging the "very bad consequences" it would have, should be on the table. Which means he contributes in two ways in building up this crisis. First, by accepting that there is indeed a crisis and the US should do something about it and second by agreeing that "all options should be on the table", including military (nuclear?) strikes. Which again reminds me of the buildup to the War on Iraq, where the moderate position on the war was that instead of going to war, Iraq must be forced to undergo new inspections by the UN while keeping the option of military action open. The idea was that this way Iraq's WMD programmes would be uncovered and destroyed, achieving Bush and Blair's ostensible goal without the need for war. We know how well that worked out...

Edwards has said he made a mistake with his vote for the War on Iraq and that he has learned from this mistake. Yet here we find him making the exact same mistake again, believing Bush that there is a crisis and trusting Bush to solve this crisis rather than use it as an excuse for war. What he should've done was to call out Bush on the reality of this crisis, to deny there was any need for action of any sort whatsoever. Failing that, the least he and other Democrats could do is to deny Bush the possibility of any military actions, by "taking them off the table"...

his rhetoric regarding Iran, that he won't make the same mistake about Iran?

"What reason, especially considering his rhetoric regarding Iran, that he won't make the same mistake about Iran?"

Most candidates are silent while the administration beats the drums :(

He tried to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein's Iraq and he did not read the NIE report before voting???

Sounds like something Bush would do.

Do you think, like I do, that many Edwards-supporters would want to vote for Kucinich, but won't, because they fear DK is 'unelectable'?

How soon we forget that, whether they agreed with him or not, every Dem in DC believed that Clinton was privvy to information that they had never seen to the degree that he had since he had just been in the oval office himself just 8 months earlier.

Edwards at least admitted his mistake. What's more, we're getting close to discovering the depth of Karl Rove's created reality. What happens when it's discovered how far this Bush Administration went to breach their trust and confidence with the Congress, by intentionally misleading them into that vote? What happens when it's discovered that they intentionally gave Congresspeople, false information?

When we determine that, we'll want, not just people who are willing to admit that they made a mistake by trusting this Administration, but also one who will want to seek retaliation.

Edwards DID vote for the Iraq War, without reading the intelligence that was available. He even tried actively to link 9/11 to Iraq, as you can read. He has been aggressive in convincing the American people that we needed to go into Iraq.

I don't care how many times he apologizes for that. This is not something that can be forgiven. In my opinion, Edwards and other Democrats who voted for the War (like Clinton and Biden) are complicit with Bush in the disaster that is Iraq.

Kucinich was right in 2002. On the floor of Congress, he repeatedly urged his colleagues not to vote for going into Iraq, because there was no proof that Iraq posed an immediate and imminent threat to the US.

advertised widely and loudly. There's a lot of material that will be played that goes with the concept of being really, really "I co-sponsored that war bill" gun-ho for it before being really, really gun-ho against it, with a three years lapses while the polls changed and then the "Whoops, Sorry".

If Edwards is our nominee, there will come a time that the Democrats will be scratching their collective asses trying to figure out what happened? How did an election that we had in the bag end up so close, and how did an GOP Iraq War supporter end up winning the presidency? :shrug:

Watch how it plays out, but cover your eyes, cause it won't be pretty!

good grief.

how about discussing what his truly progressive policies promote, and his strong anti-war stance now, or is that inconvenient?

They still believe it will magically hand the White House to their hero (whose platform is the most hawkish on Iraq, Iran and military affairs in general of any of our candidates) on a silver platter if they mention it just one more time. The next time will do the trick. After all, the IWR worked so well for President Dean and Vice President Clark...

as though it's nothing but a "game" to some. :eyes:

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards is annoyed that Hillary hasn't yet said "sorry" for her vote....as though mere words way late can make everything one has done simply go away. Guess it may work for you, but not for all.

You know, when it was a much bigger deal than it is now. It is a card. It was used, not surprisingly, for political gain in 2003-04 and once again is being used by a candidate who no longer has any other cards to play. Is this wrong? No. What do we expect? It is a legitimate issue and those who were right on it, whether for political reasons or genuine opposition to the IWR, deserve credit for it and should point out their position to voters (of course, they should also not act as if Iraq froze in time in 2002 and not say anything about their record on Iraq since 2002...). Is it being used as a political tool? Of course.

Remember Dean turning around in a debate and ticking off the list of all of his opponents who voted for the IWR and then also adding Clark, who said he "probably" would have voted for the IWR to the list? I am glad it worked so well for President Dean. He steamrolled through the primaries and easily won the nomination. Clark, having finished 2nd in the primaries (by default since Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman all were toxic because they voted for the IWR), was placed on the ticket. Dean-Clark then won 49 states as only Utah resisted the power of the IWR.

It is sad the poll-tested fuzzy--and ultimately meaningless--campaign concepts of "hope", "unity"* (stolen from Rove's 2000 campaign), and "new kind of politics"** (Rove 2000) have been abandoned so early while the IWR card has been forced into service so early.

P.S. Surely you note the irony in you placing such a great importance on one's vote on the IWR...

*Formerly marketed as "a uniter, not a divider"
**Formerly marketed as "changing the tone in Washington"

would have put a check on the authorization and connected the need to attack Iraq with 9/11.

I like what he is saying now, I just remember what he said and did when it really mattered.

when there was enough evidence in the NIE that clearly showed some of the intel was cooked. Too bad he was so negligent in his duties as Senator that he never bothered to read it.

That's too inconvenient for him to explain or even include in his disengenuous apology.

did not.

:hi:

(My brain was going for member of Congress but I screwed up lol)

who read the NIE and voted for the IWR (a process not a war).

I'd probably agree with you. But he was on the committee, and was present during the closed door sessions that Sen. Durbin noted were especially revealing regarding the lack of reliable evidence. He heard all his senior Democratic colleagues argue against the resolution, including Senator Graham, who warned that there would be blood on their hands. There were enough red flags waving for the junior senator to conclude that the intel was cooked without the NIE, but all this plus the NIE leaves absolutely no excuse for his vote.

The fact that he voted no to better resolutions, and instead chose to co-sponsor Lieberman's also has never been explained, or the fact that he was the only Democratic member of the committee who didn't read the NIE.

does not mean that Edwards was irresponsible, hawkish, or stupid. He made an informed decision, and it was the wrong one. He knows this. He is the least likely, imo, to take us into another war. Well, he and Dennis.

He couldn't possibly have made an informed decision without reading the NIE and putting that into context with the information revealed during the closed-door sessions.

and he said more than that. He said: I was wrong.

See the difference?

and if he knew then what he knows now ... but he did know then. The fact that there was no Niger yellowcake, that the aluminum tube story was suspect, and the fact that it was very, very unlikely that Saddam had WMD was known to the committee before the vote.

that paragraph was:

I was wrong.



full stop.

Perhaps the next president of the USA?

sounds like the words of a neo-con. I bet a liberal didn't say it...

I remember an environment of Bush having huge support and if anyone even questioned Bush at the time you were siding with Al Queda.

It was heresy to question Bush during this time. And even if you did, the media gave you no voice.

Bill Moyers special a few months ago was a stark reminder of this time.

But I guess its easy to pretend this time didnt exist.

But a 1st term Senator from a southern state had enough political capital to speak out huh???

one who bends under political pressure and not stand for what is right when it is unpopular?

And has a kickass healthcare plan.

Im sure hes learned his lesson.

Do you think the John Edwards of today is bending to political pressure???????

And it doesnt change the fact that it was an extraordinary era of blind support for a President. I was there. Were you?

like he always has. That's what I think.

IT's too easy to say things, but when you could have "done" things, you didn't.

and so, I'll agree to disagree with your take on motivations behind the current words versus the official done deeds of this candidate.

Before running for political office, John Edwards was a personal injury trial attorney, specializing in representing people who were alleged victims of corporate negligence and/or medical malpractice.

After law school, he clerked for a Federal judge and in 1978 became an associate at the Nashville law firm of Dearborn & Ewing, doing primarily trial work, defending a Nashville bank and other corporate clients. The Edwards family returned to North Carolina in 1981, settling in the capital of Raleigh where he joined the firm of Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove.<12>

Edwards' first notable case was a 1984 medical malpractice lawsuit. As a young associate, he got the assignment because it was considered a losing case; the firm had only accepted it as a favor to an attorney and state senator who did not want to keep it. Nevertheless, Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed a drug overdose of anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy.<13> In other cases, Edwards sued the American Red Cross three times, alleging transmission of AIDS through tainted blood products, resulting in a confidential settlement each time, and defended a North Carolina newspaper against a libel charge.<12>

In 1985, Edwards tried a case involving medical malpractice during childbirth, representing a five-year-old child born with cerebral palsy whose doctor did not choose to perform an immediate Caesarian delivery when a fetal monitor showed she was in distress. Edwards won a $6.5 million settlement for his client, but five weeks later, the presiding judge sustained the verdict but overturned the award as being "excessive" and that it appeared "to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice," adding that in his opinion "the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict." He offered the plaintiffs half of the jury's settlement, but the child's family appealed the case and settled for $4.25 million.<12> Winning this case established the North Carolina precedent of physician and hospital liability for failing to determine if the patient understood risks of a particular procedure.<13>

After this trial, Edwards gained national attention as a plaintiff's lawyer. He filed at least 20 similar lawsuits in the years following and achieved verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million for his clients. His fee, as is customary in "contingency" cases, was one-third of the settlement plus expenses. These successful lawsuits were followed by similar ones across the country. When asked about an increase in Caesarean deliveries nationwide, perhaps to avoid similar medical malpractice lawsuits, Edwards said, "The question is, would you rather have cases where that happens instead of having cases where you don't intervene and a child either becomes disabled for life or dies in utero?"<12>

In 1993, Edwards began his own firm in Raleigh (now known as Kirby & Holt) with a friend, David Kirby. He became known as the top plaintiffs' attorney in North Carolina.<12> The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a three-year-old girl<14> who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover other children at the pool had removed, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings. Sta-Rite protested that an additional warning would have made no difference because the pool owners already knew the importance of keeping the cover secured. In his closing arguments, Edwards spoke to the jury for an hour and a half without referring to notes. It was an emotional appeal that made reference to his son, Wade, who had been killed shortly before testimony began in the trial. Mark Dayton, editor of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, would later call it "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen."<15> The jury awarded the family $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history. The company settled for the $25 million while the jury was deliberating additional punitive damages, rather than risk losing an appeal. For their part in this case, Edwards and law partner David Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.<13> The family said that they hired Edwards over other attorneys because he alone had offered to accept a smaller percentage as fee unless the settlement was unexpectedly high, while all of the other lawyers they spoke with said they required the full one-third fee. The size of the settlement was unprecedented and Edwards did receive the standard one-third plus expenses fee typical of contingency cases. The family was so impressed with his intelligence and commitment<12> that they volunteered for his Senate campaign the next year.

After Edwards won a large verdict against a trucking company whose worker had been involved in a fatal accident, the North Carolina legislature passed a law prohibiting such awards unless the employee's actions had been specifically sanctioned by the company.<12>

In December 2003, during his first presidential campaign, Edwards (with John Auchard) published Four Trials, a biographical book focusing on cases from his legal career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_edwards

I'm not talking about how he personally enriched himself to the point of where he could run for President for 6 years.

Sure he did something notable while a trial attorney. It's not like anyone is saying that the man is evil or anything like that. In fact, you bolster my thoughts as to why he does so well at speaking what he thinks those who can "do something for him" want to hear. That's exactly what he did as an attorney; basically pleaded his case, and said whatever was required in order to win over the jury. In fact, that's his gift. And I do believe that he is using it as we speak.

And I'm not sure how publishing a book on "His four trials" equals done deeds. :shrug:

What else in his 6 years in a Republican Controlled Congress do you wish to discuss???

cheerleaded, while voting NAY on alternative more restrictive amendments, all the while sitting on the Intelligence Committee, but neglecting to read the Classified NIE that he had access to.....the Senate was a Democratic senate.

there is also--

"during the NAACP forum Edwards called for ex-convicts’ voting rights to be re-instated. But a rival campaign tipped us off that Edwards voted against a 2002 amendment that would have done just that. It was introduced by Sen. Harry Reid and co-sponsored by Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Russ Feingold (D-WI)."
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/13/270267.aspx

also, Edwards never publicly commented on NAFTA when it was pending before Congress.
during his five years in the Senate, Edwards has been more flexible on trade than his rhetoric suggests: In 2000, he supported solidifying trade relations with China, swayed by technology, furniture, textile and tobacco firms in his home state of North Carolina who sought to sell their products to Chinese consumers. His North Carolina GOP colleague, Republican Senator Jesse Helms, opposed it.

Two years later, Edwards initially backed giving President Bush broad "fast-track" powers to negotiate future trade agreements. Only when a provision protecting the textile industry was stripped out did Edwards oppose it.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/edwards/articles/2004/02/20/trade_issue_close_to_home_for_edwards/?page=1

In addition, Edwards Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China.

and voted yes on the bankruptcy law (the same one that passed once he was out of the senate).

During his Senate term, John Edwards disclosed owning between $1,000 and $100,000 in Walmart company stock.




Edwards Voted for John Roberts (yes, the current Chief Justice) to the Appeals Courts back in 2003--
back in 2003, when Roberts was confirmed for a seat on the federal courts of appeals, just three committee Democrats — Edward Kennedy (Mass.), Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.) — voted against him.

Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) voted for Roberts. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) voted for him. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) voted for him. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) voted for him. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) voted for him. And then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) voted for him.
http://thehill.com/byron-york/roberts-opposition-as-a-bloc-would-hurt-dems-credibility-2005-09-15.html

In 2000, Edwards voted against a bill for temporary storage of waste at Yucca. That bill passed and then President Bill Clinton vetoed it. Edwards then voted to override Clinton’s veto. In 2002, he voted for the permanent repository.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Jul-07-Wed-2004/news/24257674.html
------------------------------
However, there’s one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards’ campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/a-populist-make-over/2034/
------------------------------

Immigration
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Politicians/Edwards.htm


John Edwards:

1999: 31st most liberal senator
2000: 19th most liberal senator
2001: 35th most liberal senator
2002: 40th most liberal senator
2003: 4th most liberal senator

When pundits call Edwards the “fourth most liberal,” they are cherry-picking his rank from one year—a year in which he missed more than a third of the votes used to make the tabulations.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml

------------------------------------------------

on this topic.

"However, there’s one highly significant chapter in his Senate career omitted from Edwards’ campaign Web site. Edwards, who comes from a state where banking is big business, played a critical role in brokering legislation to allow banks to sell mutual funds and insurance, and to engage in other speculative ventures. This law, worth hundreds of billions to the banks, blasted a gigantic hole in the Glass-Steagal banking law’s firewall of protections designed to prevent the kinds of bank collapses that marked the Great Depression of the ’30s — meaning that it put the money of Joe Six-Pack depositors at risk. Such a gigantic boon to the banking lobby can hardly be classed as a populist victory."


So far I've come up with this, from page 5, although this could be another topic? If you have additional info that would be great.


http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/%7BDFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339%7D/sept00.pdf

"Several weeks after testifying to two subcommittees of the Senate Banking Committee, Fed Governor
Laurence Meyer received a letter from eight senators admonishing the Fed for its stance on merchant banking and demanding a more lenient approach.

But only the Merchant Banking Eight have so wholeheartedly aligned themselves with the grievances of Chase, Wells Fargo and the largest financial conglomerates.


Dear Governor Meyer,

On behalf of the Securities and Financial Institutions Subcommittees of the
Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, thank you for appearing
as a witness on June 13 to discuss the Board’s Interim and Proposed regulations
concerning merchant banking activities.

Your testimony was helpful in clarifying your intent to consider carefully the views of members of Congress, the financial services industry and other interested parties concerning your proposed regulations. Your assurances that the Board’s goal is to encourage Financial Holding companies (FHCs), bank holding companies and banks to engage in innovative and progressive private equity investment activities while preserving the safety and soundness of the financial services system is welcome...."


MERCHANT BANKING EIGHT
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Rod Grams (R-MN)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
John Edwards (D-NC)

it's indefensible. Hillary's and Kerry's speeches too. Biden's and Dodd's probably too, though I haven't seen them.

But don't fret, those speeches are irrelevant now politically. There have been a lot of events in between, including the 2004 election and everyone's turning against the war and apologizing or not for their votes.

:shrug:

Article from August 13, 2007

Much as I want to like the guy, his initial stance on the war troubled me deeply. As a member of the SIC, he had access to information that indicates he should have known better.

Even now I'm not so certain he is truly a man of peace, even if he regrets his prior vote on the Iraq war.

Does he regret it because "it was wrong" or because it's now unpopular?
Would he take us into another war somewhere else if the wind were blowing in that direction?


Edwards has done so many good things, but this *really* troubles me.




* Please SIGN THE PETITION" to draft Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the race for the White House!
http://RFKin2008.com