Edwards just blew it for me on O'Reilly

[trumad]

Do our canidates have to continue to bow down about the war in Iraq to these miserable repukes... He was almost gleeful to O'Reilly that he supported the War and that Suddam was deposed...The dude sounded like Lieberman! Plus he wants to "tap" down the Rhetoric! :wtf:

O'Reilly asked Edwards if the the President Lied about Iraq... Edwards stated he did not know the answer to that... Edwards could have said Bush mislead the Country but knowwww, not this slick Politico!

Shit!

[BlueStateGirl]

1. I was disappointed in his answer as well.

[Victor Wong]

2. Saying the president lied would be a huge blunder.

He can use that card later if he has to, not now.

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. if he can't prove it he better not say it

or else he'll suffer clark's fate.

[MoonRiver]

9. He and Kerry have a hard time doing that since they voted for the war.

If they would just admit they were wrong it would be so refreshing. Plus they'd have a better shot a beating *.

[Victor Wong]

14. No, they have a hard time doing it because it would be DUMB

It's something that can't even be proven at this point. It would just look moronic at this point to say that.

[Jacobin]

39. Interesting take on Edward's position

So, Edwards supporters believe Bush* just stumbled into the Iraq invasion by mistake? That he was "misled" by the CIA?

These are all repuke/Lieberman talking points. I'm stunned.

[DjTj]

44. "I don't know."

Is Edwards' answer. Maybe he lied, maybe he didn't.

Nobody knows for sure!

Personally, I think Bush lied, and I hope we can get him on that. But, as a legal impeachable matter, I'm not sure it's something we can prove, so I'm pretty satisfied with, "I don't know."

[sandnsea]

56. Kerry confronts it all the time

He talks about the intelligence being hyped and manipulated. He doesn't say Bush lied because a lie requires that Bush actually knew something to start with and proof of knowingly presenting wrong information. It's one of those things you wait until you have FACTS to make the claim. Otherwise one is just wildly ranting again which doesn't go over well with Americans and can also come back to bite you.

[Egnever]

75. I take my hat off to you

You have continually amazed me in your ability to make excuses for kerry. If you dont work in politics you should.

[tridim]

15. Dean said it several times tonight on CSPAN

and was enthusiastically applauded. It's not a blunder, it's the truth. Bush lied, over and over and over again.

[Victor Wong]

21. That's a totally different audience.

And besides, Dean is TANKING. He's probably looking to say ANYTHING at this point.

[Jacobin]

41. So, its ok for Edwards to say different things to different audiences?

Take different positions depending on who he is talking to?

Interesting.

[spooky3]

51. "I'm shocked--you mean there is GAMBLING in this establishment?"

[krkaufman]

37. The Bush Administration lied about Saddam possessing WMDs

> Saying the president lied would be a huge blunder.

No one has to say "the president" lied. (Though he did.) The Bush Administration lied about Saddam currently possessing WMDs. They repeatedly claimed that they *knew* he had them, and said they knew where they were -- but couldn't give up that info because "it would jeopardize intelligence contacts."

Take, for example, Wesley Clark's comment on Sunday's MTP (1/25) regarding what Rummy the Dummy told a gathering of high-ranking military personnel: "I (Rumsfeld) *know* where 30% of Iraq's WMDs are."

Of course, I guess Rumsfeld could get off in court... since 30% of nothing is nothing.


EDIT: I'd like to see Bush and his handlers differentiating "Bush Administration lied" from "Bush lied." The buck stops where, Chimpy McSmirk?

[lancdem]

3. I suspect Edwards is tailoring his message to the audience

He toned it down because he's on Faux.

[cthrumatrix]

29. he plays his audience....at the same time...I think a "strong -I think so"

was "wide open" based on the Kay report....he would he haved gained something -- who knows.

[krkaufman]

45. It's open for debate

> I think a "strong -I think so" was "wide open" based
> on the Kay report.

Or...

"That's an interesting question, Bill, and one that merits investigation. *Were* the American people lied to regarding Saddam currently possessing WMDs and the imminent threat that Saddam posed with these weapons in his hands? The answer to that question needs to be determined, authoritatively rather than through media speculation, and the upcoming Kay report -- and perhaps this week's Hutton report in Britain -- may help shed some light on the process."

"Another perspective to be considered is whether, if it is determined that the Bush Administration *did* lie during the ramp-up to war with Iraq, is it relevant whether the President himself was caught in a lie or that someone in his Adminstration lied and the President neglected to correct the deception."

"In the end, maybe we'll at least learn exactly where the buck *does* stop, in this Administration"

edit: font and blockquote

[cthrumatrix]

49. good one...he had a chance....and decided "not now"

[milkyway]

64. If he does that enough, he'll have no chance of getting elected.

I think he does have a chance, but Rove will nail him to the wall with the charge he's just another fast-talking lawyer, with no convictions of his own if he trys to get to slick.

[michaelbmoore]

4. that's why this is the

pivotal issue for us and we can't shrink from it. And its not about saving Iraqi or American lives, it is about the future and survival of our country.

[cthrumatrix]

5. he didn't want to address it.....at least not there..I agree

he wants to investigate it...but really did not give an opinion

[tishaLA]

6. He even said the situation in Iraq is good now

I wonder how he made that determination. And no regrets about IWR. No wonder O'Really can "respect" him.

[Victor Wong]

11. Edwards has never downplayed his IWR vote.

[tishaLA]

19. I know.

I think it's a bad vote.

[Victor Wong]

25. Some do, some don't. The vote was for Bush to use all means necessary

Bush was an ass about it.

[tishaLA]

28. And things aren't good in Iraq now

despite what the Senator says.

[DjTj]

46. That is a lie.

Here's what he said, "You know that I supported the war in Iraq. I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone. I think we should be proud of what our young men and women of the military did. I think the result of the war is a very good thing."

He said the result is a very good thing; he didn't say the situation in Iraq is good...

[jenk]

8. we'll never get anywhere with partisan bickering

he wants the intelligence investigated as well, what else do you want him to say? We, democrats make ourselves look bad when we yell and scream like larouchites or something.

if edwards gave the answer you wanted, then his campaign will be as dead as Dean's or possibly Clarks(no disrespect general)

[Edwards4President]

50. That was the right answer

Edwards cannot accuse Bush of lying at the same time he's calling for an investigation. We all know that Bush lied and Edwards probably knows that too. But if he were to come out and say it without any concrete proof, he'd get dragged through the mud and completely drown out his message. The better course of action is to do just what he's doing. There's plenty of time for him to go after Bush on this, but now is not the time.

[Guaranteed]

52. Oh gimme a fricking BREAK. nt

[BootinUp]

10. Me too...I want my General!

:hi:

[arewethereyet]

12. should he say what he believes or something to suit you ?

he's said the same thing consistantly the entire way. WOuldn't it be wrong to change that ?

He saw the evidence, we did not. He made his conclusions based on the information he had.

You don't have to agree with his conclusions but, having not seem the reports, it's hard to fault him.

But fault if you must.

[LizW]

13. I couldn't believe he chose to go on O'Reilly

tonight of all nights.

Didn't see it because I can't stomach that guy, but what you're saying is disappointing.

[Melodybe]

22. Edwards should simply say he was duped.

Americans that actually believed that junk will identify and they will like him more for being honest.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

59. Lol

[arewethereyet]

26. why not ? he's got nothing to fear and lots of exposure

compared to a town meeting or the like.

He's a lawyer, he can handle it. And did !

[Loren645]

16. He was very weak; totally neutered.

I was hoping for much better.
He let the lying liar totally frame the discourse,
totally dominate and bully, used all their jargon,
then timidly said he was tough at the end.

Right.

But I guess the important thing, in his view (?),
is that they have no footage to use against him.
And, as a result, I have nothing to use for him.
He just canceled himself out.

[DjTj]

17. Only a fool...

...would go on O'Reilly and try to go on a rant about how the President lied.

The truth is *nobody* knows the answer to that question, and if you want to get into a real debate about that, we're all going to fall back on circumstantial evidence.

That was the smartest thing Edwards could have said at that time.

You win a case by gathering real evidence, not by spewing rhetoric. Edwards will get Bush, but he will do it on his own terms when he knows he can win.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=817041&tw=wn_wire_story

[trumad]

30. How about if he said that he believes the Bush Admin

including Dick Cheney went out of their way to taint the intellegence from the CIA...Would that be a lie? Fuck no! Whats wrong with the truth?

[DjTj]

34. What kind of evidence is he going to bring...

...in a 1-minute segment on O'Reilly?!

If there's physical evidence that Cheney tainted evidence, he'll present it to the independent commission:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=817041&tw=wn_wire_story

[cthrumatrix]

35. this comes up to "timing" the "knockout"...it clearly was not his intent..

this was a "safe safe talk"...get to know JE talk... BUT some repugs would see this and say "well he didn't even say anything"...

it can go both ways...and quite frankly it was tooo short for substance and any conrete duscussion of anything

[juajen]

38. It's really simple

"The buck stops here." You didn't hear Janet Reno passing the buck or talking about "bad intelligence" after Waco; nor, have I heard Bill Clinton do it either about anything.

This pResident deserves even less consideration than our last truly elected President. He depends totally on the advice of others and deserves a trouncing for his "lack of curiosity." He's not only ill-advised; he's ill-tempered, illiterate, and, topping the list, ILLEGAL. This is the nice spin. I, frankly, believe he knew he was lying and is very experienced at it. His folks have been rescuing him from himself all his life. Now, if they could only rescue us!

[DjTj]

47. Yes! Bush is a bad President.

The buck should stop at Bush's desk, but it doesn't. He takes no responsibility and is the worst President ever! We already know that. We just have to figure out a way to prove it, and Edwards is working on it:

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=817041&tw=wn_wire_story

[Jerseycoa]

18. Maybe he feels this way

If so, he's being honest.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. Can you say

P-A-N-D-E-R :puke:

[trumad]

24. I really thought he'd do well against O'Reilly

but the Edits and his smile about supporting this miserable war turned me off big time.

[Loren645]

62. I am so so so so so sick of pols with no substance.

Democrats who are afraid of acting like the opposition party.

Personal ambition over public good.
This guy's a public servant. I don't see how.

[sleipnir]

23. Edwards is only slightly better than Lieberman, and neither is getting my

vote or money.

After seeing this, I'm sickened by Edwards and I can only hope he doesn't get the nomination, because I'll vote 3rd party or write-in Clark/Dean/Kucinich. He's no Progressive, that's for sure. He's Pro-War, Pro-Death, Pro-PNAC.

[sventvkg]

27. Dean and Clark are the only candidates who speak the truth!!!

The rest of the Beltway boys can take hike!@! We need new meat in Washington..Many of us are fed up.

[cthrumatrix]

31. O"reilly would not have asked Dean that question...I suspect

[Toucano]

40. Tip the chapeau to Dennis too. eom

[bicentennial_baby]

58. Yep...and Dennis K

Gotta give props to Dennis as well!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

32. Here is how Kerry answered on Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: And now Secretary of State Powell says, you know what, Kay may be right.

What do you make of that?

KERRY: It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled — misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war.

And, again, I repeat, Colin Powell came to our committee. I personally asked him the questions, along with Paul Sarbanes. And we went down the list of 16 resolutions at the U.N. that they'd given as a reason to go to war.

He eliminated every one of them, with the exception of one. The only rationale for going to war, according to Colin Powell, who spoke for the administration, were weapons of mass destruction. That was the license he was given by the United States Senate.

Now, we had inspections going on. The U.N., Hans Blix said, "They haven't complied completely, but we'd like to inspect a little further." The president...

WALLACE: But if I may ask you...

KERRY: Let me just finish now. The president...

WALLACE: Let me just ask you specifically about this. Did...

KERRY: The president cut off that process. He chose the date to start this war. He said, the time for diplomacy is over.

I talked to Kofi Annan...

WALLACE: But you voted — in your decision to support it — I've looked at your speech on the floor of the Senate. You talked about these weapons of mass destruction. Obviously you read the intelligence.

KERRY: Yes.

WALLACE: Do you believe that Colin Powell, the president, when they were talking about this threat, were speaking in good faith and just were misled, as you were, or do you think they cooked the books?

KERRY: I don't know the answer to that. I trust Colin Powell implicitly. He's a friend of mine, and I think he's a terrific person, and I would not want to believe that...

WALLACE: Do you trust George W. Bush?

KERRY: I believe that Dick Cheney exaggerated, clearly.

When they talked about weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes, there were none.

When they talked about aerial devices that could deliver, there were none. When they talked about the linkage to Al Qaida that they've now exaggerated, but they themselves said then there was no smoking gun. They said it. Now they say there was a linkage.

I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.

And the question is still unanswered as to what Dick Cheney was doing over at the CIA personally in those weeks leading up to the war.

WALLACE: And when you see what David Kay said, do you believe that the president was part of a willful effort to mislead the American people?

KERRY: I would never suggest that about a president of the United States without adequate evidence. I don't know the answer to it. But I do know this...

WALLACE: But you're suggesting it about the vice president?

KERRY: I know the vice president either misspoke or misled the American people, but he did so in a way that gave Congress men and women, who have since said — I mean, very good people, good Americans who voted in good conscious, have stood up and said, "I was misled."

This administration has to be accountable for that. And they haven't yet accounted for it.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109430,00.html

[cthrumatrix]

33. he could have shared that.... why he didn't ? I'm not sure

[Toucano]

36. You sig pic

is so powerful!

[K8-EEE]

42. Yep It Bummed Me Out Too n/m

x

[bigtree]

43. Sen. Edwards is hot on their tails for the Iraq contract abuses

He's made a good deal of noise about this. I hope if doesn't get the nod that he reconsiders going back to the Senate and help straighten some of these things out.

[DjTj]

48. Yup. Edwards is on it.

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=817041&tw=wn_wire_story

[Clark Can WIN]

55. He gave up his run because his chances of re-election were DISMAL

Which means if he got the nom he would likely lose his own home state.

I like Edwards, but I don't think he would fare well in the GE.

[Guaranteed]

53. This just makes me sick.

You think that impotent "resistance" to Bush is going to beat him? I can't believe that appeasing Bush is actually being considered as some kind of campaign platform.

[LiberalBushFan]

54. People!

Imagine how SICK you will feel of hearing over and over again how Edwards or Kerry is being asked why they voted for the war, and how sick you will get of hearing the same, tortured "yeah, but..." answer that you know is too complex for most people to comprehend! It makes you sick already how easy it is for an interviewer to get the upper hand by bullying with questions like this one, and you know it! Don't let this happen! I don't care if the IWR vote is justified, we need someone who is CONVINCINGLY justified. The "Saddam Hussein needed to go, but..." will not be convincing no matter how true. What we need is someone who wasn't caught up in this Iraq mess, period!

[spooky3]

57. Let the voters speak. I will be interested to see where we are

a month from now.

[Amager]

60. Sounds like a good answer to me

Edwards was asked did the president lie and he said he couldn't answer that. He wasn't asked whether Bush mislead the country, he was asked whether he lied. He's smart not to answer more than he is asked.

He's speaking to a conservative audience and Independants - potential swing voters - on O'Reilly, not the liberal base. They don't want to hear Bush lied, that's a turn off. That's politics, and he played it smart. The rest of the country is more concerned about domestic issues than they are about the IWR that nothing can be done about now anyway.

[Fleshdancer]

61. Edwards went on O'Reilly????

Who cares what he said, the fact that he went on that show is enough to make me want to :puke:

[Edwards4President]

66. Why?

Didn't Dean say that Democrats need to reach out to the guys with confederate decals on their pickup trucks? Those guys are watching Fox, so why should you object to a Democrat appearing on the network. They sure won't get the attention of these people by only going on the Daily Show.

[WI_DEM]

63. he played for the FAUX audience

Howard Dean is consistent that this war is bad, bad, bad.

[markus]

65. Why the hell go on O'Rielly at all?

Why humiliate yourself. Our candidates should not more appear on Fox news than at the Gop national convention.

They should toss Fox News off the damn busses and tell them to have Karl Rove rent them a car.

[Edwards4President]

67. This doesn't make any sense

If they only appear on the shows that we watch, that's just preaching to the choir.

[David Zephyr]

68. Well, At Least Edward Has Joined Lieberman is Standing By His Vote for War

I don't agree with them, but at least they are not trying to have it both ways like John Kerry.

Thanks, Trumad for this post.

I do not watch Bill O'Reilly, but appreciate you keeping an eye on the Democratic Candidates.

Kerry had Congressman Ford, Jr. on Fox just days ago boasting about how Kerry had voted to go to war with Iraq.

Just wait until Kerry and Lieberman get to South Carolina and away from New England. They will be praising the War in Iraq and touting their vote for it.

[oasis]

69. The day before the NH primaries, don't trash the president on national TV

political science 101

[creativelcro]

70. It's driving me nuts!!!! Dean would have said something!!!

[Edwards4President]

72. And that's why Dean is struggling for third place in his own backyard

[saltpoint]

71. You don't want to use your --

-- roundhouse curve on the first pitch of the game.

Wait til the late innings, when there's runners on base. Use it then when you need it.

Edwards is a trial lawyer, and a pretty good one, I hear. My hunch is that he was just nicking the strike zone on O'Liely and will bring the real fire later on.

[creativelcro]

74. You cannot use that argument.

What the hell are you going to do when Edwards is debating Bush and he plays the same chicken game he's playing now ?...

[saltpoint]

76. Of course I can use the argument.

When he debates Bush is when runners are on base. Perfect time to strike the chimp out.

[TexasSissy]

73. Why on earth was he on "O'Lielly"? He's not a serious interviewer.

He has an agenda. And he's just a jerk.

[HuckleB]

77. That's disappointing.

The choice for our best chance in November has been thinned down to Clark and Dean.

[Spirochete]

78. LOL. Just envisioned Billy the Psycho

screaming at Edwards: "SHUT UP, SHUT UP! JUST SHUT UP!. KILL HIS MICROPHONE!" at a presidential candidate.