John Edwards re: IWR: "I was wrong...[i]t was a mistake to vote for this war."

[Ninja Jordan]

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2005/11/002043.html

He can't be much clearer.

[babylonsister]

1. Admitting fault and accepting blame isn't good enough for many on DU.

Ironic when you think of it, considering that's precisely what most people want the blivet to do.

[DemDogs]

2. Have to respect Edwards

I was wrong. You don't hear that often enough in real life. And almost never in politics. A man of integrity, who clearly wants to the right thing.

[Toots]

135. I think it is more a case of political expediency

He was quite adamant in his defense of his vote for quite some time until he realized that the great majority were against the war. Once he realized he was in the minority he changed his mind. While I agree it is good to be able to analyze a situation and make changes as need be it is also good to explain your logic as to why the change. I have not heard him do so. Only that he is now opposed. Why? Why did he change his mind? What epiphany did he have? He was quite able to explain his reasons for voting for the war. He did that on many occasions. Why is he now opposed? What happened to change his mind?

[AtomicKitten]

3. you'll have to pardon this DU'er

who feels matters as grave as war are exempt from wishful do-overs

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Right there with you.

It shows a failure of judgment and Edwards seeking an umerited promotion because he made a mistake on issues of blood and treasure nd wants a chance to prove he would not be that stupid again if we just give him a chance. Nice guy, but totally wrong on the biggest American issue ever!

[Ninja Jordan]

8. Failure of judgment?

Why do you assume those dems who voted against the IWR did so because they were able to "get to the truth," and didn't simply do so because they disagreed with the IWR on any ground (whether real or fake)? If those dems who voted against IWR did so because of their ideology re: America's role in the world (perhaps they feel the US shouldn't respond to such threats), would not they be equally guilty of "being misled" even though they happened to vote against the resolution? In such a case, the difference between Edwards or Kerry and a dem who voted against IWR (Boxer) is merely a difference as to what the US's role in the world should be, rather than an error in judgment from Edwards/Kerry and the use of "good" judgement from Boxer et al.

[Pithy Cherub]

13. Dumbest vote ever and there is no excuse. Smart Dems

voted no, those who had other reasons voted yes. Now they all wished they had said NO. Too bad for aye voters, insight and sound judgment are necessary in a president. To vote No showed a willingness to stand on moral principal and not rush to trust a known liar - its called a Profile in Courage. See the travails of Kerry trying to explain while Edwards co-sponsored the crap. Boxer was smart she voted no! Those who voted yes owe Amercia apologies and atonement for such collosal stupidity.

[Ninja Jordan]

14. I'd love links showing that Boxer uncovered the truth prior to the vote.

What "insight" did she show AT THE TIME? My problem is that Boxer would have voted no IN ANY CASE; even if the information presented WERE true. How does that mean she has more insight? Rather, it shows that she disagrees with other dems re: America's role in responding to perceived threats, not that she has some great, esoteric insight.

[Hippo_Tron]

96. No, she didn't want to give Bush unlimited authority

Read the speeches of those who dissented with the IWR. They all said that they feared Bush would go to war unilaterally and that's why they voted against it. They wanted Powell to make his case to the UN, build a coalition, let the inspectors do their work, and then if Saddam didn't comply they wanted Bush to come back to congress to get war approval. That would've prevented us from being in the situation that we are in now, which is something that they saw coming. They knew that the Bush administration was full of arrogant assholes who would rush to war without building a coalition.

[DemDogs]

103. They DON'T all say they were wrong. Only one says that

Edwards is alone.

[Pithy Cherub]

116. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and he was wrong.

Others just endorsed his stupidity by voting for it. So yes, he should be apologizing for his failed leadership, deplorable judgment. Examine how long it took him to say it - until he decided it would make a nice statement to run for president again. Good on him that he apologized, but it doesn't remove his immoral action from the record or bring people back to life.

[LittleClarkie]

148. No he's not. There have been others.

Kerry, for one. There have been others I think, even Hillary. But not all of them to be sure.

[Bryn]

121. Democrat Senator Bob Graham

He was very much against IWR and explained why. Turned out he was right. He said by going to Iraq war, we would be turning away our attention from terrorist cells, Afghanian (sp?) war and Osama Bin Laden. It was in the Miami Herald front page. Now I want to buy his book. At least he was a very smart Democrat and would have made a very good President with good judgment. He wanted to run for Presidency, but couldn't because of his heart.

[Catchawave]

48. Well stated Ninja ....

I see you've run into DU's circular firing squad...ready,fire,aim :)

I'm married to a retired Marine Colonel, and he's pissed Edwards apologized. I just can't win :rofl:

[cali]

92. Well, I know why my Senator voted against it,

He laid it out in detail. He said that the intelligence was conflicting; he compared it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, he said repeatedly that it was a BLANK CHECK and Congress was abbrogating its duties, etc,etc. Go read Senator Leahy's speech on the floor before the vote, and it's clear and simple: He knew the bush admin was dangerous, that they were lying and manipulating this country into war. And so did a lot of other senators. There speeches are all on the net. No reason whatsoever to wonder about whether Senators and Reps who voted AGAINST the IWR were equally guily of "being misled". HINT: They weren't.

[xkenx]

114. To add to that,

I attended a Wes Clark PAC (SecuringAmerica.com)conference last year, at which Sen. Carl Levin spoke. He was asked about the IWR and replied that ALL the Dems. in Congress had ALL the relevant intelligence information to enable them to vote against a blank check for Bush. Perhaps if enough Dems. had had the moral courage to do so, Bush would have been forced to modify the language to require more inspections, more diplomacy, more alliance-building. Maybe, just maybe, this stinking war wouldn't have happened. Or, and I'm speaking from a purely political standpoint, the country would not be viewing Dems. as complicit with Bush getting us into Iraq, if he pursued the war anyway. As another poster put it, this vote was truly where the rubber meets the road. We can do better than support one of the moral weaklings who enabled Bush. BTW, we might just look at the video on You Tube where Wes Clark testifies to Congress in Sept. 2002, standing up to harsh Rethug. questioning, urging restraint and diplomacy, no blank check, war as a last resort. Imagine, the military general able to see with clarity and with the integrity, with the moral and political courage to put his sworn testimony on the line! And I suspect that he knew that he would be running for president. IMO 2008 calls for the true leadership and integrity that Wes Clark represents.
DO NOT ENABLE THE ENABLERS!

Here is a DU post from a woman with a son about to enter the military:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My son decided long ago that he intends to make the military a career. This kid is not a gung-ho shoot-em-up type kid, but one that turned down a nomination to the Air Force Academy because he so adamantly opposes the way the leadership has dealt with women's issues there. A kid who is a 4.0 honors scholar and is majoring in political science and international affairs. A kid who is a Democrat through and through and values the leadership in a military that is based on a meritocracy.

My selfish, personal reason: I would trust Wes Clark with my son's life.

Wes Clark is a man who understands the value of each and every life and what a tragedy it is to lose even one. He understands that every action he takes has consequences. Wes has used his talents, his skill and his conscience to make sure that every decision he makes guarantees the best outcome with the least cost in lives and heartache. Tirelessly, sleeplessly and with unfailing courage and unceasing care.

Oh, there are a lot of politicians that I might vote for, but there are NONE that deserve to make the decision about whether my son lives or dies.

Except Wes Clark.

Because you see, I think he may be the only one out there that values my son as much as I do".

[venable]

124. Shame. It is obscene to suggest that any politician values another's life

more than does any other politician. It is obscene. I am grossly offended at this. And the fact that this is an Edwards thread, and you post that obscenity about what a man might care about in regards to a son's life. Shame. Shame. Shame.

I care for my son's life more than there are starlights in the sky. I am voting for Edwards.

Maybe Edwards voted for the IWR because he thought in doing so he would be saving hundreds of thousands of lives. He would have been wrong, but that is exactly the reason he voted for it. He was wrong, and he has the courage to say so. Shame on you.

If I were a Kerry supporter, or Gore, or Obama, or Clinton, any Democrat at all (and MOST republicans), and I was told that Wes Clark cared more for my son than they do, I would be horrified. Shame.

If I were Wes Clark, and was told that someone else cared more for sons' lives than do I, I would be horrified.


Don't say this. It is horrible. It is disgusting and cruel.

[xkenx]

127. Sorry, your outrage doesn't cut it.

There are lots of non-Edwards people posting here. Ownership of this thread isn't just pro-edwards comments. IMO, Edwards SHOULD be accountable, along with many others, for their IWR vote. Sorry you have to defend Edwards' non-action when he had the opportunity to do the right thing originally. I also posted a comment by a DUer commenting about her feelings about Wes Clark's caring for the troops, because he has proved it, both with words and actions. Nothing about Edwards NOT caring. Being defensive about Edwards, IMO, doesn't justify outrage at a Clark supporter.

[venable]

129. understanding the English language tells us

that your post, the post you quoted, says that all others care less. read it.
your arrogance is now as offensive as that quote you thoughtlessly posted.

and, anyway, I'm writing not just on behalf of Edwards, but for any other candidate that you say cares less about any son's life than does Clark. It is not true, and it is shameful.

if you don't get it, you don't get it. bye.

[FrenchieCat]

133. What you don't "get" is that it is not Wes Clark that

put your son's life in danger by supporting and promoting a war that should never have happened. That's the part you conveniently miss in your outrage about what posters on a political forum have to say about a political leader who is running for the Presidency of the United States.

Your outrage, in other words, is strangely prioritized, IMO!

[venable]

141. What I do get is that it is arrogant, even obscene

to say that any one person, any candidate, cares for a son's life more than does another.

[xkenx]

142. Once again, I posted an opinion by a DUer, a military mother, who

voiced her feeling about Wes Clark. She trusted Clark, more than anyone else, with her son's life. The feeling was based on what she knew about Clark and his caring for the troops, because Clark has proved himself. Is she, or I, not entitled to post those feelings? You are mighty defensive about John Edwards. Could that come from his co-sponsorship of IWR? Anyway, thanks for extending this thread.

[Skittles]

6. THANK YOU

he voted his career over the interests of America - IT SUCKS, apology or no apology

[talk hard]

32. you're right

no excuses when people die

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Word!

[renie408]

42. What about the ones that turned out OK?

What if this had been a swimming success? Would we all be still haranguing about how wrong it was? What if they had done a better job? How good would that righteous indignation come off then?

[AtomicKitten]

45. that's hardly an argument

not only because it's a moot issue, but the end NEVER justifies the means.

I will refer you to a prior post of mine:

there is no excuse particularly under the circumstances that existed

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/26/bush-pulls-security /

To authorize the IWR in light of the secrecy, rush to war, and imposed selective access to intelligence (see above link) was just plain wrong and, quite frankly, negligence. The Congress was the stopgap and they failed miserably. Those that voted yes demonstrated poor judgment and are, therefore, in my opinion not qualified to lead this country.

There is no do-over for those that have died. Making excuses for those that voted yes is simply not acceptable to those of us who feel war is not an equivocal moral issue. No amount of rationalization can undo this tragedy.

[renie408]

54. I disagree.

I think it is easy to write over two years after we had gone in that it was a stupid idea. And it gets easier every year.

Look, you vote your way and I'll vote mine. I am so sick of arguing about this with the impossibly pure. christ, you find the perfect man who has never made a mistake, and I mean a BIG one, that is running for office, you send up a flare, OK??

[AtomicKitten]

59. What resonates with regard to the disagreement

is that this vote falls within the confines of a "purism" debate in your opinion. In matters of life and death vis a vis war, there is no rationalization in the opinion of some that excuses the poor judgment that led the 28 Senators to vote for this particular intervention, it was that egregious in its level of bullshit. That is where rubber meets the road in my world. Your view of it is much more squishy which is why you can shrug your shoulders and cast aspersions on my opinion as being unrealistic and unfair to those that voted yes. Yes, we will agree to disagree, respectfully, but I want you to understand the real nature of the disagreement; it is not as you framed it. It is a gut feeling you are dismissing in such a cavalier manner.

Spread the love:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[renie408]

68. No, I think you misunderstood me.

The 'impossibly pure' thing is the people around here. Not the people who were casting the votes. Listen, I don't admire the people who voted for the IWR, I said I can understand why they did it. Between the climate in the country at the time and the pressure that was being brought to bear on them at home and in Washington, I understand why they voted the way they did. Especially Senators like Landrieu, Hollings and Edwards. I am not sure where you are from, but I am from South Carolina. I understand what those people had to answer to at home. I wasn't pro-war then any more than I am pro-war now. But I remember getting to a point where I didn't object so much. And I think it was even before the IWR vote. I had a friend who was staying with us from England. When she got here, she was rabidly anti-war. She came in December of '02 and moved back home in May of '03. By time she left, she was arguing with her friends back home and telling them that maybe it wasn't such a terrible thing to do. I remember we would stay glued to the TV watching Tori-whats-her-name give reports. It was almost as much to see what she would wear as to hear what she would say.

Anyway, I am not willing to completely throw somebody out for that vote. I don't see it as a moral indicator or anything like that. That may make me squishy, but if it does, I guess I am OK with that.

[AtomicKitten]

71. And between you and me

my squishiness is evident in that I will support in the general election whomever gets the nod.

The IWR vote was a bullshit vote that set up the Democrats, putting them between a rock and a hard place before an election. I am sympathetic to that. The gravity of war is a deal-breaker for me though.

Happy New Year!!!! :)

[renie408]

74. I do respect that

I really do. I have always said that I understand WHY it is a deal breaker. I just get a little tired of getting whacked over the head with it. No, I am not saying that you are doing that. It is a sort of a collective head-whacking thing that gets to me.

Happy New Year, to you also.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. Being a swimming success would not make it any less wrong.

Unprovoked invasions of other countries are wrong period.

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

- Nuremburg War Tribunal regarding wars of aggression

If I robbed a bank and got away with it, would that make it alright?

I think there are some issues on which DUers and the Dem party itself are just fundamentally divided. I agree with Nuremberg on this one.

[renie408]

57. Ok, this is very true.

I have to agree with this. Good point.

[Crunchy Frog]

60. Thank you. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

64. A better, more succinct argument.

I often find myself defending my own POV. Your explanation was universal. Thank you. :)

[Cameron27]

159. Couldn't have said it better than that!

:thumbsup:

[Hippo_Tron]

97. No, because if it were going well people wouldn't be dieing every day

It would still be wrong but those who voted for it wouldn't have cost thousands of people their lives therefore we probably wouldn't talk about it as much.

[mtnsnake]

47. Amen. These late admissions that they were wrong are simply bullshit

Notice how these people who are saying it was a mistake didn't do so until the war had long become so unpopular nation wide that it's just a little too obvious where they're coming from.

Any of our candidates who voted for it, whether it's Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, or whomever...they ALL knew that Bush was lying. They voted yes because they knew it was the political thing to do for THEM, not the right thing to do. None of them could possibly have been that stupid that they really thought that the IWR was the right thing to do at the time. They were all thinking about their own political futures because at that time the country was all geared up for the stupid war, and they didn't want to go against the grain, even though they knew they were WRONG not to do so.

[AtomicKitten]

49. you are absolutely right

I would yield in my opinion had anyone recanted BEFORE the 2004 election. The timing of these cosmic revelations coinciding with the polls is a matter of convenience. And it seems those willing to overlook the gravity of the vote and its repercussions are doing so on behalf of a candidate eying 2008. This is not an equivocal moral issue in my world.

[Crunchy Frog]

67. And if they were that stupid

they are hardly presidential material IMO.

[LittleClarkie]

150. But someone who never had to past that test is automatically superior?

We'll never know how folks like Clark or Dean would have voted.

[talk hard]

154. doesn't matter

people died --- that sniff test you got goin on doesnt't matter cuz they opposed the war
we do know how the others voted

[SOS]

158. Arthur Schlesinger Jr on the stupidity of this war:

From an article in today's NYT, Monday 1/1/07:

"Sometimes, when I am particularly depressed, I ascribe our behavior to stupidity — the stupidity of our leadership, the stupidity of our culture. Three decades ago, we suffered defeat in an unwinnable war against tribalism, the most fanatic of political emotions, fighting against a country about which we knew nothing and in which we had no vital interests. Vietnam was hopeless enough, but to repeat the same arrogant folly 30 years later in Iraq is unforgivable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/opinion/01schlesinger.html

[NotGivingUp]

138. my thoughts exactly. they weren't interested in what was best

for we the people. they were acting on their political behalves...and handing over immense wealth to an elite few.

[Clark2008]

143. Exactly.

I can forgive him and will. But that doesn't mean I should reward him with my vote.

[LittleClarkie]

146. Shall we hang a scarlett letter on his chest that says IWR?

Never made a mistake you regretted, dear?

[talk hard]

155. my mistakes didn't lead to anyone dying

dear

[ktowntennesseedem]

12. Yeah, some love to beat Edwards over the head with that one.

Some random thoughts:

Until time travel is possible, I don't see anyway for him to change his vote.

Admitting his mistake is far more than most have done (not to mention the Dumbass-in-Chief who can't even think of any mistakes he's made.)

Even if he had voted differently, the outcome would have been the same (its not like the resolution passed by his one vote or anything)

Even a resounding no-vote from congress wouldn't have stopped the war, just delayed it a bit while the administration figured out a way to bypass congress, perhaps by allowing another awful terror attack to "happen."

Edwards was in good company, as many other Dems voted like he did, too.

[talk hard]

29. riiiiiiiight -- its not like anybody died or anything

I sure wouldn't call that "good company"

[Adelante]

137. Edwards *co-sponsored* the IWR

That was leadership of some kind, but surely not the kind we needed.

Get real, please, with your apologetics:

"(its not like the resolution passed by his one vote or anything)"

[pocoloco]

16. You make a mistake , you admit it,

take responsibility for it. Good, but that won't wash the blood from your hands though.

How about admitting bush* is smarter than you are, that you were played for a sucker?

What are you gonna do when someone just a little smarter with a big plan comes along? Follow him also?

You bet it isn't good enough for those of us who read the script and had to agonize as it was followed out in all it's bloody detail!

[Unvanguard]

122. No, it isn't.

It's 600,000+ lives late.

[LittleClarkie]

145. I suppose he'll have to commit seppuku then

Anyone got a sword?

[cassiepriam]

4. Weren't the dems lied to and given false documents...?

Why do they have to beat their chests for forgiveness?
They are vitims of the bush cabal like everyone else.

Dems are always set up in lose lose situations.
The ones who came out against the war were vilified,
the ones who didn't are now demonized.

[Skittles]

7. WE HERE IN THE DU WERE NOT FOOLED

SO IT DISGUSTS US THAT ANYONE IN OUR GOVERNMENT WAS FOOLED

[babylonsister]

15. Having not been on "the DU" at the time, I too was fooled.

Stupidly, I believed Colin Powell, believed he wouldn't lie to us. I know better now, but didn't then. So I was lied to; I'm not the only one obviously.
What will people do if someone who voted against the IWR isn't running?

[Ninja Jordan]

18. Their head will explode.

[Debi]

21. The same thing we did in 2004

We'll vote AGAINST the republican candidate, not necessarily FOR the Democrat.

[Skittles]

22. those bastards STOLE THE ELECTION

that clued me in THEY COULD NOT BE TRUSTED

[babylonsister]

26. You'll get no arguments from me about

the election(s) being stolen. I'm happy I'm a bit more knowledgeable now than I was prior to the run-up to this illegal occupation. I hopefully won't be fooled again, and will have DU as a source of real info.

[Skittles]

27. that's why you ROCK, babylonsister!

:thumbsup:

[Crunchy Frog]

40. I was not on DU at the time, and I was NOT fooled.

In fact, I found DU out of a frantic search for someplace on the web where there were other people who felt the same way I did, and that was just on the eve of the invasion.

I am not opposed to all war, and I would not have opposed this one if a genuinely compelling case had been made for it. All I saw was an extremely transparent attempt to manipulate American public opinion in the most crude fashion imaginable.

I do not believe that any of our elected representatives were truly fooled. I think many of them supporete the war because they were terrified of being labeled unpatriotic or because the war was politically popular at the time, or simply out of naked political calculation.

I personally will not be able to give anything more than my vote to a candidate who supported the IWR, and I may not be able to give even that.

[renie408]

61. I was fooled, too. Not by Powell, though.

He lost me with the traveling ammunition labs that they couldn't find pictures of. I thought that sounded just too damn stupid.

I do remember thinking that if we could get Hussein out and stabilize the country, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. I saw a bunch of shows that were telling the stories of people who had fled from Iraq and couldn't go back as long as Hussein was in control.

[Le Taz Hot]

84. The same thing I did in 2004

when Kerry was shoved down our throats -- write in a candidate. There ARE alternatives.

[Debi]

10. Then why did some Dems vote against the IWR?

Kucinich?

Feingold?

Kennedy?

Dodd?

More......

[Ninja Jordan]

11. See post 8

I've formulated an argument.

[Debi]

17. Not that I disagree with your agrument - some are just pure peace lovers

Don't know that I disagree with that either.

But Edwards has stated that he voted for the IWR because of the information provided to him and has implied that if the truth would have been provided he would not have voted that way.

Feingold (for one) voted for the war in Afganistan - he is not an anti-war voter - he voted against the IWR because of the information provided (or not provided).

[Ninja Jordan]

20. Fair enough

If it can be proven that, at the time prior to the vote, Feingold had uncovered the truth, or refused to vote in favor because of a lack of information, then he should be given credit for that.

[Debi]

23. Or maybe he was psychic?

Like he was when he voted against the PATRIOT ACT that John Edwards proudly proclaimed that he helped author?

I doubt we'll find any links to articles written by Democrats that say that they voted against the IWR because they secretly discovered that they were being lied to. More likely your comments about several of those Dems just being anti-war will prevail. But there is still the chance that the people who voted against it just 'knew' something wasn't right. And those that voted for it had something to lose (their Senate/Congressional seat - their chance to become President).

I know that I'll vote for the Democrat - whoever it will be- in November 2008. But during the primary process I have the right (we all have the right) to hold people who voted differently than we would have accountable for their votes. No matter why the did it or how they feel about it today.

[Ninja Jordan]

30. I have no problem with hold 'yea' voters accountable; rather, my problem

is with those who say that 'no' voters somehow hold such a greater degree of "good judgment," and "insight" than 'yea' voters; when in reality, for the most part, the 'no' voters merely disagreed with any operation in Iraq--whether the information was true or not. It isn't a different in insight or judgment, but of opinion and ideology.

[Debi]

34. And we agree

probably all around - I also believe that those who voted against it just because they are anti-war have very good judgment. It would be interesting to hear from them if it was just their philosophy or if it was the information provided that helped them vote the way they did.

Unfortunately for Edwards/Kerry/Clinton/Lieberman/Harkin etc. I think they voted for the IWR not so much b/c of the information provided by the Administration but b/c of the polls in 2002/2004 AND the potential in 2006/2008. THAT is troubling!

[Critters2]

153. He didn't just vote for it. He sponsored it. He bears responsiblity for the war. nt

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Why did Al Gore speak out so forcefully against it?

Is he just another pacifist who opposes all US military action? Does his record support that view of him?

[sandnsea]

44. You mean this?

As with many other Dems, EVERYTHING they said at the time is usually not quoted.

"The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action. Anticipating that the President will still move toward unilateral action, the Congress should establish now what the administration's thinking is regarding the aftermath of a US attack for the purpose of regime change."

[Crunchy Frog]

58. You're right.

Many people have difficulty with long complex arguements, and can only deal with simplistic sound bites. I've found much the same phenomenon with Clark's pre-war statements.

It's much easier to pick and choose a few paragraphs out of context then it is to read the entire statement.

[sandnsea]

65. Because it's the same

As is Dean's statements in 2002, such as giving Iraq 60 days to comply and then invading.

These people did nothing to create an argument against war in 2002 and it's always been phony of them to say they did.

[renie408]

136. Respectfully, that goes both ways. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

98. Okay, here's my interpretation of that

Al Gore is saying that we should build a coalition but that he suspects the Bush administration wants to go to war unilaterally. The IWR gave Bush the authority to go to war unilaterally. So why did the Senators and Congressmen vote for a resolution giving Bush the authority to go to war unilaterally when they too wanted him to build a coalition? Why didn't they pass a resolution saying that once the President has built a coalition, he should come back to the congress and then request approval to disarm Saddam Hussein.

[DemDogs]

104. Thanks for getting that out.

Along with Dean saying Saddam had anthrax and Clark's early support for the war, there are a lot of hindsight selective memory here. Edwards said he was wrong, and that shows character and a willingness to take responsibility. I admire it.

[AtomicKitten]

106. Media Matters disputes this bullshit interpretation you applaud.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070007

It's really lame to offer up snippets of quotations from others in order to mitigate your candidate's 'yes' vote on the IWR.

Nice try.

[DemDogs]

110. How about these Clark's full quotes FOR war then?

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

[Pithy Cherub]

112. Like Cheney, you are cherry picking

to make a case that is a complete fabrication about Clark in order to manage cognitive dissonance for supporting a neophyte grandstanding politician who was totally and morally wrong about the national security. Edwards co-sponsored the IWR and that will be his eternal shame and embarrassment. Clark testified against it and see his SWORN testimony BEFORE the IWR votes were cast. Edwards stupidly hung a shameful albatross around his own neck and decided that should make him president.

Courage is required - see Clark for standing up for Michael Moore, testifying before Congress, assisting smart courageous senators like Wellstone and Kennedy in voting NO.

Contrast that with Edwards standing behind his aye vote until years later when he decided that saying he was totally wrong should make him fit to serve as president without any national security achievements and a bunch of cool passport stamps. Edwards chose to follow his ambition not his conscience.

[AtomicKitten]

128. My comments addressed Gore -- not Clark

You'll have to take this argument to the Clark experts who will be happy to refute the lies about Clark.

[Tom Rinaldo]

149. Read my posts #123 and #147 below. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

69. Gore has been consistent in his opposition to the war.

Gore's opposition to Iraq should set a standard
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7510&pst=447880

Al Gore recently reiterated his original opposition to the invasion. It's not that hard to see the logic in his original opposition. And it makes us have to wonder where were the minds of all of the Congress members who voted for the war? Were they in the clouds out of touch with reality, did they really believe an administration that had already proven its lack of integrity, or were they purposefully giving Bush his blank check for self-destruction? Either way, this invasion was a mistake and Gore's reaffirmation of this should set a standard for the politicians we elect and re-elect.

KING: Were you opposed to Iraq?

GORE: Yes, I was.

KING: From the get-go.

GORE: Yes.

KING: Because?

GORE: Well, the evidence available showed very clearly that we had been attacked on September 11, 2001 by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist organization. I think it was a mistake though to pull so many of our troops off of that hunt and divert to an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and even though we didn't like the dictator that was there, there are a lot of dictators out there right now that we don't like. And I felt that unlike the first Persian Gulf War, which I supported because Saddam Hussein had invaded his neighbor and was threatening the security interests of the U.S. and our allies and we had support from all our allies, the United Nations resolution, the whole world was behind us. This was different and here's the most troubling aspect of it, Larry. The evidence that was coming out of the CIA and the expert community was saying one thing and it was the stuff they didn't want to hear they were deep-sixing it and stuff that didn't make sense they were ballyhooing. And it's the same thing that's happening with global warming. That's the point. They are doing exactly the same thing on this issue.

KING: Why deliberately? Are they deliberating saying "Ha, ha, ha, we want to go to war so we'll diffuse this?" What's the point?

GORE: I think that they went to -- I think it was like a perfect storm. I think there were a lot of things going on in the administration. I think that Vice President Cheney was genuinely focused on trying to get a foothold in the region where the biggest oil reserves are and he had written about and spoken about that for years before taking office. Karl Rove said on the eve of the war that it was going to be a great political issue and I think that actually played into it. And then I think that there were some in the administration ideologically driven who had this idea that they were going to plant democracy in country with a majority of the population under 19 years old with no tradition of democracy. And it's a, you know, great thing if you could do it but there was a lack of realism about whether it was actually feasible, particularly with trying to do it on the cheap with far fewer forces than the heads of the military were telling them at the time was necessary.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

****************************************************************************************************

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070007

Excerpt:

In fact, Gore laid out his reasons for opposing President Bush's Iraq policy in a September 23, 2002, speech at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. In that speech, Gore explained how his opposition to Bush's push for military action against Iraq was consistent with his support of the 1991 war against Iraq. He stated that although "in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War," and Saddam's "Iraq does ... pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region," "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Gore noted that "in 1991, Iraq had crossed an international border, invaded a neighboring sovereign nation and annexed its territory. Now by contrast in 2002, there has been no such invasion." Gore stated that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 had made it "easier" to assemble "a broad international coalition" that supported and "paid all of the significant costs of the war." In contrast, Gore noted, "many of our allies in Europe and Asia are ... openly opposed to what President Bush is doing ." He asserted that if the United States acted against Iraq without the support of a broad coalition, it would "severely damage[]" America's ability to "secure[] the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations" in the war against terrorism.

Gore further stated: "President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 in order to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election."

Gore also argued that "we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it." He also criticized Bush for "fail ... to lay out an assessment of how ... the course of a war will run" and "what would follow ... in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place," and for "assert that we will take preemptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent." Gore argued that "f other nations assert that same right , "then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear."

[Crunchy Frog]

72. Thank you!

I'm sick of all this selective quoting being used to make it look like people who opposed the invasion really supported it. Thanks for setting the record straight.

[AtomicKitten]

75. You are welcome, mam.

And a wonderful New Year to you!

[pocoloco]

31. The short answer is courage!!

Which unfortunately has been in short supply!

[Debi]

35. That and ambition

unfortunately I think some of the people who voted for the IWR did so b/c they didn't want to appear (to the voters) as dovish AND they desired to remain in office or seek higher office.

[cassiepriam]

95. I just don't understand why the fact the dems were lied to and given

false info is never mentioned.

[venable]

144. exactly

and further that Edwards, as a member of the Intel comittee, was told point-blank, over and over, by Tenet, that if Saddam was not disarmed, mushroom clouds would rise over our country.

Even with that, Edwards vote was not to invade, but to enforce process of inspections, a process aborted by Bush. It is Bush's war not Edwards'.

[cassiepriam]

151. More repug BS that the dems buy. They bash each other with Rove memes.

He must love it.
Blame the victims.

[citizen snips]

9. Edwards is speaking out against the McCain Doctrine

and he also believes in the immediate withdraw of 40,000 troops from Iraq.

[Leilani]

19. Where does the 40,000 number come from?

What province in Iraq will they be removed from?

Will they be Army, Marines, Air Force or Navy?

How will they be moved out immediately? With equipment or not?

What troops will be left vulnerable?

When did he become a military strategist?

He voted oh so easily for the war; now he will withdraw, oh so easily.

A war is a little more complex than Edwards realized, or realizes.

[citizen snips]

28. Yeah I am sure Edwards will have no military adivsers

to help him withdraw troops. :eyes:

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[MalloyLiberal]

56. And like I said. I'd love to support Clark, but with supporters like his....

How are we ever going to unite our country? Just constant arguing and bitching and fighting.

[Catchawave]

66. Have to agree.

I worked with a lot of them during the Webb campaign, and DU should not be representative of the great people I met. Clark is a good man and deserves better support than I'm seeing on DU.

[FrenchieCat]

131. Some would call it "debate" Mr. MalloyLiberal.....

and considering your namesake, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why discussing someone's vote for war and the possible motives behind it would be considered "Bitching and Fighting"? Are we to get on a bandwagon in lock step holding a rubberstamp here on this political discussion forum? Is that the way to "unite" the country in your view?

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Gotta love those Edwardniacs.

Getting little digs in at supporters of other candidates whenever they get the opportunity.

"Clarkies" are apparently the only people on this board not allowed to express opinions without getting slimed by broad-brush generalizations about what a bad bunch they all are. Well, more than one can play that game, and I'm just about ready to start playing along.

I've been slimed worse than that by supporters of other candidates for daring to support Clark, including being called a Republican and a Bush-lover. I'm about ready to show that I can dish it out as well as I can take it.

So why don't you STFU your self-righteous self.

[renie408]

78. I think I would prefer 'Edwardian'

Hmmmm...but that sounds stodgy.

Trust me. Edwardniacs are getting dug at, too. Since Edwards has been getting a lot of press this past week, they are coming out of the woodwork with the shitty comments. I have been trying hard not to get militant, but I am kind of militant by nature, so its hard. It's weird how personal it feels when people attack the candidate you like. At least Clark doesn't get jumped for having nice hair. And he does have nice hair!

[ChiciB1]

80. And Don't Forget.... He Had That Mole Removed!

Some said he was being vain! Sometimes our "big tent" philosophy gets in the way and we eat our own.

There is only on person who may be running that I will get negative about, but even there it will only be to say that I'm not a supporter for specific reasons.

[Crunchy Frog]

94. It's not attacking the candidate that bothers me so much.

Beat the living daylights out of Clark if you want. It's these nasty little digs at supporters that I take very personally.

I can just be reading an ordinary thread with a diversity of views, and all of a sudden I see a "those Clarkies are...", and then we'll get accused of everything from being mindless fanboys to being part of some vast nefarious conspiracy.

It's been happening for as long as I've been posting on here, and I'm no longer going to put up with it.

I try very hard not to attack Edwards BTW. I have honest concerns over his judgement and some of his past decisions, and I will discuss those, but I will not attack him. I will go after his supporters though, if they continue to go after "the Clarkies".

Clark may not get jumped on for having nice hair, but he does get jumped on for still looking good in a speedo. His supporters get jumped on for noticing it too, I can tell you.

[Skwmom]

93. Wasn't that one of the arguments for electing Bush - he would surround

himself with people who knew what they were talking about - and we all know how that turned out.

[citizen snips]

113. you think it would get old after awhile.

[DemDogs]

105. A particularly uninformed statement

If you read here at all, you read about Edwards having the support of a number of military advisors. The Clarkies unbelievably still hold Edwards responsible for comments by Hugh Shelton, who had worked over Clark, that Clark was untrustworthy. (Like Shelton would have made that up because --ooh-- Clark was such a big threat in 2004.)

[FrenchieCat]

132. Paticularly uninformed post

Like Shelton would have made that up because --ooh--Clark was susch a big threat in 2004.

uh...yeah, that's exactly why Shelton made the statement on Clark's integrity and Character.....because Clark was a threat and in the end Shelton, a General, admitted that it was "just politics". In fact, Shelton's statement against Clark were made when Clark was leading in the national polls in September of 2003, when Clark initially threw his hat into the primary arena!

During the General's testimony in The Hague in December of 2003, Milosevic used Shelton's quote smearing Clark's character and integrity to impugn the General's testimony. The prosecutor Carla de la Ponte called Shelton to confirm and to evaluate whether he should come to testify on Milosevic's behalf. Shelton backpedaled, saying it was 'just politics.'

The fizzling whisper campaign was brought to a halt when General Shelton was called on the carpet by Hague prosecutors who were trying Milosovic. Milosovic repeated what Gen. Shelton had whispered about General Clark, after Clark testified against Milosovic. Unfortunately for General Gossip, he had to call his unfortunate comments assailing Wes Clark's character "just politics".
http://wesleyclark.h1.ru/presidence4.htm#LA%20Meetup%20with%20Wes%20II
Read these for further insight:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34738
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[Clarkie1]

24. Apology accepted, but that's not the point. An apology isn't enough.

The man is running for President of the United States, and that kind of error in judgement cannot be brushed aside with an apology.

[Ninja Jordan]

33. See posts 8, 14, 30

[Clarkie1]

51. Why? nt

[Ninja Jordan]

79. They address charges re: errors in judgment.

[Clarkie1]

85. I already know how he voted. nt

[Ninja Jordan]

86. That doesn't address anything.

[Clarkie1]

88. Yes it does, it shows an incidence of poor judgement. nt

[Ninja Jordan]

91. Again, see the aforementioned posts.

[Debi]

36. Clark wasn't so crystal clear on his position regarding IWR

Until public opinion made it clearer for him.

[sandnsea]

46. Here's his recommendations

Sept 2002. This was the exact intent of other Democrats when crafting the IWR. Gore, Clark, Dean, they all said pretty much the same thing about Iraq at the time.

"..In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.."

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

[Clarkie1]

52. Thanks for posting that!

Much appreciated!

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail."

:hi:

[sandnsea]

62. Clark supported force,..

if other measures failed. As did Dean, Gore, etc. That's what the IWR did, authorized force if all peaceful means failed. Bush lied and went to war anyway.

[Clarkie1]

82. No, you have your facts wrong about the IWR that passed.

It authorized force, which Clark cleary said was unecessary.

Again, thank you for posting the text of Clark's remarks. I appreciate that.

[sandnsea]

87. "use of force must remain a US option"

"need not" does not mean must not. He clearly advocates a policy of threatening force and using it if necessary. That's exactly what the IWR did. I understand politics and don't hold it againt him for playing the game, but he was not against the IWR and did hold out the option of war if necessary. It's plain as day to anybody who read the entirety of his remarks.

[FrenchieCat]

100. You may understand politics, but Wes Clark wasn't in politics.....

and it wasn't a "game" to him, it was a matter of life and death; war and peace! Wes Clark always insisted that Saddam DID NOT HAVE ANY NUCLEAR CAPABLE WMDs which is what the Bush Regime intimated when speaking of "Mushroom Clouds" to the public in pushing their war....and it should be noted that these would be the ONLY WMDs that would have posed a threat to the United States that could be termed as imminent. A preventive war was never anything Wes Clark supported. Wes Clark wanted evidence of these WMDs; and he wanted the evidence to be presented to the United Nations, and he wanted the United Nations to vote once the evidence had been shown, and then he wanted Bush to come back to congress for a 2nd vote.

Further, the Belief of any urgent/imminent threat was never anything that Clark ever articulated, or insinuated ever....which is why he did not sat that going to war was something that needed to be rushed or that evidence ever even justified it. I do not believe that Wes Clark wanted to ever give a blank check authorizing war to George Bush.

Here's my evidence as to why Clark didn't believe that the US was in imminent danger from Saddam and why he clearly felt that a blank check given to Bush was not a smart move:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3033508&mesg_id=3034206

And there lies the rub for those, such as yourself, who want to align Clark with Kerry by making their views identical. So please answer me this:

First, I never quite understood why John Kerry voted Nay against the first Gulf War (in where we had an actual viable coalition) and yet found it necessary to vote Yeah to give Bush Jr. authority to go to war. What was the difference? It would appear that the first Gulf war seemed just a tad more justified (by not much though) than this last Iraq invasion, and so, I don't understand Kerry's reasoning. Could someone help me out on that one?

Second-- That being said, I do believe that John Kerry, under normal circumstances (that is if he had not been intent on running for President) would not have made a "Yeah" vote based on all that he said.....but he did. And as much as you attempt to align Sen. Kerry's position with that of the others you have named (and you make a case for it, but unfortunately that is not the real problem), the fact remains John Kerry voted for something that (in my heart of heart, I believe) he really didn't want to vote for (and therein lies the rub, i.e., the problem)....and that question of why he did has not ever really been answered by John Kerry in a credible manner (and I certainly would read info on that if it is available)....because I do not believe that John Kerry "wanted" to trust the President to do the right thing....and so the question remains; If John Kerry believed as Clark did that there was no imminent threat to the United States from Saddam, and Saddam had no Nuclear WMDs....then why did he vote to give the President the authority to go to war?

[Clarkie1]

117. Again, you refuse to acknowledge the words you yourself posted.

"need not at this time authorize the use of force."

The IWR authorized the use of force, which Clark was against.

Of course, it is possible that at some future date an imminent thread could have developed, that is always possible. Nobody has a crystal ball.

But that's not the point. Thanks again for posting Clark's remarks. I appreciate you helping to get the truth out that Clark was against the IWR that passed. Although Clark may not be your favorite Democrat for whatever reasons, you can at least take comfort you are in agreement with Kerry's fellow and senior senator from Massachusetts, who has stated for the record that Clark's opinion was a key factor in Kennedy's vote against the version of the IWR that passed. Cheers.

:toast:

[sandnsea]

120. I read more than two words n/t

[Clarkie1]

134. Thank you for taking the time to do that.

Much appreciated.

[AtomicKitten]

89. Why do you keep saying Gore supported force? -- flat-out not true

You seem to have very little regard for the truth, and I can guess why.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070007

Excerpt:

In fact, Gore laid out his reasons for opposing President Bush's Iraq policy in a September 23, 2002, speech at San Francisco's Commonwealth Club. In that speech, Gore explained how his opposition to Bush's push for military action against Iraq was consistent with his support of the 1991 war against Iraq. He stated that although "in 1991, I was one of a handful of Democrats in the United States Senate to vote in favor of the resolution endorsing the Persian Gulf War," and Saddam's "Iraq does ... pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region," "I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century."

Gore noted that "in 1991, Iraq had crossed an international border, invaded a neighboring sovereign nation and annexed its territory. Now by contrast in 2002, there has been no such invasion." Gore stated that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 had made it "easier" to assemble "a broad international coalition" that supported and "paid all of the significant costs of the war." In contrast, Gore noted, "many of our allies in Europe and Asia are ... openly opposed to what President Bush is doing ." He asserted that if the United States acted against Iraq without the support of a broad coalition, it would "severely damage[]" America's ability to "secure[] the continuing, sustained cooperation of many nations" in the war against terrorism.

Gore further stated: "President George H. W. Bush purposely waited until after the mid-term elections of 1990 in order to push for a vote at the beginning of the new Congress in January of 1991. President George W. Bush, by contrast, is pushing for a vote in this Congress immediately before the election."

Gore also argued that "we should focus our efforts first and foremost against those who attacked us on September 11th and who have thus far gotten away with it." He also criticized Bush for "fail ... to lay out an assessment of how ... the course of a war will run" and "what would follow ... in Iraq in the months and years after a regime change has taken place," and for "assert that we will take preemptive action even if the threat we perceive is not imminent." Gore argued that "f other nations assert that same right , "then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear."

***************************************************************************************************

Gore's opposition to Iraq should set a standard
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7510&pst=447880

Al Gore recently reiterated his original opposition to the invasion. It's not that hard to see the logic in his original opposition. And it makes us have to wonder where were the minds of all of the Congress members who voted for the war? Were they in the clouds out of touch with reality, did they really believe an administration that had already proven its lack of integrity, or were they purposefully giving Bush his blank check for self-destruction? Either way, this invasion was a mistake and Gore's reaffirmation of this should set a standard for the politicians we elect and re-elect.

Excerpt from transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/13/lkl.01.html

KING: Were you opposed to Iraq?

GORE: Yes, I was.

KING: From the get-go.

GORE: Yes.

KING: Because?

GORE: Well, the evidence available showed very clearly that we had been attacked on September 11, 2001 by Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terrorist organization. I think it was a mistake though to pull so many of our troops off of that hunt and divert to an invasion of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with attacking us and even though we didn't like the dictator that was there, there are a lot of dictators out there right now that we don't like. And I felt that unlike the first Persian Gulf War, which I supported because Saddam Hussein had invaded his neighbor and was threatening the security interests of the U.S. and our allies and we had support from all our allies, the United Nations resolution, the whole world was behind us. This was different and here's the most troubling aspect of it, Larry. The evidence that was coming out of the CIA and the expert community was saying one thing and it was the stuff they didn't want to hear they were deep-sixing it and stuff that didn't make sense they were ballyhooing. And it's the same thing that's happening with global warming. That's the point. They are doing exactly the same thing on this issue.

KING: Why deliberately? Are they deliberating saying "Ha, ha, ha, we want to go to war so we'll diffuse this?" What's the point?

GORE: I think that they went to -- I think it was like a perfect storm. I think there were a lot of things going on in the administration. I think that Vice President Cheney was genuinely focused on trying to get a foothold in the region where the biggest oil reserves are and he had written about and spoken about that for years before taking office. Karl Rove said on the eve of the war that it was going to be a great political issue and I think that actually played into it. And then I think that there were some in the administration ideologically driven who had this idea that they were going to plant democracy in country with a majority of the population under 19 years old with no tradition of democracy. And it's a, you know, great thing if you could do it but there was a lack of realism about whether it was actually feasible, particularly with trying to do it on the cheap with far fewer forces than the heads of the military were telling them at the time was necessary.

[renie408]

70. That's what the IWR said. In effect, Clark is saying he would support the IWR. n/t

[Clarkie1]

81. Not at all!

Clark is saying he did not support authorizing the use of force, clearly!

[FrenchieCat]

101. In effect you have reduced Clark's position to an untruth!

here's the actual truth of Clark's position on the Blank Check resolution--He was not "for" it. period.
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/what_wes_clark_said_prior_to_t.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html

[AtomicKitten]

107. apparently the new tactic of

Kerry & Edwards supporters is to lie about Gore and Clark, trying to say they supported the Iraq war all along and would have voted yes on the IWR. I guess they are trying to smooth over their own candidate's yes vote that way. And the fact that there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to phase them.

Seriously lame.

[FrenchieCat]

108. Apparently it is......which leaves some in a quandry of wanting to

support a candidate who would have prescient foreign policy views but on the other hand don't seem to have a problem with those who voted as though they didn't know any better!

So I'd say seriously Ironic as well!

[DemDogs]

109. Ironic is better than delusional

Clark did speak against the Iraq War. He also spoke in favor of it.
Do you seriously believe that if you keep saying he didn't that we will all believe you and not the record?
What you fail to grasp is that everything else you says carries less weight here because you are so dishonest on this point.

From FAIR and CNN:
Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Clark's words, clear and simple. Clark was for the war. He was later against it, and that is great, but he was first for it. Live with it.

[DemDogs]

111. WARNING: Real Clark quotations!

Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations." As he later elaborated (CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

[Tom Rinaldo]

123. WARNING: Real context to Clark quotations!

"Clark explained on CNN (1/21/03) that if he had been in charge, "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

First it is important to remember that Clark was at that point a non political military national security commentator. We are so used to Clark as he is now, openly political and partisan, that we expect him to express his own opinions about what is right and what is wrong, but that was not the role given him by CNN. Clark's role there was to help viewers make sense out of why what was going on in the world at the time that it was actually going on, not to express opinions about whether it should be going on. Despite that, Clark did preface his comments by noting his personal disagreement with Bush's policy and actions. It's almost amusing, do people on DU realize that CNN was getting flack from the Right about letting Wes Clark do commentary for them at the time, because he wasn't backing Bush up every step of the way?

When Clark said "But just assuming that we're here at this point" he was describing the point at which Bush had already told the world he was abandoning the United Nations approach and it was clear as glass in what Bush was saying that his mind was made up about what he was going to do next if Sadaam Hussein didn't leave Iraq, which is what the Bush Administration was pushing for in the final weeks before the invasion. Clark was saying that Bush had already cast his lot in favor of the invasion and Bush was going to have to procede without depending on further support that might well not be forthcoming from some traditional allies that the U.S. had counted on in the past. Clark simply called it like it was. That wasn't his position. That was how he read the position of the United States Government. And Clark was describing what Bush was going to have to settle for in the invasion Clark already knew Bush intended to launch; less than full support from some traditional U.S. Allies. Correct and proper analysis.

It's not much different with this quote:

"The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

Again Clark was not in a role where he was free to advise on the wisdom of the approach that Bush was taking, Clark had already done that in front of the United States Congress in testimony that has already been linked to. He thought Bush's policy was a giant mistake and he said so then, in front of the United States Congress. Again what you are quoting now is later commentary about something that was an out and out done deal. Clark was under no illusions about what Bush was about to do. Clark is only talking about how the chips were likely to fall as a result.

That was his job on CNN. This is a problem about taking spontaneous live commentary out of context and spinning it like a policy position. Words like "the rest of the world's got to get with us", that wasn't Clark's position, that was his reading of the fait accompli that Bush was presenting the world with. If he had carefully been choosing words as a politician (which he then wasn't) Clark might have said "the rest of the world's got to deal with what the United States under this President is doing". In fact that is what the rest of his actual comment goes on to imply. One thing that Clark believes in is accountability. He never denies that The United States Government is the official voice of America in the world.

We live in a Democracy, Clark holds himself and all citizens accountable for the government that we elect. Part of the consequences of an election is that the President largely gets to define America's official position on international issues. The President appoints the Secretary of State. The President appoints our ambassadors to other nations, and to the United Nations. Whatever you or I or Ted Kennedy might have thought or said at the time, a week or two before Iraq got invaded, you know damn well that governments around the world were calculating whether they "needed to get with us".

The United States literally was changing the facts on the ground inside Iraq. Would the UN be willing to come into Iraq after the invasion and take on a serious role in the transition back to Iraq independence? Would the UN take a leading role in helping Iraq rebuild? Would the UN help look for WMD or help exercise temporary control of Iraq's Oil? As it turned out Bush didn't want the UN to take any serious role in post invasion Iraq, but that wasn't clearly known at the time Clark commented.

You know, it's not like we have to read tea leaves about Clark's position on Iraq from sifting through fragments of comments he made on CNN while doing military commentary. I can say you are spinning his words here, you can say I am spinning his words here. But this is not all that we have to work with. We have Clark's literal testimony in front of Congress. We have the Op-Eds that Clark wrote before the IWR came to a vote. For the sake of rebuttal I am pointing out how I think you are distoring Clark's meaning from the quotes you cite, but the real and meaningful evidence is found in Clark's testimony and writings before the IWR vote ever happened. You are engaged in a fishing expedition to uncover snipets you can use to distort and cloud Clark's very real public record on Iraq.

[renie408]

140. I am not sure I understand your point about Clark.

It sounds to me like you are saying that Clark says one thing when he is commentating and something else on his own time. It also seems to me like you just might need to be able to read tea leaves to decipher the stuff he meant and the stuff he didn't.

Trust me, I like Clark. I think he would have a lot to offer as a candidate. Also, I have already said that whether or not he would have supported the IWR is not a deal breaker for me. It just bugs me when Clark supporters appear to think that it is completely out of the question that Clark might have voted for the IWR if he had been in the position to. It is too easy to me to say what you would do in a given situation that you are pretty sure you aren't ever going to be in. It is even easier to say what somebody ELSE would do.

[Tom Rinaldo]

147. I have a good link for you

What I was saying is that when Clark was asked, before the IWR vote, to explain before Congress what American policy toward Iraq should be, he did so (I assume under oath) in great detail. It was called expert testimony. It was the primary subject he addressed, he was cross examined, he was questioned, he was asked clarifying questions and he expanded on his views during that questioning. It is all public record. Testifying in front of Congress about Iraq is as close as someone who was not a member of Congress at the time could come to voting on Iraq in Congress. I was suggesting that if people want to know what Clark thought the United States should do regarding Iraq that they look to Clark's extensive comments both in testimony to Congress and in print about what he actually thought and said that the United States should do regarding Iraq.

I admitted in my comments above that what I wrote could be considered by someone to be counter spin to someone else's spin. Since what I thought was only someone else's "spin" had already been posted on this thread, I countered it with another reasonable interpretation. But my primary point was to say how stupid it is to be picking over Clark's CNN commentary for clues about what he thought about Iraq when Clark boldly came out in public and told everyone exactly what his views were regarding Iraq long before that. It was Clark's mission in front of Congress to present his own full views regarding Iraq to representatives of the United States goevernment. It was Clark's mission on CNN to explain military tactics and to educate the public about the events that were then unfolding and how they were likely to be perceived by other nations and how they were likely to play out given the forces in play. Those are very different missions. Clark was not invited onto CNN to present his own views or to argue for or against American policy under Bush. Clark was part of their news team then.

Here is a link to a good current kos thread on this subject:

Pre-Iraq War View: Wes Clark
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/30/12259/722

And Clark's initial testimony stood the test of time. Three years later virtually all the original Congressional players conceded that he got it right the first time:

Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 7, 2005; Page A10

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. is a conservative Republican from North Carolina who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. So it jarred all the more yesterday when Jones turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war...

As chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Perle had gone before the same committee in 2002 and smugly portrayed retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who urged caution in Iraq, as "hopelessly confused" and spouting "fuzzy stuff" and "dumb cliches."

Thirty months and one war later, Perle and Clark returned to the committee yesterday. But this time lawmakers on both sides hectored Perle, while Clark didn't bother to suppress an "I told you so."

...

It was not always thus. At the September 2002 hearing, GOP lawmakers joined in Perle's dismissal of Clark's argument that "time is on our side" in Iraq and that force should be used only as a "last resort."

Perle said Clark was "wildly optimistic" and called it "one of the dumber cliches, frankly, to say that force must always be a last resort." While Clark fiddled, "Saddam Hussein is busy perfecting those weapons of mass destruction that he already has."

In retrospect, Clark's forecasts proved more accurate than Perle's, and even Republicans on the committee made little effort yesterday to defend Perle or to undermine Clark. The exception was Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.)... (But w)hen Hunter's GOP colleagues didn't join his line of questioning, he took another turn grilling Clark. The chairman likened President Bush's Middle East policies to those of President Ronald Reagan in Eastern Europe.

"Reagan never invaded Eastern Europe," Clark retorted.

In another try, Hunter said Clark was "overstating" the risk in challenging other countries in the Middle East. Clark smiled and showed his trump card -- reminding Hunter of their exchange at the 2002 hearing. "I kept saying time was on our side," Clark said. "I could never quite satisfy you."

As for who proved correct, the general said, "I'll let the record speak for itself."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32440-2005Apr6.html

[renie408]

160. I read his testimony.

I saw the caveats that he placed in it about the resolution not needing to contain an authorization AT THIS TIME on the use of force, only the threat. But here's the thing; I also heard him praise the President's dedication to ridding Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. I heard him say that we should continue to work through the UN. But I also remember how the WH was relentless in repeating the number of UN resolutions had been ignored by Hussein. I also remember that it was eighteen months after Bush had gotten into office, 13 months after 9/11 and I really do remember the climate in the country at the time. I also honestly don't think politicians who are 'in the business' so to speak, are like us. I don't think they look at people in the other party and see 'the enemy' who is not to be trusted at all costs. I think that's how they can be friends outside of work, as it were. So, when BushCo is telling them that we need to send the STRONG message and that they need the freedom to act on information as it occurs...I get where there were people who believed them. I also get how Edwards got into the position of co-sponsoring the IWR and was probably damn proud of it at the time. At the time, how many people were spitting on Lieberman like they are now? Hey, I remember Lieberman having support here in the DU as late as 2004. In 2002 he was still working with some of his "I got fucked out of being VP" glow. Let's make Clark the junior Senator and put him in Edwards position. Let's have a senior member of his party pushing one agenda, the President pushing the same agenda (at the same time that he is pulling strong 80's in the polls), the public saying "do SOMETHING!" and let's have him come from a state with a lot of major military bases and which has strong support for the IWR. I realize that Clark as sterling and impeccable integrity. That isn't sarcasm. I respect him. Given even his sterling and impeccable integrity, put him in that position and tell me that you have NO DOUBT that he would not have voted for the IWR as it was written. I see a strong possibility that he might have done so. We have all got to remember that NONE OF THIS occurred in a vacuum. There were extenuating circumstances, there were many influences and a lot of support ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE for this resolution. I am just not able to villify anyone for having made the Aye vote while I am, at the same time, able to really support those who voted Nay. But I don't think any Nay voters are going to be candidates inm '08. And I don't think those candidates who DIDN'T VOTE can retroactively say, "I would never have done that."

[Clarkie1]

50. That's not true, but even assuming it was, what does that have to do with Edwards? nt

[MrSlayer]

25. Yep and you knew it was then but voted for it anyway.

Whatever.

[Debi]

37. And Clark said he would have voted for it and then said he would not have voted for it

and then said he was on the same course as Kerry and Leiberman and has become more dovish in the last few years.

[Clarkie1]

83. You have posted a false statement. nt

[FrenchieCat]

102. Not even close.....

Read what CLark "said" and what Clark didn't "say".
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/what_wes_clark_said_prior_to_t.html
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html

[sampsonblk]

39. This is a great start

I wholeheartedly accept this apology as sincere. The timing is noteworthy, but altogether, I am glad Edwards has seen the light and has said so publicly.

Now, if he'll only admit that he, like Kerry, knew all this at the time and still voted in favor of the IWR for political purposes.

[DaveinMD]

73. he said it was wrong

a year ago in an oped in the Washington Post.

[sampsonblk]

76. Sorry Dave...

"The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate... Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."

That's bullshit. Even if he were that foolish in 2002, then he must have known the truth in 2004 when he ran for president. If not, he certainly has no business ever being president of anything.

[DaveinMD]

77. I'm fairly certain

he wasn't advocating the war as he ran in 2004. He pretty much had the Kerry position. Regardless, I think he'd make a great president. He's the only candidate who understands that this country must address the income gap if we are to be great. And he's already taking on McCain's escalation of the war.

[sampsonblk]

115. Credibility problem

Its early to worry about this, but how do you know the guy means what he says? He took the most popular position in 2004. And now, he suddenly has the most popular position again - even though its pretty much the opposite of what he was for last time.

When do the red flags come out?

*We have the luxury of time to debate this since the election is almost two years away.

[DaveinMD]

119. talking about poverty

is certainly not the popular position and surely wasn't the last time around.

[sampsonblk]

126. Maybe poverty isn't popular

but it sure isn't risky! No risky positions from this fellow. In fact, none of them are taking any risky positions. Not even if they're right.

[DaveinMD]

130. I beg to differ

talking about poverty had become a no no for the party in its quest to get the middle class vote.

[Crunchy Frog]

157. This is what he said in late 2003.

And I'm not aware that he changed his position in any substantial way over the course of the '04 presidential campaign.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

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

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

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

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

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

I also don't know what's changed since this interview. Saddam still has exactly the same past history of trying to obtain nuclear capability.

[GreenArrow]

43. Here's a hypothetical for you:

Let's assume that the war in Iraq were actually going well; flowers were thrown, oil is flowing, the troops are passing out Bibles and cookies... does anyone still think this guy would be apologizing for his "vote?"

I guarun-fucking-tee you he wouldn't be, yet his IWR co-sponsorship, his aye vote, and his tangential support would have been just as wrong.

The point of this, in case anyone doesn't get it, is that succesful or otherwise in Iraq, every rationale given for unilaterally invading the place was bogus and unjustified, a fact which the majority of the rest of the world, and a substantial portion of even this country, understood quite clearly.

As an apology, it couldn't be much lamer; as a political machination, it couldn't be much more transparent. Feh.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. As much as I want to agree, you're merely speculating

We have absolutely no idea what the world would be like if the war were going well despite the fact that people knew they were lied to.

[renie408]

163. The biggest speculation there is that they would still have been against under those circumstances.

[renie408]

162. LOL...I am willing to play

And if that were the case and millions of Iraqis were able to participate in the formation of a free representational government, would YOU still be screaming that it had all been a huge mistake?? Your scenario goes both ways, honey bunny.

[SmellsLikeDeanSpirit]

90. Damn I can't wait for the primary debates. These are going to be good. LOL.

[Placebo]

118. He freakin' CO-SPONSORED the thing.

Sad but true.

[renie408]

161. And was probably DAMN poud about it, at the time.

Hell, here he was a junior Senator and had some of his parties big dogs asking him to co-sponsor the resolution that would rid the world of the threat of Iraq giving the WMD that everybody thought he had into the hands of of the terrorists who had just attacked your country one short year earlier. See, while he is a smart guy, he isn't omniscient or prescient. So he worked with the information he had at the time, given to him by people he wrongly trusted. In retrospect, he realized he made a large mistake. He said so without trying to mitigate it. I strongly respect the people who voted Nay on the IWR resolution. I will not toss out the people who didn't. Especially since the chances of one of those Nay voters making it to the GE are slim to none. I also do not consider NOT having been in the position of voting and saying you wouldn't have voted Aye terribly compelling.

[Bryn]

125. How About This Smart Democrat Presidential Candidate

Senator Bob Graham of Florida:

Graham said Friday he was ''suspicious'' about the intelligence reports on the Iraqi threat he saw during the fall of 2002.

He voted against the war resolution, saying Iraq would drain resources from the war on terrorism.

''The administration did not want the best judgment of the intelligence community,'' Graham said.

``This was an administration that wanted to be blind going into this war. They did not want to have the most credible assessment of what was the reality of the case for war and the consequences of war.''

The Miami Herald

[NotGivingUp]

139. Thanks for admitting you were wrong, John, and now it is time

for you to tell the people that they should vote for someone else who will not make this mistake. Tell everyone that they should vote for someone who is truly working for the good of the people.

[Critters2]

152. I might accept that, if all he'd done was vote for the thing....

but he SPONSORED it!! A much more active involvement in this fiasco than those who just voted for it.

I will not support this man in the primaries.

[talk hard]

156. that does suck

& makes a HUGE difference