Edwards Avatar 2.x SOLD the 'War onTerror' frame and the war

Regarding the "Global War on Terror"(GWOT frame) show-of-hands question in the first debate for the Democratic nomination, Matt Stoller wrote: Global War on Terror: Clinton Fails, Edwards Shines and an Edwards promoter goes on to explain to us why that frame is so bad (didn't we know this since it was coined first?)

While the current version of Edwards ("Edwards 3.x") is apparently exciting to many in the blogosphere, it turns out that the former avatar of Edwards ("Edwards 2.x") was, as with the war, at the forefront of championing the GOP/neocon frame, "GWOT", as seen in the extensive evidence presented below the fold.


They then diverted their attention from the very people who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror, and so Osama bin Laden is still at large.

-- John Edwards, Vice Presidential Debate, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5, 2004. Link

~~~~~~~~


Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards said on ABC's "Nightline" program. "The war on terrorism is absolutely winnable."

-- John Edwards, circa Aug 31, 2004

~~~~~~~~


Whether it is winning the war on terror; strengthening and leading strong alliances; or finishing the job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To win the war on terror, we need three things: a strong offense, a strong defense, and strong alliances.

And we must start by finishing the job we started in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Afghanistan is in many ways a forgotten front in the war on terror.

-- Senator John Edwards, D-N.C., Wilmington, N.C., August 30, 2004: Remarks on National Security

~~~~~~~~



EDWARDS: And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight the war on terrorism and keep the American people safe. We can do that.

And we're here to make America respected in the world again so that we can bring him home. And American soldiers don't have to fight this war in Iraq or this war on terrorism alone.

-- John Edwards, July 28, 2004, Acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

~~~~~~~~


SNOW: Well, Senator, during the debate about the Patriot Act -- the section that you're talking about is called Section 215. Russ Feingold, one of your colleagues...

EDWARDS: That's correct.

SNOW: ... actually put together an amendment to tighten it up. You voted against that amendment and for the act.

EDWARDS: I did. I think there are some things in the Patriot Act that are actually very good. You know, for example, we've got some -- there were some serious information-sharing problems before September 11th with respect to intelligence, between law enforcement and intelligence agencies. That was changed in the Patriot Act. That's a good thing. Some of the provisions of the Patriot Act updated our ability to use technology. I think that's a very good thing.

And specifically on Russ Feingold's amendment, at least from my perspective, it didn't approach this deficiency in the problem in the law the right way. I think it went further than we needed to go. And I think there has to be the correct balance between making sure that we're prosecuting the war on terrorism and protecting people's civil liberties.

-- Senator John Edwards, D-NC, September 28, 2003. Appearance on 'FOX News Sunday'

~~~~~~~~


We must work with the world to win the war on terrorism and to finish the job in Iraq.

-- Senator John Edwards, D-NC, Announcement of Candidacy for President, September 16, 2003. Robbins, NC. Link


Q: What will be America's greatest foreign policy challenge in the next 20 years?

A: Our highest priority is to protect the American people -- and therefore the greatest challenges will be to win the war on terrorism and halt the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

-- Senator John Edwards, D-NC, May 25, 2003. Question and Answer with the Los Angeles Times

~~~~~~~~


I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein.
...
When it comes to fighting the war on terror around the globe, we have to keep the big picture in mind, and stay true to our principles.

-- John Edwards, December 18, 2002. Homeland Security Address, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. Link

~~~~~~~~

On a related note, in the speech above, Edwards proposes a new domestic spying agency, which he would later put forward as this bill:


S.410
Title: A bill to establish the Homeland Intelligence Agency, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Edwards, John (NC) (introduced 2/13/2003)      Cosponsors (None)

~~~~~~~~


In a speech in October 2002 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in Washington, D.C., Senator Edwards articulated the details of his strategy. The Senator called for action to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, win the war on terrorism, and promote democracy and freedom internationally, particularly in the Middle East.

-- Source: johnedwards2004.com

~~~~~~~~


But the first responsibility of any government is the safety and security of its citizens. I believe that, today, that responsibility imposes three challenges above all others: first, to eliminate the threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; second, to win the war on terrorism; and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world, especially the Middle East.
...
The first thing we need to do with regard to the war on terror is to recognize that, like the fight against weapons of mass destruction, it will never be won through unilateral American action.
...
In addition to global leadership against Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, and in the war on terror, the United States should lead a global coalition to promote democracy.

-- Senator John Edwards, D-NC, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., October 7, 2002. America's Role in the World

~~~~~~~~

In fact, in this February 2002 interview, Edwards injected the frame "war on terrorism" before anyone else did or asked there (as the reader can verify by searching for "war on terror" while visiting the link), and proceeded to declare Saddam Hussein "the most serious and imminent threat" to start his extended Kabuki in promoting the invasion of Iraq:


EDWARDS: Well, the death of Mr. Pearl is a terrible tragedy and something that actually is a good indication of what we have just been talking about, the need to go forward with this war on terrorism, the brutality of the way he died is a terrible thing.
...

But I do think that the more serious question going forward is, what are we going to do? I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.

And I think they -- as a result, we have to, as we go forward and as we develop policies about how we're going to deal with each of these countries and what action, if any, we're going to take with respect to them, I think each of them have to be dealt with on their own merits.

And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.

-- John Edwards, CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER, February 24, 2002 - 12:00 ET. Link:

~~~~~~~~

Here is only a partial sampling of that kabuki:


Edwards' obsessive war-hawking record

1. Starts with: "in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat." (2/24/02),

  1. Co-sponsored Lieberman war resolution along with all the lies it contains,
  2. Voted against the Byrd Amendment which would have limited IWR authorization to one year renewal-needed terms,
  3. voted for the IWR,
  4. Sidelined the UN weapons inspector report saying there were no WMD and continuing his war support,
  5. Said: "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."in October 2004. He was apparently speaking for himself here and in fact seems to have been a prime advocate for this tack for the Kerry/Edwards campaign in the fall of 2004 according to this Boston Globe article.

~~~~~~~~

In November of 2005, apparently after making a strategic decision,


Support for the Iraq war caused Edwards trouble in the 2004 Democratic primary. So in the spring of 2005, the former North Carolina senator asked aides to begin rethinking his policy on the war. The result: a Washington Post op-ed saying "I was wrong" and calling for a drawdown in troops and increased engagement with Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East
The Iraq Primary

Edwards issued a 'Mea Culpa'

However, the said apology itself contains various contradictions with what he said and did during 2002-2004. We will explore them in a future diary, but here is a preview: Edwards says he was misled on pre-war intelligence in the said apology. However, on this he contradicts himself as argued at that link.

The basic fact to remember in this context is that Saddam Hussein was never an imminent threat to the US because even if he had any WMD/nuclear weapons, he never had the means to deliver them to the US since he did not have missile that could reach even a tenth (or so) of the distance between Iraq and the US and neither did he have known connections to terrorist networks such as Al Queda. Furthermore, Saddam did not have a known motive or established inclination; in fact, one would gather precisely to the contrary from Sen. Bob Graham's oped where he said: "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."

Further, while Edwards did offer condolences to the fallen American troops as he should have, he didn't extend the same courtesy to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians as a result of the needless war.

For these reasons, I see his "apology" as a calculated political gimmick/repositioning for the 2008 presidential race.

~~~~~~~~

Conclusion:

While the readers must reach their own opinions and dispositions, and towards that end, I implore them to spend a few hours to visit all of the links given here and thinking through them, I find that the evidence is clear, compelling and even overwhelming that Edwards sold the GOP/Neoconservative snake oil on not only the Iraq war but also the associated GWOT and WMD frames.

Getting behind such a candidate, in my opinion, will doom the progressive movement, which I care deeply about.

Should he be the nominee, I believe that his grossly shifting, slick, inconsistent and highly contradictory record on the war will be a trivially easy target (several fold worse than the "flip-flopping" meme in 2004) for the Republicans to pounce on and to ensure a landslide defeat for the Democratic party in not only the presidential election but also the 2008 congressional races. Clearly, the Democratic party, the country and the planet can ill-afford such a defeat at this critical juncture.

Tags: 'War on Terror' frame, 2008 elections, Democratic nomination, Iraq War, John Edwards, progressive movement (all tags)

Comments

100 Comments

Please ignore the personal attacks

that may be hurled at me by the promoters of Edwards in the comments section.

As I said, please spend a few hours today to visit all of the links given here (ad bookmark them for later perusal and reference) and judge for yourself.

I won't be around to participate in the discussion as I have some urgent personal matters to attend to. I expect that Edwards promoters and apologists will give several explanations and excuses, which I have addressed in many previous discussions at Daily Kos, but will compile and comprehensively treat in a future diary.

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-29 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

You mean Edwards was more hawkish in the '04 campaign than he is now? SHOCKING.

Next thing, you'll be telling me that Edwards voted for the war in 2002! You're right, I'd better rethink my positions on him.

In other news Hubert Humphrey's ghost admits that he supported the Vietnam war in 1965 but then turned against it in 1968.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

But what are the consequences of all this? Will it be easy for GOP to tag him a flip flopper? How genuine is his new found populism? These questions are worth discussing.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Once again. The fact that most Americans have changed their mind about the war since 2003 will mean that this line should fall pretty flat. Is the RNC going to in effect call 75% of Americans flip-floppers because they no longer support the war?

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Most Americans have changed their minds, but most Americans don't want a candidate who keeps changing his mind whenever they do....

by Mystylplx 2007-04-29 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

That's true. And I don't believe Edwards does this.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Heaven help this country if we should ever have politicians who listen to what the people have to say.  Christ, we might even get represented if we aren't careful.

by dkmich 2007-04-29 01:49PM | 0 recs
Newfound populism?

You can argue the his progressivism on foreign affairs is newfound, but his populism is longstanding.

by david mizner 2007-04-29 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Congratulations on avoiding unsupported attacks on Edwards in the diary. Whilst I'm of the opinion it's wrong-headed, the profusion of quotes you've provided is much better than claims of backtracking that isn't backed up.

However, I think this change of viewpoints is one of the great attractions of Edwards to many. Almost every senator voted for the Patriot Act, almost every Democratic senator has become much more strident in their criticisms of the administration now than they were in, say, 2002. But with Edwards the pendulum has swung much further. There are two ways of viewing this.

The one you've taken is that it's a strategic consideration above all else. This is possible, but if it were made then the consequences of such a change, such as the Republican counterattacks you mention, would have been factored in, suggesting he intends to fight them.

Moreover, if we argue it's utility rather than belief which drives his policies, that suggests he was originally more hawkish because he felt obligated to be (as a senator from a red state). As a candidate that pressure isn't there and as president that pressure, though there, is much easier to shrug off (see Bush II). So I'd argue that if elected, he wouldn't return to his 2003-4 frame, especially since such a standpoint is so unpopular now.

There's another spin, however, which actually puts Edwards in a positive light, rather than a not entirely negative one. Which is that he's had a road to Damascus conversion and changed his viewpoint in light of the evidence. I don't think he's the only American to have done that and that could be a point in his favour for previously pro-war indies and moderate Republicans. Those who were always anti-war are probably safe Democratic voters. But I suspect the vast mass of voters are less concerned about what he thought four years ago, more about whether or not he's right now. Demonstrating that you can change your view as your evidence changes could be a net plus.

Obviously, I'm putting a positive spin on both options and there's no real way to decide between the two. This is just me pleading devil's advocate and asking you not to expect the candidates to all be knights in shining armour. They're human, they're allowed to make mistakes, but if they're part of the reality-based community they can at least correct them down the line.

by Englishlefty 2007-04-29 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

This is off-topic, but considering your username, I'm wondering if you have an idea about the Labour party in England. Do you think the UK will go the way of Canada in the next election and elect a conservative prime minister?

by adamterando 2007-04-29 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Yeah. At some point I'll probably diary this (I've got a collection of half-finished diaries, however, so don't expect it too soon) but my current perspective is that the Tories are likely to win the next election.

In a few days time there are local elections. Elections to the Scottish Parliament are likely to favour the Nationalists at the expense of Labour and it's quite possible that Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems will make gains in the Welsh assembly, whilst in southern England Labour may lose control of many councils.

Following this election, Blair will announce his resignation. Unless the left-wing candidates, McDonnell and Meacher can get the votes of 44 Labour MPs (which is unlikely - they have some support amongst the party faithful, but very little amongst the MPs), there's unlikely to be a leadership contest, as the ultra-Blairites would get a whipping. The successor will therefore be Gordon Brown.

Unfortunately, Brown is tied very closely to Blair, having been his Chancellor since 1997 and unofficial leader-in-waiting since 1994. And Blair's not popular. If Brown wants to win, he has to move away from Blair and try to make the debate with Cameron about policy rather than personality. It seems unlikely that he will do either, so Cameron will likely get a narrow majority, following which he will either move hard-right to maintain the support of his party or try to maintain his position and be deposed within two years.

by Englishlefty 2007-04-29 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Well I guess that's not the worst of outcomes. It sounds like th Tories will have an untenable position no matter what they do.

by adamterando 2007-04-30 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Please ignore the personal attacks

Yeah, but there's a lot of damage they can do in five years.

by Englishlefty 2007-04-30 07:24AM | 0 recs
Interesting comment and a worthy

contribution to the discussion. I wish more comments were as constructive as yours!

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:27AM | 0 recs
Never have I seen a better example

of the dilemma facing progressive critics of Edwards. New Liberal implictly approves of the position Edwards took when he rejected Bush's GWOT, just as he must approve of Edwards's strong stance against the Iraq War over the last two years. Faced with the prospect of the most progressive campaign among the top-tier, progressive critics have two choices. They can deny that he is, in fact, running a more progressive campaign than that of their favored candidate or they can deny that Edwards's progressive campaign is insincere. For a while, they tried option a, but now that Obama has gotten in bed with K Street and Wall Street, used GOP frames to undermine Dems on Iraq and moral values, given a speech on national security that has drawn praise from a neocon advisor to McCain, and in general given hundred indications that he plans to run something less that a progressive populist campaign,they can't argue that Edwards isn't to the left of Obama. So they're left with option B: to try to portray Edwards as insincere. Here NL flatters himself by thiking he's telling us something new, that Edwards used to a hawk. Snooze: is this even worthy of a diary? Aren't diaries supposed to tell us something new? The problem with this approach is at least two-fold: it implictly yet strongly validates Edwards's progressive positions. More important, it bumps up against the reality of Edwards, who is palbably at peace having rejected the mainstream hawkishness.

There's a trace of longing and envy running through diairies like this. If you squint, here's what it says between the lines. "I wish my candidate had taken that position." But he hasn't, so there's nothing to do but claim that Edwards is insincere. Good luck.

by david mizner 2007-04-29 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Never have I seen a better example

you don't get it.

i don't care what edwards says because i don't believe anything he says.

can't you understand that?

its simple really.

you like to do a check list and say "i feel this way and this is the candidate that is the closest"... but what you don't realize is that if a person doesn't  believe a word edwards says then nothing he says matters.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 08:51PM | 0 recs
No, I get that

perfectly. You don't trust Edwards. But your view isn't shared by a vast majority of Dems. To take one example, Dems in New Hampshire gave him a 80-8 favorable-unfavorable rating. 80-8! So I'm telling you that your instinct is not a political strategy; you can't will it onto other people, almost of whom know that he used to be more hawkish.

by david mizner 2007-04-29 09:39PM | 0 recs
obama better worry about Hillary

the hawkiest Democrat with the helps of the MSM is blurring the distinction between her past and present positions with obama.

If I were you I'd worry about Obama and how Hillary may take him out.

by TarHeel 2007-04-29 08:33AM | 0 recs
perhaps I missed something...

does this diary say anything at all about Obama?

by the green and bold 2007-04-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: perhaps I missed something...

There is background, and the diarist is very dedicated.

by dkmich 2007-04-29 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: perhaps I missed something...

It didn't need to.  Read his previous comments and diaries, they are 100% anti-Edwards or pro-Obama.

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

Should he be the nominee, I believe that his grossly shifting, slick, inconsistent and highly contradictory record on the war will be a trivially easy target (several fold worse than the "flip-flopping" meme in 2004) for the Republicans to pounce on and to ensure a landslide defeat for the Democratic party in not only the presidential election but also the 2008 congressional races. Clearly, the Democratic party, the country and the planet can ill-afford such a defeat at this critical juncture.

I couldn't have said it better myself except

Not only can we not afford such a defeat, If he were to win the presidency we could not afford a man who's judgement and emphatic purpose, and convictions can so widely sway amidst obvious personal political implications. What will trigger the next sea change in his mind?
The Iraq war was not just a vote for Edwards it was a personal mission. To his apology I say 'better never than late'.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

Clearly you subscribe to the George W. Bush school of political philosophy.

People get one chance to get things right. And if they miss that chance then BAMM banished forever.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war
Clearly that is a very stupid comment.
We are talking about who to make the most powerful person in the world. My standards are high.
Banished forever or President of the United States. Hmmm, let's see, is that the only choice you see? If so you clearly subscribe to the politics of morons.
by fisheye 2007-04-29 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

Perhaps your comment wasn't the best since that's the impression that's left in peoples minds.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

That's not the impression I got. I think you're the only one who interpreted it that way.

by Mystylplx 2007-04-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

OH lord. Ok, fine. How 'bout this. Edwards supporters saw the comment the way I saw it and Obama supporters saw it the way you saw it. Is that better?

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:08AM | 0 recs
Sigh...

Why do we have to turn every discussion into partisan mudslinging here?? For Christ's sake, this is a legitimate questioning of Edwards's shifting positions and I am suspecting that you would have found the information in this diary interesting if Obama was the target rather than Edwards.

Shall we just ignore the fact that Edwards has made a Romney-like turn in the last 4 years, especially when it's obvious that he had to do it to be competitive against Hillary and Obama? No, we should debate it - what it means and what the consequences are.

Here is my take: Edwards is less progressive than his current rhetoric but still more so than Hillary and perhaps even more so than Obama. Obama's advantage over Edwards is that his progressive credentials can't really be doubted and so he can focus on appealing to moderates instead of playing to the base. Obama is campaining like it's a general election, but of course this could prove to be a mistake.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh...

"Edwards is less progressive than his current rhetoric but still more so than Hillary and perhaps even more so than Obama. Obama's advantage over Edwards is that his progressive credentials can't really be doubted and so he can focus on appealing to moderates instead of playing to the base. Obama is campaining like it's a general election, but of course this could prove to be a mistake."

I don't think Edwards is less progressive than his rhetoric because he actually has plans to back up his rhetoric with which he can be held accountable to. If he is less progressive than his rhetoric than he's awfully dumb about it since if he gets into office and doesn't try to enact these, then he will lampooned as a turncoat and a hypocrite.

And I don't understand how Obama's progressve "credentials" (a term I hate when describing Democrats since they're all pretty good) can't be questioned. Why? Just because he was against the war? How about being the key-note speaker for the Hamilton group. Does that show off his progressive ideology? How about not being able to say that we'll have to roll back Bush's tax cuts to pay for stuff (and therefore not being afraid to use redistributive policies in order to enact social change). Is that progressive?

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh...

"If he is less progressive than his rhetoric than he's awfully dumb about it since if he gets into office and doesn't try to enact these, then he will lampooned as a turncoat and a hypocrite."

I am not so sure. Politicians have broken promises before.

You are right about Obama's credentials in general, I was referring to the Iraq war. On the other hand Obama is running a campaign that appeals to moderates alongside progressives so the question might not be so acute for him.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh...

Actually Obama has cast every pro-war vote Hillary Clinton has. Saying Obama was against the war from the beginning is just a myth.

by RDemocrat 2007-04-29 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh...

he was against the war .. go check out the youtube jackie..

when edwards was running around trying to be a tough guy cause nobody took him seriously obama was against the war

as far as your assertion that obama has cast pro-war votes this is BALONEY.

funding a war and troops already there is not the same as giving someone the authority to send them there in the first place and if you can't see this then i don't know what to say.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Sigh...

It gets turned into partisan mud slinging because that it what it is.  Pretending otherwise is silly.

by dkmich 2007-04-29 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

So RFK was a former commie hunter and Hubert Humphrey was a former supporter of Vietnam.

Were they unfit for the presidency?

Barack Obama himself even said he didn't know how he would have voted if he had been in the senate in 2002 and had seen what the other senators had seen.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

Wrong. He has said he would NOT have voted for the war.

by Mystylplx 2007-04-29 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

No he didn't say that in 2004.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

He said it in 2002.

by Mystylplx 2007-04-29 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

Heh. Quick, somebody write an "OMG differing statements over several years under wildly different circumstances mean DOOM FOR ALL PROGRESSIVISM" diary on that. In order to be truly victorious (and avert DOOOOOOM), progressives must form circular firing squads around all our candidates!

Or, alternatively, we could grow up and stick to arguments and criticisms that are actually relevant. Whichever people prefer.

by McSnatherson 2007-04-29 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

So does that make him a flip-flopper?

by RDemocrat 2007-04-29 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

I'm sorry, I take great exception and offence to the G.W.B accusasation just, because I don't support Edwards.

I wonder if RFK and Hubert Humphrey would have learned anything from the lessons of their eras by now. I think they learned from WWI and II.

We fought the Vietnam war already and the cold war. Why repeat them?

I have no idea whether I would have made either of them my first choice for president. I wasn't alive then.

A lot of Senators voted to give the President the authority to use force. I guess we have to judge them individually along with their commentary on the war on terror, the Iraq war and other issues.

Edwards seems to be trying to draw some lines in our domestic soil with 'two Americas'. I just don't agree with his approach and zealotry in 'picking sides' when the lines in reality are dotted and blurry. His cocky, trial lawyer, advocate, winner, persona and proffession overwhelms his political acumen and balance, imo. He makes a great advocate. He's just not my first choice for POTUS.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

"I wonder if RFK and Hubert Humphrey would have learned anything from the lessons of their eras by now. I think they learned from WWI and II.

We fought the Vietnam war already and the cold war. Why repeat them?"

I don't understand what you mean here.

The two Americas theme (which is actually much more fleshed out this time and is not so heavily relied upon as a rhetorical device) merely speaks to the unspeakable in American society. Namely, that there are class cleavages based on economic inequality and our corporatist oligarchist elite. Do you dispute that such a thing exists in this country?

Also, you take offense at the GWB characterization (which was not meant to imply that you support him or his policies, but mainly that in your original comment you seem to give more credence to people that do not have evolving positions through time (at least in terms of whether or not to support military action) than those that do) but I take offense at your ad hominem characterizations of John Edwards and his motives for the change. How are you able to divine what goes motives compelled him to change his stance. Could it possibly be because he's political philosophy and ideology have matured since 2003-2004?

You say that you have to judge the other senators who voted to give war authorization on their actions since then in terms of Iraq, terrorism, and other issues. But you seem to be unwilling to give such an honest assessment to Edwards actions and instead are ready to only ascribe the worst motives to him. And this also seems to be at least partly, just based on some personal animosity that you have for him.

Have you watched any of his speeches on his website? Maybe you should watch some of them (especially since you're still talking about Two Americas, which he doesn't mention so much anymore) and see if all those preconceived notions you have about him still apply.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

It's funny, really, that you accuse me of ad hominem attacks and 'devining motives', then immediately accuse me of not being honest and basing my judgement on personal animosity, and that my notions are preconcieved.

I do watch, I pay attention, I read volumes everyday on these candidates. I don't think I ascribed any motives to Edwards. I described in a few words my opinion of his political approach that stems, naturally, perhaps partly from his personality and inherent skills. I don't agree its the best approach to make real change or to lead our country in the direction he truely, honestly, and sincerely with all his integrity, dignity, and pureness of heart want's to take it. I don't like the way he's frames issues, domestic or foreign. I think he's antagonistic. Like your comments are.

I never questioned his sincerity or motives or honesty or the veracity of his propositions about our economic state of affairs. Get over it.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 12:03PM | 0 recs
amanterando

This will not do!  How could you possibly use Obama's words against him when the context demonstrates he was lowballing his position to support YOUR GUY:  Re Kerry/Edwards '04.  Again, this will not do; it's disingenuous.

by pamelabrown 2007-04-29 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: amanterando

Because I think it's disingenuous to say that Edwards "turn to the left" is a cut and dry case of political expediency.

I actually agree why Obama said that. I'm not trying to tear him down. I don't think it's a reason why he shouldn't be president. Nor do I think Edwards's words in '03-'04 are reasons why he shouldn't be president. Now if he still stood by everything he said then. Well that would be another story. But he doesn't, so it's not.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
No, he said that we should not judge

the Senators for their votes since it would be hard for an outsider to know how one would vote when having the information the Senators had back then.

With the information Obama had he was opposing the war. And he has been proven right.

Don't help Hillary with muddling the difference between her and Obama's history.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar . . . and the war

clearly you subscribe to the bush philosophy which is NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 05:32PM | 0 recs
problems with your analysis

Millions of Americans also supported Bush's war policies around 2002, but have since come to realize that Bush's approach is wrong-headed.

John Murtha himself voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

Anybody can be labelled a "flip-flopper"--even Barack Obama, who was against the war before he voted multiple times to continue funding it.

Look at the head to head polling of major Democratic contenders against the GOP. There is no evidence that Edwards as the nominee would be a problem for Democrats. On the contrary, he polls better than Obama.

Many state legislators and other Democratic leaders have endorsed Edwards, from Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota to numerous legislators in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Georgia, Michigan and South Carolina. These people want Edwards at the top of the ticket. Obviously they are well aware of his history on the Iraq issue.

If it's a deal-breaker for you, fine, but don't project your views onto millions of Americans without evidence to back it up.

by desmoinesdem 2007-04-29 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: problems with your analysis

I'm not sure if I projected my views on anyone. I stated what I think "we can afford".
And, neither millions of Americans or John Murtha are on my list of which specific person should be the next leader of the free world.

The first paragraph of my post is a quote from the diary. My comment should have better stated that fear of losing the general election is not the fundamental reason I agree with the sentiments of the diarist. Precisely, because Edwards polls better vs. Republican opponents than any other Dem candidate.
Although he makes a very good point about the impending Republican backlash to Edwards mind morph. I'm sure any of the Dem candidates will win the general, and will be happy to vote for any one of them.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 11:03AM | 0 recs
Reason to ignore

everything this commenter says:

"I'm sure any of the Dem candidates will win the general, and will be happy to vote for any one of them."

This is silly in and of itself and coming as it does after the expression of concern about Edwards in a general election, it's bizarre.

by david mizner 2007-04-29 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Reason to ignore

Excuse me, I was refering to the top three candidates, that are dominating the discussion.

What is bizarre about clarifing and making a correction to my point that Edwards' electibility in the general is not a big concern of mine?

Your trite hatchet comments are boring.

Why so sour?

by fisheye 2007-04-29 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Reason to ignore

by fisheye 2007-04-29 08:43PM | 0 recs
No flip flopping to be against the war

but recognizing that we have to complete the mission after the wrong decision to start a war has been made.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:42AM | 0 recs
Funding the war is different

Than co-sponsiring it.  I believe that getting out of this morass (an understatement) responsibly IS a subject for debate.

by pamelabrown 2007-04-29 11:44AM | 0 recs
Being against the war

while anticipating the heartrending aftermath does not negate his voting to fund it, nor is it a flip-flop.  He has been working prodigigiously to responsibly extricate us from a situation Edwards not only voted for but hawked.  It's easy to stand outside the system making proclamations.

by pamelabrown 2007-04-29 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Being against the war

Do you realize the ignorance of this statement?  If you discount the Edwards positon on the war now that he's not in "the system" anymore, you must therefore discount Obama and Dean's positions because they too were not in the system in 2002.

But as usual I'm sure you will join your fellow Obama cultists to make an excuse for St. Barry, and make a point that he was somehow different.

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Being against the war

there is no way that you can equate dean and obama having been against the war when they were Governor and State Representative to edwards being a pro-war hawk when he was a senator or to edwards  being against the war more recently...  

now that edwards no longer has any political relevance he suddenly has discovered he is anti-war..

but dean and obama have always been against the war.

man this is so tiresome.. guess you just don't want to see it.. you will believe what you will believe..edwards is not accountable for anything he did or said... so he talked about the global war on terror a couple of thousand times?? so what! now he has seen the light! perhaps he listened too much to his advisors as you say in another post on this thread.. so what? this would show he exercises little leadership.. oh but now he has changed! how do you know? how do you know he is not listneing to advisors NOW who are telling him to go anti war? you have no knowledge of these things vox.. its just your feeling..but this is just not credible...

or another great one: the american people have undergone the same conversion as edwards so they actually WANT a candidate who made the same mistake..this is poppycock...  the american people  will prefer to vote for a democrat who was against the war because the war was a mistake.. this is common sense. the best thing the democrats can do is select a candidate who was anti-war to run against a republican who was pro-war... we will win that election..and not that much has changed since democrats failed to select dean by the way..had dean been the democratic candidate we might not be having this debate..because dean would have been able to draw a stark parallel with bush..

but as i said you will believe what you want to believe.. common sense does not matter ....so he did not exercise leadership? so he blew the biggest vote of his life?? so what..we can come up with a million exccuses..another great one: even if edwards had voted against it the bill would have passed so it does not matter..

is this what you expect from your president? this little?

i visited mount vernon the other day and the capitol too as my mom was in from out of town..the jeffersons, washingtons of our past were great leaders.. they did not blow like the wind..they exercised leadership... edwards does not has not and will not

honestly the more i read on mydd about edwards the less i like him..its not about obama either..i prefer dodd to edwards i prefer richardson... i prefer just about anyone except MAYBE for biden... i CERTAINLY prefer kucinich.

i have talked to friends of mine..from very liberal left wing amnesty international types  to republican leaning but disgusted with bush... and i got news for you: THEY DO NOT LIKE EDWARDS...

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Being against the war

Look, I realize you are not from this country and English is not your native language, but try to follow along...

If Edwards had no political relevence today he would not be running for president.  He would not be polling a solid third place against the two giants in the race.  He would not have raised $14 Million if he weren't relevant.

And because he IS running for president, his views on the war and on issues in general are exactly the same as Obama or Howard Dean in 2002.  Dean was not the governor of Vermont in 2003, he was "politically irrelevent" as you say.  Obama was an obscure state senator from one of the bluest cities in the nation.  I credit them for their opposition to the war.  I don't understand why you are incapable of crediting Edwards for his.

And at the same time, why can't you acknowledge that Obama, by continuing to fund the war, is staking out a pro-war policy with anti-war rhetoric?  Hillary and Barry have voted the same way on every Iraq bill since he joined the Senate.

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Being against the war

ah the personal insults..nice.

as a matter of fact i am from this country and i was born in this country.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 06:03PM | 0 recs
No name calling

As an outsider to the Edwards vs. Obama "discussions," from what I've seen here and at kos, if anyone was going to be labeled "cultists" the award would go to JE's fans. But really, why use that term at all? It's demeaning and rude and most likely intended to get your opponents hackles up. Not really necessary. Hackles seem to be already up.

by jen 2007-04-29 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: No name calling

Shorter jen: "You guys are cultists. And you also suck for using the term "cultists". It's rude!"

...Anyone else see the inconsistency here?

by McSnatherson 2007-04-29 10:57PM | 0 recs
Al Gore used to represent Tennessee in Congress...

...and he's evolved a lot since then, too.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-29 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

It is astonishing to me that no one is discussing how the evolution of Edwards position affects his ability to hold the Repubs responsible for the war. Nor are you discussing how the evolution of his position opens him up to attack from the right.  IMHO, this is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL and one of the primary reasons I lean strongly toward supporting Obama.

Elections are about creating a narrative around a candidate.  Edwards' evolution, whether based on a legitimate change of thinking or as a result of calculus, muddies his story.  It feeds right into the Repub attack meme on Edwards that he is a slick trial lawyer who is not to be trusted.

Please don't misunderstand me, I like Edwards very much and he is my second choice after Obama,but I think these are very serious concerns.

by upper left 2007-04-29 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

You might have a point there if Edwards was out on a limb here. But I think he has evolved in a way that has actually meshed with most Americans. So I think most people will identify with his change.

People are going to blame Bush, not Edwards for this war because people know that this is his baby. Most people who supported it initially have now turned against it. I'm not sure it's a good thing to castigate everyone who originally supported the war because that's an awful lot of ordinary Americans.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

so much for leadership

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

Make sure you put that caveat in there that you like Edwards or you'll be branded a Neocon.

If another candidate wins the Democratic nomination they will accept it with

"Thank you, but let me be clear, John Edwards is a really nice guy, too."

scuse me, couldn't help the snark.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

That's the attack. Here's the riposte:

"I voted for the Iraq War. I realise now that I was wrong and have therefore changed my positions. It took me some time, but I got there in the end. I'd be delighted if my opponent would come to his senses and join me in changing his position."

The issue doesn't have to be why Edwards changed his position; it can be made why his opponent (should Edwards be the candidate, obviously) didn't.

by Englishlefty 2007-04-29 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

But it does make it harder to criticize a guy like Romney (if he is their nominee) for flip flopping, right?

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

Why do we have to criticize Romney for flip-flopping? Why can't we just criticize him for being wrong? He's flipping to unpopular positions.

I also think Americans will find a candidate who is willing to change his mind (and openly discuss why) infinitely preferable to the knucklehead we have in charge right now.

by clarkent 2007-04-29 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Holding the Repubs Accountable

Exactly. Changing your position should only be a bad thing if circumstances don't justify it.

Why should we care what Romney thought in 1994? It's what he'd do if elected in 2009 that matters.

by Englishlefty 2007-04-29 03:58PM | 0 recs
This is an important diary because

the question has to be asked: How genuine is Edwards new found populism?

I tend to think that it is quite genuine, and founded in something beyond mere pandering. (He is not a Democratic version of Mitt Romney). But it is worth reflecting on the fact that he has to adopt these positions to win - unlike Hillary and Obama. You can criticize Obama for not playing to the base 24-7. But I would not be so sure that Edwards would have done anything different if he was in Obama's position. Both are to a certain extent acting strategic, both are being tactical.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:21AM | 0 recs
It is also important since

the Republicans love to point out contradictions in candidates stated positions.

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: This is an important diary because

Did we know in 2005 that Obama was going to be in the race?

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:47AM | 0 recs
Re: This is an important diary because

I'm not sure Edwards would ever ride the rhetorical fence on any issue. Obama is more a pontificator and less an advocate. Edwards takes sides pretty vocally and aggressively. Obama targets individual responsibility in his rhetoric more than societal and economic devides. While I see them in very similar ideological lights I can't see them ever really applying the same political tactics. Those core personas and strategies, really, seems to be what sets them apart from each other most.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Better Late Than Never

i was gonna rec your comment until i read the last line. Why is that useful. Are you suggesting Edwards was at some time "with the Repugs" along with Hillary and Obama, but they still are?

I am truly taken by the amount of Bush sympathiser trash accusations flung around here.

What the Democrats voted for or didn't, or what their opinions are now on our military posture has nothing to do with Neoconservative or Republican sympathising.

by fisheye 2007-04-29 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar 2.x SOLD the 'War onTerror' fra

This is also a pretty disingenuous piece of evidence

"In November of 2005, apparently after making a strategic decision,

   Support for the Iraq war caused Edwards trouble in the 2004 Democratic primary. So in the spring of 2005, the former North Carolina senator asked aides to begin rethinking his policy on the war. The result: a Washington Post op-ed saying "I was wrong" and calling for a drawdown in troops and increased engagement with Iraq's neighbors in the Middle East"

You say that he apparently made a strategic decision. What do you base this claim on? Oh, the newsweek article in which a random reporter puts in the cause-and-effect sentence without one iota of evidence to back up this claim.

"Support for the Iraq war caused Edwards trouble in the 2004 Democratic primary. So in the spring of 2005, "

Uh huh. I see, glad the reporter was inside the Edwards strategy sessions and also inside his head so he could get the inside scoop on why Edwards decided to write his op-ed opposing the war.

You lose credibility when you include things like this in your diary.

by adamterando 2007-04-29 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Quotations on Global War on Terror

NL quotes nothing after October 2004.
Most of NeuvoLib's quotes are from 2002 and 2003.

Just FYI.

News Flash for NL: Circumstances Change.

by philgoblue 2007-04-29 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Quotations on Global War on Terror

definetly... polls have changed..

i just don't get how a person can one day be spouting off about the global war on terror left and right and then the next they don't believe in the global war on terror

and worse: their supporters expect us to go "yay!" and come down hard on those that aren't spineless enough to change positions like the wind

truly incredible.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: At least Edwards changed

This statement by Senator Durbin the other day gets to the root of my problem with Edwards (who was on the same committee as Durbin):

"I was a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and I would read the headlines in the paper in the morning and I'd watch the television newscast and I'd shake my head. ...[T]he information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it."

"You see, in the Intelligence Committee, we're 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's being given to this Congress.'" (Sen. Dick Durbin, Floor Speech, 04/25/07)

I honestly believe Edwards co-sponsored and voted for the IWR either to advance his political future, or because he is sorely lacking in judgement regarding foreign policy. Neither scenario, in my mind, qualifies him to be the leader of this country at a point in time when foreign policy will be such a huge part of the next presidents job.

by jen 2007-04-29 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: At least Edwards changed

either to advance his political future, or because he is sorely lacking in judgement regarding foreign policy

That's my view of a likely reason Obama may not be supporting defunding.

by jallen 2007-04-29 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Quotations on Global War on Terror

Did you even read my post?

by philgoblue 2007-04-29 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Quotations on Global War on Terror

of course i did! what do you take me for? my reply or what have you is a reference to your "circumstances change"

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 08:35PM | 0 recs
'War onTerror' frame and the war

Classic example of another hit and run diary by NuevoLiberal.  My feeling, if you have "urgent personal matters" going on and won't be around to discuss, you should just wait to post your diary until you will be around.  Just a thought.

I think it's so cute that you say "ignore the personal attacks".  Please mommy, don't let the mean boys hit me anymore.

I do notice that your most recent quote is from October 2004.  90% were from 2002 and 2003.  Is this the best you can do at Obama HQ?  

At least Edwards has shifted in the correct direction on Iraq.  Obama waited 11 months before making a speech on Iraq in the Senate, he waited until he was running for president to offer a bill on withdrawal, and he has voted to fund the war at every opporunity.  That means Obama is shifting in the wrong (or should I say "Right") direction on the war.

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

"Is this the best you can do at Obama HQ?"  

Obama has nothing to do with NuevoLiberal's post, just as Edwards (thankfully) has nothing to do with your comment. Can you write a single post without attacking Obama? Is that possible? He's on your side you know (supposing you are a Democrat).

by Populism2008 2007-04-29 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

He's not on my side, and I'm not on his.

I'll vote for him if he's the nominee, but I won't donate money or give my time.  There are more important candidates for me to do that for, like the county coroner.

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

Ok, who else besides Obama? Richardson the hawkish DLCer? I hope not. I know you dislike Obama's supporters, but don't let that blind you to the fact that Obama together with Edwards is the most progressive among our candidates.

by Populism2008 2007-04-30 01:14AM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

those ARE edwards quotes you know! they are not made up!

when someone posts actual edwards quotes and you say that is a hit and run..well its not serious... it makes one wonder.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

I said "hit and run" because that's just what he did, posted a diary filled with four and five year old quotes (the "hit") then announce that you won't be staying around to read the comments (the "run").

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

come on! he said he'd be back! since when can people only post if they are going to remain by their computer all day to read comments and respond to them??

last i checked posting on mydd is something we do in our extra time not our profession!

lighten up!

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

He doesn't say he'll be back, here is what he says:

I won't be around to participate in the discussion as I have some urgent personal matters to attend to. I expect that Edwards promoters and apologists will give several explanations and excuses, which I have addressed in many previous discussions at Daily Kos, but will compile and comprehensively treat in a future diary.

He specifically says he won't be around to participate.  If you're going to dish a hit piece, at least stay around to recognize how wrong you are for it. :)

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

so its a hit piece?? and a hit and run??

pardon me again for pointing out what i think is obvious: THESE ARE EDWARDS QUOTES!

since when is it a hit piece to post edwards quotes

or is edwards like bush: not accountable for his past words or actions?

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

Don't be foolish.  It's a hit piece because it misrepresents Edwards evolution on the war.  The author is trying to tie Edwards to positions he held four and five years ago without aknowledging that things change in life.

I acknowledge these are Edwards quotes.  Edwards acknowledges these are his quotes.  He takes responsibility for his actions.  What we all need to acknowledge is these quotes are old and he has plenty of new quotes as well as an explaination of how he got "there."

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

oh yah?? how ?? i have not seen it? why not post a diary on that "evolution"

i am sick and tired of people making mistakes and then apologizing as if thats enough..

what does that mean to say "i made a mistake"?

what does this  entail?

does he go apologize personally to each innocent iraqui civilian that got killed for nothing???? there are tens of thousands of people who did nothing to us and they are now dead... people lost their entire families.. but he's sorry??? he's accountable??? where??

man if i kill somebody who did nothing to me and then say " i am sorry i made a mistake" i have to go to jail but in the case of edwards we want to make him president because he is sorry?

i just don't get it man...i remember that day seeing senator robert byrd go up on the floor and give his impassioned speech against the war resolution..and turning to my friend and saying "THERE's A SPEECH! THERE's THE WAY TO GO!".... byrd was correct.. there were plenty of people who knew this resolution would be used for what it was used for...you think its the same to have been byrd and been right and been edwards and been wrong?? an apology makes it ok eh?

i think we got plenty of people with better judgement than edwards..why him??? heck i'd be a better candidate! i've been against the war from day one... i was protesting the war before it even started jackie.. there are plenty of people like that..why pick someone who has been on the wrong side on the most important issue he faced???

why does him saying " i made a mistake" somehow exculpate him and make him better than say hillary...???? just admitting a mistake makes you a better candidate? a better leader? cause you "trust" this is the real him??? the other was the politically handled him??? and thats ok with you that he let himself be handled during this critical time???

and NO: I WILL NOT ACCEPT IT THAT HE APOLOGIZED AND CHANGED HIS MIND.

and i am not alone!

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

So do you credit Obama for those deaths too since he's voted to pay for the bullets and bombs that kill them?

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

thats it ?? thats all you got to say?? i'm saddened by your lack of response.

absolutely not PERIOD.

it is not the same to in effect authorize the war as it is to vote to fund an ongoing war where american soldiers are already engaged in a war. see my post below.

and furthermore obama has helped pass a bill that you know very well would end the war.

you are silly.. its all politics to you i can see.. you don't really care about anything other than defending edwards no matter what

frankly, i don't even care that much about obama...i am open minded.. you are not.

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

I am not open to criticism of Edwards and reverence for Obama, which is what many of his cultists display.

You for example, attack Edwards for his vote to authorize the war, but never mind Obama has voted to REauthorize it and continue to send money to fight it.

by Vox Populi 2007-04-29 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

"attack"

did i attack it??

i don't like it dude. i'm not happy about it. i think its my right to not be happy about it and write about that fact... sorry if you don't approve.

is that an "attack"?

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: 'War onTerror' frame and the war

Speaking as someone with a working grasp of the English language: Yes. Yes, it is.

And as an aside, simultaneously claiming that you're open-minded and that you will never ever trust anything John Edwards ever says ever no matter what kinda makes you look just a little bit hypocritical.

by McSnatherson 2007-04-29 10:53PM | 0 recs
Can't you see the difference between

funding the war and hawking for it? Edwards and company brought us the war, Obama and others had to take responsibility for it.

I wonder who is the "cultist" here.

by Populism2008 2007-04-30 01:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar 2.x SOLD the 'War onTerror' fra

great post. thanks for your research.

i bet edwards used the global war on terror phrase 10,000 times plus

the guy blows like the wind

by serge in dc 2007-04-29 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Avatar 2.x SOLD the 'War onTerror' fra

NL, I'd like to request a cross post to NB if you are willing. You still have access.

by azizhp 2007-04-29 06:53PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads