Reid is not happy with Edwards...says other "presidentials" doing ok.

[madfloridian]

Reid is not happy with the ad Edwards campaign put out. He says he is not the one who has to struggle with votes. I remember another time another candidate who spoke out. I remember the day when Pelosi and Reid said Howard Dean as chairman who take "his cues" from them.

So is it the people who get a say, or is it the congressional leaders? It is good that the others Reid mentions are staying with the caucus on stuff...good for them.

But do NOT criticize Edwards' ad. The ad:
Send the bill back

Reid defends his ‘presidentials,’ takes jab at Edwards

As former Sen. John Edwards’s (D-N.C.) TV ad on the Iraq supplemental continues to cause friction in the Democratic presidential field, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) heaped praise Thursday upon “the presidentials” in his caucus for keeping their rivalry out of caucus business.

“They’ve caused me no concern, caused the caucus no concern,” Reid told reporters, referring to his four “presidentials” — Democratic Sens. Joseph Biden (Del.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Chris Dodd (Conn.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

..."The pressure boiled over on Wednesday, when Dodd’s camp jabbed at Edwards’s new ad, airing in Washington, D.C., and likely expanding to Iowa markets, which urges Democratic lawmakers to send President Bush the same supplemental “again and again” until Bush signs the bill. But Reid pointed out that none of the four presidential hopefuls have missed votes that hurt the caucus, calling the foursome “respectful” and “constructive” in their approach to issues. Reid was not so congenial toward Edwards.

“I care a great deal about John Edwards,” Reid said, also referencing the North Carolinan’s children and wife, Elizabeth, who is battling recurrent cancer. “But he’s not in the Senate; I am. ... He doesn’t have to cast votes here in the Senate; we do.”

That is correct, Harry. It is always good to have some on the sidelines urging the right thing be done. Call them gadflys, call them anything, but do not criticize them for causing concern.

The concern should lie with the soldiers and Iraqis who are dying for this insane invasion.

[waiting for hope]

1. I saw the same story and

thought "WTF?" - Edwards is only saying what the majority of the American people want. WE THE PEOPLE is aptly titled.

[movonne]

8. That's the trouble..they don't want to be pushed...this is wrong for

Reid to say disparaging remarks against one of out candidates..I believe there is a big push for Hillary and I really don't like it..

[madfloridian]

11. He should not have said that about just one candidate.

The ad is very powerful. It must have struck some nerves.

[rodeodance]

57. i agree with that.

[Divine Discontent]

135. I couldn't agree MORE movonne

the beltway leaders are pushing for Hillary, as our the republican pollsters who know she would get smashed in places that are probable Democratic gains this time around, like OHIO, FLORIDA, and NEVADA. Hillary is constantly brought up as being so stronggggg and great on her feet, etc, by the Repub talking heads, because they know she'd get beat as the polls show, 55-45, whereas a GOP vs DEM poll with no names shows the opposite for their chances!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<-- check it out, top '08 stuff

[wtmusic]

2. Bush will veto again and again

then who looks bad? I'm with Reid on this one.

[madfloridian]

6. Ah, yes,...

we must not look bad. We might lose if we don't look good.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

72. I'd prefer that congress just forget about junior's war money. Don't authorize another dime.

There's plenty of money slopping around the Pentagon to fund a withdrawal.

Refuse to even consider anything better for Bush than the orignal offer. In fact, if they even send another bill it should include strict requirements for a withdrawal in six months. If that one is vetoed, then send a bill requiring withdrawal in five months. Every time, have a press event saying, "We have provided money for the troops."

If Bush vetoes it, have Webb say, "There he goes again, refusing to cash the check."

[wtmusic]

75. Agree--the ball is in Bush's court

and there's no need to go chasing after it.

[tavalon]

81. Who looks bad?

Bush.

Who is supposed to control the pursestrings?

Congress.

[JDPriestly]

179. And Bush will look worse.

Bush alone is responsible for the failure in Iraq. He listened to Cheney. He chose to lie to the American people and to never present the evidence that cast doubt on his "mushroom cloud" threat. Bush chose to send too few troops to Iraq. Bush chose to destroy the Iraqi infrastructure. Bush chose to impose ultra-capitalism on Iraq. Bush alone failed.

Bush vetoed the budget bill in order to save face. By negotiating with Bush, Reid and Pelosi are enabling Bush to save face. Just wait, Bush will turn on them, insult them and try to use their effort to negotiate against them. It is foolish for Democrats to try to negotiate on this issue with Bush.

We need a timetable for the exit of our troops. The timetable should permit the Iraqi people to control their own oil We should start getting serious about developing alternative, clean, renewable energy sources. Pandering to Bush's infantile fixation on oil and violence will destroy America.

[TwilightGardener]

3. I side with Harry on this one. Edwards is out of the Senate, and

shouldn't try to make the other Senator-candidates look bad.

[madfloridian]

4. LOL

Oh my. Shouldn't try to make them look bad? Are they doing something wrong?

[Cameron27]

5. Yep, Senator Dodd took a jab at Edwards for this,

and I suspect the other candidates will have something to say.

[madfloridian]

7. Then they will take care of Edwards if he speaks out too much.

It's happened before, you know.

[Cameron27]

10. Who will take care of Edwards?

Everybody picks a strategy, Edwards chose his, and the others have their own.

If Edwards keeps sniping at the senators in this campaign, they're going to snipe right back.

[madfloridian]

12. Exactly.

That is exactly what will happen.

[Cameron27]

13. Normal politics.

This is the problem for Dodd, and the others:

Snip: The argument goes that Edwards, a private citizen, is free to throw rhetorical bombs at his Senate rivals with no real consequences since he will never have to vote on a bill or bills that may be seen as half measures or worse by base voters. That’s a luxury that Obama, Clinton, Dodd and Sen. Joe Biden (Del.) don’t enjoy.

Here's his statement:

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.”

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

[madfloridian]

69. This is so much like 2003 and 2004 my hair is standing on end.

The words are almost the same as what all were saying about another.

This is very eerie.

[Cameron27]

71. I've been a Democrat all my life,

everyone in my family is a Democrat except for a couple of errant in-laws. I come from a very blue state, and this is normal politics. Democrats bicker and fight all the time. We're not the same as republicans who don't. I have no idea what your referring to.

[madfloridian]

74. The normal politics will keep us in Iraq.

[Cameron27]

76. I don't know what to say that, seriously.

There's no Democrat in the entire country who wants to stay in Iraq, but until we have the votes what do you suggest that they do?

[madfloridian]

78. Maybe they should keep attacking Edwards' ad

and keep attacking those of us who support him. That'll do it.

[Cameron27]

79. Until they have the votes, what good is Edwards' ad?

[JDPriestly]

184. Edwards will win public support with this one.

Dodd, Reid and Pelosi will lose it. Americans are sick of this war. And the Iraqis are certainly even sicker of it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

157. Why not?

It's everyone's job to keep our Senators accountable. Edwards has even more justification because he used to serve with them.

[youngdem]

9. Nothing to see here except the party within a party that is the DLC

All Reid is doing here is giving his fellow (and former) DLC'ers a little hand job while slapping Edwards a little for encouraging what he sees as the right path, which is EXACTLY what a candidate should do, instead of the non-committal equivocation that many of the other candidates specialize in.

Reid is ok as far as the 'D' after his name, but the man leaves a lot to be desired.

[fooj]

14. IMO, TRUTH doesn't need to "struggle with votes"...

Our elected officials (if that's what they truly are)work for us! I think Edward's ad is brilliant. This isn't about Harry. This is about ALL Americans. We (supposedly) live in a Democracy.

Define democracy:

*the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives
*a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them
*majority rule: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

I don't see anything about the "struggle with votes" in the definition.

[durtee librul]

22. You know I am sick to death of

Do nothing Harry and his crew of merry men up there. What did we elect them to do? I didn't vote to have them send 'non-binding' resolutions to the floor - I voted them in to be PROACTIVE and STOP the crap that has been permeating our society at it's top level.

What did I get? A bunch of whiners who say, 'Impeachment is off the table,' 'let's have a hearing about this,' let's issue a subpeona (and then not enforce it)and a host of other wunnerful time burners that have accomplished nothing but lip service. Rice should be tossed in jail along with all the others for not honoring 'just another damn piece of paper.' It's time they learned the hard way about how powerful a 'piece of paper' can really be.

And the piece d'resistance? A bill they KNEW lil boots was going to veto....so that's good. Let HIM and the repukes defend the veto. Missed a great chance to put the blame squarely back on the shoulders of the 'decider.'

Let's be honest, war funding isn't going away - there will be ways to pay for this damn thing with or without a signature on some damn piece of paper. (to quote our best pres ever)

Again, instead of sending a bill with 'compromise' (just another way of saying lil boots 'won'), let the one you sent up there sit....and move on to other buisness in this country and SPIN THE CRAP OUT OF THE FACT THE "DECIDER" is the ONE WHO ISN"T SUPPORTING THE TROOPS - NOT THE DEMS!

Go ahead - - flame me, I don't give a rat's ass. In the meantime, people are dying while little puss and Mr Wuss are compromising.

[beachmom]

29. That appropriations bill was a real bill, which is why the president

vetoed it. I have my issues with Harry, but he did very well putting that bill together and garnering it 50 votes. But you need 67 to override a veto.

[tavalon]

83. We aren't saying override the veto

We're saying just keep sending the same bill back. Let him veto again and again and again. We don't have to override it.

[ChiciB1]

31. I Won't Flame You... You Said It Quite Well!!

Thank you!

[tnlefty]

148. No flames here!

Say it again. :hug:

[Moochy]

15. War enabling is Hard Work!

[sandnsea]

16. This strategy didn't work for Dean

I don't know why Edwards thinks running from the left will work for him. It reeks of political grandstanding and Edwards really ought to knock it off if he wants to have a chance of winning. Focus on Bush and the war and stop slamming Democrats. Contrary to lefty opinion, that was Howard Dean's fatal error.

[madfloridian]

18. Don't get me started on that statement.

Dean did the party a huge favor. He did the country a favor. He paid for it dearly.

But he started our scaredy cat politicians speaking out against a president that was destroying our country.

No one else was doing it at the time. He got taken out for speaking out.

Edwards' ad was so true.

Reid just endorsed anyone but Edwards. I notice Kucinich just voted present on overriding the veto.

It's good they are working with Harry. But they must be the goals of the people also.

[sandnsea]

19. Agree to disagree

I think Dean cost us 2004. But let's not you and me go there again, okay? I wish Edwards would stay lasered on Bush and not help paint the Democratic Party as weaklings. Bush's war, Bush's failure to resolve the war, Bush's veto of money to fund HIS war... BUSH. And his Rubberstamp Republicans. Period.

[madfloridian]

25. No, Kerry got the nomination. Dean supported him and so did we.

Don't you dare discount the the donations and support of so many of us. Don't you go there.

What Kerry did with the nomination was his problem, not Dean's.

[sandnsea]

40. That isn't what I said

So don't twist my words and then dump on me for a distortion you created.

We'll see how well Edwards does running to the left and bashing Democrats. That's what I said and I stand by it.

See ya later.

[madfloridian]

43. As I said, his party will take care of him...

just like they did Howard Dean.

You can't fight the system and win.

[sandnsea]

47. Pick your battles

There's a time to fight the establishment and a time to focus on the bigger battle. This is a time to help the party stay focused on fighting Bush.

Do you remember back during the Social Security fight when so many people wanted Democrats to put out a plan? Pelosi insisted we stay focused on what Bush and the Republicans wanted to do and tear that down, day after day. It worked. We need to be focused on Bush being on the wrong path and holding the troops hostage to his failed war plan. It is NOT the time to be bashing Democrats. That was Howard Dean's problem too, he never could figure out when to close ranks and go for the bigger target. He appears to have gotten better at that, thankfully for all of us.

Edwards takes on Joe Trippi, Edwards starts making the same Dem bashing mistakes Dean did. It's a damn shame.

[madfloridian]

50. Harry Reid did the bashing, I did not.

He should not have said a word about that ad. It was not his place.

I really have a whole different perspective of Dean's role in politics. Quite different than the one you picture...the one that pictures him as not knowing when to come in out of the rain, but he's getting more sense...that one.

It sounds like a tolerant person tolerating someone else. That is how the party has treated him from the beginning.

Perhaps we could recall the ones who condemned him for having the honesty to say we were no safer when Saddam was caught. I have all the quotes, including one which said he was not fit to be president because he said that.

Another said he was not fit to be president because he signed a civil union bill.

The "tolerants" tolerating us.

[sandnsea]

63. I did not say you bashed anyone

Stop putting words in people's mouths.

Democrats bashing Democrats is not the way for the party to gain strength in the eyes of the public. Reid did not bash Edwards, he said that he didn't appreciate Edwards bashing those in Congress who are trying to move the Iraq War policy. Maybe Edwards should spend some time bashing those in his own backyard, because once again, it's the Southern Blue Dogs who are the key Democratic problem on Iraq, no matter how much you try to blame the DLC every single time.

[madfloridian]

70. That is what I am saying. The Senate leader went after a candidate.

And I am being blasted out of the water because I think it is wrong.

Shame on you guys.

[sandnsea]

86. The candidate went after the entire Party

when the candidate doesn't have to put his vote on the line - and when the candidate was on the opposite side every time he DID have to put his vote on the line.

The candidate, under the advise of Joe Trippi no doubt, is the one who did the bashing.

John Edwards is an opportunist.

[Clarkie1]

176. Edwards attacked Reid, and Reid fought back. Damn right it was Reid's place!

Where do you get off posting the kind of crap you do..."not his place"

What bull!

[Name removed]

55. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hart2008]

38. Dean had the right message, but was the wrong messenger.

Dean was right to say the war didn't make us safer. The problem was that he lacked gravitas.

Now Gary Hart opposed the war from when it first appeared on the radar and has mega gravitas.

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[madfloridian]

39. Let's not go into that either....

Gary Hart's affair was a terrible thing, and he was a good man.

He lost his what is it you call it.."gravitas"...when he got caught.

Let's not talk about gravitas, ok?

[Hart2008]

60. Well if you compare him to Clinton, he was very boring.

20 years later, the younger generation won't understand where the scandal was.
No semen stained dress.
No sexual harassment complaint.
No allegations of drugs and prostitutes.
The black community in Denver never claimed he had a mulatto love child.
In fact, no named woman ever claimed to have had sex with him while he was married.

20 years later Donna Rice has never changed her story and turned down millions of dollars to say otherwise. She now works protecting kids from pornography on the Internet. If my candidate had to have been "caught" in a "scandal", that is the lady with whom to get caught. Money can't buy class and the Miami Herald never got the story right.

You are right. He didn't have a perfect marriage, but he and his wife have been married for 50 years.

Isn't that better than the candidates who have been divorced?

The Co-chairman of the Hart-Rudman does have mega gravitas.

We are very happy to talk about gravitas.

;)

http://www.garyhartnews.com
http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3193854

:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[madfloridian]

65. I don't judge. You started the "grativas" stuff.

What Harry Reid said about Edwards has turned not only into Edwards bashing, but in to saying that Dean does not have "gravitas".

He has as much or more in my mind that those who have affairs and hurt their parties at crucial times.

[Hart2008]

66. In your mind, but not in the minds of others. That was my point.

So you are saying that Dean had more gravitas than FDR and JFK, right?

[madfloridian]

67. Huh?

Where in the world are you getting that? Thanks for turning this into a Hart ad.

[madfloridian]

68. Hart had his chance.

He was very much loved by many of us.

[Hart2008]

73. The party still lacks a coherent foreign policy and leadership. See the IWR.

Part of the reason we keep losing elections is that we don't nominate known candidates. It costs us in the general election with Independents and cross over Repubs. The new face that you like is the same new face that gets defined by attack ads. The way to win in November isn't to go around like Buddhist monks searching for the reincarnation of the Dali Lama.

Repubs are ready to vote for a Dem, but only for the right Dem.

[illinoisprogressive]

94. edwards is not the right dem, hart. His stuff reeks of 1970s warm over

[madfloridian]

97. And this place reeks of hatred.

Pure and simple.

[Hart2008]

100. I never said he was! HART 2008! N/T

[mnhtnbb]

211. And Obama is a kiss-ass of Wall Street.

[Cameron27]

212. And Edwards isn't?

[mnhtnbb]

218. Definitely not.

trial lawyers, yes, but Hillary and Obama are raking in money and endorsements
from the securities industry.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2007/PresidentialMoney.4.18.asp

[Cameron27]

220. He most definitely does have ties to wall street,

the dark side of the street.

Snip: "Fortress announced Edwards's hiring as an adviser in a brief statement in October 2005. Neither Edwards -- who ended his consulting deal when he launched his presidential campaign in December -- nor the firm will say how much he earned or what he did.

But his ties to Fortress were suggested by the first round of campaign finance reports released last week. They showed that Edwards raised $167,460 in donations from Fortress employees for his 2008 presidential campaign, his largest source of support from a single company.

Nearly 100 Fortress employees or their family members donated to Edwards around the time of a fundraiser his campaign held at the firm in mid-March. Senior executives, individual fund managers, lawyers and a secretary gave the maximum $2,300 donations. Three administrative or executive assistants gave smaller amounts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/22/AR2007042201339.html

Check out what hedge funds do.

[mnhtnbb]

222. I'm aware of Edwards relationship to Fortress, and what hedge funds do.

Check out the following paragraphs from the same article:

When Fortress hired Edwards as an adviser in 2005, his spokeswoman said he was joining to provide "support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global issues." Among other things, Edwards met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the company's behalf in May 2006, around the time Germany was seeking more U.S. investments while also proposing tighter regulation of hedge funds, according to published reports.

Bedingfield said Fortress recently ended its practice of letting managing partners defer their U.S. income taxes by reinvesting profits in the offshore funds. The firm made that change when it went public late last year around the time Edwards ended his consulting arrangement.

"John Edwards believes offshore tax shelters are wrong," Bedingfield said last week. "As president, he will end them. By voluntarily going public, Fortress has ended the practice of using offshore tax shelters for deferred compensation and has committed itself to a whole set of transparency and disclosure obligations that no other hedge fund has committed itself to before."

[mnhtnbb]

223. I didn't say Edwards had no 'ties' to Wall Street. Look again at the post and the language.

[Cameron27]

224. You're right. You said:

"Obama is a kiss-ass of Wall Street"

In the group of kiss-asses of Wall Street, belongs one John Edwards. What he did besides meeting with Merkel in 2006 is unknown. "...his spokeswoman said he was joining to provide "support in developing investment opportunities worldwide and strategic advice on global issues."

I'm going to quote from a poster at KOS: "What exactly does John Edwards have to offer a hedge fund as a consultant? He is not a financier nor even an expert in government financial regulation....Mother of Zeus"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/23/14422/2464

Whatever he plans to do as president, he actually did work for a hedge fund that among other things, provided off-shore tax havens for the very wealthy. The company only stopped it's practice a few months after Edwards left, to run for president. He was admonishing others against this kind of tax haven, at the very time he was working for a company that did precisely that.

I don't know how this doesn't constitute being a kiss-ass.

[mnhtnbb]

227. I refer you to 'The Obama Illusion' for defining kiss-ass

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=124317

The extent of Obama's involvement with Wall Street goes way beyond Edwards'
short stint as a consultant for a liberal hedge fund. Take a look
at Edwards' policies from health care to unionization to poverty reduction
to energy/environment to free/fair trade, and you will deduce that he is not a friend of big corporations.

Obama, on the other hand, leans more toward the Hillary side of
supporting (her) corporate friends.

[Cameron27]

228. Thanks for the info,

I'll look at it carefully.

[mnhtnbb]

229. You're welcome. The red flags re Obama first went up for me

when I read his book, "The Audacity of Hope".

I will admit that I'm leary of Edwards; I was a huge Dean supporter last time around. But I think that Edwards has evolved and is running this time more from his heart and less from political calculation. That might be naive--maybe
he's hoping the country has moved more left and that's why he's positioning
himself the way he is. We'll see. There's certainly plenty of time
for any of these candidates to either self-destruct or succumb to media
evisceration.

[sandnsea]

42. Kerry opposed the actual war too

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not staying focused on Bush and the Republicans. It didn't help Dean and I don't think it'll help Edwards either.

[madfloridian]

44. Edwards will fall in line....or else.

Dean did not, and they took care of it. I support Edwards, but I am realistic.

[sandnsea]

48. What happened to...

voted for the war?? How in the world do you rant for 4 straight years about that war vote - and then turn around and support John Edwards for President??

[madfloridian]

51. I trust him more than others.

That is why.

[illinoisprogressive]

92. edwards is posturing for the gullible. People with brains know the caucus has to be united and

they need to votes. It's just so easy to posture from the outside.

[madfloridian]

128. I have no brains. You win.

I just admiited it. I can not lower expectations anymore.

[mnhtnbb]

213. LOL. Good for you!

[Clarkie1]

175. Sandnsea, I never thought I'd see this day...I agree with you. nt

[beachmom]

17. Well, there's two issues here:

1. The STRATEGY for Dems to bring about the end of the war
2. Presidential politics

Edwards is engaging in presidential politics which is fine. But there are many in the Senate NOT running for president nor in the DLC, who may not agree with Edwards's approach while being very dedicated to ending the war. And, I hate to bring it up ad nauseum, but Edwards is not one to talk about voting against Bush, given Edwards's Senate record which is very different from his campaign platform.

I'm not a big Reid fan, and I'm not sure it was right for him to get involved here, but he kind of has a point here. Edwards is NOT in the Senate.

[w4rma]

21. What? Edwards can't say anything because he's not in the Senate? Interesting position. (nt)

[beachmom]

27. Sure he can say something, but his words don't carry as much

weight since a) he isn't the one who actually has to cast the vote and b) his Senate voting record doesn't show this kind of spine he now insists Democrats in Congress must have.

[w4rma]

30. So what? His words carry more than mine do, so I'm extremely happy with what he's saying. (nt)

[beachmom]

33. Well, that's where we differ. Last I looked, we need 67 votes to

override a veto. Banging our heads against the wall, sending the bill 10 times to the president who will veto and not enough GOPers (we need 17 more votes) will change their votes, seems pointless and highly risky, IMO. We are not yet at the defunding place. What Edwards is suggesting will eventually lead to defunding since a bill will NEVER be signed. I think they should consider the Murtha approach of sending a bill that is shorter in duration, then have another fight in 3 months.

[w4rma]

161. Veto? Let him veto, over and over, his war funding bill. Without funding there is no war.

Funding and de-funding projects is Congress's most important Constitutional power over the executive branch. Bush *has* to sign a funding bill or his war ends.

And that's why any restrictions have to be placed in the war funding bill.

[madfloridian]

23. Reid endorsed everyone but Edwards.

It is the very same as in 2004. They will do things their way in the senate and the house, just as it has always been done.

We shouldn't use the war vote against Edwards anymore. He has more than made up for it. The others are still waffling around.

After all it was the former Dem president and his advisors advising a vote for it.

Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220

You know, it's a funny thing. I don't have the passion this time like I did before. Dean inspired so many of us.

But the more I see that we needed someone to speak out, the more passionate I get. I would prefer it be Dean, but it won't.

It is all falling into place just like it did before the Iraq war vote and invasion. Back off, give us room to do our job. We know what is best for the little people....that kind of thing.

Amd look where we are now. In an endless quagmire about which we are not supposed to speak.

[beachmom]

26. I hear you, but we don't have the votes to override a veto.

What Edwards is suggesting, in effect, is to deny funding for the troops. Because if we continue to send the bill over and over again, and it gets vetoed, it will turn into a "government shutdown" except involving the troops not getting the equipment they need. This is high stakes stuff.

Here's the thing: ALL of the others that Reid spoke of are in the Senate NOW. Edwards is not. And that's really something for him to be judging, say, Webb, who like Dean was opposed to the war and wrote an op-ed against it, and lobbied the two Virginia senators to vote against the IWR. Edwards has got nothing on Webb. Sorry, that's how I feel. And you know I am a Kerry supporter, and he voted for the IWR in error, too.

You're probably right -- Reid should have just ignored Edwards, instead of saying something. But I guess I am puzzled as to what precisely Edwards has done to make up for his vote other than run for president for two years.

[bling bling]

34. Please don't "hate to bring it up ad nauseum."

It obviously isn't sinking in and it NEEDS to be brought up ad nauseum.

You don't sponsor a bill to send a country to war after you've been told the intelligence is bad, then vote down your colleagues attempts to add amendments to your bill that delay war, then quit the Senate and in a couple years stick your nose up into the fishbowl and hold a magnifying glass up to everyone ELSE in a TV ad!

I know his supporters can't stand it that it's being brought up. but I've watched these same people for 3 years attack Hillary for her 'war-mongering blood-on-her-hands' IWR vote. As recently as this week I've seen some of these same people actually accuse Obama of voting for the IWR by saying that he *would* have voted for the IWR too if he'd been in the senate at the time.

So no. Repeating Edwards monumental role in this illegal war and then his appauling hypocracy on the matter won't be considered ad nauseum for DU's standards until people gripe about it and use it against him in every single thread where his name appears for the next 3 years or so.

on edit, I should clarify that I don't mean all Edwards supporters. Not even close. I'm talking specifically to the hypocritical sort who dish-it-out but can't take it.

[mnhtnbb]

214. Right. Edwards is now on our side. Reid is on the side of what's in it for him.

[depakid]

20. Reid has been a worthless leader, so I discount his yapping

I lost count of how many times he's flapped his lips and not backed up his "big talk."

[madfloridian]

24. No, he has not been worthless. He has been a good leader so far.

So has Pelosi. But they are being pushed where they don't want to go. Striking back at Edwards for that ad shows they are in a bind.

Our country can not survive his war much longer either financially or emotionally.

If they don't attack the ones speaking out it would be better.

[depakid]

35. He rolled over and/or enabled the far right on almost every single issue

for the entire time he was minority leader- and I've yet to see any meaningful results now that he's in the majority. If it wasn't for two health care related atrocities last that the "leadership" managed (barely) to block- he'd have a big fat ZERO on every nomination and every piece of far right legislation!

Compare that with someone like Dole in 1993- or even Daschle

btw: I don't have any bones to pick with Pelosi- but Reid's record is among the very worst in history. That's just a fact-

[ChiciB1]

28. Reid Certainly Hasn't Shown ME Very Much... I Don't Want To

bash Dems myself, but AM getting tired of how Reid doesn't seem to be an effective leader.... IMO!!! IMO!!!

[blueworld]

32. Who gives a rat's ass?

I don't care if Reid is happy with Edwards - I'm very happy with Edwards. I don't want to attack any Dems at this point, but perhaps it would be worthwhile if Reid & Pelosi examined what Edwards is saying & compared it to the voters assessment of what's necessary.

[bling bling]

36. Maybe Reid is thinking that Edwards helped get them into this mess.

And he should just STFU because it's really annoying to have to listen to a co-sponsor of the IWR reprimand those still in the senate dealing with this mess about not stopping the war fast enough.

I don't know what Reid is thinking. Just thought that might be one of the things he's thinking. But only Reid knows for sure.

Just trying to be helpful.

[Cameron27]

37. You can bet that's what he's thinking,

and Reid's not alone.

[madfloridian]

45. See all those halos?

Over all our Democrats in congress? You know what they say about casting the first stone?

[Cameron27]

52. How many of those halos were

sitting in the Intel Committee. I know, *Clinton's people,* yada, yada, yada...but a lot of senators had access to *Clinton's people* and didn't chose to sponsor Lieberman's Resolution. A lot of senators didn't have the intel access that Edwards did.

[madfloridian]

56. So his is the only vote you criticize?

Do you think Hillary's being married to Bill who said he often defended Bush's Iraq policy against the left....made it ok for her vote?

Hmm....He defended Bush against us. How very odd.

Yet only one guy is being blamed by many here for his vote.

It is sinking in.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[Cameron27]

59. Oh no, I criticize all of them,

but because Edwards was on the Intel Committee, stepped up to sponsor it, led a cheerleading effort that landed on Bush's web page, tried to persuade Kerry not to admit their votes were in error during the 2004 campaign, continued to say he'd have voted the same way years later, despite knowing there were no WMDs, and apologized with the excuse that he had bad Intel, he gets more criticism.

[madfloridian]

61. Reid just criticized one candidate. Was that ok?

Do you see no problem with that?

My eyes are opening here.

[Cameron27]

62. He didn't agree with his ad..

no one else has an ad sniping at the Congressional Democrats. If the others had an ad he didn't like, I'm sure he'd say something.

[Clarkie1]

178. Yes it was O.K. and yes I see no problem with that. nt

[madfloridian]

77. The NIE was available to all of the Democrats who wanted to read it.

Most of them chose not to do so.

Graham begged them to read it.

[FrenchieCat]

132. There were 2 versions of the NIE, if you didn't know that...which was the

whole problem. There was the NIE that the Intel Committee saw and the version that was declassified later and that everyone else got to read.

The Intel Committee got to see both, and therefore each one on that committee got to see the differences in how the intelligence was being presented to the public versus the original NIE that they had initially seen.

Graham begged for the declassified version, and when it was received that is when he became outraged that this version had been altered to provide a strong case on the dangers of Iraq.

Edwards sat in on those intel meetings, and knew, as did the others, that the intelligence in the declassified NIE being presented to the rest of congress and to the American people differed greatly from the intelligence they themselves had seen. Graham voted AGAINST the IWR....... Edwards did much more than just vote FOR it.

Here's my back up....and I have more if needed:


"The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Durbin said Wednesday.
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/04/27/durbin_says_public_was_lied_to_about_iraq

Read about the NIE--

In the late summer of 2002, Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive.

Early that September, the committee also received the DIA's classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration's claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn't do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet's earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."

On October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration's case for war.
http://yglesias.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/11/131029/55

[dogman]

87. And we know the saying about living in glass houses.

There was no bigger cheerleader for this war than Edwards. Now that he is out of the house he throws stones like Ernest T. Bass. He talks about leadership, but has not led except to war. He decries rhetoric, yet that is all he offers. He drove the car into the ditch, jumped in to the back seat, and complains that the car is stuck. You may trust him, I sure don't.

[madfloridian]

93. Well, neither does the senate leader.

And when you have congress attacking a candidate early on, when you have Durbin getting Secret Service protection for Obama through Harry Reid...

Well, I just feel like I have been tossed out in the cold all over again by my party.

[dogman]

102. That's putting the cart before the horse.

Edwards is presuming to lead the Senate. I'm sure as Senate leader, Reid is not going to let that stand. When leading the charge, you are not likely to accept sniping from your rear. Especially from a person who has left the team to pursue their own glorification.

[madfloridian]

104. Reid and Pelosi told Dean to keep in his place.

Now they are telling Edwards to keep in his place.

Where does that leave the people of the party? Oh, I get it. Keep in our place.

[dogman]

105. They are elected leaders.

They are doing their job as they see it.

[madfloridian]

108. That is what I am seeing here. That they get to pick and choose...

who gets blasted and who does not.

And people here are falling all over themselves to make ME look bad and make EDWARDS look bad.

It is an amazing thing to watch.

I have lowered my expectations enough now that it is just amazing to watch the way the hits on me come when I say the senate leader should not single out a candidate.

[mnhtnbb]

215. DU is now the anti-Edwards website. I'm with you!

[Cameron27]

221. But DU is positively giddy with Hillary Clinton.

Nothing but chocolates and bouquets. Yep, only Edwards gets criticized.:eyes:

[Inspired]

136. Oh. My. God.

Please tell me you are joking.

This is complete bullshit.

I don't care if you like Edwards or hate him.

Let me say it again.

This is complete bullshit.

[dogman]

202. How?

Throwing manure on a post is bullshit, back it up.

[Inspired]

204. Because they should be doing what WE want.

It seems pretty simple to me. Just because they are elected officials does not give them the right to do as THEY feel fit. They work for US...remember?

They should be doing what WE choose. We choose to end this war. Edwards is trying to do just that. He isn't the only one trying.

It is MY, let me repeat, MY opinion that your dislike of Edwards is clouding your judgement on this issue.

But I'm not surprised. The baggage must be heavy and the chip must be deep.

[dogman]

206. No baggage.

Just a desire for success. The leadership is in a position to succeed. They know the workings of Congress and have devised good plans so far. The Feingold-Reid bill has a better chance of success than playing chicken with george. The baggage belongs to Edwards, he was co-cheerleader for w's war, along with Lieberman. The chip is deep. Over 3500 American soldiers and countless dead Iraqis has dug right into my memories and losses from Vietnam. I don't really want to see such poor judgment in charge of this nation. Eight years is enough.

[madfloridian]

41. Reid helped us into this mess...he is defending others who did.

They are not going to leave Iraq, and they want us to hush.

Bottom line.

[Cameron27]

49. Maybe he thinks Edwards ad is naive or not a solution.

Juan Cole doesn't think much of it:

"John Edwards argues in his campaign commercials that the best response to Bush's veto of the supplemental spending bill on Iraq and the failure on Wednesday of Congress to overturn it, is to keep sending the same bill back to Bush.

It is satisfying to say so, but it probably isn't good political tactics. When Newt Gingrich played politics with the budget under Clinton and even shut down DC, it was Congress that took the hit in the polls. Just being obstreperous isn't very attractive.

Murtha is suggesting that they don't fund a whole year, maybe only two months. That sort of conditionality, whatever its mechanism, seems right to me."

http://www.juancole.com/2007/05/murtha-urges-limited-fu...

[madfloridian]

53. Well, that seals it, doesn't it.

There are so many ways I can't name them.

[Cameron27]

54. Good, we agree!

[madfloridian]

58. No, I disagree with Cole also.

I think all of them missed the full meaning of the ad. They took it verbatim.

I think what is happening is a way to keep those silenced who don't play the game.

I did not think so really until I saw all the people jumping on me to defend Reid's attack on Edwards.

But I do get it now.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

[Moochy]

64. Such coordinated talking points

fascinating isnt it? Strange bed fellows and all that.

[The Count]

96. You mean, like those co-sponsors of IWR? Who were in the Intelligence Commitee?

Oh, right - only Hillary can be attacked on IWR - Edwards "apologized". he said he didn't know - although Durbin tells us he did, but hos apology is somehow all cleansing. Edwards good-Senate bad.

[Adelante]

46. Heh

That just about says it.

[KingofNewOrleans]

80. I agree with both Edwards and Reid

It's easier to do this from the sidelines where you can advocate a "pure" position. It gets alot harder when you have to negiotiate with people who don't share your position.

Don't have a problem with the paths either of them are taking at this point.

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Well put. n/t

[madfloridian]

103. Do you think the senate leader should single out one candidate...

over the others. If Dean did that in his position there would be hell to pay.

Why are people avoiding the question?

[KingofNewOrleans]

138. I think Reid is saying why his job

is more complicated than Edwards right now on the legislation at hand. And Reid's job is harder right now.

[The Count]

82. Reid wants to end the war. Edwards wants to raise money/score against competition

How do you see Edwards "strategery" working? Will Jr cave in?
I see GOP-ers in congress cave in multiple votes and overriding the veto. So, it depends what you want.
This is a Trippi created political stunt - which looks bad on a man whose speach on war was on W's campaign website and who sponsored IWR

[KingofNewOrleans]

84. Yeah right,, because as we all know

the only people who can seek to end the war now are those who opposed it from the beginning.

[The Count]

90. NO, others joined the bandwagon - but buttheading W will NOT accomplish

anything. Even if he WANTED to get out of it, he painted himself into a corner and he's stuck. Only congress can undo the damage now.
What Edwards is saying is good rhetoric, but a plan with no chances of success. Kinda like W's war itself.

[KingofNewOrleans]

139. W could get out anytime he wants

he does seem incapable, because of deep character flaws to get out. As far as which tack, if any, will snap Bush back into reality, I don't have the magic sight.

[madfloridian]

88. What an amazing thing we are seeing now.

Edwards' ad was so well-received they collected over 100,000 for it in one day, it got a huge number of recommends here. It got attention everywhere.

SO...the senate leader stands up for the presidential candidates in congress, says they are playing the game well.

And he cautions Edwards he is hurting them by that wonderful ad.

SO...I post about it.

Guess who gets attacks? Me. and Edwards.

This is such an amazing place to be.

It is like talking points all ready my post was set upon.

Next will come someone accusing me of being paranoid.

This is just amazing.

The Senate leader singles out a candidate to put down....and who gets blasted? that candidate. And me for posting about it.

I sure am glad I have those lowered expectations we are supposed to have here.

Peace.

[The Count]

91. Cha-Ching!! "Got 100,000 for it" which is what the purpose was all along.

That and embarrass the other candidates who are in the Senate. A twofer.

[madfloridian]

95. So you look at it as embarrassing those in the senate.

I wonder why you would think that?

Hey, you know what I have been told here so often?

Get a tougher hide...politics is politics.

What did they do that they could be embarrassed so easily?

[The Count]

98. I see this as one of the goals. MSM will cover him - because he attacks Democrats

(just like Code Pink - and you were with me on that one).

[madfloridian]

101. Do you think Reid should have attacked a candidate?

That is what is scaring me here.

People seem to think it is ok for Reid to do that. I don't.

[dogman]

114. You see it as an attack, I see it as a defense.

Maybe he would prefer support of Feingold-Reid. He is facing the opposition, not sitting back watching the widsock and sailing with the current prevailing wind. As a former Dean supporter, I would think you would be more concerned about Trippi joining the campaign of Edwards. That is real cause for concern in my book.

[madfloridian]

116. Wait, this post was about Reid singling out one guy.

And now you are playing it to attack Trippi.

Now I am really lowering my expectations.

[dogman]

119. No problem, send Trippi your money.

Costs me nothing. He convinced you Dean had the support to win. Now he can sell Edwards as the anti-war candidate. Once again, why not expend the effort to support Feingold-Reid?

[madfloridian]

120. I had forgotten how nasty people were here.

I really had. You just made me remember all over again.

[dogman]

122. Feingold-Reid is nasty?

Why not expend the effort to support it?

[The Count]

117. Bingo! This is a Trippi stunt - for fundraising. It'll create a lot of bitterness

just as it did during some of the Dean campaign moments.

[madfloridian]

118. Now it is turning into a Dean/Trippi attack.

This is so amazing to watch. You guys are very very very good.

[The Count]

121. I like Dean - at least the post Trippi Dean. I can see where campaign went bad.

I recognize the style.

[madfloridian]

124. This post is not about Joe Trippi. You are just amazing. You really are.

The more I do what we were told to do here, lower my expectations, the more you make me lower them more.

It is amazing to watch the same ones here do this all the time, it is just amazing.

Maybe I need to go and sit in a corner and lower my expectations some more.

:shrug:

[dogman]

I thought they went seperate ways?

Dean is doing fine without him.

[The Count]

131. Yup. In fact it's when I started respecting Dean (I could see the difference).

It was not a nice divorce, either.

[illinoisprogressive]

89. Harry is calling like it is. it's easy to run your mouth if you have no one to answer to.

[w4rma]

107. Wait you mean like when Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote on the IWR or be called a terrorist?

Some Obama supporters are totally hypocritical on this issue.

[The Count]

110. Obama came out AT THE TIME - when it was unpopular (hence Edwards was FOR)

If Obama was willing to go on record then, and be attacked for that, he can also be defended for it, by us. Same as Gore.
Edwards turn-sround is a bit different - as he waited until 2005 - he went through a whole POTUS race without recanting his IWR vote or saying the war was wrong.

[w4rma]

112. So hypocritical, The Count. Same situation. Then again you latch on to everything and anything.

In your quest to smear a Democratic candidate on this forum.

I expect the worst from some of you Obama groupies.

[The Count]

127. I am not anyone's groupie. I rather like Gravel & DK - and look at the field with a bit

of disappointment in general.
I didn't think bringing up facts was a smear.
You will agree with me that Gore speaking against the war before the IWR vote counts as a vote against. Well, if you give that to Gore, you give it to Obama as well.
beyond that, I do have some reservations about some of Obama's votes - but this is the wrong thread for it.

[Inspired]

137. Ditto what you said. n/t

[madfloridian]

99. When the Senate leaders attacks a candidate...and a Dem forum approves.

Where does that leave us?

[The Count]

106. It was the Dem candidate who started attacking Senate& House.

Brought him a cool 100,000 in one day. They will be attacked by MSM (more) as a result of Edwards & Trippi little fundraising stunt. Where does that leave us? :shrug:

[madfloridian]

109. It leaves us knowing that Edwards is the one to lose...

just like we knew who it was in 03 and 04. We had hope but we lost it.

I might politely suggest that the party not make us lose hope again by taking out a candidate.

[The Count]

111. How can that be? The "party" is Dean, your Idol!

(I like him too since he's chairing the DNC, BTW)

[madfloridian]

113. See what I mean? Go after me, let Reid off the hook.

The senate leader dissed a candidate today, and I am the one being put down.

Please don't sound childish about the role of Howard Dean in the party, and please stop sounding childish about idol crap.

He is not at all welcome in DC, he makes it uncomfortable for them. He was also told that he was to have no opinions...only congress had opinions.

Hey, I'm fine with Harry putting John down. All over it , learned my lesson well.

[madfloridian]

115. Actually what Reid was saying....

was to shut up and let them lead us.

That is the bottom line.

Now Durbin got security for Obama, and that lets us know the top two Congress wants.

The decision is made, just like it was in the other primary.

[The Count]

123. You have a problem with Obama getting security? Mine is with the MSM

announcing that his wife & kids are NOT protected. I guess we have different priorities.

[madfloridian]

126. I said, you win.

I can not fight utter hatred and intolerance.

[The Count]

129. Woo-Hooo! I won! What do I get as a prize? Besides of the strange "intolerance"

label - from the supporter of the one white man against the black man and the woman label?

[Clarkie1]

158. When attacked, Demcorats will fight back. Edwards better get used to it. nt

[madfloridian]

125. Everybody in this thread wins....

I simply can not lower my expectations anymore. They are on the ground now.

Go for it, Harry. Keep that Edwards in line and DU will cheer you.

Harry wins.

[The Count]

130. I hope he'll win the war ending battle. As long as he keeps the bill on the floor

he has my support. he stops, he loses it - I'll be the first one to boo.
This is not about personalities. It's about getting things done - i.e - stopping the war.

[Schema Thing]

133. "Gadfly", yes! That's perfect for Edwards.

[Gloria]

134. I am just creeping more and more toward independent status along with

sit this one out status if we can't get past the grip of the Beltway/corporatist crowd.

Guess what? I haven't been all that happy with you, Harry, for a long, long time....

[zulchzulu]

140. All you need to know is what Dick Durbin said about being on the Intelligence Committee...

Durbin said:

"The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said Wednesday when talking on the Senate floor about the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002.

"I was angry about it. frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."

2001-2002 Senate Intelligence Committee
http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html
(Blue voted against IWR)

Bob Graham, Florida
Richard C. Shelby, Alabama
Carl Levin, Michigan
Jon Kyl, Arizona
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia
James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
Dianne Feinstein, California
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Pat Roberts , Kansas
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Mike DeWine, Ohio
Evan Bayh, Indiana
Fred Thompson, Tennessee
John Edwards, North Carolina (Co-sponsor of IWR)
Richard G. Lugar, Indiana
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland

The Nays in the 2002 IWR:

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

[madfloridian]

142. It does not matter anyway.

The media and the Democrats are having violent reactions to the ad. They will take care of Edwards in short term.

It's amazing. I was told the same stuff here in 03 most every day. I was wrong, people really did not believe what they said...things have not changed a bit.

We need not worry. They have effectively hushed Dean by telling him to take his "cues" from congressional leadership, not to speak up on policy. Makes it hard since many of like the way he speaks out.

Now Edwards is speaking out, and all hell is breaking loose.

May I remind you:

All three of these men can't be wrong. Advised by Clinton advisors
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1041

Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220

And may I remind you that Hillary had to know what her husband knew...that Iraq was not a threat. But Bill defended Bush against the left anyway. Against the left? I guess that means us.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

"Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for."

[zulchzulu]

203. All I'm saying is that it's easy for sideliners to call the shots when it doesn't count

...and when it counted, the sideliner did the wrong thing.

It's simple when it's boiled down.

After Durbin's revelation (which we all knew anyway), it was quite apparent that some saw political opportunism and chest-beating as a solution over measuring that with the truth. History has a habit of pointing out who had character and who dropped the ball.

[Clarkie1]

141. I support Reid, Obama, Boxer, Feinstein, Byrd, and all good Democrats; I do not support Edwards.

We need a team-player, not a selfish self-promoting panderer. How stupid does he think we are not to recognize the hypocrisy of an out of office war enabler telling fighting Dems in the Senate and House what their next move should be? He has no backbone. Every Dem in the Senate and House has more backbone than Edwards.

[sampsonblk]

143. I am with Edwards on this one!

Give him the same shit till he signs it.

[madfloridian]

144. Just a reminder of who knew what and when and who advised them.

We need not worry. They have effectively hushed Dean by telling him to take his "cues" from congressional leadership, not to speak up on policy. Makes it hard since many of us like the way he speaks out.

Now Edwards is speaking out, and all hell is breaking loose.

May I remind you:

All three of these men can't be wrong. Advised by Clinton advisors
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1041

Bill Clinton once said about Iraq: "I want it to have been worth it."
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1220

And may I remind you that Hillary had to know what her husband knew...that Iraq was not a threat. But Bill defended Bush against the left anyway. Against the left? I guess that means us.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

"Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for."

They knew. They made different decisions based on what they knew.

I think those who believe it is ok for the Senate leader to attack a presidential candidate and take up for others....is starting a dangerous trend.

This thread as many here have, has amazed me so much. I just keep lowering those expectations until they are on the floor.

:think:

[Clarkie1]

145. When Dems are attacked, we fight back. Edwards better get used to it. nt

[napi21]

146. Sorrry Harry, but Edwards is saying the SAME THING I've been saying!

Tahkie a revote so it's a new bill and contains the SAME timelines as the first one, and send it right back to the WH! If Shrub vetoes it again, repeat step one!

I say don't blink! Shrub looks bad because the Dems have been able to tell the American people they gave him all the money he ask for and more. It's the PREZ who is saying NO to the funds for the troops!

I think Edwards is 100% right on the tactic and the chickenshits in congress should pay attention!

[Clarkie1]

147. 52% of Americans were against the veto....we have a razor thin majority.

That support for our majority will evaporate very quickly if we act as hard-headed as Bush. Americans expect better of us. They expect us to demonstrate we are capable of governing.

[napi21]

150. K suppose it depends on how you want to see governing.

I happen to think this idiot Prez needs to be told very strongly that HE isn't a damn king! HE can't get anything he wants and on hos own terms.

I was a buyer for a large national company, and I also attended a training class on negotiating. It's all about who finally gives in. Who is the first one to blink. Might I say, in the test, I was partnered with the Department manager who was also my boss. We did a playout of a negotiation and I WON! Of course the Dems have to continue to tell the American people they are the ONLY ones who are really supporting the troops by giving them the funds they need, and it's the Prez who is cutting off those funds with his veto, just because he's not willing to set targets. I believe the Dems can't lose this argument, as long as they handle it right!

[Clarkie1]

151. Handling it right is the key. Edwards "approach" is just plain stupid.

I don't beleive Edwards for one minute believes it is either wise or practical, but he wants to pander, so he panders.

[Hippo_Tron]

149. This is a stupid argument, neither plan ends the war before January 2009

Here's the Edwards plan...

Send Bush the same bill again and again and again. He vetoes it again and again and again. Then we get to May when the funding expires. Edwards still hasn't said what he would do then. Either The Democrats cave and fund the war while still negotiating or they don't fund the war and Bush takes money from other Pentagon spending to continue funding the war.

The Reid plan...

Send Bush a bill with "benchmarks", Bush either signs said bill or 2/3rds votes to override the veto. Either way, said bill becomes law and Bush just ignores the benchmarks.

Why they are fighting over this is beyond me.

[Clarkie1]

152. You should ask Edwards why they are fighing...because he's the one who started it.

Edwards certainly doesn't seem to be any friend of the Democratic Party, does he?

[Hippo_Tron]

153. I don't care who started it... both are being equally immature

Edwards ran a TV ad that encouraged Congress to do something that Senator Reid doesn't agree with. Senator Reid could've ended this by saying "Well I have a great deal of respect for Senator Edwards but we have a difference of opinion and I have no further comment." But Reid chose not to do that.

I blame both Reid and Edwards for escalating what amounts to a difference of opinion on strategy.

[Clarkie1]

154. Edwards doesn't believe in the "strategy" he is advocating.

He's using it for selfish political purposes. Reid did the right thing by putting Edwards in his place.

[Hippo_Tron]

155. The same thing could be said about Reid

As I said above, Bush isn't going to follow any of the proposed benchmarks in the next round of legislation. A man of Reid's intellect surely must know this.

[Clarkie1]

156. Except Edwards isn't in the Senate and Reid is. Edwards ought to shut up...

unless he's ready to go back to criticising Republicans and not Democratic leaders who the people have elected.

[Hippo_Tron]

159. I'm confused, only sitting senators have the right to comment on legislation?

Neither Reid nor Edwards has a plan that will actually end the Iraq War and both are proposing their respective plans for political gain. So, I don't see any real reason why they need to give the press fuel to write stories about Democrats bashing Democrats.

[Clarkie1]

162. As American, he has that right. As a Democrat, what Edwards is doing stinks. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

167. As a Democrat, Edwards is under no obligation to support the Democratic leadership's proposal

I'm certainly glad that not every Democrat supported the Iraq War Resolution, which was backed by the Democratic leadership.

And again, this is a fight with NO SUBSTANCE. Neither Reid nor Edwards is proposing a plan that will produce any results. Which is why they should both quit fighting with each other.

[Clarkie1]

170. No, he is under no obligation.

However, I expect Democratic candidates running for President to support the Democratic Party. There is no Democratic Senator who is going to support, with a bare majority, sending the same legislation back. It's ludicrous.

Edwards is slamming all Senate Democrats, deliberately with lies. And the far-left sheeple will follow.

[Hippo_Tron]

174. No, the far-left sheeple are following Dennis Kucinich

Who is proposing impeachment in a Senate with 49 Republicans, making conviction all of impossible.

The sooner that everyone gets it through their head that we will be in Iraq until 2009 and stops these stupid disputes on all sides, the better off our party unity will be.

[Clarkie1]

182. I agree we will be in Iraq until 2009.

I've believed....known...that for a long time. However, that doesn't excuse Edwards playing the kinds of childish political games he is playing. He's a sad excuse for a Democrat and no team-player.

[madfloridian]

160. Edwards made an ad and everyone is going crazy. It is scary.

I think what happened was his ad, which by the way has 89 recommends here, took attention away from the Clinton and Byrd effort.

But that's politics.

Here's the ad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=26163&mesg_id=26163

Reid should not have singled out one candidate like that.

It was wrong.

I have learned a lot from this thread.

[Clarkie1]

163. Reid damn right should have singled out Edwards. Edwards had it coming.

If you don't like it maybe you and Edwards ought to start a 3rd party of your own.

[w4rma]

164. The smear artists are running amok in your thread. Take it as a complement.

The fake ones obviously see Edwards as a threat to Mitt Romney who Obama and Hillary can't beat.

With Romney as their nominee the South get's put in play again, but only with Edwards as our nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

173. Why can't Obama and Hillary Not Beat Mitt Romney? And why would

Edwards be able to? What's your reasoning on that? Cause Edwards is a Southerner?

Hillary lived in the south for 18 years.

Obama is Black, and if we get enough Black folks in the south to register to vote, Romney is toast against OBama in the South.

Me thinks you give Romney way more credit than he deserves!

Romney can always say that Iraq is mucked up, and Edwards was in the Intel committee and knew that the intelligence was faulty. Romney didn't vote for the IWR.

In reference to "smear" artists, I could have sworn that calling DUers names as you have was against DU rules! Folks disagreeing with your views does not a "fake" one make....unless you will be calling DUers unpatriotic next!

[madfloridian]

180. Edwards was leading all the GOP guys in the polls, even Rudi.

By a pretty good margin. It was posted here today.

[FrenchieCat]

186. But, But, But......

I thought you didn't believe in polls! What happened? :shrug:

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Mon Apr-23-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. They mean to me what I want them to mean.
Edited on Mon Apr-23-07 10:42 PM by madfloridian
Thanks though.

I don't believe in any of the polls right now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3231739&mesg_id=3231763

[madfloridian]

192. LOL you guys save all my posts, don't you?

I think since Edwards beat all the GOP he deserves credit.

Wow you guys must love my posts to be able to pull them up at a moment's notice.

[FrenchieCat]

193. I'm not a "Guy".....

and there is only one of me, so I'm not sure who else you are talking about. :shrug:

However, I have a star and a good memory, and all I had to do was a search in GDP for "Straw poll" and found the thread I was looking for.......

You see, I'm used to doing research. I'm good at it. That's why I actually can substantiate my posts by backing my shit up instead of talking out of my ass.

Plus You flatter yourself much too much, cause in the greater scheme of things, you simply are not that important; to me anyways!

[madfloridian]

194. "you guys" is a generic term.

I wish your opinion of me were better, but I really don't lose sleep over it.

[FrenchieCat]

195. Actually, the reason for the opinion that I hold of you

was examplified when you posted this upthread....

madfloridian (1000+ posts) Thu May-03-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #52
77. The NIE was available to all of the Democrats who wanted to read it.
Most of them chose not to do so.

Graham begged them to read it.

I bothered to respond to this post of yours with some detailed facts.....which clearly documented the inaccuracy of your statement. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=3248577&mesg_id=3249262

But you didn't bother to want to take me up on that debate.

Was there too much substance in that response for you to bother yourself with that particular issue....because it appears that you seem to have no problem taking the time out to tell me about me/guys and the saving of your posts, and citing polls (that at other times you feel are worthless)?

The bottomline is that I am here to debate, not here to play personality games as though we were in high school. I graduated long ago. I'm too old and serious for the bullshit.

[madfloridian]

196. Actually, the entire NIE was available, about 90 pages.

Graham begged them to go to the locked room and read it. I have a lot of research on it here.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1171

Now, part of this was from Frontline, part from other sources. If I am wrong, clue me in.

Please quit insulting me. I don't care if you like me, but you don't need to be insulting.

[FrenchieCat]

197. You come at me with the audacity of implying that I am part of some

organized group (you've said this repeately elsewhere), and you consider yourself the one being insulted? What-E-ver! :eyes:

[madfloridian]

198. Did I provide the answer you wanted from me?

That is what you were angry about.

[FrenchieCat]

199. I am not angry.......

in reference to your answer, I am doing my "due diligent" research (which I always try to do prior to responding)....although for the life of me, I'm not sure how your research helps John Edwards integrity on the issue. Seems like it makes it worse. had John Edwards even kinda of listened to Graham just a little bit (and considering that Graham was the Chairman of the Intel Committee at the time for a reason), Edwards wouldn't have had to have been so "sorry" three years later to this day!

It does appear that Sen. Graham certainly tried to be heard! that's for sure!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A19822-2003Jun21?language=printer

[madfloridian]

200. He has integrity. I am not having to defend his integrity.

I am just making sure that people understand I blame the people who really knew more than anyone else...because they pushed for it and defended Bush on it.

I think it is personal attack to say Edwards does not have integrity.

[FrenchieCat]

201. Edwards is a public figure.....and is not above those making value judgments

About him and his leadership qualities. I specifically stated "integrity on the issue". That's why he puts himself out there in front of the public, and asks for our vote. I don't know the "personal" John Edwards, but the "public" John Edwards who is standing up asking me and everyone else to vote for him to be a leader to me is sorely lacking IMO.

In addition, since you are correct in that the 90 page Classified report was available for reading, and John Edwards didn't bother to read it.....but rather chose to co-sponsor the Blank check resolution, and failed to vote YES on the Durbin and the Levin Amendments......and wrote more than one OPed supporting War in Iraq (one OpEd was so "For" the war, it was posted on the White House Website for all to read); considering that Edwards was a member of the Intel intelligence, he had to know what Bob Graham said, and how Bob Graham felt (Graham was obviously very pissed and he let that be known--in particular to other Intel Committee members).

Yet Edwards said in November of 2005, when he finally apologized for his Mistake that, "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate.

The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story.

Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

How is Edwards statement of apology true? :shrug:

He did know or could have known the intelligence at the time. He had access to the whole story, and therefore, the whole story had been given to him (whether he chose to do anything with it was a choice that he made, not something that he had no control over). Edwards should and could have "known"....and therefore him voting FOR the war was a result of his own lack of due diligence, lack of interest and/or irresponsibility or political expediency (none of it a good reflection of a leader)-- The fact is that there was not anything truly "withheld" from him. And certainly it was not the Clenis' doing, as you have stated before.....even if Clinton people would have advised Edwards, he was supposed to be his own man. So Edwards is running for President for the 2nd time based on what? He is telling congress to do their job...although he clearly didn't when he had the chance.

Don't get me wrong, I find nothing really wrong with his ad, and if you take notice, there is nothing I say in this thread that implies that I have an objection about the ad.

(8:00pm) October 1, 2002: CIA Delivers National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to Congress
The CIA delivers the classified version of its 90-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) to Congress. It is available for viewing by Congresspersons under tight security in the offices of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. But no more than a half-dozen or so members actually come to review the NIE, despite the urgings of Peter Zimmerman, the scientific advisor to the Senate foreign relations committee, who is one of the first to look at the document. Zimmerman was stunned to see how severely the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department and the State Department undercut the conclusions that were so boldly stated in the NIE’s “Key Judgments” section. He later recalls, “Boy, there’s nothing in there. If anybody takes the time to actually read this, they can’t believe there actually are major WMD programs.” One of the lawmakers who does read the document is Senator Bob Graham (D-Fl). Like Zimmerman, he is disturbed by the document’s “many nuances and outright dissents.” But he is unable to say anything about them in public because the NIE is classified.
Entity Tags: US Congress, Peter Zimmerman, Bob Graham, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 2, 2002: Closed-Door Congressional Testimony by Top CIA Officials Undercut Conclusions Made in NIE
In a congressional closed-door hearing, CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin appear before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to discuss the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was released the day before (see (8:00pm) October 1, 2002). When Tenet is asked whether the agency has any of its own spies on the ground in Iraq who can verify the NIE’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged arsenal of illicit weapons, he replies that the agency does not. “I was stunned,” Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) later recalls. At some point during the hearing, Levin asks McLaughlin: “If didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?” McLaughlin responds that under those circumstances “the likelihood… would be low.” But the probability of Hussein using such weapons would increase, McLaughlin says, if the US initiates an attack. Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) asks McLaughlin whether he has read the British white paper (see September 24, 2002) on Iraq and whether he disagrees with any of its conclusions. McLaughlin says, “The one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible…” Graham and Levin ask the CIA to release a declassified version of the NIE so the public will be aware of the dissenting opinions in the document and so members of Congress can have something to refer to during their debates on the Iraq war resolution. The CIA will comply with the request and release a declassified version of the document two days later (see October 4, 2002).
Entity Tags: Jon Kyl, Carl Levin, George J. Tenet, John E. McLaughlin, Bob Graham
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 4, 2002: CIA Releases Public Version of National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq
The CIA releases a 25-page declassified version of its October 1 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) and posts it on the agency’s website for public viewing. The document, titled “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs,” presents a very different assessment of the threat posed by Iraq than the original document. Printed on slick glossy magazine-style paper, and full of colorful maps, graphs, tables, and photos, the document contains few of the caveats and nuances that are in the classified version. Nor does it include the dissenting opinions of the Energy Department’s in-house intelligence agency, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center. Paul Pillar, the principal author of the paper, will later admit, “In retrospect, we shouldn’t have done that white paper at all.” Instead of intelligence analysis, the “paper was policy advocacy,” he admits.
Entity Tags: Paul R. Pillar, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 4, 2002: Senator Angry over Omissions in CIA White Paper
When Senator Bob Graham reads the CIA’s white paper on Iraq, a document written for public consumption that was supposed to have been an accurate summary of the agency’s recently released NIE (see October 1, 2002), he begins “to question whether the White House telling the truth—or even an interest in knowing the truth,” he later says. The document includes none of the dissenting opinions or caveats that were in the NIE, and therefore makes the CIA’s evidence against Saddam Hussein appear much stronger than it actually is. When Graham calls Tenet to ask what happened, the CIA director becomes defensive and accuses the senator of questioning his professionalism and patriotism. Graham then sends the CIA a letter requesting that the agency declassify the dissenting opinions as well as the passages that contained more nuanced and cautionary language. He also requests that the agency declassify his October 2 exchange (see October 2, 2002) with Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin concerning the NIE. In that exchange, McLaughlin had conceded that the likelihood of Saddam Hussein launching an attack with weapons of mass destruction were “low.”
Entity Tags: Bob Graham, George J. Tenet, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion


October 7, 2002: CIA Declassifies Some Iraq Intelligence at Senator’s Request
In response to a letter from Senator Bob Graham of the Senate Intelligence Committee (see October 4, 2002), the CIA agrees to declassify three passages from the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (see October 1, 2002) that said Saddam Hussein is unlikely to use chemical or biological weapons unless he is attacked. The CIA also agrees to release a portion of the October 2 exchange between Graham and Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin, in which McLaughlin stated that the probability that Saddam would initiate and attack was low (see October 2, 2002). Finally, in response to Graham’s request for additional information on alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the CIA says its “understanding of the relationship… is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information… received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.”
Entity Tags: George J. Tenet, Bob Graham
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq_146

[w4rma]

181. If you're honest you'll admit you know in your gut that neither of those two can win against Romney.

Romney is going to have the full power of big media behind him once Republicans decide on him and he ***already*** is slaughtering those two in the polls. Two well known candidates against an unknown North-Eastern Republican. Hillary is already known by everyone. They've already made their decision about her. Obama is not the type of person that Americans will give second chances to. He's easy to stereotype as an ultra-liberal even though he's a moderate. That's the worst situation to be in, to nominate a moderate/conservative who everyone thinks is an ultra-liberal.

As for your final paragraph:
Are you a propagandist pretending to be someone your not? I don't know. But I didn't call you one specifically nor did I say that any group is.
Are you a smear artist? I didn't call you one specifically. All I said was that they exist and are pushing anti-Edwards positions.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[Hippo_Tron]

165. I saw the ad, it calls out congress and proposes a solution that isn't any better

In an equally lame move, Reid decided to take it personally and call Edwards out on it. There is ZERO substance to this so-called "fight" and therefore both of them are being immature about this.

[w4rma]

166. I think its a much improved solution over the current one which is to send Bush the bill he wants.

Without any restrictions. A funding bill with no restrictions is what Obama and Hillary appear to be advocating. They want to follow the bill up with other photo-op bills that they know Bush will veto.

[Hippo_Tron]

168. No, it's not a much improved solution, see post #149

[w4rma]

169. Yeah right, like Bush is going to de-fund pentagon contractors for his war.

The Republican leadership hasn't asked *anyone* to tighten their belts to pay for this war, they *definitely* won't ask the Pentagon contractors to.

[Hippo_Tron]

171. Idiot thinks its his destiny to win this war...

He will get his funding from somewhere else. He'll put a signing statement on the federal budget saying "I can spend any of this money on Iraq" if he has to.

Not only that, but Edwards hasn't said what he'll do when the funding runs out. If he had the guts to not fund the war until Bush caves, then he'd say so.

[w4rma]

172. Bush *has* to sign it eventually if he wants to continue his war.

That's all there is to it. Any control over Bush and his war has to be placed in this bill. Without this extra funding there is enough money to bring the troops home safely.

This is Congress's power of the purse.

[Hippo_Tron]

177. We spend about $400 billion a year on defense

Not to mention the fact that Democrats will probably end up giving him a supplemental to fund Afghanistan and other aspects of the "War on Terror" even if they would cut the funds in Iraq.

Bush doesn't listen to reason and he doesn't listen to the law. He will find a way to fund the war for the next year and a half.

[w4rma]

183. If he finds a way by shutting down payments to Republican donors who contract for the Pentagon, then

I'm totally okay with that. Let Haliburton, et al pay for this war. They're the only ones who have been getting anything from it.

[Hippo_Tron]

187. I'm not interested in seeing what kind of cost-saving measures he will implement

The pentagon already doesn't pay for good body armor and most personal items. I don't even want to know what they will take away from the soldiers when Bush doesn't have a blank check anymore.

You're trying to deal with a man that has no regard for a law and thinks that Jesus Christ is telling him to fight this war. This isn't ending until he is impeached and convicted or he is out of office on January 2009. And with 49 GOP Senators, I don't see a conviction unless he gets a blowjob from an intern.

[w4rma]

188. I'm trying to limit the damage he does. Less money to play with = less damage done to America.

And if he takes the money, he has to accept the restrictions that come with it.

[Hippo_Tron]

189. Alright, I get that...

But my point is that Bush WILL NOT take the money with the restrictions on it. Edwards hasn't stated what he would do when this happens.

[w4rma]

191. Eh, I think Bush is more of a wimp than you think he is. Bullys back down when challenged.

Personally, I would support a much smaller funding bill that forces Bush to come back over and over again. Or different restrictions in a large funding bill.

There are more ways to skin a cat than just one. But backing down and giving him the bill he wants removes Democrats from having any power whatsoever over this war until a new President is inaugurated. And if either Obama or Hillary win the nomination, I am fully expecting a Republican President.

[Hippo_Tron]

205. Your plan is one possible solution

But neither Edwards nor Reid are proposing that solution.

[w4rma]

207. Actually it turns out that Pelosi is proposing that solution.

Reid will follow suit, later, I'm sure.

Democrats not backing down on Iraq Bill
By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders are indicating they are not ready to back down in their confrontation with President Bush on Iraq, even as pressure mounts to approve new funding for U.S. troops.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and other party leaders are considering a bill that would fund the war as Bush wants, but only guarantee the money through July. After that, Congress could block additional money from being sent if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals.

The proposal, not yet endorsed or briefed to caucus members, would be a direct challenge to the president, who has demanded Congress fund the war with no strings attached. This week, Bush vetoed a $124.2 billion bill that would have provided money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan while requiring troops to begin coming home by Oct. 1.

White House officials and Republicans have chastised Democrats for holding up the war spending bill, saying U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan need the money now. Because Democrats do not hold a two-thirds majority to override Bush's veto, Republicans say Democrats ultimately will have to drop their demands or risk hurting the troops.
…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2834263&mesg_id=2834263

[IndianaGreen]

185. Reid is wrong. This is the one issue in which Congress does not have to cast a vote

Now that Bush vetoed the supplemental, all Congress has to do is NOTHING! Let the money run out! Force Bush to scramble to either fund his war, or shut down the entire government.

[antiimperialist]

208. What's Reid's point? He basically said nothing

Reid neither agreed or disagreed with Edwards' position. He knows better and he's a chicken for not being honest and saying if he thinks Edwards' plan is good or bad.

[Vidar]

209. I'm for Kucinich, but Reid's disapproval raises my opinion of Edwards.

[mnhtnbb]

210. Yeah, Harry, God forbid our representatives should be accountable to the people

I'm getting pretty damn sick of the lot of 'em. Pelosi takes impeachment off the table, and Reid wants to pass non-binding resolutions and make nice with Bushie boy.

I think we need a very thorough house cleaning.

[Cameron27]

216. They are accountable to the people

and not all people think the same way you do. They also have the burden of keeping the troops safe, while bush plays politics with Congress.

[mnhtnbb]

217. If they're accountable, they should act like it. Which they haven't done for a very long time.

[Cameron27]

219. They haven't been the majority for a very long time,

and they still don't have the votes. 5 months in control, dozens of investigations, I think they're doing ok.

[Mass]

225. How is it an attack on Edwards, except in the mind of the MSM and of Edwards's supporters?

Reid says only one thing: that Edwards is not in the Senate.

The rest of the comment is about Dodd, and Dodd simply said that Edwards would be more useful joigning his voice in the Senate to those of those senators who are doing the same thing as Edwards: trying to end this war, but who are bound to the Senate realities, people who actually include Dodd.

My problem with Edwards is that he is not attacking Bush, he is not attacking Republicans who are blocking the bill, he is attacking fellow Democrats. Sorry, it is wrong when it comes from Hillary, it is wrong when it comes from Reid and Pelosi, and it is wrong when it comes from Edwards.

[Tinksrival]

226. Ha!Ha! What did Reid do???

I had not seen this thread till your post bumped it but after I read the OP, I came to the same conclusion as you and then when on to read the whole stupid thread thinking at some point someone would have the same conclusion. I didn't think it would take the whole thread. I almost gave up!
Thanks for making that trudge through all that muck worth it! :hi:

[wiggs]

230. This is the same mentality that led dem senators to

offer only token resistance to the obviously flawed Ohio electoral results and to allow really bad judges to be confirmed and to approve the IWR resolution itself. Triangulation, qualification, posing, keeping lobbyists happy, show-hearings...not the work of the people.