Question to Edwards supporters

[knight_of_the_star]

How does Edwards explain being proud of his vote on IWR yet he voted AGAINST the $87 billion that Bush requested for the war?

[arewethereyet]

1. simple and he's already explained this but just for you...

flawed execution onthe original mandate and vagueary on the supplimental bill means no support.

Fool me once, shame on me...

[jpgpenn]

2. can you state that more clearly please?

[arewethereyet]

5. probably but I'll let the senator do it for me

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/page.asp?id=283

this is only about half, don't want to run afoul of the rules, and its not possible to snip enough to get the full point. best to check it out yourself.

"I will vote against the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq. The troops in Iraq deserve our absolute support, but this president does not deserve our blind trust."
"I believe we have a responsibility to support our troops in Iraq. I believe we have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq."
"But our troops will not be safe and this mission will not succeed until this president does three things: first, put forward a credible plan for the rebuilding and self-governing of Iraq; second, engage our allies in a meaningful way; third, take steps to assure the American people that the rebuilding of Iraq will not be exploited as a means to give insider sweetheart deals to Bush's friends."

[uconnyc]

3. He supports the war

He supports the IWR but feels that * has no clear strategy for the future. He voted against the $87B so that * would have to present a detailed plan for the future of Iraq and our troops there.

JRE has said even if he was the deciding vote he would have voted against the $87B as it would have forced * to comeback to the senate with a detailed plan.

[uconnyc]

4. One thing I admire about JRE

Is that he doesn't try to wiggle his way out on issues. He is very direct about why he voted for IWR, Patriot Act, Leave no Child, etc. and why he didn't vote for the $87B or what the mistakes with the Patriot Act and Leave no Child are.

[BigMcLargehuge]

6. locked

this thread violates the following rule:

8. If you make a factual assertion about a candidate that is not generally accepted to be true, you must provide a link to a reputable source to back up your claim. Allegedly "innocent" questions which are actually an underhanded effort to spread rumors are not allowed. If you really need to know the answer to your question, try Google.