Transcript of John Edwards on MTP Oct 10th 2004

[rinsd]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6200928/

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today--and you do know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein. We did not authorize this president to make the mess that he has now made in Iraq. We did not authorize him to go into this effort without doing the hard work to build a coalition. We did not authorize him to go to war without a plan to win the peace, and that was the responsibility of the president of the United States.

[Colobo]

1. Hehehehehehe!!!

[FrenchieCat]

2. his words from 2 years after his cheerleading and vote........

1 and 1/2 year after we found no WMDs, he was still not regretting his vote.

this was also one year before his famous mea culpa "If I had known then what I know now" apology......

and now he leads the popular march on Washington by trashing Democrats' stances on the war he boosted so openly when it was popular to do so!

And he's a frontrunner for the highest office in the land!

Only in America could we be this gullible! :eyes:

[geek tragedy]

3. Man, that Edwards is a slippery one.

He's flip-flopped at least twice on every aspect of Iraq.

[KurtNYC]

4. but B*sh & the MSM have changed the reason for the occupation 6 times

I don't love Edwards answer inthe transcript but when the media asks about Iraq from 6 different angles, one can be forced to sound like one has 6 different positions. And of course what is far worse than a sentence from 2004 is the actions of Congress this week! In that context, Edwards statement is about like earning a speeding ticket while driving in the Indy 500.

politics is like golf and war -- whoever makes the fewest mistakes wins.

Statements about Iraq*
B*sh: 6
Edwards: 1

edit to clarify that that is just my count for B*sh's mistakes in the same context as Edwards', about .0004% of total B*sh mistakes.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Problem is that by late 2004, the 6 different reasons had already been given......

and Edwards was still standing by and not regretting his vote--

Edwards ain't running against Bush. And for you to believe that we should lower our standards and somehow compare Edwards to Bush for Edwards to come out of it looking better is kind of an insulting excercise.

[KurtNYC]

8. i'm saying compare edwards to all of them

and look at what they did this week. we got the majority in congress for THIS??? Howard Dean gets the seats and they just cave? Actions are far worse than Sunday morning talk show equivocation.

[FrenchieCat]

9. I don't set my expectations that low.......

Just cause they didn't cut off the funds from the troops the Thursday before memorial Day week-end, doesn't make John Edwards my hero!

[w4rma]

11. My expectations are higher than yours, FrenchieCat. I don't support politicians for President that

didn't fight against the 2007 IWR.

[CTLawGuy]

14. HAHAHAHHAHAHHA

that's hilarious!

Edwards would love a "2007 IWR" meme to start wouldn't he??

[KurtNYC]

12. "didn't cut off the funds from the troops" ?!

It was never about 'not paying the troops' -- that is the White House/Fox News spin.

When they say "Support the Troops" they mean 'Support the occupation'
When they say "fund the troops" they mean 'fund the occupation.'

[FrenchieCat]

15. Eggsxactly.......

that is the spin....and spin must be dealt with, as it cannot be ignored. It's easy for those to say, but, but, but.....it is not supporting the troops to fund the troops, its supporting the occupation (all a bunch of bumper sticker stupidity to begin with)....but unfortunately, the media would play it exactly has I have stated it. It's called media reality, and those who ignore it are bound to pay a big price (see John Kerry).

3 months worth of funding is not the end of the world, I say to all of the Chicken Littles in the Edwards camp (who would love to think that it is). It ain't equivalent to the resolution that took us to war, and for those who attempt to portray it as such have another agenda working. Just like I'm not naive enough to truly believe that voting this bill down would have actually defunded the troops, nor will I buy into the spin that voting "for" this bill is equal to the vote that got this war going. period.

[Catchawave]

5. LOL....

Have a great Memorial Day Weekend :hi:

[venable]

7. gee, this hasn't been posted a million times

great find!!!


(have you listened to what he has said for the last 3 years? does that matter to you? does it?)

[FrenchieCat]

10. Yes Delicate Venable......

We ain't flushing down not so long ago actions based on high fallutin' rethoric backed up by popular polls.

[bklyncowgirl]

13. Edward's IWR support (he was on the Intelligence committee) is the main reason I do not support him

John Edwards knew or should have known that Bush's cries of an imminent threat from Iraq's WMDs were vastly overblown.

He also knew, or should have known, that they were handing Bush a blank check to do what he wanted in Iraq.

This is too bad because I agree with most of his positions on economic issues--he's by far the most populist of the Democratic candidates--even better than the man I would like to support, Al Gore.

Judgment and experience matter very greatly to me and Edwards comes up short in both departments.

For those reasons, despite his turnabout on the war, I do not feel I can support his candidacy in the primaries. He gave us a view of his judgment in a life and death matter and that judgment was lacking.

[1932]

16. What do you think his motivation for doing that was?

[w4rma]

18. I can't get past Hillary's and Obama's tacit support of the IWR-2007.

Obama and Hillary waited until it was safely passed to vote.
Obama and Hillary did not say one word against IWR-2007 until it had been passed and they voted.

And this is all while Bush's and Republican approval is in the toilet and Edwards is strongly speaking out against it and the majority of the nation (rather than 10% of the nation) is opposed to this war.

That is way things stand in the present day.

[PresidentObama]

17. Edwards was wrong, plain and simple.

To vote the way he did. I simply do not hold this against him because I understand he was wrong, and I appreciate his passionate apology. No apologies don't make it right, but in the end the blood isn't on his hands. He did not rush us into war, Bush did. He wasn't the one who went in without a plan for peace, Bush was. I support Senator Edwards because he has a great plan to end the war, and he's working hard to do so. Plus I think he's best equiped to rebuild Americas moral image around the world after the war through things like confronting the situation in Darfur, global AIDS, world poverty, etc. Edwards vote was bad judgment however. And I think every American has the right and privilege to make a decision about whether they hold that lack of judgment against John Edwards. And I certainly won't take away anyones right to do so. But I think, knowing what we know now, Edwards wouldn't vote that way again. Plus Edwards has been around the block since 2003 and 2004, and understands it's better to go with the gut--instead of listen to silly advisors. I think him and Senator Kerry understand that now more than ever. Thank god Senator Kerry is still in the Senate. Rather he were in the White House, but his voice is valuable in this struggle to end the tragic and bloody war.

[venable]

19. your argument is important because it's forward looking

and realistic and is much better and clearer than my own muddled efforts to make the same points. bravo.

[Skittles]

20. he voted to let a lying, thieving, incompetent PIECE OF SHIT start a WAR

NOW he's sorry? HE CAN F*** HIMSELF.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. The vote was 77-23 in the senate

If Edwards voted against the IWR the vote would have been 76-24. If Edwards, HRC, Dodd, and Biden all voted against the IWR the vote would have been 73-27. Wow. Nothing would have changed.

[Skittles]

22. LOL

oh I get it - people should VOTE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF AMERICA because, well, EVERYONE ELSE IS

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Context matters

The way the IWR worshipers talk you'd think Edwards, HRC, Biden, Dodd, and Kerry played decisive roles in getting the resolution over the top. The IWR was going to pass easily regardless of what these five did. IWR worshipers need to put the vote in context instead of exaggerating the importance of individual votes on a resolution that was going to pass overwhelmingly.

[Skittles]

26. again, your reasoning SUCKS

I prefer my candidates to DO THE RIGHT THING, regardless of HOW UNPOPULAR it is at the time

[Skittles]

23. LOL

oh I get it - people should VOTE AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF AMERICA because, well, EVERYONE ELSE IS

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Good post

We need to stop worshiping at the altar of the IWR and look at the whole picture. That includes looking at what they have advocated regarding Iraq since 2002 (Edwards is the only top-tier candidate who advocates ending the war. HRC and Obama favor mere de-escalation) and it, as you noted, also means looking at the entire picture. Iraq is not the only issue confronting us--and the 77-23 half decade old IWR, which is just one slice of the Iraq picture, certainly is not the most important issue America faces. We have to compare the candidates on trade, poverty, health care, rebuilding America's image abroad, social justice, electability, and a host other issues rather them be held hostage to one resolution that passed 77-23 half a decade ago. Wes Clark was correct in 2003 when he said we need to quit debating (obsessively I might odd) about the IWR.

[CTLawGuy]

27. do you realize that

the IWR created the mess that requires cleaning up? It's not an insignificant bill. Without it's passage, we'd need no funding because there'd be no war.