Durbin helping Obama by making Edwards look bad

[jcrew2001]

I don't trust Durbin at all. He's deliberately trying to make Edwards look bad so he can help his crony Obama. It doesn't surprise me one bit, but its sad that Obamaniacs can't see past Durbin's motives and conflict of interest. Maybe Durbin wants VP or SoS, but stop doing Obama's dirty work.

Do you guys think Durbin is working for Obama and trying to hurt Edwards?

[Colobo]

1. Durbin's actions have no effect on my decision of supporting Obama

In fact, I have never seen a picture of Durbin, and don't even know what state he represents... and I don't care.

[jcrew2001]

33. Durbin is the Senior Senator from ILLINOIS

he's from the same state as Obama - Obama is from Illinois FYI.

[Catchawave]

91. More than that :)

http://www.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=338302

[jcrew2001]

101. Yeah, Durbin is Obama's mentor

maybe he'll get a cabinet post!

[KingofNewOrleans]

2. If they don't make chill pills

then somebody should invent one.

Durbin couldn't be VP on the same ticket as Obama, and he's really not an SoS candidate.

[NoodleBoy]

3. yeah, Durbin is working for Obama, and against Edwards,

but when has Edwards ever stopped working to get himself elected President?

Durbin's done alot more in the Senate than Edwards ever would, probably because Durbin hasn't had his sights on the Presidency for almost eight years.

[jcrew2001]

34. Doesn't it suck when Senators want the Presidency???

Kinda like Obama and Hillary running for president.

[abburdlen]

93. Was it wrong for Edwards

to run while he was in the Senate?
Don't tell me he has to apologize for another thing.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[jcrew2001]

35. How about the Senate Intelligence committee reports

that Durbin is stating that he never believed the Iraq intelligence.

[Clark2008]

142. Not sure why my other post was deleted.

I simply said I knew the intelligence to be bogus because I read the transcripts of two people who testified. Geesch. How is that "deletable?"

If this board turns into nothing but defenders of Edwards over true enough postings, then I'm outta here.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. And your proof. You make accusations without anything backing it up.

Y

[Colobo]

9. That's their style, you know...

As we say in Puerto Rico, they "throw the stone and hide the hand"... :)

[FrenchieCat]

12. In French they say.......

:wtf:

[Colobo]

18. LOL!

[jcrew2001]

172. Okay so Durbin is not supporting Obama?

Everything he does is geared towards helping Barry.

[w4rma]

180. Hillary is by far the worst choice for President but Obama is not what he is selling himself as.

The Obama Illusion
Presidential ambitions from the start

• lent his support to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and “other Wall Street Democrats” to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party
• lent his politically influential and financially rewarding assistance to neoconservative pro-war Senator Joe Lieberman
• supported other “mainstream Democrats” fighting antiwar progressives in primary races
• criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.
• voted for a business-friendly “tort reform” bill that rolls back working peoples’ ability to obtain reasonable redress and compensation from misbehaving corporations
• oppose the introduction of single-payer national health insurance on the grounds that such a widely supported social-democratic change would lead to employment difficulties for workers in the private insurance industry
• expressed reservations about a universal health insurance plan recently enacted in Massachusetts, stating his preference for “voluntary” solutions over “government mandates.”
• voted to re-authorize the repressive PATRIOT Act
• voted for the appointment of the war criminal Condaleeza Rice to (of all things) Secretary of State
• opposed Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) move to censure the Bush administration after the president was found to have illegally wiretapped U.S. citizens
• distanced himself from fellow Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin’s forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo
• refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran
• makes a big point of respectfully listening to key parts of the right wing agenda even though that agenda is well outside majority sentiment
• joins victim-blaming Republicans in pointing to poor blacks’ “cultural” issues as the cause of concentrated black poverty
• he claims that blacks have joined the American “socioeconomic mainstream” even as median black household net worth falls to less than eight cents on the median white household dollar
• “If the Democrats don’t show a willingness to work with the president, I think they could be punished in ‘08”

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2007/street0207.html

Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
…
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
…
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
…
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman

Obama Voted yes on free trade agreement with Oman.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm

TPM Compare And Contrast: Hillary And Obama's Votes On Iraq
…
Of the total of 69 votes we compiled -- some significant, some not -- it turns out that the two differed on only one.
…
As you can see, Clinton and Obama have voted the opposite way on only one vote on our list: The confirmation of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff for the Army, held just this past February. Hillary voted against confirmation, while Obama voted to confirm.
…
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3189244&mesg_id=3189244

Something smelled funny about Obama in how he mysteriously got so much corporate support so quickly. This is the tip of the iceberg. Obama is slick.

[FredScuttle]

6. Durbin is only revealing Edwards' dissembling on the AUMF vote to be self-serving

Edwards is not winning my vote by attesting that he believed the "evidence". Please.

[illinoisprogressive]

7. I still don't see anything. where is the proof????

[FrenchieCat]

11. Now this is shameful! Folks responding as though they

know what OP is referring to. Can someone help me here, cause I ain't gotta a clue! :shrug:

[Withywindle]

15. I think it's about what Durbin said about the Senate Intelligence Committee...

...and what the people on it knew but weren't allowed to talk about--which is why he voted against the IWR. It makes Edwards look bad because he was on the same committee, and he voted for it (and co-sponsored it...)

[jcrew2001]

36. Exactly, thanks for reading the paper

I thought others here read the paper as well, but i was wrong.

[The Magistrate]

16. The Reference, Ma'am

Is doubtless to Sen. Durbin's recent revelation of some of the difference between what Intelligence Committee members were told, and what the rest of the Congress was told, before October of '02. He has said what the Intelligence Committee was told left little doubt most of the admionistrations claims concerning Iraq were false, and that that is why he voted against the I.W.R. himself. Sen. Edwards was also on the Intelligence Committee, yet voted for the resolution, though lately he has famously apologized for doing so.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Oookay, now I get it!

But still I say, :wtf:

Durbin didn't even say Edwards' name.

Seems like a case of someone who made their own self look bad to me.

[The Magistrate]

26. As It Says In Scripture, Ma'am

"The guilty fly-eth when none doth pursue."

[jcrew2001]

37. Durbin is the Illiniois hatchet man for Obama

Its the Chicago mafia!

[The Magistrate]

88. You Say That Like It Is A Bad Thing, Sir

"He did it for a friend...."

[Ethelk2044]

131. Durbin is not a Hatchet Man

If he state the facts, then there is nothing wrong with it. If he slant the truth then that is another story. What he did was state the facts Edwards knew what the truth was when he casted vote. Yet, Edwards still decided to vote for the war. WHy I ask did he vote for the war and he knew the accusations were not true.

Do not blame Durbin for Edwards making a bad decision.

[jcrew2001]

148. Edwards wasnt the only one who voted for the war in committee

so you'll need to ask the other people as well.

[FrenchieCat]

154. You are correct.......

Here's the vote tally for the Democrats on the Committee:

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED NO ON THE IWR -

BOB GRAHAM, voted NO on Durbin/Voted No on Levin, BUT also Voted NO on IWR

CARL LEVIN, who also introduced the Levin Amendment to only vote to force bush to go to UN first, then come back to congress AFTER going to the UN, for another vote for Congress. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235
Amendment Defeated.
Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

RON WYDEN - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

RICHARD DURBIN, who also introduced the Durbin Amendment to limit authorization to an "imminent" threat from Iraq only.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236
Amendment Defeated
Voted Yes on Durbin/Voted Yes on Levin

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI - Voted YES on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin
-------------

DEMS ON THE INTEL COMMITTEE WHO VOTED YES ON THE IWR -

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

DIANNE FEINSTEIN - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted YES on Levin

EVAN BAYH - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

JOHN EDWARDS - Voted NO on Durbin/Voted NO on Levin

-----------------

[jcrew2001]

228. I don't understand why Feinstein voted for IWR

She's from California, she's required to be anti-Bush.

Edwards is from NC, which is a red state that supports Bush.

[karynnj]

193. Except his hometown is Springfield and he was born in East St Louis, Illinois

That is not Chicago, that is down state. In Illinois there is no confusion on that.

[WildEyedLiberal]

206. I love you

:hug:

Hahaha no one else outside of downstate Illinois even seems to realize that there IS a downstate Illinois.

[The Magistrate]

8. Why On Earth, Sir, Should Sen. Durbin Not Support A Candidate?

Surely there is no requirment, either in ethics or law, that he support the same candidate as you?

[illinoisprogressive]

10. Plus, Durbin is very close to Obama. And they are both my senators. I am proud of both

[jcrew2001]

38. He's working for Obama, so everything he says needs to

be viewed through that motive.

[The Magistrate]

89. And Your Probelm With This, Sir, Is What, Exactly?

That he does not say and do things to advance the cause of your own favorite candidate?

[jcrew2001]

98. Exactly, people forget Durbin is from Illinois

but Schumer helps Clinton

[FrenchieCat]

13. !

***WARNING! TIME'S RUNNING OUT, and when it does, I will be going "full" out!

[dogman]

14. Edwards record was not created by Durbin.

Edwards' votes, op-eds, and speeches were his own. He can run from them, but they are his. BTW Durbin has been Obama's mentor before he even ran for the Senate. Durbin suggested Obama run for President because he believes in him.

[FrenchieCat]

17. So you mean that Durbin is being trashed because of Edwards'

own votes, op-eds, and speeches?

How can that happen?

How can Sen. Durbin and by extension, Sen. Obama be called out by OP and held responsible for what Saint John Edwards did to himself and this nation? don't get this!

Is this a case of "the Durbin devil made me do it!" Defense or something! :eyes:

[illinoisprogressive]

19. Or at least try to excuse it by say the Durbin made me do it...hahaha

[dogman]

23. I'm waiting for the infomercial.

He has been attacking rhetoric for some time now, while calling his own rhetoric a plan. He is attacking the record of the same Congress he will need to enact his plans. I don't understand how so many people who decry the GOPers shifting positions complain when his weather vane swings with the prevailing winds. The next thing we'll see is pictures of him leading anti-war protests in 2002.

[zulchzulu]

21. Attack Durbin for Edwards' misjudgement on WMD and intel while on Senate Intel Committee

Yeah...attack the guy who just pointed out what many of us thought was obvious at the time.

Who needs to actually be responsible for their judgements....surely some think it's free pass time. Not me.

[jcrew2001]

39. Everything Durbin says and does is to help Obama

nt.

[IA_Seth]

22. This is pathetic...

No, only the craziest, irrationally swept-up supporters of Edwards would believe such malarkey. Durbin isn't deliberately doing anything against Edwards, Edwards did it all himself.

[jcrew2001]

40. Politicians never have self-centered motives, ever

nt

[abburdlen]

105. Are we talking about

Edwards now or Durbin?

[jcrew2001]

108. You know Edwards is running for president

Durbin is working for Obama - that's common knowledge.

[abburdlen]

121. I also know

they are both politician
and according to you they're both self serving.

[jcrew2001]

128. Durbin is serving Obama

and Edwards is trying to earn the Presidency.

[Cameron27]

130. If you're right, then Durbin doesn't think Edwards deserves the

presidency, and he's served with the man & knows him better than you.

[jcrew2001]

145. Durbin's motive is to help Obama - he's entitled to that

but its no different than when Carville speaks because everyone knows that Carville is pro-Hillary and will slash and burn everyone else.

But anything and everything Durbin says is to help Obama, it will always be spun to help Obama and hurt everyone else.

[Cameron27]

150. I don't believe that for a second.

What an ugly transparent attempt to make your guy look good by smearing an honorable Democrat who had the courage to do the right thing when Edwards didn't.

[jcrew2001]

155. Durbin can believe whatever he wants, but it doesn't hide the fact

that he is working for Obama and that his recent Public Revelation of intelligence - hurts Edwards

[Cameron27]

163. His public statement

hurts Edwards. Yes it does.

[karynnj]

195. But helps the Democrats

The big Bush lie repeated constantly on RW shows and even the MSM is that everyone saw the same thing and many reached the same conclusions. That is not true - even if at the moment it would help Edwards if it were.

The truth was some value.

[Forkboy]

24. You know what's even sadder?

People accusing other people of being sad for not seeing something that may just be a figment of their imagination.

[jcrew2001]

144. How is it different than when Carville speaks

you know he's trying to hurt Hillary's opponents and make her look better.

[Forkboy]

149. Look,I'm not saying that you are wrong.

But I am saying all you have is your opinion on the matter,and you don't want to see that you MAY be wrong.Calling people sad for not interpreting things JUST LIKE YOU is crazy.The facts as you see them may or may not indicate what you think they do. :shrug:

[JI7]

25. what are you talking about ? it's common for home states Senators to support

the other Senator when they run in a Primary.

[FrenchieCat]

27. You'd be better off blaming Bush for making Edwards look bad....

Cause it is Bush who liked Edwards' OpEd supporting the war so much, he had it posted on the White House website! :eyes:

[AtomicKitten]

30. I didn't know that.

Cause it is Bush who liked Edwards' OpEd supporting the war so much, he had it posted on the White House website!

so I researched it:

In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration's calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually "a grave and growing threat," and Congress should therefore "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction." Claiming that U.S. national security "requires" that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, "We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ..."

The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards' arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074

September 17, 2002
“A mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel”

“Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East.

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

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

Washington Post, 9/17/02
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

September 12, 2002
Senator Edwards Calls for Overthrow of Iraqi Dictator

WASHINGTON–Senator John Edwards on Thursday called for the ouster of Saddam Hussein. A member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Edwards said Iraq has defied the United Nations and represents a grave threat to the United States and its allies.

“The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein,” Senator Edwards said.

“The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community,” he added.

“If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions.”

The first anniversary of terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, he said, is a reminder that Iraq’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction would wreak havoc if Saddam Hussein let them fall into the hands of terrorists. “The terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam’s arsenal, and there is every reason to believe that Saddam would turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.”

Senator Edwards said the case for removing Saddam Hussein needs to be made openly to the American people, to the Congress, which has an obligation to be part of the process, and to the United Nations and our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. “The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush’s father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed,” he said.

An American-led alliance against Saddam Hussein also must be prepared to provide security in Iraq after he is deposed. “We must be prepared to deal with the consequences of success,” he said. The Bush administration “must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root,” he said.

Edwards.Senate.Gov 9/12/02
http://web.archive.org/web/20030219152335/edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0912a-pr.html

September 12, 2002
Indirectly links 9/11 to Saddam Hussein

“As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.”

- snip -

“The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event — or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse — to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”

Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: “Iraqi Dictator Must Go”
September 12, 2002
http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

[polichick]

31. Thanks for sharing your research...

We're also being reminded of these statement in activist-made ads for opponents ~ what strikes me is how sincere Edwards sounds, both then and now.

[Tellurian]

43. And the only one left standing is my candidate Hillary...!!!

people supporting a "mystery" candidate, who is ill prepared for what the presidency entails.

now we're finding out theres more than meets the eye with Edwards. Unless this is the usual "smear" of the week? :shrug:

[polichick]

77. Well, actually...

Hillary's enthusiastic pro-war speech doesn't jive with her rhetoric today either. So were Edwards and Clinton most sincere back then ~ or are they now?

[Tellurian]

81. Which pro war speech?

you mean her conditional IRW Vote speech?

[polichick]

90. I mean the one she made from the Senate floor before the war...

...when she basically echoed Bush. I was so fed up I tossed the sofa pillows at her face on the TV!

(Even so, I admire her for many other things. And I'm glad she's seeing the light, as politically motivated as it seems at this point.)

[IA_Seth]

50. If I could recommend a post, I would.

Thank you for looking into this, and compiling these links.

[slipslidingaway]

204. Thanks for your research & to FrenchieCat for remembering! n/t

[jcrew2001]

41. Bush is the reason the Iraq War was started imo

imo

[Tellurian]

45. PNAC was the reason..

they needed an excuse..this was all planned our years before the event!

It should have happened when Pappy sought re-election...

The Clintons ruined their plans.

Thats why they hate him so!

[Mojambo]

28. Dude. This primary season is going to be the SHIT!

As a great appreciator of malignant bickering and the utter chaos it brings, I'm almost giddy.

And it hasn't even really started yet!

[FrenchieCat]

29. Today seems to be "kick off" day for some reason.........

The Glenis has got to have something to do with this!

[mucifer]

32. Durbin has been generous to Obama since he came to DC

Durbin has a huge office because of his seniority. He gave some of it away to Obama when he got elected because Obama had a tiny office with no seniority. They get along well. Why shouldn't Durbin support his college and friend?

[jcrew2001]

42. Everything Durbin says is to help Obama, I don't trust Durbin

imo

[illinoisprogressive]

46. You have yet to show any evidence, crew. And Shummer is supporting Hillary, is he undermining your

precious Edwards as well.
Wait. Durbin and shummer are in it together! It's a conspiracy!

[jcrew2001]

52. The Senate Intelligence reports that Durbin is saying

is to make Edwards look bad. Hindsight is 20/20 and Edwards regrets that decision and the lives it cost.

But don't think that Durbin has a motive to help Obama look good and Edwards look bad. I don't trust Durbin at all now.

Same with Schumer, he will do everything he can to help Hillary.

[illinoisprogressive]

120. Oh, give me a break and grow up.

[jcrew2001]

127. Yet you love Obama's Fresh Innocent Naiveness

and he's going to change politics because he's a different politician, one whose rhetoric touches the hearts and souls of americans, and brings them closer to the dream, the dream that politicians aren't corrupt and can work for the people and deliver on promises, improve lives, and listen to the people instead of telling them what to do. A govt that is not proactive but reactive to the desires of its citizens. That Obama can deliver on these promises, change the way govt works forever, by offering new ideas, new plans, and new excitement and energy.

How's that - maybe I can run for President.

[murielm99]

49. Everything?

I doubt it. Durbin is up for re-election in 2008. I would bet that he is saying a few things to help himself, too.

Primary season is coming. If you can't do better than you have done in this thread, you are going to be eaten ALIVE!

:popcorn:

My two senators, Durbin and Obama, are among the best in the nation. Who are your senators? I can't tell, with your disabled profile.

[jcrew2001]

53. Yes, but Edwards Bashers are using Durbin as a reason

to question the Senate Intelligence committee. Everyone has a motive - its finding out what it is.

[IA_Seth]

58. What's yours? n/t

[jcrew2001]

61. My motive is trying to call BS and find out their real motives

imo

[IA_Seth]

76. Try harder then...

With, ya know, actual facts. Your obviously biased opinions aren't going to cut it.

[jcrew2001]

97. Why don't you try reading all the Durbin/Edwards threads here

I'll try to find them, and make the link

[jcrew2001]

229. Do you think the IWR 2002 vote was affected by Re-election

of senators in red and blue states - such as Bayh and Edwards.

If you're saying Durbin wants to remind Illinois voters that he is anti-war, now and before; isn't it important for Senators to vote the way their states either favor or oppose issues like the Iraq War?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Edwards doesn't need much help looking bad.

He has no record and contributed nothing as the VP nominee.

[illinoisprogressive]

47. Actually, Shummer and Durbin are in a conspiracy to overthrow Edwards...that' s it!

[CTLawGuy]

48. He couldn't even make his home state COMPETITIVE

for goodness sakes. (lost 56-44). Kerry and he did better in Viriginia. (lost 54-46).

[jcrew2001]

230. What Red states can Obama win - even if he was a NE liberal

like Kerry. Edwards couldn't help against Kerry's vietnam protesting and accusations.

[jcrew2001]

55. Obama has no record either

How is Obama even qualified? Cuz he's good at speeches?

[Mass]

57. 12 years in the Illinois legislature is not a record?\nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. No. (nt)

[jcrew2001]

64. Maybe I'll try to run for state senator someday

I could be governor, or more!

[Freddie Stubbs]

189. He was elected to the State Senate in 1996 and left in 2004

[jcrew2001]

234. I think it was less than 12 years

nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Did I say anything positive about Obama?

Hell no - both Edwards and Obama are in the same camp, so far as I'm concerned. Edwards is camp leader, however, for having already failed on the national level.

[Adelante]

51. Things have come to a sorry pass here

When “opinion” can be presented without any background or argument points. Nothing wrong with opinion, I have a lot of them myself. But at least provide some justification. No, at the very least, explain for the benefit of DU readers what it is you are referring to.

I will help you out, because in the last six months I have grown increasingly concerned about the poor quality of OPs on DU, where everyone is expected to believe something on faith, where nobody has to back up nothin’ on their half-assed opinions, and it’s all left to hang around in the archives for Google to find; and maybe that's the point of these posts.

What 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."

"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."

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/28/sen-durbin-drops-bombshells-on-the-senate-floor

On this OP topic, I hold two opinions:

1-Durbin’s remarks are related to Phase II of the pre-war intelligence report and not to Barack Obama’s presidential run.

2-Edwards’ 2005 “apology” for the IWR was strategic and related to both his planned presidential run and to the Democratic Senators’ ongoing efforts to release Phase II of the prewar intelligence report.

Since this is opinion, I can’t point to a source that says this happened and unless at some future time, somebody “in the room” comes out and says so, I will never know for sure. But I can illuminate facts that inform my opinion, why I reached those conclusions I did.


Since February 2004, the administration and the Repugs in Congress have covered up Phase II of the intelligence investigation reports. Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and others in the Senate have pushed to get this buried information on pre-war intelligence to the American people.

In February 2004, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) announced that it had unanimously agreed to expand its investigation of prewar Iraq intelligence from focus on intelligence community blunders and into the more controversial area of “whether intelligence was exaggerated or misused” by U.S. government officials. The committee’s ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, struck the agreement with Chairman Pat Roberts -- provided, Roberts insisted, that the probe into policy-makers’ activities wait until after the presidential election.

It’s now more than a year later, and Rockefeller is still waiting -- the Phase II report has yet to appear. What happened? And why isn’t Rockefeller making more of a fuss?

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=10446

When the first phase of the prewar intelligence report was released in July 2004, Durbin wrote in the Washington Post:

So today we have a report that asks only some of the right questions and, at best, comes to only some of the right conclusions.

The responsibility for problems related to prewar intelligence regarding Iraq should not be confined to intelligence analysts at the CIA but should extend to policymakers as well -- particularly those at the Defense and State departments, the National Security Council, and the White House.
Nor should the intelligence oversight committees of Congress, which are charged with scrutinizing intelligence analysis as part of their mandate, be excluded from criticism. It should be noted that the inquiry into prewar intelligence related to Iraq was initiated -- and its scope expanded -- in the face of significant resistance within the committee.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-210

August 2005, CNN documentary "Dead Wrong, Inside an Intelligence Meltdown":

DURBIN: I walked out of those <2002 intelligence committee> hearings having heard something that was truthful and accurate and picked up the newspaper and saw someone from the White House or administration has just said the opposite, or they've said it much differently. I am bound by law not to go to the press and say, something's wrong here. I can't do it.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/21/cp.01.html

September 2005, Durbin joined Senator John Kerry and Sens. Jon Corzine, Tim Johnson, Ted Kennnedy, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Tom Harkin, Jack Reed, and Jeff Bingaman in signing a call for the Senate Intelligence Committee to bring the Downing Street Memo into its Phase II investigation of prewar intelligence.

In February 2004 -- well over a year ago -- the committee agreed to expand the scope of inquiry to include a second phase which would examine the use of intelligence by policy makers, the comparison of pre-war assessments and post-war findings, the activities of the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group (PCTEG) and the Office of Special Plans in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the use of information provided by the Iraqi National Congress.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/06/24/downing/index.html

November 13, 2005, John Edwards in the Washington Post:

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

November 18, 2005 floor speech by Dick Durbin:

I served on the intelligence committee. We purposely divided this into two investigations. First, any failings or shortcomings of intelligence agencies. Second, any misuse of this intelligence information by policy-makers and elected officials.

That is the responsibility we have to go forward.

It is not clear when the Senate intelligence committee would have finished its work had we not filed this motion to have a closed session here in the United States Senate. But now the promise has been made, not just to fellow colleagues, not just to the Congress, but to the American people.
I think that we need to know the truth.

If a policy-maker in this administration deliberately misled the American people, we should know that. If we find from the evidence it did not occur, we should also know that.
Let us pursue the truth. Let us make sure the Senate intelligence committee keeps its promise to the American people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/dick-durbin-tees-off_b_10317.html

November 20, 2005, Bob Graham’s Washington Post op-ed: “What I Knew Before the Invasion”:

At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

-snip

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked.

Under questioning, Tenet added that the information in the NIE had not been independently verified by an operative responsible to the United States. In fact, no such person was inside Iraq. Most of the alleged intelligence came from Iraqi exiles or third countries, all of which had an interest in the United States' removing Hussein, by force if necessary.

And to this year, the fight to get Phase II released continues:

January 2007 McClatchy Newspapers interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller:

"The most potentially controversial of the three Phase II reports being worked on will compare what Bush and his top lieutenants said publicly about Iraq's weapons programs and ties to terrorists with what was contained in top-secret intelligence reports."

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16546019.htm

A New York Times editorial a few days after Durbin’s remarks late last month on the Senate floor: "Still Waiting for Answers."

It has long been evident that President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, and constructed his ramshackle case for the war after the fact. So why, after all this time, are Americans still in the dark about the details of that campaign?

John Edwards’ proven lack of wisdom, demonstrated poor judgment and failure in leadership, in my opinion, based on his co-sponsorship of the IWR and NO votes against the alternative resolutions, including Durbin’s, already disqualifies him for the presidency. But his presence on the Intelligence Committee, which put in his hands the classified information that caused Durbin, Graham and Levin to vote NO to the IWR, while Edwards callously ignored that classified information and went forward to hawk the war, compounds his responsibility one thousand fold.

When I watched the CNN documentary in August 2005 I was sick to my stomach. In September when Kerry addressed the Downing Street Memo, I said, maybe we’re getting someplace. When Edwards came out with his "apology" in November 2005, I was merely skeptical at first. When a week later Bob Graham’s op-ed hit the Washington Post, I knew. You may disagree, but I knew as a conviction that Edwards was covering his ass on the intelligence and his Iraq War Resolution.

Bob Graham is a great gentleman. Surely he would have given fair warning to his former Democratic colleagues on the Intelligence Committee that his revelations were coming. I doubt Durbin's remarks two days earlier were unconnected; rather part of the strategy to pressure out Phase II. Edwards had already been put on alert by the CNN documentary in August and the Downing Street Memo letter in September. What could John Edwards possibly do but try to take the wind out of those sails? It worked. Few remember Bob Graham’s op-ed, few ever knew about Durbin's floor speech, that same month, but everybody remembers Edwards’ “apology,” more's the pity for that.

This is why I don’t forgive as so many seem to think I should. This is why I do not want John Edwards as my president.

John Edwards helped Bush to create the god awful mess of blood and destruction we have lived with, and thousands of our military and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died with, since 2002, against the far greater wisdom and experience of men like Graham, Levin and Durbin.

Then he left the Senate to run for president for years on end. Meanwhile, Dick Durbin has spent those years trying to clean up the mess John Edwards left behind.

So I will give Durbin’s intentions the benefit of the doubt any day and try to see his remarks in context. Because he is an honorable Democrat and a good and selfless man who spends his life in service to our nation.

John Edwards should stop supporting the Bush cover-up and say what he knows about prewar intelligence. He should insist on the release of Phase II.

That's my opinion.

-------------


I would not have thought to post my opinion on the Edwards apology since I did not have direct facts, only inferring facts, but an Edwards supporter in another thread insists valid conclusions can be drawn this way. So I thought I would give it a try.

What do you think about this method?

[Sparkly]

63. I think this deserves its own thread, WesDem

I know you're reluctant to do it, but I encourage you to.

[jcrew2001]

66. Everything is opinion, I don't trust Durbin imo

because he is helping Obama and 20/20 hindsight. Sure Edwards is CYA but Bush created the Iraq War IMO.

[Sparkly]

67. There's nothing wrong with Durbin endorsing Obama.

His endorsement of Obama, and Bush's doings in the Iraq fiasco, are separate matters from Edwards, Edwards' votes, and Edwards' apology -- unless I'm missing something. :shrug:

[jcrew2001]

I was referring to Senate intelligence committee

fyi- for the uninformed

[Sparkly]

71. Yes, and...?

You wrote:

"Everything is opinion, I don't trust Durbin imo
because he is helping Obama and 20/20 hindsight. Sure Edwards is CYA but Bush created the Iraq War IMO."

Perhaps I'm "uninformed," but I don't see what you're saying about the Senate Intelligence Committee... :shrug: What's that got to do with Durbin's endorsement of Obama, or Edwards' vote/apology?

[jcrew2001]

99. Durbin is Obama's mentor and he's going to say things

that contradict Edwards and hurt Edwards, ie the Senate intelligence reports. You can google the news articles.

[Sparkly]

104. Um, did he mention Edwards?

Or do the facts hurt Edwards?

Should he not relate facts about the intel if they happen to hurt Edwards?

[jcrew2001]

106. He wants to hurt Edwards

The intel was open to interpretation. Yet somehow we still ended up going to war, darn it.

[Sparkly]

122. Do you think that's his sole motivation when he discusses this important issue?

He's out to "hurt Edwards?"

If Durbin's statements on the intel hurt Edwards, that's unfortunate for Edwards I suppose. Primaries happen.

[jcrew2001]

124. Yes He wants to make Obama look good and hurt Edwards

this serves both purposes. Everything that is said and done has an ulterior motive.

[Sparkly]

153. Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right.

Why are you concerned? HOW does revealing info on pre-war intel "hurt Edwards," do you think?

[jcrew2001]

176. He didn't reveal in 2004 for Kerry or in 2002 but waited until now when it was

most convenient to serve Obama's interests and hurt Edwards.

[karynnj]

198. In 2004, it would have HELPED John Kerry

John Kerry was not on the intelligence committee. He was one of those who got the cherry picked information. In 2005, when he a month before Edwards said that he was wrong to vote for the IWR because it was wrong to trust Bush to do what he said he would, he spoke of having even spoken to the British, who were lied to as well by their government.

In his IWR speech, he mentioned that Bush had promised that he would not invade unless it was a last resort and only for WMD. When the inspectors found nothing and their were still diplomatic options on the table and Bush moved towards going to war Kerry spoke against rushing to war. Edwards, at that point, was for the war.

[jcrew2001]

227. Wasn't the purpose of IWR to help Bush win re-election?

If that was the case, then Kerry and Edwards were foolish for allowing it to happen; but they would have been slammed for being anti-war and anti-American. It was a no-win.

In 2004, the majority of Americans who voted for Bush still had the patience that he could stabilize the Iraq situation. Thats what sucks about living in a democracy, majority rules.

[karynnj]

196. You miss the point of Durbin's comments

The point is that there was a significant difference in the cherry picked info given to all the Senators, which is declassified and the classified info they got.

Senator Graham(FL) made the same point in 2005 - he and Durbin were angry about this in 2002 and it was their effort that got even the cherry picked info out (which was not what they wanted).

[Adelante]

74. 20/20 hindsight

You're implying that Durbin's recent remarks about the Intelligence Committee was the first time he made them. In fact, his earlier and similar remarks predate Obama's campaign by two or three years. Durbin has been consistent on this.

[Forkboy]

129. Sometimes it would be more fitting to say,"Hindsight is 50/50".

:)

[dansolo]

111. How is it 20/20 hindsight?

Durbin voted NO on the IWR. That is called FORESIGHT. All he is doing now is explaining his reason for voting NO. The guy who should be accused of 20/20 hindsight is your man Edwards.

[jcrew2001]

233. Maybe Durbin should run for prez instead of Obama

He's more qualified and has foresight.

[Cameron27]

68. Very impressive WesDem,

and I agree, this should have it's own thead.

[dogman]

69. Works for me.

Edwards has been running for President since being considered for the VP role under Gore. Gore chose Lieberman and Edwards immediately mirrored Lieberman's foreign policy stand. The tough guy stance was a means of making up for a lack of credentials. The Iraq War was sold to the American people by the administrations lap dog media as has been revealed by Bill Moyers. Edwards sought to sell the war and himself in the run up to the '04 primaries. As recently as the South Carolina primary debate, he challenged Kerry's assertion that there was no connection between 9-11 and the Iraq War. Kerry was asked about the neo-con position and when Edwards was asked a different question, he asked to revisit and counter Kerry's answer saying the WTC dead proved a connection. That was the same meme pushed by Darth Cheney. I was baffled by Kerry's choice of Edwards as VP. Since then it has been reported that Edwards was unhappy with defending Kerry's position on Iraq in the campaign. That may be why we did not see a lot of Edwards in that campaign. Now he is the newly created anti-war hero calling his former colleagues out for not following his advice on the Iraq War funding. Shameful and hypocritical.
That's my opinion.

[Sparkly]

73. "tough guy stance ... making up for a lack of credentials" - Funny how that works.

Or maybe not so funny... but you have a point there.

[jcrew2001]

231. He probably thought swing voters supported the IWR

and could position himself as a centrist in the 2004 election.

[jcrew2001]

109. Darn it, politicians need to change their views to support the voters

or we'll vote em out of office!

[jcrew2001]

70. If only Gore were president instead of Bush, so much would be diff

we never would have invaded Iraq

[bling bling]

114. This *really* ought to be it's own thread.

That's what GDP is for. I hate to see a post like that get overlooked because it's stuck in the middle of some dumb thread like this one.

[Adelante]

132. I'm not much for posting OPs

I never have been, partly because I don't like to post and then not lead a discussion, and I tend to forget I started a thread once I get doing something else. Also, if I did do this one, there would be a hundred "Look! Over THERE! ... CLARKIES!!" posts hijacking the thread anyways. Bleh.

Thanks very much to you and the others who supported the idea of a new OP on this. Anybody can feel free to make use of anything I post anytime. It's what it's there for.

[Adelante]

137. Two links I missed

Bob Graham's November 2005 op-ed: "What I Knew Before the Invasion"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

New York Times April 2007 editorial: "Still Waiting for Answers"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/opinion/29sun1.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin


Sorry about that.

[Clark2008]

143. Thank you for pointing to some factual statements behind the

reasons for your opinion. I share it.

And I won't vote for Edwards should he be the nominee as a result of it. If I wanted to vote for a Bush-enabling war monger, I'd vote Republican.

Sigh... this must be what Ralph Nader meant - and I'm no Ralph Nader fan. I proudly voted for Gore in his home state.

[jcrew2001]

209. Gore chose lieberman and anyone who supports Lieberman

is highly suspect.

[slipslidingaway]

203. Thanks for putting this together! :)) n/t

[Mass]

54. Durbin supports Obama. He has said so.

This said, though I have no clue of which incident you are referring to, this is insulting to somebody who has served his state well.

Also, learn the constitution. If Obama is president, Durbin cannot be VP!

[NYCGirl]

56. Listen, if very liberal New York Magazine can run a headline like this:

"John Edwards Studies Poverty By Making Vast Amounts of Money" about his hedge fund job, then Edwards needs little help at all to make himself look bad.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/05/john_edwards_studies_poverty_b.html

[jcrew2001]

59. I know, he's too much of a Republican, can't win the blue states

so he'll have to try the red states.

[NYCGirl]

65. Lotsa luck with that. NT

[jcrew2001]

216. NY liberals are guaranteed losers in the GE IMO

and the Red States citizens will ultimately decide who our next president is - seeing that the blue states are in the minority.

As for Edwards IW vote, he represents NC and the South is very solidly behind Bush at the time. He really has to represent his constituentcy.

Economic Factors and Growth should be a MAJOR concern for any Serious Presidential Candidate. I am glad that Edwards spent time working for a Hedge Fund and learning about new investments and ideas to create growth, which will ultimately help the middle class. It gives me greater confidence in his ability to maintain a strong economy.

[NYCGirl]

220. Who's talking about NY Liberals here? We're talking about Edwards and his

political expediency with his co-sponsorship of the IWR, and the fact that he doesn't need Durbin to make him look bad. He can do that all by himself.

[tammywammy]

139. I totally agree

[Capn Sunshine]

72. This is just stupid

DU at it's worst.

[jcrew2001]

78. Why, because I called Durbin out

nt

[Forkboy]

87. No.It's because all you have to offer is your own hate and bias.

I don't even like Obama,but I'm not just taking your word,or anyone's word,on face value when they are obviously approaching the subject without facts,using conjecture ad insinuation to make their point.

THAT'S why this thread is stupid.

[jcrew2001]

95. Durbin is a full supporter of Obama - that is common knowledge

to everyone here and in the media. Durbin got Obama SS protection, he is from Illinois, he's Obama's Mentor. These are FACTS.

[NYCGirl]

96. And the problem with that is....what? NT

[Forkboy]

100. Ok...facts seen through a prism of obvious hate.

How's that?

[jcrew2001]

102. Thanks for the personal attack - I never said I hated Obama

He just has proven anything imo and I think he'll lose the general election - but who cares - Rudy is going to beat everyone, right.

[Forkboy]

107. Fair enough...my honest apologies.

[wndycty]

75. Let's not forget how Edwards had Hugh Shelton attack Wesley Clark

I have no problems with John Edwards and if Obama were not in it and General Clark stays out, I could very easily be in Edwards camp in the primaries, but you have a short memory if you don't recall how Edwards sicked Shelton on Clark. Its called politics.

[Adelante]

79. Well, you know, Edwards runs "positive"

While running negative. He is very good at it.

[wndycty]

80. Just remember whenever Edwards supporters criticize Durbin. . .

. . .say Hugh Shelton and say it with a smile.

[Adelante]

82. Hugh Shelton

:D

[wndycty]

83. LOL

And I hate to do this because I really like Edwards but sometimes people have short political memories.

[JI7]

125. still not the same thing

as Durbin did not actually attack Edwards the way Shelton did in with Clark.

[wndycty]

133. So you are saying. . .

. . .this is actually worse?

[JI7]

166. no

i'm saying the other was worse. in this case Durbin did not even attack Edwards, he is doing what someone in his position SHOULD be doing . i don't get why Durbin is being attacked on this. and it's stupid to say it's about Edwards. it makes it seem as if the issue is not important .

[zulchzulu]

84. CBS News makes Bush look bad with its reports on the war

Same logic...

[Grandrose]

85. Ridiculious, assinine and stupid....

Did you forget this: :sarcasm: This is the most incoherent post I ever seen here! I am outraged that you insult them both!

My Senators Durbin and Obama would not stoop to deliberately make Mr. Edwards or any other Democrat look bad. What motives and conflict of interest are you talking about???
:argh:

[jcrew2001]

92. They're a tag team

Durbin and Obama

[primative1]

94. You realy should give this one up ....

We have real problems we need to focus on.

[Grandrose]

123. Yes....

And I am very happy and proud of both!:)

[MonkeyFunk]

86. Oh my god!

A politician practicing politics?!?! I'll alert the media.

[FrenchieCat]

103. Please don't.......cause they might print this as a story that has no more facts

included than this OP has. They might have a headline stating what the OP has stated in his without anymore background facts than offered here! The media plays this classic case of character assassination via insinuation much too often.

[jcrew2001]

110. Its a FACT that Durbin is working for Obama

I'm just pointing it out in case anyone forgot.

[FrenchieCat]

112. But this fact doesn't make Edwards look bad........

and hence the reason that your OP is Stooopid, nonsensical, and lacks any merit!

Edwards may be looking bad, but it has little to do with Durbin or Obama.
If Edwards would have himself done the right thing, he'd be looking much better right about now!

[AtomicKitten]

117. correction

I believe that is spelled stoopud.

[dsc]

113. If Durbin wants to be VP he should be hoping for anyone but Obama

They couldn't be on the same ticket unless they wanted to give up Illinois' electoral votes which I doubt they want to.

[Catchawave]

115. Unless he moves like Cheney did ?

For some reason I remember that Cheney was from Texas just before the s-election?

[dsc]

116. I don't know all the ins and outs of Cheney

but I don't think Durbin could get away with it.

[illinoisprogressive]

119. Durbin is a close friend but, will not be vp choice.

[JI7]

126. Durbin doesn't want to be vp, he wants to be Senate Majority Leader

[tammywammy]

140. Apparently you haven't learned

no one cares about facts.

So, in the future, there's no need to discount the fact that Durbin cannot legally be Obama's VP anyways. :)

[LittleClarkie]

118. So this is primary season on Democratic Underground

What... fun.

[Clark2008]

134. I trust Durbin more than Edwards.

Durbin's changed his mind far less than Edwards has on... well... nearly every subject from NCLB to the war to the PATRIOT Act to the ruination of Yucca Mountain to the banking industry v. the poor to the... you get the picture.

[illinoisprogressive]

136. Durbin has the reputation as a decent and honorable man. To say otherwise

is very reckless. People I know who know him here say so.

[primative1]

141. He also has "presense"

I have long thought that someday he would be our "ronald reagan". He is realy good with using the camera.

[jcrew2001]

147. Yeah, but when he's the Mentor to Obama everything is pro-obama

and spun to help Obama. Durbin got Obama secret service protection, Durbin mentors Obama in the Senate. Durbin can support Obama - but everything he does and says is to help HIS candidate. Its politics as usual.

[sabbat hunter]

135. how is it a conflict of interest

people, including senators, can support whomever they want.

[Adelante]

138. It's a cheap attempt by the OP

To color Durbin's remarks on prewar intelligence as a bash on Edwards. Forget how important the intelligence investigation is, forget that Durbin has been fighting for the release of the covered up parts of the Phase II report for years along with other Democratic Senators, had been saying the very same things years before Obama's candidacy -- it's all about Edwards, the center of the OP's universe.

[jcrew2001]

146. But Durbin is spinning for Obama

which needs to be exposed.

[Sparkly]

151. Spinning?

As WesDem pointed out, he's been consistent for years. Was he "spinning" all this time?

What is "spin" about what he's said?

[Adelante]

159. The Senate is supposed to stop working

Senators are supposed to stop making floor speeches related to what they're working on. The whole Congress needs to STFU: John Edwards is running for president.

[jcrew2001]

171. Durbin can say whatever he wants, but he can't hide the fact that

he is supporting Obama.

[jcrew2001]

170. Durbin waited until 2007 to speak out

because it is helping Obama.

[Cameron27]

152. Until you have some links to back up your BS

this is only your opinion based on nothing.

[jcrew2001]

156. Durbin is working for Obama - that is all I am saying

I am not making this up, this is a FACT.

[tammywammy]

158. So?

Durbin supports Obama. Well, I'll be damned, if that wasn't freaking obvious anyways.

Is Durbin not allowed to support a specific individual for president?

[Cameron27]

164. No, you're saying that Durbin made his public

statement to hurt Edwards, and that's you're opinion. It did hurt Edwards, but that wasn't the purpose for his making it and that's my opinon.

[sabbat hunter]

173. and schumer spins for HRC

so your point is?

[jcrew2001]

178. Be wary of both Durbin and Schumer in whatever they say

nt

[tammywammy]

157. Wait wait wait, stop the presses!!

The senior senator from Illinois and Obama's mentor, is *shock* supporting Obama!!! OMG!

And then to top it all off, Durbin dares to talk about the IWR and it conflicts with Edwards (but without mentioning Edwards at all), so he must have done it to make Edwards look bad.

Down with Durbin, that sneaky bastard!

[jcrew2001]

169. He's so smart, he waited until 2007 to speak out about intelligence

not 2004 when Kerry ran, and not before. Instead he picked the perfect moment to make Obama look good and his rivals worse.

[tammywammy]

202. If he really wanted to hurt Edwards

why didn't he do think January 2008, right before the primaries start?

Wouldn't that be way more effective, since most people aren't paying that close attention to the race as of right now.

[Ninja Jordan]

160. "crony"?

please...

[JohnWxy]

161. We don't know everything that was in the briefing to the intelligence committee...

I read that questions about the aluminum tubes were raised, but how about the bogus intell from Challabi, was that mentioned in the briefing? Were doubts raised about Cheney's urban legend about the meeting of Al kaida reps with a rep of Hussein's? There may be much more that Edward's was referring to as "what he knows now" that he didn't know then that was not raised definitively in the briefing to the intelligence committee.

The aluminum tubes issue may have been clear, but there was more phony intell being thrown around by Cheney's zealots that may or may not have been addressed conclusively in the briefing.

I think it can be a little too easy to say you would have seen things more clearly than others back when, because the lies have over time been much more fully exposed than they were back when the vote on the War authorization was taken.

Also, remember the authorization was NOT an automatic GO signal to invade. The members of Congress were still thinking bush would certainly make a serious attempt at diplomatic efforts through the U.N. (big mistake).

[windy252]

162. Can someone tell me what's going on?

How is he making Edwards "look bad"?

[Sparkly]

167. Um -- the truth has an anti-Edwards bias, I guess?

:shrug:

[jcrew2001]

168. Durbin exposes "the truth" of intel in 2007 but he didn't do it in 2004

when Kerry was running or even at the start of Iraq War. He's exposing "the truth" of faulty intelligence in 2007 because it is hurting Edwards; and helping Obama in the process.

He kept quiet for 5 years and now he HAD to speak out!!!!

[Ethelk2044]

174. I do not

have a problem with him speaking the truth. It will let you know how a person will vote in times when it is difficult. They do not need to vote because it is popular. They should vote on an issue because it is the right thing to do. A president needs to be able to make the right decision especially if he has all the facts not because it is popular.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Edwards, but if he had the facts he should not have voted for the war. He should have been strong enough to stand up against the others.

[jcrew2001]

177. Your post sounds like something George W Bush would say

who does things despite being unpopular.

IMO I don't think the Senate would have prevented Bush from attacking Iraq.

[Placebo]

165. Durbin loves the senate.

I seriously doubt he'll be leaving it anytime soon. Especially since me and many others plan to re-elect him in 2008. :)

[Adelante]

175. Durbin waited until 2007 to tell the truth

This will be my last visit to this thread. The OP is determined to make a misleading statement again and again in the face of any evidence presented to the contrary, and just acts as if the notion that Durbin never said these things before has not been debunked.

On October 10, 2002, during the Iraq War Resolution debate in the Senate, Dick Durbin said: "I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge... There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon. "

http://durbin.senate.gov/issues/iraq101002a.cfm

I'm outta here.

[jcrew2001]

181. Its convenient for Durbin that he brings up this confidential info

again in 2007 - just in time for the Primary season!!!

Let the dirt digging begin.

[Adelante]

184. You're the one throwing mud at Durbin

Will you not acknowledge the critically important work Congress is doing on prewar intelligence? It is NOT fucking ABOUT John Edwards. If John Edwards can't stand the light of day on this, it's because HE has something to hide.

When the first phase of the prewar intelligence report was released in July 2004, Durbin wrote in the Washington Post:

So today we have a report that asks only some of the right questions and, at best, comes to only some of the right conclusions.

The responsibility for problems related to prewar intelligence regarding Iraq should not be confined to intelligence analysts at the CIA but should extend to policymakers as well -- particularly those at the Defense and State departments, the National Security Council, and the White House.

Nor should the intelligence oversight committees of Congress, which are charged with scrutinizing intelligence analysis as part of their mandate, be excluded from criticism. It should be noted that the inquiry into prewar intelligence related to Iraq was initiated -- and its scope expanded -- in the face of significant resistance within the committee.

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-210

On September 8, 2006, Carl Levin made a floor speech on the release of two of five parts of the Phase II report:

The intelligence assessments contained in the Intelligence Committee’s unclassified report are an indictment of the administration’s unrelenting and misleading attempts to link Saddam Hussein to 9/11. But portions of the report which the intelligence community leaders have determined to keep from public view provide some of the most damaging evidence of this administration’s falsehoods and distortions.

Among what remains classified, and therefore covered up, includes deeply disturbing information. Much of the information redacted from the public report does not jeopardize any intelligence source or method but serves effectively to cover up certain highly offensive activities. Even the partially released picture is plenty bleak about the administration’s use of falsehoods and distortions to build public support for the war. But the public is entitled to the full picture. Unless this report is further declassified, they won’t get it. While the battle is waged to declassify those covered-up portions of the report–unless, of course, those portions truly disclose intelligence sources or methods–every Senator should read the classified version of this report. It is available to every Senator, and I urge every Senator to read the classified version of this report and reach his own conclusion about what Senator Rockefeller and I have said about the portions of this report that remain classified and unavailable to the public.

http://www.carllevin.com/news/2006/09/08/levin-floor-speech-on-the-senate-intelligence-committees-phase-ii-report

Cleveland Plain Dealer May 6 2007

Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Democratic chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, says the declassified reports could be released by month's end. They form an addendum to the committee's next installment in its Phase II examination of possible political interference in pre-Iraq war intelligence efforts, Morigi said. This installment deals with prewar intelligence predictions.

Still to come is the explosive final Phase II report, a dissection of key officials' statements in the run-up to war and how they accorded with the intelligence. In August 2002, for instance, Vice President Cheney said Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program -- an issue upon which the intelligence community was divided.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/esullivan/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1178354731234600.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

[jcrew2001]

187. Does that mean Durbin or Edwards could have stopped IWR?

or is this a personal grudge that Durbin has against Edwards because of the vote.

If Durbin thinks Edwards is unqualified, why would Obama be qualified?

or is it purely an Illinois thing and Durbin wants to be the puppetmaster for Obama.

What about invading Darfur? is this anti-war, or just anti-Bush intelligence?

[Adelante]

191. Go fuck yourself, you goddamned idiot nt

[Egnever]

199. wow that one wont last :P

Nice retort I think you got him with that one!

[Crunchy Frog]

179. I want to keep an open mind about Edwards.

I hope that he will provide more of an explanation than has hitherto been forthcoming for why he voted for and cosponsored the IWR. Something with a bit more depth to it than "I was wrong and I'm sorry". I want to know more about how his thought processes operate, and how he reaches the conclusions that he does. I think it's a legitimage thing to want to know about someone who wants to be Commander in Chief.

As nearly as I can tell, Durbin was merely speaking the truth. If the truth happens to make Edwards look bad, I don't think that's a legitimate reason to not speak it. Maybe Edwards needs to come a little bit more clean than he has so far.

[jcrew2001]

182. IMO we should forget about invading Darfur or other countries

because it seems like our military cannot win any wars and is over-stretched. If needed, we should only attack countries that are easy to win, and use missles instead of ground troops.

[Crunchy Frog]

200. And this is what you have by way of explanation for Edwards IWR vote?

Actually, I'm more interested in hearing him address the issue. Anyone can come up with any number of explanations, but only Edwards himself knows what was in his own heart when he cosponsored and voted for the resolution. I'll be interested in seeing whether anything meaningful will be forthcoming.

[jcrew2001]

207. Edwards wanted to be seen as pro-military for 2004 IMO

and generally speaking, anti-war candidates don't have much success in the general election - take Dean for instance. They are seen as weak, and weak leaders. Besides, Bush is driving the Train, so to blame anyone but Bush, isn't accurate.

The only Senators with the gravitas to mount a viable National Anti-war platform are Kennedy and Clinton; and Gore, Clark; and not come off as weaklings.

[Crunchy Frog]

213. So you feel it was political expedience. I'm inclined to think you're correct there.

I would respect him a great deal more if he would come clean on that when issuing his apologies. I guess "I was mislead" sounds better than "I was trying to position myself politically for a run at the presidency".

When he makes the statement "I was wrong.", what do you think he's saying he was wrong about? Do you think he thinks he made the wrong polical calculation? It can't be that he feels any personal remorse for the consequences of the war, since Bush was going to invade anyway, no matter what he did or said.

[jcrew2001]

214. Dems have always been anti-war since Nixon and it hasn't

gotten us very far in terms of having any military creditibility. This military creditbility is essential for the white surburban male centrist. The major issues have been taxes and military, and the Dems have closed the gap on taxes perception. Kerry tried the military mantle - but oops, he was the biggest anti-war demonstrator in Vietnam.

Since Edwards didn't serve in the military, and since Bush was going to war anyway - he saw an opportunity to show military strength/leadership.

The Wrong Part - and most Americans now agree is that we trusted Bush about Iraq being 'evil' but not having the competency to preserve the peace after getting Saddam. Kerry even said this himself - Kerry supported Iraq, but didn't support its execution.

I'm going to blame IW on Bush 80% and the Dems 20% for providing the funding.

Now I'm going to have to decide who can best clean up Iraq, has intelligence, and can win the general election. Hillary has intelligence but can't win the general; I think Obama will be easily controlled by advisors; and that leaves Edwards as being able to win the general election and having the intelligence to execute an exit strategy and pursue diplomatic solutions to Iraq stability.

[Crunchy Frog]

218. Given all that you say, I don't understand what your problem is with Durbin's statements.

I'm perfectly fine if Edwards wants to say that he supported IWR out of political expediency, because he didn't want to fall into the regular Democratic trap of appearing weak on defense, and that his constituents in NC were in favor of the war, and he had to represent them. He wanted to become president, and he did what he felt he had to do to advance that goal. That is a perfectly respectable position to take, and I don't understand why he has even felt the need to apologize at all.

Durbin has other agendas, and they are not all wrapped around who becomes the next president of this country. I think he is genuinely concerned about the wrongs of a war we should never have gotten into, and is interested in getting to the truth of the fact that this country was lied and misled into supporting this war.

I don't understand why we can't respect both Durbin and Edwards as men of integrity who each made different decisions based on differing, but equally valid and laudable agendas.

In my opinion, the only reason that Durbin's statements can make Edwards look bad is because he is not demonstrating the courage of his own convictions, and seems to be trying to evade personal responsibility for the decisions he made. I simply can't fathom how this can be seen as Durbin's problem rather than Edwards'.

[jcrew2001]

224. The unpopular vote would have been Against IWR

Durbin's actions will always be tied to Obama's campaign because of their stated closeness. I don't blame Durbin because he supports Obama and feels he is the most qualified to be President. But IMO Durbin is more qualified to be prez than Obama.

The WMD intelligence was always shady because there was never an accurate info and Saddam had a bad relationship with the UN. The US wanted him out and they smoking gun was WMD. But there were other reasons for wanting Saddam out besides WMD, and that is why Bush, etc. pushed so hard for this. There was enough popular opinion to go forward with an invasion and remove a long-time 'enemy'.

Anyone who wants to be Commander In Chief needs to exert his authority on military matters. Its really not an option. The Commander in Chief will rise or fall based on his decisions. Durbin may be anti-Iraq war, but the rest of America and Edwards is really "anti-GW Bush" and his decision and execution of the war.

Edwards is apologizing because he gave Bush the authority to go to war. Its Bush's fault for providing faulty evidence and driving a case for war that didn't need to be fought and for executing a failing long-term strategy. Americans want a President who can execute a winning war strategy and use force intelligently.

[jcrew2001]

217. He also represents red state NC so

his vote would have gotten the support of NC citizens. His only duty was to represent his voters and they were solidly behind Bush.

He can't apologize by saying that conservative voters are idiots for supporting Bush. Senators can only go so far as their constituents will allow them.

[Egnever]

183. Edwards doesn't need Durbins help to look bad

The guy is pure pander and when the gloves come off in these primaries and they will, Edwards will be shown clearly for the panderer he is.

The guy looks great and talks a great game but hes pure hype theres no there there IMHO and what is there if anything has made nothing but bad decisions.

If theres anyone in this primary I would not like to see become president it would be this guy.

[jcrew2001]

188. I would like to know about Obama's decisions

because that is important info.

[Egnever]

194. Agreed

There are several candidates I would like to see flesh out their o0ld stances and closer looks taken at all of their past records. In time all of the dirt on all of them will come out and we will all be left to choose who we think represents us personaly best.

Edwards is not that one for me.

Maybe Obama maybe Richardson maybe Biden maybe Dodd hell maybe even Clinton. Its early theres a ways to go and plenty of time to choose. Thankfully I live in nevada and we should get lots of face time here this year so I will get the chance to hear them all first hand I hope.

[jcrew2001]

208. I don't blame Edwards for Iraq - I blame Bush for Iraq

There wasn't anyone alive who could have stopped Bush from invading Iraq.

There were several humanitarian excuses to invade Iraq, instead of the WMD.

There was a desire by Bush and others to establish a stronghold in the middle east, which is good in theory.

The problem with Iraq now, is that a Military victory is not possible!!!

The solution is a diplomatic solution, that must involve Syria and Iran.

What will most likely happen in the long run, is great Iranian influence and possible enactment by Iran over eastern Iraq - this would provide the most stability in the region, IMO.

[karynnj]

185. Durbin is one of the most credible Sentors there is

He is not going for vp - in fact, it would be illegal as they are both from Illinois.

Durbin has said he is for Obama - that is his right.

What you call "dirty work" hasn't been. Durbin in 2005, explained that the Intelligence committee knew more, though less that the 8 knew.

I suspect that Durbin may have been annoyed at the Congress bashing that Edwards was doing. He also knew exactly where Edwards was in 2002 and knew that the cavalier "I was wrong" was accepted without mush real examination of Edwards' role in 2002 or the fact that he was as hawkish as any Non-Leiberman Democrat.

[jcrew2001]

186. So Durbin does have a personal grudge against Edwards for his 2002

vote according to you.

Also, if Durbin doesn't think Edwards would be a good president, how can he say Obama is qualified to be president?

I would think Durbin himself would be a better president than Obama - or maybe he wants to be the puppet master.

[Ethelk2044]

190. One Question

for you Obama and Edwards almost have the same Resume. However, Obama has more government work on his Resume. You are stating Obama is not qualified, yet Edwards is. To me there is only one reason you are stating that. Obama has more qualifications than Edwards. He worked with the state government. Edwards only was a trial lawyer and did one term in Senate.

Therefore Obama has more qualifications super cedes Edwards. However, Obama is black. Is that the reason you have so much disdain for Him. It can not be his qualifications. Obama has more years of service.

You see I do believe in calling a spade a spade.

What are your objections for Obama?

[jcrew2001]

215. He can run for governor with all his 'state' experience

but 2 years in the senate does not make him qualified IMO. Heck, Edwards is barely qualified after 6 years, IMO, same with Hillary.

I think a qualified Black man or Mixed person can win the presidency, many states have minorities as Governors - they can run for president if they desire. Powell is someone who could have easily won the presidency.

I think Edwards can win the General Election and Obama can't, he might in 4 years.

I'm not from Illinois, so I don't have the love for Obama like you do.

[karynnj]

192. I did not say he has a personal grudge against Edwards

I said it is possible that he is upset with Edwards' trying to sugar coat his own involvement, even as he apologized. But, there is a deeper, more responsible reason - it is the truth.

In 2005, both in the spring and in the fall, Durbin spoke about the different levels of intelligence people had - first because of the DSM then because on veteran's day in 2005, Bush and Cheney chose to attack Democrats saying that they saw the same intelligence and reached the same conclusions. The attack was most specifically targeted at John Kerry and John Murtha. The Republicans STILL are pushing this lie. It is not true.

What do Edwards' qualification have to do with Obama's. It has nothing to do with number of years in the Senate. I would love Durbin to run, but for whatever reasons, he isn't. I would prefer him over all the announced candidates. There were rumours a few years ago that he was Kerry's first choice as VP, but the thought was that 2 Catholics on the ticket would not work.

I seriously doubt Obama is a puppet or Durbin a puppetmaster.

Do you seriously think that Edwards could repeatedly do the Congress bashing he has and have no one strike back? This was a mild swat.

[Ethelk2044]

197. Durbin had a right to

speak out on what happen. There need to be answers from Edwards. If he had the same evidence that Durbin had why did he vote yes. He should have voted No. Now some have problems with Durbin stating the facts. All who voted for the War and knew the truth was not being told should have voted no or they should have came out with the truth.

[karynnj]

205. More than a right to speak out, possibly a need to speak out

The mainstream media was complicit in the run up to the war. They would love to leave the story the way the Republicans want it - that no one really knew the intelligence was played with. Durbin and Graham to their credit have spoken out several times. They do not need to for personal reasons - they could simply point to their vote and note that they voted "NO"

In 2006, Bill Clinton said that all Democrats (except Leiberman) voted to get the inspectors in. But of all the Democrats that did only Kerry and Harkin spoke out before the war or soon into it when it was popular. Also, only Kerry, Johnson and Harkin signed Kerry's letter demanding Part II of the WMD study. If the Bush administration did manipulate the data and they voted that way because of it - wouldn't they want that out? So, people would know the true evilness of the people who did it.

here are the Seantors who signed - Senators Kerry, Johnson, Corzine, Reed, Lautenberg, Boxer, Kennedy, Harkin, Bingaman, Feinstein, and Durbin. (What no Hillary!)

[jcrew2001]

232. Would Durbin be concerned about losing re-election

if he was from a red state that supported Bush? Does he have a responsibility to serve his voters and not just himself?

Durbin will use his anti-war vote as a campaign talking point because he knows that Illinois is a Blue state and he can beat his opponent by not just carrying the Dem voters, but the swing voters who have now turned against the war.

You may think Durbin is all about integrity, but at the end of the day, its about winning re-election.

[jcrew2001]

211. But weren't there humanitarian concers for going into Iraq

which is the same reasoning going into Darfur. If anyone could have stopped Bush from invading Iraq, he would have been.

[jcrew2001]

210. I personally think its a waste of time rehashing 2002

and prefer to move forward with the present day and the Iraq War.

Of course, it would be great if the IW never happened and if Bush wasn't president. If there were enough Senate votes to stop Bush from invasion.

If Durbin was so anti-war, how come he couldn't stop it???

How come most American citizens allowed the IW to proceed??? Primarily because we were told it would be a short military attack and would be successful.

Well, there are many things that were successful, Saddam was removed, and we've given the Kurds 'freedom'.

The BIG Question of TODAY is - Do we keep our military in Iraq or use Diplomatic measures and aid from Syria and Iran to support a stable Iraq.

Edwards made a bad decision supporting IWR, but so did many other Democrats. He has apologized and created a new plan. Its time to forgive and to proceed with the Best Plans to move forward.

[Crunchy Frog]

221. I disagree. I don't think it's ever a waste of time

to hold people in power to account when they do really terrible things. Even if it may not have been possible to stop them at the time, it is always of value to try to learn what went wrong, and how such things can be prevented in the future.

If nothing else, the Iraq war has revealed some terrible flaws in the way politics and decision-making is occuring in our country today. These are institutionalized problems that absolutely have to be addressed and corrected, or we will get into even greater messes in the future.

I really don't see how anything that's happened with Iraq can be called "successful". The people of Iraq are vastly worse off than they were under Saddam, as shown by the skyrocketing figures on infant and child malnutrition and mortality, among other things. Even the Kurds have not been freed by this action, as the Kurdish region of Iraq was already functionally autonomous prior to the war.

Edwards evidently did NOT make a bad decision supporting the IWR, as he viewed it as necessary to his presidential ambitions that he not look weak, and as the constituents that he represented were very strongly in favor of this war. However, just because the vote was the right thing for Edwards at the time, does not mean that the larger issues surrounding it should not be investigated and dealt with. I don't think it's incumbent on Congress to refrain from looking into the circumstances of the runup to war, just because it has the potential to make some Democrats look bad. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

[jcrew2001]

225. The losers in a war always look bad

but if by some miracle Iraq became peaceful after Saddam's capture, we would not be having this discussion.

The American people were lied to, and the majority of American citizens bought into this WMD excuse, etc. We were idiots for not asking tougher questions and demanding no on IWR. We trusted the Senate to control the President, they failed. But it was primarily the Republicans that controlled the Senate and drove the case for war and were complicet in Bush's agenda.

If Gore were president, there would not have been an Iraq War. I hold Bush responsible, and he not only lied to Congress, he lied to the American people. Now that IW has been a failure, Americans are demanding answers and indictments.

[Crunchy Frog]

201. Dick Durbin; the evil Svengali of the future Obama regime.

:scared: :rofl:

[Inuca]

212. I DO hope this was meant as a joke n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

219. Of course it wasn't a joke. I always put this in my posts when they're deadly serious.

:rofl:

[Inuca]

222. Sorry, me bad :-)

As an excuse, my browser was misbehaving yesterday, and was slow in loading graphics...

[madrchsod]

223. good god why did i read this?

the premise of the original message is so thin it makes my head hurt.

[jcrew2001]

226. Durbin isn't going to come out and says Clinton/Edwards sucks

He's going to do everything to support HIS guy, Obama, and say things that hurt the others.