Oh Jeez - Start A War, Then Do A Video Telling Others to Stop It

[MannyGoldstein]

I just clicked on John Edwards' ad on the left side of a DU page. It was a video urging Congress to stand up to Bush on the vetoed funding bill.

Edwards didn't just vote for the IWR - he actually co-sponsored the sucker, despite being a member of the Senate Intelligence Commitee who had access to all the info, and should have known it was all bogus. Instead, he led the charge to war.

And now, as if co-sponsoring the IWR wasn't bad enough, he's trying to make political hay by preaching to the folks who are still in Congress that they must stand up to Bush.

I obviously feel that Congress should stand up to Bush - in fact, I think he should be impeached ASAP. But Edwards has a fucking nerve trying to profit from his own craven cowardice on the IWR.

I recognize that only 1% or so of DU sees Edwards' as an utter hypocrite on many issues, so I'm prepared to be roasted and toasted. But, hell, I can't let this stand unmentioned.

[Cameron27]

1. You're a brave soul Manny,

I'm not going to say anything, but here's a message from Senator Dodd:

Following the flap over David Geffen's comments, all of the Democrats running for president resorted to playing nice publicly.

Until now.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) just released a statement taking former Sen. John Edwards to task for his new ads on President Bush's veto of a bill establishing a firm deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

"As Senator Dodd was the first candidate to support the Reid-Feingold measure, we agree that Democrats in the Senate should stand up to a President who stubbornly refuses to change his failed policy in Iraq," said Christy Setzer. "We wish that Senator Edwards was still in the Senate for this important fight."

Setzer added: "If we can't get his vote in the Senate, of course we would welcome Senator Edwards ' support for Senator Dodd's plan, which would safely re-deploy out troops and bring an end to this war within on year rather than the incremental eighteen-month approach he has proposed."

Yowza!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/05/dodd_throws_a_punch.html?nav=rss_blog

[MannyGoldstein]

2. I'm Sick And Tired of Hypocrisy

Vote for 'free' trade with China, and two awful bankruptcy bills, then say you're a friend of the little guy and gal.

Sponsor the IWR, then position yourself as an anti-war guy.

Live in a 28,000 square foot palace, then decry other candidates as "highfalutin'".

We've had decades of this kind of garbage, and look where it's gotten us.

Enough.

[The Count]

14. You forgot: fail to vote against abortion ban, then express outrage at SCOTUS

for reinforcing said bill (even Joementum has a better voting record that Edwards)

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Did He Say Why He Didn't Vote?

I just saw this, thanks for the tip. Did he say why he didn't vote?

[The Count]

25. His operatives on DU informed me "he was out of town". Prolly campaigning.

Which is what he did most of his non-lawyer life - come to think of it.

[truedelphi]

28. I have watched C-Span and seen that sometimes those out of town

Can have a proxy vote on issues they deem important.

Am I wrong onthis?

I know it happens in the Senate... Does it not happen in the House?

get tired of hearing that this one or that one just could not vote on some issue so damn important to the American people.

[jcrew2001]

102. If only we won't lose the WH in 2008

then we can end the hypocracy. Only wealthy politicians should become republicans, only the poor and middle class should be Democrats. We need Ralph Nadar back - he's the only true poor man for the White House!!!

If only Obama will say that he will never use military force without permission from Congress!

[The Count]

12. Dodd is gaining points in my book! Nicely said. Monday morning quarterbacking

is only good for operatives and blind followers.

[jcrew2001]

40. Replace the QB with

the only person who can win the general election against every GOP candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Why is Edwards so electable? Because he's the only white southern guy running?

Geeze, if that's it, they've got a few of those on the other side. :shrug:

If that's not it, what is it that makes John Edwards sooooo "electable"? Last person that got that label on the Dem side lost the GE in 2004....with John Edwards right there on the ticket! :eyes:

[jcrew2001]

69. If Clark was running, I would say he is far more electable

and can win the GE than Obama or Hillary. do you not agree?

Edwards didn't affect the ticket, because southerner Hated Yankee Kerry far more, than they liked Edwards.

[chimpymustgo]

59. Self delete. No point in responding to the lie of the OP. nt

nt

[appal_jack]

3. i agree

If, while a Senator, Edwards had shown even one-tenth of the resolve that he is asking of current Senators, then he would have my respect.

But Edwards was too busy chasing right-wing political winds back then, thinking that was his ticket to the Whitehouse.

When that didn't work out too well, Edwards sulked along as an unhappy VP candidate, and failed to defend Kerry against Swiftboat attacks, etc.

Now he's trying to be the populist agitator? Puh-leeze!

What a blowhard.

-app

[msongs]

4. its a very fine tv advertisement regardless of the sponsor nt

[The Count]

13. It is not. It undermines our side for personal publicity.

[NCarolinawoman]

5. As far as I can see, he's got the worst environmental record of any Dem running,

and yet he is now all enthusiastic about doing something about global warming.

I might say, "Good for him! He's changed!" But then I would have to ask him why he clear-cut almost 50 acres of trees on the property where he built his house.

Perhaps he doesn't know that the most common form of accomplishing a carbon offset is PLANTING TREES!

[Cameron27]

6. He's paying carbon offsets

so other people can plant the trees to make up for his cutting trees on his property.:shrug:

[jcrew2001]

39. At least Gore is putting Solar Panels on his huge house

and strip mining to get valuable natural resources needed for the economy.

[Cameron27]

43. And Edwards voted FOR an

amendment permitting mountaintop removal.

[jcrew2001]

46. Edwards needs his own movie

to improve his image.

[jgraz]

7. Regardless of his record, I'm glad he's running if this is the result

One of the good things about someone running for Prez is they actually HAVE to listen to what the public wants. I'm with Manny on his sense of Edwards' hypocrisy, but it doesn't change the truth of this message one bit.

[The Count]

9. He knows he'll get coverage - because he's attacking Dems. Not courage - craven

manipulation. Of MSM. And you.

[jgraz]

10. bullshit

It's a good ad, and it doesn't change my impression of Edwards one bit. I'm not going to support him, but I like what the ad says and the way it says it. It pressures the other candidates to make clear statements on this bill (read: Hillary).

Can't someone approve of the message without getting crapped on because some folks don't like the messenger? No matter what Edwards' motivations, the coverage is only going to make it harder for the Dems to cave. And that's a good thing, last I checked.

[The Count]

11. I do not like the message. Dems in congress have it right. Override the veto.

It's what Gravel did and stopped the draft.

[jgraz]

17. In this case there's far less effort required

They can just refuse to schedule another vote on funding the war. I don't know why the progressive caucus isn't already pushing for this.

[The Count]

26. Zero chances of success, that's why. Jr won't back up - he can't. Congress

critters, up for re-election however, may.

[The Count]

8. Here's another 1 percenter with you. Edwards lied in his very apology

and supported Bush's war KNOWING it was a lie.
This is how he helped Bush:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244

Now he's Mr Anti-war? :puke:

You want a fight John? Don't fight dems in congress, fight for my vote in 2004. The one stolen & conceded. I know, MSM loves ya more when you kick Dems than attack W, but that would be a meaningful fight. How's about it?

[jen4clark]

15. No roasting and toasting here

but I've noticed that JE fans don't care. They just don't care. In fact, if you point out the discrepencies in JE's words now as opposed to his actions when he was in the Senate, very often you're called a liar. He has completely and effectively bamboozled a whole bunch of people and that wouldn't be so bad for the fact that he can not and will not win the GE. If he succeeds in winning the primary, you can be guaranteed his various discrepencies between words and deeds will be out there non-stop for all to see. One would think that someone running on a platform of 2 Americas/poverty would be a little more careful about flounting his wealth, but nope. He just doesn't see that he will be painted as a hypocrite and flipflopper. His lack of judgement is embarrassing.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[The Count]

18. Yup. His speech on IWR was linked at W's campaign site. And Iran - still bombing it

John? Brand new war for ya!

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

[w4rma]

19. Hillary won't stop it. (nt)

[tavalon]

20. He's changed his mind

Unlike Hillary.

[The Count]

22. Gee! I thought this was about stopping the war! Sticking it to the competition!!!

Making both Hillary & Obama look bad...
Funny, at first, I simply thought it was about getting noticed by MSM again.
Thanks to you, I finally figured out the whole trippy plot. Thanks!

[mtnsnake]

23. Awesome, Manny! The song, "We Won't Get Fooled Again" by The Who comes to mind

Great post, glad to K&R. Consider me as part of that 1% or more.

[jcrew2001]

49. Unfortunately, its the 51% that voted for Bush

that we're really worried about.

[The Count]

24. I got Trippi's quest for money in my mail now! How stuntalicious!

No sooner did I figure out the workings of this "call to arms" that the sausage making details showed in my mail.
Yup.

LOOK AT ME! I YELL THE LOUDEST! GIMME MONEY!

My question to all those who fall for it: does anyone believe that Bush will say: "All right, you got me! This time I'll sign"?
Or, by submitting the bill to vote after vote will make individual GOP-ers cave in and eventually lead to ending the war?
Which one has a chance? Reid/Pelosi&comp or Edwards/Trippi- "gimme money - hear me roar?

[jcrew2001]

27. Maybe he's running to fix past mistakes???

That would be a good reason - to see your mistakes and try to correct them.

I think Edwards is the only person who can beat any GOP according to polls. Any other Dem is a sure loser.

[Cameron27]

29. It wasn't a mistake.

It was a deliberate choice made while having evidence that bush was lying. I think Edwards is going to get his clock cleaned by the republicans, who won't gloss over his Senate record like his supporters do.

[jcrew2001]

35. I know, the republicans will become Anti-Iraq war

because Edwards supported Bush's war, but now he's against Bush's war - oh no, don't vote for him now, vote for a 3rd Bush term!!!

Because the country still supports the Iraq war!!!

[Cameron27]

44. BS, that's not what I said. You like to twist and spin jcrew.

The republicans will counter their own complicit actions in this war with Edwards co-sponsorship of it. Go with Obama, the real anti-war candidate.

[jcrew2001]

45. I know, Bush duped all Americans into the Iraq War

we're a sad sorry bunch of complicit drones.

If Obama can now stop the war by filibustering the veto like in Mr Smith goes to Washington.

[Cameron27]

47. He didn't fool me,

he didn't fool Durbin, or Kennedy or Byrd, and he shouldn't have fooled anyone on the Intel Committee who had more information than anyone else besides the Bushies themselves.

Now I'm done with your foolish nonsense.

[jcrew2001]

48. Actually, I didn't want to go into Iraq either

I didn't believe his BS, but Colin Powell did, haha

Yeah, Edwards got suckered but would that have stopped Bush, no - nothing would have stopped Bush - if you know of how to stop Bush, let me know.

[The Count]

30. In this case, I'm voting for Bush - he's got more mistakes to fix! Geez!

The arguments they come with to push incompetents on us!

[jcrew2001]

37. Well, Bush sold us that in 2004 so I wouldn't be surprised

if he manages to win a 3rd time for the GOP. The slogan will be "We know how to fight and fix wars, the Dems are weak and stupid"

[alittlelark]

61. snip - "Any other Dem is a sure loser."

WTF??? Are you serious?


Or are you SERIES!!!!1!


edited for afterthought.

[JNelson6563]

31. Yeah, he should just STFU

And here I was thinking how nice it would be if the other Dem candidates (even IWR yes voters) would make a similar effort. Stupid me thinking it would be great if they'd all try to help get the "stop the war" message. But thank gawd I now realize it would be hypocrisy and those who previoulsy supported the war should not make any such efforts.

To think we consider the Rethugs as black and white thinkers. :puke:

Julie

[Cameron27]

34. No, he doesn't have to STFU

but he should have the decency to address what Durbin said. Tenet speaks, Durbin speaks, Edwards ignores, leaving Durbin's standing alone and taking the heat.

edited to say where are ALL of those yes voters? Why don't they speak up now.

[JNelson6563]

52. Yes, you're right, an excellent distraction.

Do you seriously believe Edwards should be issuing complicated statements explaining things most Americans have absolutely no idea about??

The depths of political cluelessness here astound me.

Julie

[Cameron27]

53. Durbin did it quite successfully and

courageously. It would take very little time, and since he's an excellent speaker he'd figure out a way to make it less complicated. He should *step up* !

[JNelson6563]

54. Really? Ask a Joe on the street.

Stop five people on the street and ask 'em if they know anything about the Durbin revelations. 10 to 1 they are clueless.

On one hand DUers tend to have no clue as to how politics really works but, on the other hand, when it comes to stuff like the recent Durbin business, they are 1000 times more informed than the average American. I find it to be a remarkable thing, really.

Edwards is trying to help direct a Horton Hears a Who sort of shout out to Team Bush to end the war. I see Sen. Clinton is working on legislation to overturn the IWR. I applaud the efforts of both and, even though they voted for this war, I don't think they're being hypocrites. I think they see it needs to end ASAP!

Julie--applauding any and every effort to tend the horrors of this war

[FrenchieCat]

58. Americans are clueless because the Durbin statement got very little ink......

And talked about by the pundits for a millisecond. Edwards was not implicated, nor will he be. So yeah.....The public is once again "clueless" on the important issues!

But like you, I applaud anyone and every effort to end the horrors of this war....even those who help get us there to begin with.

[JNelson6563]

95. My point exactly

Only we junkies know about this Durbin thing.

Julie

[mrreowwr_kittty]

94. But...but....that's flip-flopping!!1!1

Changing your mind when presented with compelling reasons that your initial position was wrong is BAD! Trying to reverse a disastrous course, even if (yes) you initially went along with it is INDEFENSIBLE! :eyes:

[TexasLawyer]

32. I'll embrace any anti-Iraq war message out there

[JNelson6563]

55. Thank you, my thoughts exactly!

We need each and every voice willing to join us! I don't care what their previous stance was, I welcome their voice and effort for the cause.

I am amazed at the arrogance I see in the mindset that we can scoff at these allies joining the effort.

Julie

[Moochy]

33. fucking nerve

must be cool to be in that 1% who are "in the know"

Oh Ignore List How I miss you.

[Adelante]

41. You still have an Ignore list

Far right icon with the red x

[Moochy]

42. Yeah but it gets disabled when the server is at level 2

Or 1 I'm not sure which. We are at permanent level 1 these days it seems like.

Interesting Times!

[elizm]

36. Add me to the 1% as well. n/t

[jcrew2001]

38. I wish Obama could have gotten elected in 2002 and

then he could have voted against the war and prevented Bush from sending the military to Iraq.

Obama would have stopped Bush with his own hands!!!

[bling bling]

50. Obama would have represented you. Unlike the guy you're standing up for.

But that's ok. Obama deserved your little wisecrack even though he represented the anti-war Democrats position. But for some mysterious reason that apparently only die-hard Edwards supporters understand, Edwards doesn't deserve to be held accountable for sponsoring the IWR.

Can you say, coo-coo?!

[jcrew2001]

51. Edwards will win the general election by the widest margin

My primary reason for supporting Edwards is that he can win the general election by the widest margin. While Obama is "anti-war" and did not vote against the Iraq War, I don't think he will win the presidency.

I think the GOP will win the white house in 2008 unless Edwards is the nominee. Hey, at least we survived the last 8 years, how much worse can it get?

[FrenchieCat]

63. Edwards wins cause he's the White Southern Guy in the line up?

If not that reason, why do you think Edwards "can" win the GE?

[jcrew2001]

68. And Clark can win because he's from the South as well, isn't

that one of the Clark talking points? I mean can Kerry win in 2008? or have you given up completely on the South, who cares about those hicks.

[FrenchieCat]

70. Nope......Wes Clark has more going for him that made him "electable".....

than coming from Arkansas! Think about it (Hint...war & peace)!

Now if what I say isn't so, what is it that makes John Edwards sooooo "electable", as you have said over and over again? What does that for him?

[jcrew2001]

73. I fear that the top 3 of Clinton, Obama, Edwards are weak

and have a strong chance of losing the General Election against Rudy or McCain.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards are also weak compared to Clark, Gore and Kerry.

But if I have to choose between Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, I think that Edwards has the best shot at winning back the WH.

Honestly, I don't know why Clark isn't running - it should be easier for him in 2008 without Kerry in the race. I sure hope the Clintons aren't holding him back, because that would be a shame.

[FrenchieCat]

80. Yep....the Clintons have a "leash" on Clark...the man that saved

Clinton's foreign policy from being demonized into oblivion! Cause when one looks at Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia......and the manner in which the Military dissed Bill Clinton, Wes Clark is really one of the reasons that Clinton was able to leave a legacy that is perceived more positive than negative.

That being said, Clark's is his own man. If he doesn't run, it won't be because of some chokechain round his neck. It will be because he is a realist who understand that the media is the decider, and that voters are easily manupulated by tomorrow's soundbytes and rethorics, while the memory hole gobbles up most of one's past actions.

[jcrew2001]

82. Haha, if it weren't for the media, I'm sure a lot of people would run

for president, like Gary Hart, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Newt.

Is that why you dislike Obama because he is a media sensation?

Is Edwards too photogenic?

Is Hillary too popular because of name recognition?

Clark can and should run, in fact, I will go on record saying that he should decide to run, enough with the indecisiveness.

I mean, if Clark can't win over the television audience, how is he going to expect anyone to vote for him?

[Adelante]

96. What makes you say Frenchie dislikes Obama?

The conclusions you sometimes draw are not connected to reality.

[jcrew2001]

98. In her bullying for Clark, I thought that she disliked the

rest of the Dem field, but maybe i was wrong about her obsession.

[Adelante]

103. Maybe you just like planting innuendo in threads

Maybe that's it.

[jcrew2001]

104. Its hard to filter out the Clarkie noise and determine what is rational

thought and what is Clark Fluffing.

[jcrew2001]

86. Do you think Edwards, Clinton, Obama are guaranteed Losers

in the general election?

[jcrew2001]

99. Should clinton nominate clark as VP?

or should clark turn it down?

[jcrew2001]

56. Wait, Most Americans supported the Iraq war in the beginning

It wasn't over intelligence, or WMD's - It was Saddam Hussain, and there was history that Saddam was a "bad man". It was we're America, we won in Bosnia (because of clark) and we'll win in Iraq.

But the reason that Americans are anti-war now is because we thought it would be a "Short, Easy War" as told by the Bush Administration.

As Americans, we believe that we are the best and that the Iraq War would have been easy.

If the majority of our soldiers left Iraq when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" would Americans still be anti-war??? No, because Americans are not anti-war, we just want Competent Execution, which Bush failed to do.

As any American, if we are attacked today, would they still be anti-war? Absolutely not.

So, the majority of Americans are not anti-War, they are just Anti-Long, Pointless Wars - and that is why the patience has run out, and everyone wants our Troops to Come Home.

So, if the Iraq War only took 3 years, no one would have cared. Its because that its gone on that everyone hates it.

But did Bush and others know it would take 5 years? Most likely, but they sold the public on a short war.

[liberal renegade]

60. I never agreed with any of the above named bullshit....

just call me a pocket of fucking resistance.....

[jcrew2001]

65. Apparently 51% of Americans agreed with it to re-elect Bush

nt.

[FrenchieCat]

71. Apparently,

even with John E on the Tix!

[jcrew2001]

77. Now if we can get that 2% to vote for Edwards this time around

or that 2% for Hillary.

[FrenchieCat]

62. Speak for yourself.....!!!

I was marching with a banner that read, "not in our name"! :eyes:

[Cameron27]

64. That poster has a lot of opinions that tend to

collide with reality. :nuke:

[jcrew2001]

67. If just one more Senator didn't vote IWR, we wouldnt be ther

just another dream, too bad.

[FrenchieCat]

72. Nope....but if just one more Presidential candidate would have

excercise good judgment when it counted, we'd have more great Presidential candidates to choose from.

[jcrew2001]

75. If Kerry had chosen Clark as VP, he would have won Ohio

but he didn't.

[FrenchieCat]

78. John Kerry chose John Edwards. n/t

[jcrew2001]

79. Kerry didn't think they would question his Vietnam duty

and Clark would have solidified his military/national security ; which was what any voter really cared about.

Edwards is better than Hillary or Obama, but Kerry was dead weight.

[jcrew2001]

66. You almost stopped Bush, almost...

nt

[FrenchieCat]

74. Maybe I didn't stop Bush....but I showed great judgment......

didn't have to come in with 20/20 Hindsight years later, and I don't have to say I'm sorry everywhere I go.....and I ain't even running to become the leader of this country! So, I've done quite well, regardless of what I didn't stop....cause what I did was have principles; something you may or may not be familiar with. It is that which allows one to sleep at night knowing you did all that you could do to do the right thing.

[jcrew2001]

76. I didn't approve of the Iraq war, but why get shot with rubber b

bullets at a anti-war rally. There's no draft, so Bush can do whatever he pleases, we're never going to impeach him anyways.

[Cameron27]

81. Sometimes you do something, just because it's right,

sometimes you do something even when no one's looking.

But hell, I'd hate to see you shot with rubber bullets at an anti-war rally.:eyes:

[jcrew2001]

83. I'm sure Bush said the same thing going to Iraq

because Saddam's an evil-doer and its the right thing...suckers...

[Cameron27]

84. What?

[jcrew2001]

85. Its the right thing going into Iraq

Doing the right thing may not be popular, such as going into Iraq, but its the right thing to do and the American people are safer for it. Sometimes you need to stand your ground and fight for what you believe in.

[Cameron27]

88. You don't have to type the first thing that comes

out of your head, ya know. I can't possibly continue this conversation, I'm laughing too hard.

Goodnight jcrew, see you around another day.

[jcrew2001]

89. Bush said its the right thing to do going into Iraq

doing the "right thing" is subjective.

[FrenchieCat]

87. Oh Vey!

[jcrew2001]

91. Is it Bi-polar to think that every Democrat but Clark will lose the

general election? even if clark isn't running - or is that some other mental illness?

[FrenchieCat]

92. So why have you been saying that about Clark then.....?.

And why ask me about your mental issues? I have no clue of how you feel and how you should deal with this because I am not a doctor!

[Tom Rinaldo]

97. I think Gore could win, I think Richardson could win, I think Dodd...

...could win also if somehow he managed to get the nomination. I think Feingold had a chance, and I think Clark could win. All of these people are seasoned, with deep resumes. The ones I list above who currently lag, like Richardson and Dodd, will have a hard time winning the nomination because they A) don't get the press, and B) don't currently have substantial grass roots support. And partially because of A) and B), they C) don't have the money.

My point though is that IF they were able somehow to win the Democratic nomination, then factors A), B), and C) would all change for both Richardson and Dodd, and as the actual Democratic nominee I think they would run stronger than our current front runners. And I'm not saying that because of the positions that they are taking on the issues. Gererally I like the positions that both Obama and Edwards are now taking, but I don't like them nearly as well as candidates than I like their platforms, each one for different reasons.

[jcrew2001]

90. Some people thought going into Iraq was the right thing also

nt

[FrenchieCat]

93. and many others didn't!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3246183

[jcrew2001]

100. If only we could have stopped the war!!!

if only.

[jcrew2001]

101. Should Pres Obama renounce the use of military force

unless approved by Congress? If you are going to stop the President from taking military action, it should be possible to stop any and all future presidents from making mistakes.