Edwards Says Bush to Blame for Iraq Aftermath

Edwards Says Bush to Blame for Iraq Aftermath

33 minutes ago

HOUSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator and possible Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards (news - web sites) blasted the Bush administration on Friday for the chaotic aftermath of the Iraq (news - web sites) war and said President Bush (news - web sites), not his underlings, is to blame.

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

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

"Where I come from, we say a fish stinks from the head down," said Edwards, who is from North Carolina.

more... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&ncid=703&e=7&u=/nm/20040619/pl_nm/campaign_edwards_dc

I've always liked Edward populist message, but it's good to hear him talk foreign policy, and to blame Bush. Please rate the Yahoo article linked above. Right now it's at 1.56 with 31 votes.

never heard that one, but sounds like a good description of the administration.

When campaigning for Kerry.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and most of his family is full of criminals also. bush failed at everything he ever did in his stinking life. the only thing he hasn't failed in is creating a disaster.

and lawyer RETURNS that cost to the corporations, that's good for the economy.

Forcing the public to subsidize corporations' unwillingness to behave as good citiizens isn't good for capitalism and it isn't good for the economy.

Read Edwards's book. If you can't understand how the NC economy was improved by his lawyering, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

field. They can't compete with companies who break the rules and externalize their costs.

I'm glad he's one of us.

Clark of having done a much better job (unlike a personal injury attorney).

ticket?

I think I heard this a few weeks ago...
Oh.. yeah.. it was when Gen. Clark said it.

And, you know what, that fish stinks from the head down thing - Michael Moore said that on television two nights ago. And, well, he's from Michigan.

Good Lord, will the press ever stop giving undue credit?

Edwards didn't claim he made it up, did he?

I wish you would stop running to every Edwards thread just to bash; it lowers the tone of discourse. Edwards supporters do not do that with Clark. We get it that you don't like Edwards.

This is a non-sequiter.
I'll wait while you go look that up.

Seriously... you Edwards people are tiring.

Edwards' fellow cheerleader Tom Friedman has been saying it for a long time, too.

My question to both of them: What part of the Afghanistan war made you thing Bush would not screw this one up, too? Even that is being too generous, as it overlooks their gross misdiagnosis of the cause and significance of American power in the world. Yet given that handicap, they still fail miserably.

If Edwards supporters object to Clark, fine. Let's agree to disagree, split the difference and settle on Bob Graham or someone else who saw this fiasco for what it was. Just don't saddle us with this yokel.

They just have a different ranking of who'd make the best VP.

I say, let's try to separate the good arguments for the VP from the bad ones, and then hope Kerry listens to the good ones.

I've seen others.

Just out of curiousity, if you (a die-hard Edwards guy) were sitting across a table from a die-hard Clarkie with orders to decide on a VP, who do you think you'd come up with?

My proposal is Graham. Who's your counter?

And I haven't seen a single Edwards supporter who would be bitterly disappointed with Clark as VP. And I think that says something about how clear-thinking Edwards supporters are. It says something about their argument for putting Edwards on the ticket.

No, you couldn't. Not if it was me.

Way to shit on the offer of compromise, there, AP.

I'm the one offering alternatives, you're stuck on one guy. Faced with an intractable opponent, I've offered Graham, you're still at E! or nothing.

Who is stubborn?

compelling argument for him.

I simply have confidence in my argument.

I would love to sit down with any rational Clark supporter (of supporter of ANY alternative) and, armed with history and facts, make our case.

If we deadlock, I'd love to turn it over to a jury.

I think I could convince a neutral jury.

I wouldn't want to compromise on a candidate the jury would like LESS than Clark or Edwards.

but we're still not convinced. Why is this feedback not reaching you?

The hypothetical I gave is an accurate distillation of the stalemate here at DU, yours is pure fantasy. What's the deal? Not afraid of a little horse-trading, are you?

By the way, compromise nearly always involves people getting something LESS than what they wanted. Try it some time and you'll see.

be very happy if he were the VP selection.

I think I have reached people.

Horse trading isn't how you win democratic elections. Why are you afraid of picking the candidate most people would like?

I've never been vehemenently anti-Edwards... but I can think of a few people who could talk me into that.

have contributed to the formation of the sentiment in that post.

I like Clark as a person. I find the posts by those two supporters depressing.

I'll tell you what. Tell me how, if you were me, you'd let those two posters comments inform your opinion about the nature of the debate here at DU?

I'm serious when I say reading posts by those two make me feel MORE confident that I'm on the right side of the argument.

We both have folk in our camp who are less than, shall we say, tackful. I hear you loud and clear when you say their particular methods of debate are less than constructive, as I feel quite the same way about a few of the ardent Edward's supporters.

But let's be honest, you and I for a second. I'll admit that there isn't much anyone could say that would make me hate or love another individual, based soley on their personal dislike of said individual. I'll also admit that though I favor Clark for a myriad of reasons, I do see some potential weaknesses, lack of political experience being among them. However, I see Edward's lack of experience (albeit he has more than Clark) as a neutralizer of that issue. Likewise, I see Edward's youth and vigor as a plus in his favor. Now I've seen Clark stump and do the meet n' greet thing on several occassion, and I find him to be youthful and energizing, but hell, I'm 35, so what do I know?

Each potential has his weaknesses, and Rove will instruct Cheney on how to eat them for lunch. Edwards is no slouch when it comes to facing opposition, and though the trial lawyer thing has been over-played, it does work in his favor if he can keep from looking like one. Clark, though weak in debates, is a pit-bull and if he can keep his cool and keep his composure, will be able to smack down the opposition. Dean is full of fire, and though he had his perceived melt-down after Iowa, should be able to deliver, if he's the one.

Realistically speaking, I don't think it will be any of the three. The buzz, and my conspiracy-leaning mind, tell me they are going to shock and awe us. However, as I love Clark and you love Edwards, we are still going to grab up every piece of good news and hold it to our hearts. Likewise, as the aforementioned few proceed to slap it down, you and I will pick up our crosses and march into the battlefield, intent on reasoning, but drug down to the marshes nonetheless.

Listen, if Paddy says you're okay, then you're okay in my book. I'll wave the white flag and agree to civility if you will. That means there will be one less soldier on the field, foaming at the mouth. Fair enough?

:)

Graham is beloved here in Florida. He is a mini-Reagan among the reds. He was vocal against Bush and the NCLB (one of my particular pickles). I would far rather see Graham than Gephart or Vilsack.

Why should we agree to a compromise candidate? What you and I think doesn't matter. It shouldn't be the final word.

What matters is what voters want.

Say you and I made our arguments before a jury. Say a jury went 5-4 on one of our candidates. Say the went 1-8 on Graham vs either. Why should we pick Graham?

The key to the VP isn't in picking a compromise candidate selected undemocratically because a couple of people don't agree. The key is picking someone that a lot of voters like. We shouldn't let our stubborness force a choice on voters whom voters like LESS than either of the people we support.

That would be incredibly silly.

and I hope you respect the fact that others feel passionately about Dean, or Clark.

But in this forum, we are expressing our hopes, our believes, our passionate dedication to this person or that. We aren't before a jury, we aren't in Edward's courtroom (or Clarks, or Deans, or Grahams, etc...) and while you have the right to approach it as such, the simple fact is that we all put a lot of energy into our opinions, and no one appreciates being told "you're wrong" in a condescending manner. You have (as have I) a time or two been guilty of that.

That being said, I appreciate your factual support of Edwards and your belief that he is the right man for the job. It goes a lot further than man boobs, SOA, and Bush-lover. If everyone put as much thought, research, and logic into their beliefs, each candidate would be well-served.

Except when someone cites a fact that is wrong. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I respect that.

I just make my arguments for the jury, which I find to be very democratic.

(You do understand my point about how compromising with Graham wouldn't be smart, and misses the point about picking someone that most people would like, right?)

Have you ever used the words "you're wrong" specifically - maybe not. But (and I'm not asking for a straw poll here) I'll be willing to bet I'm not the only Clark supporter who has noticed your unwillingness to consider any viable alternative to Edwards. I do not agree that a compromise is unreasonable or misses any point. Compromise is how things get done. If someone extends an olive branch in the form of compromise, they are simply looking for some common ground with which to build on. It happens on Capitol Hill every day.

to compromise.

My only power is to make my arguments, support them with history and facts, and hope I'm convincing the jury (which I consider to be all the casual DU'ers, non-posters, etc., and not just the die-hard Clark supporters).

For one thing, using your courtroom analogy, compromise is a way to reach a common end. Plea bargains often result in getting some, but not all, of what you want. In this case, compromising on Graham or any other candidate serves to show you are not "stubborn" and unreasonable.

Compromise is also something that GW despises. He says that compromise is a sign of weakness. Look where his inability to compromise has gotten us? Working with people, seeking a common/middle ground, is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of compassion, consideration, and intelligence.

to make an argument for Edwards here at DU.

If the people who make the choice compromise, I'm cool with it. I'll be here making argument for Kerry-Whomever.

But until Kerry choses, my power is to make arguments for Edwards. Right now, Edwards and the ideas he represent deserve passionate representation, and not a compromiser, for a supporter.

Again, that's the nature of plea bargaining. You can passionately argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't guarantee that anyone will listen. However, in the act of compromise, you present yourself as a reasonable individual, which will go a lot further in the end. The more flies with honey thing...

Edwards does deserve passionate representation, but I wonder if you are doing more harm than good, as others have expressed, in your unwillingness to consider their points of few as equally valid.

for the candidate. If the jury stalemates, then compromise. We're still in advocacy stage.

By the way, the only people who think I'm doing more harm than good are the people who advocate most strongly for Clark. So I'm not so worried.

"I'm not the only Clark supporter who has noticed your unwillingness to consider any viable alternative to Edwards." I've noticed too!

It's funny, all the Edwards-pushers on DU have had the opposite effect on me than intended. I didn't feel strongly about Edwards either for or against before the Clark-Edwards-VP wars here began; now I am sick to death of Edwards' talking points and all the rest. If he gets picked, I'm sure he'll be great and I'll work hard for him and for Kerry. But the dismissive and condescending tone of some Edwards supporters is annoying and only does Edwards a disservice, imo.

But in the end, most of us will vote for Kerry regardless, and many of us will fight just as hard. After all, it's Kerry who is going to replace Bush, not Edwards, Clark, etc...

And I don't want anyone going off on a "second in command" tangent here... it's not my point. My point is that the vitriol does nothing but make people think, "What and ASSHOLE!"

Remember when we had a President who could think for himself, the role of the VP is so light. Gore was an able and incredibly smart pol, but Clinton only had him working on streamlining govt bureaucracy. Who the VP is, in the end, will make only a small difference in votes and actual policy.

Let's face it... the sheeple are led by Rush. So it matters in that sense, who he gets to attack. Edwards voted for the war, Graham didn't and Clark didn't have the opportunity to. Graham has been one of the most vocal opponents of the Bush admin (look up miserable failure and you'll find it authored by Graham) and Clark was a very vocal opponent regarding the war.

Kerry absolutely cannot pick someone with no FP experience who voted for the war. Kerry himself voted for the war. We can't have a ticket of two "yes" men, or we dilute the reasoning behind the fight. For many, this election will come down to Iraq. How do we face off if we are too busy saving face?

I'd love to see Clark get the nod (although I'm not feeling optimistic about it). He would have made the best President, I think, so naturally he'd be my choice for VP.

You and I might not agree on Graham... so yes, we can agree to disagree on that.

I can't agree to "no" on Graham. He has been an ardent fighter in NCLB and Jeb Bush's education policies. He is a hero in my book, and though I would prefer to see Clark, I don't think Graham would be bad for the ticket. He would certainly garner a few on-the-fence Floridians. It would be very very difficult for Jeb to fudge the votes with the Graham watchdogs looking over his shoulder.

However, I see Edward's lack of experience (albeit he has more than Clark) as a neutralizer of that issue. (Please explain to me how Edward's has more experience than Clark? The guy has spent a majority of his life as a personal injury attorney playing to juries (making such illustrious arguments as he is channeling unborn children and feels their pain). Clark, on the other hand, has spent his lifetime in prestigious and "SUBSTANTIVE" public service. He worked in DC (in the OMB) and under several administrations, and served as the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato. Your comment is completely without basis in fact.)

Edwards is no slouch when it comes to facing opposition ...(Have you taken a look at the MTP interview, or Edward's fumbling in the debates, unable to answer questions that anyone running for president/or vp should be able to answer. Why do you think we don't see him on tv arguing on behalf of Kerry?)

and though the trial lawyer thing has been over-played, it does work in his favor if he can keep from looking like one. (They won't be using the term trial lawyer. Try "personal injury attorney" which brings to mind words such as smarmy, a huckster, and dishonest. Furthermore, someone posted the other day that the GOP is getting ready to unleash a national tour on tort reform. Pregnant women and the elderly are tired of being unable to receive the necessary medical care because physicians have been driven from the practice )or had to relocate to another state).

Clark, though weak in debates, (Clark, unlike Edwards was ferociously attacked in the debates. Furthermore, he was declared by many to be the winner of the Iowa debate).

I am clearly an ardent supporter of Clarks - I am only debating as the devil's advocate. The raw, core definition of experience I'm referring to is the public's perception of experience, defined by political office. Edwards has "senator" before his name. For those of the dumbed down majority, this plays better against, "general."

I am ALL for Clark, clearly. But I'm not willing to turn a blind eye to the perceived notions of the general public, and I do take that into consideration, against my own personal beliefs. I believe Clark is far more qualified, both intellectually and otherwise, to take the position against any number of others being vetted. But his life-long military career as opposed to a political one, can be perceived as a weakness (not a personal weakness, but a weakness in terms of chances at being a strong contender on the ticket).

What about considering how the public will view Edwards once he is defined by Rove and the corporate media? Sure they will attack any candidate but with Edwards it will be very easy to make the attacks stick. There is no way in heck that Edwards will be viewed as an honest and sincere person (as you described him in a later post) once they are finished with him.

As far as being a strong contender on the ticket. I'd bet the bank that the American public will more readily believe what Clark says in hammering the Bush administration, then a personal injury attorney whose unbridled desire for power is plain for all to see.

You have the right to view people in whatever light you choose, but you have obviously let your passion for Clark get in the way of seeing any good in anyone else. Look, I spent thousands on Clark during his run - campaign donations, buttons and t-shirts and flyers, plane tickets to campaign stops, countless hours canvassing, phone bills for calls to Tennessee... my loyalty though, understands its bounderies. If it's not Clark, it may be Edwards. I'm not going to sow the seeds of disgust, nor buy into the baby channeling bullshit to give the GOP any validity in their argument against Edwards. On the other hand, I'm going to continue to focus on the areas where I perceive all candidates to be both strong AND weak, in order to educate myself and prepare myself for the person who is eventually chosen. I will go on the frontlines for anyone running against Bush. Do I like the fact that Edwards voted for the war? Hell no. Do I like the personal injury lawyer bullshit? Hell no. Do I like the blind trust? Hell no. Am I going to say that Edwards has zero redeeming qualities? Hell no.

Let me repeat - I love Wes Clark. But attacking anyone who says anything in favor of anyone else (even if it's one of your own) does nothing to help Clarks cause.

I would have to have a lobotomy (a personal injury attorney being a heart beat away from the presidency is quite simply absurd.)

So why are you lying?

good one. That would scare the shit out of Bush.

yeah, right. :eyes:

Bottom Line: Edwards is talkin and people are listening. Put this man on the ticket, already!

All Righty then.

He is able to deliver strong messages using Shrub's language... for too damned long, Bush and Co. have cornered the market on "isms" and the dumbed down among us have gobbled it up. Bush talks like the common folk while he lines the rich folks' pockets, but they don't notice because "he's got a little saying down in Texas..." Blech!

No secret I'm in favor of Clark, but not blinded by it. Edwards has the ability to neuter Bush by delivering his message in an honest, down to earth way. One thing that Edwards has that I fail to see any of the other vetted display is this ability to remain common and youthful. NPR was speaking with a polling company representative who said that the more educated among us are the ones who are against another Bush presidency. So if we've already got them in the pocket, then it makes sense to sway the morons. This isn't an Edwards slam - I'm not saying he's the moron's representative, but if he can tap into what they see in Bush, then I'm glad he's on our side, speaking for Kerry.

I hope that no matter who Kerry picks, people like Edwards and Clark and Dean keep reaching the masses on his behalf.

It's suburban, white and wealthy where people remarkably find his message very convincing.

I think what he does is he breaks down that perceptiong bush sells to white men that when they're successful, it's because they did it themselves, and when the lose it's because a women, minority or immigrant got in their way.

Edwards shows those people how the government actually has a role to play in making sure that everyone can be successful. Edwards talks about his public school education, his mother's job at the post office, and having to make choices based on not being able to take an economic risk (going to NC State instead of Clemson, and going to UNC Law instead of Duke Law) and STILL succeeding.

HE is actually the person white suburban men want to be, and not Bush.

How is Bush's life story within reach to your average suburban white male? Bush failed his way to the top thanks to BILLIONS of dollars invested in him by his father and his father's friends and families. That version of success is not really the cowboy verison of success that Republicans try to sell it as. Edwards's version of success is, however, one that is within reach of most Americans (hard work, intelligence, and a government committed to giving you opportunity and a fair playing field).

People that Edwards is the man who's life is a better template for success.

Edwards's greatest strength is in delivering a message about THAT which white men appreciate as well as women, minorities and immigrants.

albeit I will admit I'm digging into a long-ago war, were the poll showing the number of Republicans that Edwards appealed to. I'm not saying they aren't out there, Lord knows you do your research before posting, but I'm just saying I don't have those figures to comment on.

However, if that's STILL the case (and they're not primary votes) then that is a good thing. But I recollect a certain open primary where Edwards WAS the favorite among the demo you described, but it could certainly be construed as conspiracy to select a candidate that Bush could beat.

That aside, my comment was absolutely a compliment in Edward's favor. He IS youthful... and the only other person I can think of that can reach the MTV generation, outside of Dean. We need to energize THAT demo to get the most bang for our buck come election day. These kids are looking toward tuition, fearing a draft, and worrying about wasting their education because there are no jobs. The youth vote turn-out was low when Clinton was elected, and he reached them (I remember, as I was one of them), but every vote counts... unless you live in Florida, of course.

How dumb would it have been to conspire to elect this candidate:

Furthermore, in a hypothetical November matchup against President Bush, Edwards fared significantly better than Kerry. While Kerry and Bush were tied at 47%, roughly a quarter of the participants favoring Bush in that matchup said they would be undecided or would prefer Edwards if the choice were instead between Bush and Edwards. In all, 48% said they would vote for Edwards and only 37% for Bush, if Edwards were the Democratic nominee. The contrast with the control group, which showed a similar but significantly weaker pattern, was highly significant statistically (26% of Bush supporters defected in the experimental group while only 12% defected in the control group). These results suggest a strong appeal of Edwards among Independents and Republicans.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html

I will accept logical, thoughtful arguments in Edwards favor, and I see where you are coming from. Where I come from is a different place - a small battleground known as Florida. My county is predominantly red, and from my neck of the woods, I hear that Clark is a selling point among disenchanted republicans. I don't have statistical data to back that up, as it's more of a one-on-one canvassing, as well as conversations with co-workers and people waiting in line at the grocery store. Where I'm coming from, in the state I'm coming from, I feel it's very important to consider that Clark sways voters. But I'll take your information to heart.

One thing I've noticed is that a LOT of people will tell a candidate supporter that they like your candidate just so that they don't offend you. When you go door to door or make phone calls, this happens all the time.

Often the passion of the canvasser is directly related to the false sense of candidate support. That's why it's always good to cross-check the polls.

In FL, 40% of voters in the primaries said they'd like to see Edwards on the ticket as VP (after getting only 10% of the vote, which was still second place to Kerry's 80%).

But I don't run around town with a Clark button on... nor do the editorials in my local paper show a need to pamper little ol' Robin from Polk County.

It's just my frame of reference, get it? I'm not saying it's a reflection of the whole... but it does fire me up and keep my Clark enthusiasm level quite high.

Creative editing of his testimony on Iraq, constant "gotcha" games, revised history of Bosnia -- and people still get behind the General.

Nothing like that's been done to Edwards. They only hit the ones they feared in the primaries, seems to me.

which is that the RNC and the media have not attacked Edwards. As I see it, they're rolling out the carpet for him, hoping he's on the ticket, because it would be all too easy to destroy him afterward.

Dean).

To ignore Edwards is to attack him, since the more people knew about him, the more they liked him.

The Republicans' biggest fear about Edwards is what the Informed Voter study revealed. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/polls.html, and that was that as people got to know him, they liked him more than other dems, and, most importantly, much more than Bush.

And you can't deny that he was only getting 4-5 minutes in the debates without fixed time, while the others got 10-12 minutes, and you can't deny all the others got MUCH more press than Edwards.

others faced?

The "more you know him more you love him" held true for most of the candidates, especially those who weren't negatively attacked. (It remained true for Clark throughout.)

I saw the coverage completely differently. Edwards was propped up constantly as the "Southern, working-class roots" candidate, and he got good policy questions in the debates rather than antagonistic confrontations.

Maybe it's just a matter of our different perspectives, but I see this entirely differently.

this time.

And "the more you know them..." didn't hold true for other candidates.

As the article shows, Kerrry and Edwards were the only two who had an upward trend. The more people knew the others, the less they cared for them.

Your article shows one online 'experiment,' not an analysis of national polls throughout the primaries.

The issue is the same: the information people "knew" about some candidates was fed them straight from Karl Rove's fax machine. Others were left alone and even propped up with positives.

candidates during the primaries? Look at what the participants had available to them in this study. They were encouraged to read everything the candidates said about themselves, and they were allowed to talk to each other, and they got to ask experts specific questions.

This is all a candidate can expect. The Republicans will hate on any candidate, and the key is, can you get as close as possible to what this study did to inform people.

To me, this study reveals exactly who is the best raw material with which to work. It reveals who will be the best candidate to put up aginst the Rove machine.

I'll say this again and again and again.

EDWARDS ONLY APPEALLED TO RICH WHITE MALE REPUBLICANS AS A MEANS TO OFF CLARK AND KERRY. I KNOW, I WAS TOLD AND I WAS HERE. THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

I really don't know how else to convince you. I've given you exit polls. I've told you the way it really was - but, yet, you choose not to believe me.

win the day. Have you every really listed to Wes Clark. He takes the Republicans key arguments (like values and faith) and turns them on their heads. Furthermore, once they are finished introducing Edwards to the voting public, good luck on getting anywhere with the "aw shucks" routine.

I know plenty of the "common folks" as you refer to them and guess what? They ain't much impressed with a slick, smooth talking personal injury attorney."

I prefer Clark's intellectual humor to the dirt kickin' Texas slang any day. I was only pointing out an interesting similarity. It would behoove all of us to stop eating our own.

I just don't want Edwards.
Cleland, Biden - ANYONE... ANYONE... with solid FP experience is F-I-N-E fine with me.
Just not Edwards.
I can't imagine living in this country if he's president anymore than I can with Bush.
Maybe I'm too intelligent to live here.

Good to see that the Kerry campaign is using all of resources, including former opponents, to blast *.