I am impressed with Edwards' "Paid Ad" idea to respond to Bush,

[FrenchieCat]

but I wasn't impressed with the words he used as they came out of his mouth. I say this because the words were the right ones, for sure.....but considering that I have a good memory, the messenger was ironically saying some very persuasive words at the beginning of this war that were the exact opposite of what he is saying now. He accused Bush of linking 9/11 to Iraq; well John Edwards did the same. He was persuading congress to act now.....and so he did as well back then.

In fact, when Edwards spoke tonight, he reminded me of exactly how I felt before this war began, and how congress let me down big time....but then, he was a big part of that......I won't forget how I felt back then, as it affects my perception of him and his words now.

The first thing Edwards said in his commercial response was that Bush tries to link 9/11 to Iraq, and we know that is wrong.

Edwards also linked 9/11 to Iraq.....

"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/20030219152335/edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0912a-pr.html

[jpgray]

1. It's totally reasonable to bring each of those quotes up, and of the big 3 I support Edwards.

No booing from me. I would note however that the message is great, and well-delivered, which counts for something. Image attacks or hypocrisy charges will likely be all the media coverage he gets for it, however--no one will review his actual points.

[AtomicKitten]

2. "Had we known that such attacks were imminent ..."

We did know. Numbnuts got the memo while on vacation.

I can't help but see Edwards as a drum major that simply must be at the front of the parade. Doesn't matter where it's headed just as long as he can strut his stuff out front of it.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Ironically, that speech was given almost 5 years ago to the day....

then not quite two years ago came the apology which came shortly after the turn in the polls....everything just seems so nicely timed and spaced....aqnd with two presidential runs, and one VP run sandwiched in between. Now that's an impressive feat.

[Ninja Jordan]

4. Which is worse: a candidate who was right in 2002, but wrong now. Or...

a candidate who, while wrong in 2002 has now learned the facts and chosen to be right now, when it counts?

[FrenchieCat]

5. Neither......

But being really really wrong (co-sponsoring blank checks and writing op-eds supporting Bush policies and voting down the Levin amendment) and then waiting 3 years to apologize (but kinda of still stating some bullshit excuse "if I knew then what I know now"+the Clintons made me do it defense) and now being Sooooo Right all of these changes "coincidently" coordinated with the movement of polls on public sentiment does not a good candidate make.

[riverdale]

6. I am so glad to see people coming around on Edwards

Don't trust him. He is like the Dem version of Mitt Romney...

[Clintonista2]

7. I am aswell

Edwards is really stepping up to the plate.

[slipslidingaway]

8. No booing from me, Edwards advocated invading Iraq while

instilling fear by invoking the attacks on 9/11. When Bush, Cheney etc. did this we called it marketing the war, but people are willing to give Edwards a pass because he is SAYING the right things now. Bush said he was not into nation building during his campaign.

This is more than a question on just this vote, it is about the type of person we want to make the next decisions. Should we promote someone who did not look at everything before casting a vote that has cost our nation dearly now and in the future?

On 9/12/02 Edwards gave his speech on the senate floor and the same day Bush was making a case against Iraq before the UN :(

[PurityOfEssence]

9. This is not linking 9-11 to Iraq

When you say that, you say that he's insinuating that Saddam is at least partially responsible for the attacks. Nice try. Read the statement.

Although he was suckered by the deliberate false intelligence on Iraq, nowhere in this statement is he saying that Saddam is responsible for 9-11. He's drawing the comparison that a threat should be dealt with if it's known. There's NO ATTEMPT TO LINK THEM HERE. There is the usage of the fear of the times to attempt to justify dealing with another threat, but no linkage.

Junior and his mob repeatedly claimed that Saddam had ties to Al-Queda, that Atta met with an Iraqi Intelligence officer in Prague and any number of other lies, and they carefully mentioned terrorism and 9-11 close to Saddam and Iraq in sentences to reinforce the belief. Yes, Edwards is using the fear of vulnerability to justify pressure to remove Hussein, but your use of the term "linked 9-11 to Iraq" more than implies that he's saying Saddam was at least partially responsible for the attacks.

Here's another bit from that same press release: "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." No suggestion of Saddam's involvement in the attacks here.

He goes on to say "...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."

Yes, this is saying that he could do such a thing in the future, but nowhere does he suggest that Hussein had ANYTHING to do with 9-11. If you want to say that he was going along with the fear of the moment to justify removing a dangerous person from power, that's one thing, but to say he's linking Saddam with 9-11 is a blatant distortion. How are you any better than this? Your term "linked 9-11 to Iraq" is a deliberate attempt to get us to think he said or suggested that Saddam was behind the attacks. He didn't.

It's the most frustrating thing he's ever done that I know of, and I and many others are not pleased by this episode and have said so repeatedly, but stick with the facts; they're bad enough.

We know you intensely dislike this man; the point has been driven home ad infinitum, but you have no right to call out others for distortion if you persist in granting yourself the right to do so yourself.

It's also interesting to see this: "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 should get a point or two for sense for that last part, don't you think?

I'm working long hours away from the computer for the next few days, so it'll take me some time to reply to your inevitable rejoinders.