Edwards, Bayh, Daschle, Feinstein and Rockefeller...

[CarolNYC]

all on the Senate Intelligence Committee, all voted Yes on the IWR.

Edwards, Bayh and Daschle compounded their bad judgment or cowardice or whatever it was by also voting No on both the Levin and Durbin amendments, which sought to limit the power the IWR would give to Bush. (Feinstein and Rockefeller voted Yes on Levin and No on Durbin.)

Given Dick Durbin's recent statements (video: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor) and Bob Graham's 2005 Op-Ed (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html), both indicating that those on the Senate Intelligence Committee really should have known that Bush was outright lying to everybody else, I think these people need to explain these votes, especially if they are going to ask me to help make them President.

And I am stunned to find that there are some here who apparently think that's an unforgivably unreasonable request.

I see Dick Durbin taking such heat....he who voted No on the resolution and proposed an amendment to narrow its reach...and yet these others who VOTED WRONG THREE TIMES are given a pass. How does that work exactly????

[DURHAM D]

1. As I recall it was pointed out to Daschle that the language in

the resolution was to broad but he made an argument that the President needed to be trusted.

A little story about Daschle. When Senator Clinton first arrived in the senate there was some sort of dust up in the national media and Clinton went to Tom about how to get the Dem message out more quickly and more efficiently. Hillary suggested that the Dem Senators have what amounted to a message war room. Tom told Hillary no and added - "This is not hand to hand combat."

Tom was naive and he lost his seat and the senate majority - he just didn't understand that they were in the ultimate dog fight. In my opinion -an extremely poor leader.

[Cameron27]

2. It doesn't work,

No heat for Durbin, and no pass for those who were on Intel Committee and voted yes.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. Beats me. I haven't seen an explanation yet.

The op-ed Edwards wrote in 2005 doesn't shed any light on why he had a different view of the intelligence from Durbin and Bob Graham.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623_pf.html

March 7, 2003, El Baradei stated: "no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq." http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.elbaradei/

Edwards on March 15, 2003: "But it is also a test of Presidential leadership to have the backbone to say to those who strongly disagree with you -- including your friends -- what you believe.

I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and that he must be disarmed, including with military force if necessary. We cannot allow him to have nuclear weapons.

I also believe a test for America will come after Saddam is gone. Will we make the commitment to help build a peaceful, democratic, post-Saddam Iraq? Or will we fail to follow-through, as we've done in post-Taliban Afghanistan?" http://www.cfr.org/publication/5718/remarks_to_the_california_state_democratic_convention.html?breadcrumb=%2Fbios%2Fbio%3Fid%3D9641%26page%3D2

[karynnj]

9. The March statements bother me more than the October ones

In October, no inspectors were in for 4 years. Sanctions were likely to be lifted by other countries - which was not a bad thing. The sanctions had done much harm while in place.

In March before the invasions - they had been in. I han't seen this quote before. Others had led me to think that Edwards could have been pushed by advisors to invade - this all but says it.

To support Edwards, I would need to read something spelling out his philosophy on international diplomacy and when he thought war was justified. He is far too pro-war here.

[GreenArrow]

19. the op-ed Edwards wrote in September 2002

doesn't shine any light either, (or an unflattering one.)

19 September 2002

"Congress Must Be Clear," by Senator John Edwards, September 19, 2002

(Op-ed column from The Washington Post on Thursday, 09/19/02)

(This byliner by John Edwards, U.S. Senator (Democrat-North Carolina), first appeared in The Washington Post September 19 and is in the public domain. No republication restrictions.)
(begin byliner)

Congress Must Be Clear John Edwards

Quick Action Will Ensure that Politics Plays no Part in the Debate About Iraq.

The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Fast congressional action to reinforce our resolve is more imperative, not less, in light of Saddam Hussein's recent overture to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq. That is a gambit we have seen before. Congress needs to act now to make clear to our U.N. allies and to Iraq that the United States will not stand for the usual half-measures or delaying tactics.

Drafting an appropriate resolution that a large majority of Congress could support should not be difficult. The outlines of such a resolution are already clear. In fact, the biggest debate right now is over the politics of "timing."

There's no better way to remove politics from the process than to go straight to a debate over substance. Quick, bipartisan congressional action will ensure that politics plays no part in this debate. It will also strengthen America's hand as we pursue support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

The resolution should be strong and unambiguous. It should not be a blank check for the administration, but neither should it try to micromanage a war from Capitol Hill. It should spell out the broad elements of a process that will preserve the legitimacy of American actions, enhance international consensus and strengthen our global leadership.

Here's what I believe the resolution should say. First and foremost, it should clearly endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The president's speech last week was an important first step, and his belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time, we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action. Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against Iraq.

Third, Congress should demand that the administration take real steps to win the peace. The only chance for Iraq to become a democratic, tolerant state -- and a model for the Arab world -- will be through sustained American involvement. We will need to help provide security inside Iraq after Hussein is gone, work with the various Iraqi opposition groups, reassure Iraq's neighbors about its future stability and support the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. Congress also should consider authorizing funds now to support such efforts, rather than waiting for events to force us to act with emergency spending.

Congressional pressure to secure our victory is especially necessary because of the administration's performance in Afghanistan, where we have been dangerously slow to help provide security and support democracy. This is wrong today in Afghanistan, and it will be wrong tomorrow in Iraq. In fact, the president's silence about any U.S. commitment to a post-Hussein Iraq was a conspicuous flaw in his speech last week before the United Nations.

Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East. We must do more to support existing nonproliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants such as Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and in promoting democracy throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.

(The writer is a Democratic senator from North Carolina and a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.)

(end byliner)

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

[iamjoy]

4. We Had Our Chance With Graham

on paper, Bob Graham was the perfect candidate in 2004.

He had been a governor, so there's that executive, leadership experience.

He was a Senator - plenty of foreign policy experience

He had high ratings in Florida - a swing state

He voted "No" on IWR. Not from a position of weakness, but that it would undermine the "War on Terror."

So, why didn't we make him our nominee?

[Cameron27]

6. I have no idea, but

what's the point of your question?

I was supporting Clark, but voted for Kerry/Edwards when they became the party's choice.

[iamjoy]

12. We Had The "Perfect" Candidate

we ignored him. That's my point. On paper he was the perfect candidate. Every other candidate is flawed in some way, every one makes up their mind who they want to support and must take the "bad" with the good.

[Cameron27]

14. No one's perfect and no one's debating that,

but voting yes on the IWR without sufficient evidence shows a lack of leadership, and a lack of moral courage. To continue the lie with a bogus apology just makes it worse.

I'm not voting for him, but everyone has to make their own decision about what they're willing to accept in a candidate.

[iamjoy]

17. I Don't Think It Was Bogus

I am willing to take the apology at face value. I don't think the vote yes shows lack of moral courage, a lot of Democrats were opposed to the war, so voting yes meant going against them. It could go either way.

But hey, I'm an Edwards supporter and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The only thing I ask is that you consider one thing about your criticisms now. If Edwards is our nominee, you don't want to have said anything to be used against him in the general election, right?

Even if you don't like him, you must admit that Romney, McCain or Giuliani would be worse.

[Cameron27]

18. I'll support the Democratic candidate

in the general no matter what. The primaries are the primaries, and I doubt that the candidates will drive the knife too deeply into each other.

On the question of the apology and his vote, yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[karynnj]

10. He was never really in the running

I think health was an issue. Other than that the only negative (which I think is EASY to make a positive) was that he was a complusive note taker.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. He appeared "old" and was not a good speaker

He spoke too slowly and lacked energy. I am not saying he WAS too old, just that he didn't inspire vitality.
Next question:
Why the hell didn't Gore pick him for VP?

[politicasista]

15. There is NO such thing as a "perfect" candidate

Anyone going up against a wartime incumbent, with a GOP controlled media, Rovian slime machine, and a fear-minded public would have been doomed or smeared.

[Cameron27]

16. I think that they would have been

in a better position if they had voted no on the IWR. Kerry eventually said the vote was a mistake "if he knew then .... etc., and was labeled a flip-flopper.

For what it's worth Edwards was pushing the other way:

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

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

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/17/john_edwardss_changing_tune_on_the_iraq_vote/

[saltpoint]

5. Git 'em, Carol. Don't let the long view be an obstacle.

[babylonsister]

7. Does Rockefeller's sealed letter play into this? nt

[Adelante]

22. About Rockefeller

His brother in law was in the House, I think. He said after a conversation with Rockefeller he was motivated to vote NO. Yet Rockefeller ended up voting YES. I wonder what went on there?

[mopinko]

8. some of these people scare me, too

mike.

[AtomicKitten]

13. It's selective grace and wrath doled out for completely partisan reasons.

It doesn't make sense because it is unreasonable to begin with.

:thumbsup:

[GreenArrow]

20. well, Edwards, Bayh and Dashcle all had thoughts

of being Prez. Feinstein had a hubby with connections, and the chance to make mucho moolah. The Rockefellers are always implicated by conspiracists. Durbin only wanted to keep his job; he wasn't banking on a promotion, or a big financial windfall.

[jen4clark]

21. I don't get it either, CarolNYC

He really needs to just come clean on his co-sponsoring and voting for the IWR. Apologizing is fine and good, but WHY is what I want to know.

Was it because he was listening to advisers who he trusted? Who were those advisers? Was their reason because he would look weak if he voted against the IWR, or did they honestly believe Saddam posed an imminent threat?

And if it was purely political posturing, why did he go so far as to co-sponsor the IWR and vote against the amendments?

Did he hear those who were saying, yes Saddam is a threat, but NOT an imminent threat? That he was effectively boxed in? If he heard them, did he think they were wrong? Did he honestly believe Saddam WAS an imminent threat and had to be attacked immediately?

I have so many questions, but it really boils down to either he showed incredibly poor judgement due to his lack of foreign policy knowledge, or he put his political aspirations ahead of what was best for us and our country.

Either way, it does not seem to me that he should expect to be rewarded with the highest office in the country.

I also have a real problem with his support of the Patriot Act. He swore to defend our constitution. He did not do that.


While he may be offering quite progressive words, his past actions don't match up. Yes, people change and grow, but poor judgement and/or lack of expertise on foreign policy is too major of a shortcoming at this point in time. We can not risk having another president who will depend on advisers for his decisions. Especially when that person has in the past chosen people like Gen. Hugh Shelton as an adviser...