Top Ten lies about Edwards

[anti-bush]

Lie #1. Edwards co-wrote the Patriot Act.

Truth : Edwards was on the committee that wrote the Patriot Act, but the only portion of it that he was responsible for was the sunset provision which called for the Patriot Act to end, which is why Bush is now having to ask for the Patriot Act to be renewed. Read his floor statement at http://www.cdt.org/security/011011senate.txt to find out the portions of the bill that are good for America that he supports, and his advocacy for the sunset provision.

Lie #2. Senator Edwards Voted to Support President Bush 71.5% of the time - 76% of the time in 2002

Truth : Senator Edwards voted against the President 58.7% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly's (independent) analysis. He voted against Bush more than any other Senator. Ames Article
Here are some of the votes which are part of that 58.7:
S.743, Naming a Post Office, S.620, Requiring sprinkler systems in fraternities, S.941, Establishing a National Heritage Area .

Lie #3. Senator Edwards has no foreign policy experience.

Truth : Senator Edwards served on the senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was one of the first Senators to visit Afghanistan after the Taliban was forcibly removed from power, and met with US troops and coalition forces. Edwards has also traveled to Pakistan and Central Asia to discuss the war on terrorism. He has visited our vital ally, Israel, and other Middle East states to discuss the peace process, and has met with America’s key allies at NATO Headquarters and in London. He has an extensive plan for foreign policy. http://www.johnedwards2004.com/media/foreign-policy.pdf

Lie #4. Senator Edwards voted for the Bush Tax cuts.

Truth : Senator Edwards voted AGAINST the Bush Tax Cuts in bill HR 1836 and against the Tax Cuts in bill HR 2. He voted for the extension of Unemployment Benefits bill which also contained temporary business tax breaks in HR 3090. These TEMPORARY business tax breaks were for development in around the World Trade Center.

Lie #5. John Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, but has changed his position and is now against it.

Truth : Senator Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, and believes that we should improve the bill and properly fund it. Bush's budget for FY2004 is $9 Billion short for NCLB, and was $7.3 Billion short in FY2003. Edwards is against unfunded mandates. He believes there are core values in NCLB tho improve our education system, but that the bill can be improved. His stance is outlined on his website.

Lie #6. Senator Edwards voted for the IWR, but now is against the Iraq War.

Truth : Senator Edwards did vote for the IWR and has steadfastly stood by his vote. He was not changed like other Senators. He voted against the $87 Billion blank check because of the way the Bush has mishandled the war. Senator Edwards has a detailed plan to insure a stable democracy in postwar Iraq.

Lie #7. Senator Edwards has weak policies, and what he has were stolen from another candidate.

Truth : Senator Edwards' detailed policy booklet Real Solutions for America and his followup Real Change for American Families are extremely detailed policies and plans for America. Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta in Time Magazine says "If you look at who's got the best stuff out there, it's {John} Edwards." His "Real Solutions" booklet was published and distributed in early 2003, before any of the other candidates began forming their policies and ideas.

Lie #8. Senator Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer.

Truth : John Edwards was a trial lawyer who fought for people without a voice against large corporations and insurance companies. In his Senate run, the Faircloth campaign failed to identify any Edwards case that could be labeled as frivolous or an abuse of the legal system. Chicago Tribune Article. In fact, Edwards has a plan to end frivolous lawsuits, and to remove lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits with a "three strikes you're out" policy. This policy will be enforced by a panel of doctors to reduce Medical Malpractice premiums.

Lie #9. Edwards is too young to be president.

Truth : John Edwards is 50 years old, despite his youthful appearance. John Kennedy was 43 when elected, Roosevet 42 when he became president, and Clinton was 46. Edwards will turn 51 in June.

Lie #10. Senator Edwards has good hair.

Truth : Okay, it's not a lie. He has nice looking hair. But having good hair is no reason to keep somebody from becoming president.

[Skip Intro]

1. #6 - Edwards STILL supports the invasion of Iraq?

Is this correct?

[anti-bush]

2. Like it or not

He voted for it, and stands by his vote, agree or (more likely) disagree.

[Democrats unite]

5. And how many people died because of that vote?

[anti-bush]

6. You can discuss the IWR vote on other threads

It's been discussed to death. I'm just stating the true facts.

[Democrats unite]

16. Staying on topic here

It's covered under #6


BTW The families of those 500 + serviceman would want me to discuss it wherever I felt.

As you said "I'm just stating the true facts." That vote will haunt Edwards and dog him in the primary it was wrong, it was wrong, it was wrong! Also, it was shameful, it was shameful, it was shameful

[ShaneGR]

9. That's odd, because Clark supported the war

In fact, he said he would have voted for it. That was the coronation of his campaign, of course.... when he realized that wasn't a good political move... he backtracked.

[Democrats unite]

11. Link please

Or is this just another ploy?

[mohc]

27. The text of Clark's testimony

to the House Armed Services Committee on 9/26/2002 is located at this link:

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

I'm sure one can spin it anyway they want, but he pretty much outlined the resolution that eventually passed and he made assertions of the existence of WMD.

[anti-bush]

37. In Clark's words

(from link above)


"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President’s clear determination to act if the United Nations can’t provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts."

"The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration."

[Phelan]

71. notice the word option in there

I.e. if all else fails it has to be an option, that obviously didn't happen. There is a whole lot of difference IMO. Bush did not create international legitimacy or use diplomacy to its full extent, both things Clark advocated. He thought of the bill as something that would be useful if everything else had failed.

[anti-bush]

75. Okay

Just answer this one question, yes or no. Did Clark advocate going to war with Iraq, without the United Nations?

I say "Yes".

[RafterMan]

55. Uh huh

I´ve read it, and I agree with Richard Perle´s assessment from the same day´s testimony:

¨So I think General Clark simply doesn't want to see us use military force and he has thrown out as many reasons as he can develop to that but the bottom line is he just doesn't want to take action. He wants to wait.¨

It wasn´t unclear to him.

And by the way, I believed SH had WMD and still thought the war was madness, so I don´t find any inconsistency there.

[Tinoire]

56. Rather than digging all those up (and I have many)- Clark campaigned 4 it

Wesley Clark at Davos, Switzerland

26 January 2003
Is The WEF Playing Host To "Secret Oil Meeting" To Carve Up The Iraqi Black Gold Cake?
Davos, Switzerland: As helicopters continue to bring Chief Executives and world leaders into the Swiss alpine resort of Davos for this year's meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Friends of the Earth has been reliably informed by WEF participants that a "secret" meeting of top oil executives is scheduled to take place here this weekend. Friends of the Earth International - the world's largest grassroots environmental network - has today challenged the WEF to either deny that such a meeting is taking place, or to come clean on which companies and governments are taking part and what is being discussed.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell is addressing the WEF today amidst evident concern amongst many WEF business leaders and protests across Switzerland. However, many WEF attendees in the oil industry are set to benefit from an Iraq war.
A recent Deutsche Bank report indicated a potential conflict of interest amongst the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council over the commercial implications of war in Iraq. Baghdad Bazaar - Big Oil in Iraq was published last October but only came to light last week. It indicates that a regime change in Iraq would benefit US and UK oil companies while a peaceful resolution would benefit oil companies based in Russia, France and China:
<snip>
http://www.foei.org/media/2003/0126.html

===

Sunday, 26 January, 2003, 17:15 GMT
Powell fails to woo sceptics

Leading European figures say a speech by US Secretary of State Colin Powell warning that time is running out for Iraq to disarm has not persuaded them that a military strike is necessary.
<snip>
From the business community, Cem Kozlu, chairman of Turkish Airlines, said the message from Mr Powell was bleak.
"What Mr Powell said is that if there is evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq there will be war. And if there is no evidence, there will be war. That is bad news."

<snip>
Praise for Powell

But for the US, Wesley Clark, former Nato supreme allied commander for Europe, led the plaudits for Mr Powell's speech.
"He gave a very reasoned explanation of US policy," Mr Clark said. "It will help bring everyone together."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2696033.stm

====================================

Posted 07/02/2003
Titans of Davos: Cutting the Iraqi Oil Pile- Christopher Bollyln - The American Free Press
DAVOS, Switzerland—For 33 years, for one week every January, government leaders and the moguls of global business have convened here in this small ski town high in the Swiss Alps. While the mainstream media describes the World Economic Forum (WEF) as an event with a social focus, they know well that the real business of the conference is the private meetings of the global elite.

<snip>
On the final day of the conference, Wesley Clark, the former U.S. general who commanded the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia, explained how a U.S.-led assault against Iraq might develop. Clark attended the conference as managing director of the Stephens Group.

<snip>

The recently convicted currency speculator George Soros attended, along with the directors of Interpol, the European police force.

<snip>

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=492

===

Davos still in the surreal world

<snip>

Up in Davos, though, the military-industrial complex was no laughing matter. Alongside leading political figures from Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UN security council countries, top executives from BP, Shell, TotalFinaElf, and Lukoil were in Davos. So was the architect of the first Gulf war, General Colin Powell, the US secretary of state. General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander for Nato in Europe, turned up as well, to give a presentation on "military scenarios for a possible confrontation with Iraq".
While this group gathered in Davos, Friends of the Earth handed out a leaked Deutsche Bank analysts' report, entitled Baghdad Bazaar: Big Oil in Iraq. This frightening document lays out how different oil companies and countries could benefit from the replacement of Saddam's regime, and speculates on how different oil companies might be involved in post-war control of the Iraqi state oil company.

<snip>

http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,7843,883944,00.html

====

Wednesday, January 29, 2003
Opposition is confident it can build a coalition after Saddam
Mark Landler The New York Times Wednesday, January 29, 2003

DAVOS, Switzerland After five days suffused by fear and anger over the American push for war in Iraq, Europeans and Arabs attending the World Economic Forum spent their last day here talking about life after a conflict that few want, but most now believe is inevitable.
As the debate subtly shifted Tuesday, eight prominent members of the Iraqi opposition arrived, with impeccable timing, to sketch out a vision of their country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

<snip>

Before their presentation, the Iraqis had listened raptly to a military briefing on Iraq given by General Wesley Clark, the former NATO commander, who is rumored to be pondering a bid for the presidency.

Davos is worlds away from the grange halls of Iowa, but some Americans here remarked that Clark's three-day blitz of the conference looked suspiciously like the dress rehearsal for a campaign.

He was host at a cocktail party for young people. He spoke at a breakfast for senior journalists. And he gave the briefing, complete with giant maps of Iraq and an electronic pointer, for an overflow audience of business executives and public officials. He requested that journalists not report his remarks, as they were based only on "informed speculation."

<snip>

Clark, who directed the air war in Kosovo, has also expressed doubts about invading Iraq without a United Nations mandate. But he said he came to Davos to rally the allies in support of a campaign.

"I've told all the Europeans: They need to get on the team," he said. "It's better to be inside the tent than outside."
<snip>
http://www.iht.com/articles/84929.html

===

Resolving Conflicts 2: From Prevention to Pre-emption
27.01.2003
Annual Meeting 2003

This session on resolving conflicts was one of the few at the Annual Meeting in Davos this year not to be dominated by the prospect of US and allied war with Iraq, noted moderator Joseph S. Nye Jr, Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, USA. That did not make it any more optimistic than other discussions. The roundtable discussion brought together Wesley Clark, Managing Director, The Stephens Group, USA, Sergei Karaganov, Chairman of the Board, Council on Foreign and Defence Policy, Institute of Europe, Russian Federation, Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Israel, and Sundeep Waslekar, President, Strategic Foresight Group, India - all experts on flashpoints in their regions. And among the prospects being considered is action by the US against North Korea for building up its nuclear weapons programme in secret.

<snip>

General Clark, former NATO supreme commander, was asked whether it wasn’t inconsistent of the United States to attack Iraq for development of weapons of mass destruction while holding off against North Korea?

"There is no necessary requirement for consistency in pre-emption," he replied.

Doesn’t that tell North Korea that it has won this game of deterrence? "The military option cannot be taken off the table," Clark responded. But he also underlined that the US policy to North Korea is clear: "We don’t want the government to collapse. We don’t want South Koreans to adopt the North Koreans. We won’t want a war."
http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Resolving%20Conflicts%202:%20From%20Prevention%20to%20Pre-emption_2003?open&event_id=

===

An Iraqi opposition leader Hoshyar Zebani who met General Wesley Clark at the World Economic Forum in Davos has said that the US expects to remain in Iraq for 8 years post-invasion. ((remember Kucinich’s casual mention to Clark during one of the debates that Clark had worked on the plans for the occupation of Iraq))
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:rNgU5fvc1kcJ:www.srcf.ucam.org/camsaw/Resources/2003/Moral_war_myth.doc+%22wesley+Clark%22++Davos+powell&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

==

But what he says, and the way he says it, doesn't always endear him to his audience -- especially when he's improvising. Last January, I saw Clark give a 45-minute presentation on how he thought the war in Iraq would unfold. As long as he was up there with his map and light pen, talking about JDAMs and phase lines and whatnot, he was magnificant. But when it came time to answer questions -- to talk with, instead of at, the audience -- Clark bombed.

Part of it was what he said, which was in essence: The U.S. is going to war, the president has made his decision, so you'd better just get used to it. This to a European audience, mind you, one heavily salted with Franco-Germans. Clark actually told them -- I swear I am not making this up -- that they had an obligation to support the war, because "that's the democratic process."

You can imagine how big that went over.
And it wasn't just what he said, it was how he said it. Intentional or not, Clark has that cocky, blunt American attitude that so often grates on the nerves of Europeans (and foreigners in general.) And he made no noticeable effort to tone it down. In fact, it looked to me like Clark irritated the crowd almost as much as Colin Powell, who also spoke at the conference. And that's saying something.

http://billmon.org/archives/000582.html

[Clark Can WIN]

108. Your hatred of Clark

never ceases to bore.

[AP]

115. Care to address anything Tinoire has quoted in her post?

I didn't find that boring.

[Tinoire]

129. Ah is that why he campaigned for the war with Powell in Europe? My hatred?

:shrug:

Because of your boredom, people should bury unpleasant facts about Clark?

The head-burying never ceases to amaze!


You're wrong about hatred but nevermind; it's an easy, transparent excuse.

[Qutzupalotl]

133. "Get on the team"

Internationalizing the occupation would have been better than what we have, which is practically unilateral; the U.S. is responsible for nearly everything. Clark wanted to wait and give the inspectors more time, but realized there was no changing the president's mind.

The reason he believed Iraq had WMDs at that time is because Rumsfeld lied to his face, in a private meeting.

[Skip Intro]

15. Its not sour grapes, its asking a candidate to clearly state his views -

Edwards was for the resolution - got it.

Does he NOW think invading Iraq was the right thing to do?

Why is it so hard to get an answer to that question?

[AP]

14. Uhm, none. You think Bush wouldn't have gone in without that vote?

Right.

And if you're doing a moral calculus, I'm not sure if lives lost should be your measure. Hussein imprisoned and killed something like 30,000 people in 10 or 20 years (that's totally from memory -- it could be way more, but probably not much less).

[Democrats unite]

17. Uhm, did they have to enable him?

That arguement don't cut it. If Bush went in on his own thats one thing, but he didn't, did he?

[AP]

23. Did Clark enable Bush, using CNN as a platform, when he went on

and talked about how "masculine" the army looked, and did his spiel which wasn't all that criticial, and enabled the proganda machine's wheels to turn?

It is quite possible that that was more enabling than the senate up/down vote on the IWR.

[Tweed]

25. So that excuses Edwards vote

Okay, now I get it

[AP]

29. Nobody asking for an excuse and nobody's offering one.

You're talking about enabling Bush. I'm not sure that Bush needed that vote to be "enabled" and I guarantee you he would have been a lot happier if Democrats running for president voted against him. It would guarantee his victory in 2004, which is what he wants the most. That would be a license to ruin America and then let Bill Frist get elected in 2008 because nobody will blame him for what Bush does.

[Clark Can WIN]

105. I'll add to that

Because Clark praised the troops that makes Edwards SUPPORT OF THE BUSH WAR O.K.?

What, did we expect a four star general to go on CNN and say, the soldiers suck ass and should be ashamed of themselves?

Very nonsensical twist of positions imo.

[Democrats unite]

30. Did Clark hold a public office

He backed the troops So did I! But the big difference is we didn't vote to send the troops there. Spin that!

[AP]

42. I bet Clark would have voted the same as Edwards and Kerry if he were

a senator from Ark., and not a candidate with the luxury of finetuning campaign rhetoric so that he can walk the fine line between, um, being able to criticize his biggest competition and being able to claim he'll stand up for America.

[Democrats unite]

48. So now your reduced to what Clark might have done?

We know what Edwards did! Give it a break Clark position is well known on the Iraq war. No matter how you try to spin it Edwards voted for something that Killed Americans lives for nothing! Clark did not.

[AP]

59. There 's a logic to their actions which even Clark would have appreciated

Furthermore, I think everyone appreciates that it's easy to criticize people when you weren't in the position they were in. For the same reason you think it's wrong for me to speculate what Clark would have done, Clark's criticism of Kerry and Edwards carries little weight: he wasn't in the position they were in, so it's easy to criticize.

If Clark can crticize others in a position he wasn't in, it's perfectly legitimate for me to speculate about what Clark would have done.

Clark can't have it both ways. Either we're both wrong, or we're both allowed to, as you say, 'spin.'

As for GI lives, you do know that Clark's big problem with Yugoslavia was that he wanted to risk GI lives to end that conflict sooner to save civilian lives.

I'm not sure that counting GI lives ALONE is the best argument to make about the war being wrong if you're a Clark-supporter.

[Democrats unite]

63. Excuse me But when were you a four star General?

The whole world told Kerry & Edwards this was wrong! But no they had to go along with Bush & yes our dead soldiers blood can be put right on their hands for that vote.

[AP]

69. I think the voters are already proving what they think about this issue

See Dean.

And no matter what you say, I don't see how yes voters on that vote enabled Bush. It was an up/down vote which will be manipulated either way by Bush and didn't stop him from doing shit.

[Democrats unite]

73. They enabled him, end of story!

To this Day Edwards still says it was the right thing to do! Edwards hands has the stain of blood on them from the people that died in Iraq! You can't spin it don't even try.

The whole world half of Am3erica knew Most Democrats knew, Edwards knew & he voted anyway!

[AP]

78. Do you think CNN enabled Bush too?

[Democrats unite]

80. What part ov voting do you not understand?

Kerry & Edwards had the power of the vote! CNN did not.

[anti-bush]

83. And

Clark, with no experience at all as a public official also didn't get to vote. He also didn't find out how to work with congress. Nor did he set domestic agenda. Or work with budgets, or tax codes, or education, or health care.

[Democrats unite]

86. No the Allied Supreme Commander does none of that. NOT!

Maybe not on the scale of the U.S. but he's done it.

[AP]

87. What power of vote? An up/down vote on IWR? They would have given Bush

more of a license to go on a rampage if a bunch of them voted No.

I hold CNN's propagandizing as being MORE responsible for enabling Bush than I hold the senate.

Do you hold the senate more or less responsible for the Spanish-American war than the press?

[Democrats unite]

93. Sorry this discussion is over

I can't deal with nonsense! You just said You hold CNN more responsible than the Senate?

[AP]

96. I think CNN is extremely culpable for what happens in American politics.

And historically speaking, it's not an unusual thing to say.

[Clark Can WIN]

113. So you think Edwards supported Bush's war because of CNN?

Is that it? :silly:

[AP]

118. I think the vote on the IWR played almost no role in Bush's decision to

invade Iraq, or in how he executed his plan to do so.

I think CNN created a mood in America and continues to create a mood in America that attempts to facilitate Bush's reelection.

You are familiar with Yellow Journalism, aren't you? That phrase doesn't persits today because it was some amusing, inconsequential little aside. It persists because it's how fascists stay in power and achieve their ends.

[Skip Intro]

31. Edwards isn't as bad as saddam - is that your defense?

I'm not sure if lives lost should be your measure. Hussein imprisoned and killed something like 30,000 people in 10 or 20 years (that's totally from memory -- it could be way more, but probably not much less)

:shrug:

[AP]

50. Do you only care about American lives?

I'm just saying that in terms of lives saved vs lives lost, the argument against the invasion is hard to make.

Fewer people will ultimately die or have their lives ruined because of SH's removal (and if Edwards is elected president). That doesn't make the invasion rigth. But it does mean that one would need to make a more rigorous argument about why the invasion was wrong.

[Skip Intro]

10. I just want to be clear - Edwards currently thinks invading Iraq was right

Despite the lies, despite what we knew then and know now, he still thinks the US should have invaded Iraq - is that right?

Answer this and I will ask no more.

[AP]

12. Bill Clinton said that SH was a number one security threat to the US

and that there was intelligence that he saw pre Jan 2001 which warranted a yes vote on the IWR.

Edwards said that that intelligence justified the vote, but that the Bush administrationg screwed up the execution of the Iraq action. Edwards wants Iraq to be a thriving democracy with a strong middle class, and where the wealth of the nation flows back to the people of that nation. He thinks that in the best interest of American prosperity and security. He said a similar thing about Afghanistan in that debate -- help the PEOPLE build up wealth and political power rather than the oligarchs or the undemocratic leaders, and America will be better off.

What he imagines for Iraq is really sort of a the zenith of liberal democrat thought. it would be unbelievable if he got elected and could bring this about.

[DemDogs]

3. Great and thorough analysis - thanks (n/t)

[spooky3]

128. I agree--all should bookmark this.

It will save a lot of typing time when people try to lie in the future.

[coloradodem2005]

4. Good Post

Even though I am still for Dean, Edwards is definitely a strong consideration for me. I still don't like the IWR vote though. But I have watched him speak on C-Span and I do like what he has to say. ABB. Any of these candidates would be a goo choice.

[IronLionZion]

7. I could definitely vote for Edwards

It's great how positive his campaign is. I'm in the ABB Un-named Democrat camp.

[JasonDeter]

8. Regarding #2

Doesn't Edwards just have a 60 voting record? Meaning he was absent 40% of the time? If so where was he?

[AP]

18. All the congresspeople running made about 10% of the votes in Sep or Oct.

It dragged down their averages.

Before that, Edwards had the highest rate after Kucinich, if memory serves.

[anti-bush]

19. He is running for president

And showed up for more Senate votes than any of the other Senators running for president. He was also present for more votes than any of the congressmen, except for Kucinich.

http://content.gannettonline.com/gns/2004vote/vote2.html

Gephardt, a Missouri representative, missed 91 percent of the 601 House roll call votes this year through October, according to a Gannett News Service analysis of votes compiled by Congressional Quarterly, a nonpartisan publication that covers Congress.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, missed 62 percent of the 432 Senate roll call votes during the same period. Lieberman missed 54 percent and Edwards, a North Carolina senator, missed 36 percent.

The average House member and senator missed 4 percent of votes this year, according to an analysis by Congressional Quarterly.

His voting record in years prior was:
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%

[Tweed]

22. Edwards has been campaigning for President for half of his Senate term

He hasn't even finished one.

[AP]

24. Lincoln was a one-term House member 12 years before getting elected and

was a senate race LOSER two years before getting elected, and was a lawyer for most of the rest of the time.

[Tweed]

28. This isn't 1860 or if you must George Washington was a general

[AP]

35. whom people wanted to make king. Yuck. That's not democracy.

America has rewarded a few generals with the presidency who were in service during times of huge crisis wand were, beyond any doubt, victorious: Washington, Grant and Eisenhower. Two of them were relatively lame presidents and were mostly rewarded for past service in a time of relative calm.

Clark doesn't fit the bill for either part -- time of calm or extremely successful -- and I suspect that's why he's not really capturing people's imagination.

[Democrats unite]

39. And being the General he was, he refused!

Can you at least try to stay on topic here.

[AP]

46. And then Thomas Jefferson and a half dozen other non-generals got down to

the business of making America a great nation over the next two centuries.

[Democrats unite]

49. General Washington is the father of our Country!

Not Jefferson and a half dozen other non-generals!

[AP]

61. One stellar general in 225 years. Several stellar lawyers.

[Democrats unite]

66. Just goes to prove no matter how you argue your point

you can't win

[AP]

72. And no matter how you argue yours, Clark can't win.

When I say that America has only rewarded two generals with the presidency since George Washington and both were for service in times of serious risk to the future of the nation aftwerwards during times of calm, I'm trying to tell you the mood in which someone like Clark could get elected had he actually been extremely successful during a time of huge risk to America.

I'm not trying to spin anything. Believe me or not. I doubt that my making this statement will change the way anyone feels about Clark. I'm just trying to historicize his candidacy.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[AP]

90. Care to cite one or two?

[Tweed]

77. Your reason for Edwards future succes comes down to the success of others

The people of this country will not feel safe electing a man who has next to no foreign policy experience. You use Lincoln as an example, well Lincoln wasn't voted into office during a conflict. 2004 is not 1960, it isn't like any other time. You have to look at the REAL TIME political landscape. Also, you can't base your judgment of Edwards making great moves based on Presidents who are long dead. Obviously you must not have huge faith in Edwards in the international world either if you can credit anything of his own value to him.

[AP]

84. Edwards success comes from a combination of policies, character ...

... experience and actions which create a logical nexus making it perfectly obvious how he will behave as president.

If this election is about "feeling safe" under the rule of a General we might as well pack it up now.

That's how Republicans tried to win durinig WWII. They wanted everyone to feel unsafe and vote for Republicans who would trade middle class wealth for feelings of security, and hope you wouldn't notice they were taking your rights and your money.

Did FDR put on a uniform and tell people he'd make the safe if they got in line?

No. He put on a sweater, sat next to a fire and made people think of hope and optimism. Regardless of whether he's in a sweater or suit, there's nothing in Clark's persona which exudes those FDR feelings. Everything about Edwards does, and I'd feel safer with a president who, like FDR, cared about making the middle and working class stronger, then I'd feel with an ex-general who seems mainly to be trading on some notion that a general knows how to make people safe through some vague notion that connects military service to safety.

[Democrats unite]

89. Edwards success came from poring 6 million dollars of...

His own money into the campaign.

[AP]

94. To beat the Helms machine. The guy's a hero. Do you know what they did

to Gant? They pretended the voting machines were broken all day in heavily-black districts. Thousands of black voters stood in line waiting to vote regardless. When the Helms machine counted the black people still waiting in line to vote at 11pm and realized it was enough to get Gant elected, they had the BoE simply call the election. The black voters waited until midnight before they went home.

Edwards killed that beast. They tried shit like that against him, and worse. But he won. He put 6 million of his own dollars in that race to give all those black people standing in line to vote, shut out of Democracy by Jesse Helms, a voice.

Like I said, he's a hero.

[Democrats unite]

97. Thats not in your original post

Lets call it like it is. you made it out to be something it was not, till called on it.

[AP]

101. I guess it's easier for you to ignore that point than address it, eh?

It's evidence of character and conviction. That's exactly what I was saying in my orignial post.

[Democrats unite]

102. He won because of money!

His own money. Thats says allot!

[AP]

110. He was outspent by Faircloth, who also had the machine behind him.

Edwards put his own money up when nobody else had faith in him, and he put it up because he cared about the interests of people who had no money and who stood in line by the thousands after they machine called the election against Gant.

He's a hero.

[no name no slogan]

134. Actually,...

To be fair, Edwards was the #1 fundraiser in the 1st Quarter of 2003. That was not his "own money".

[Tweed]

91. Missed the point, but hey you are getting good at that!

You are basing Edwards future success in the world of foreign policy on the success of Presidents long dead. I will also feel safer about the middle class when Clark is in office because he has actually been middle class for most of his life. Plus... have you looked at his tax plan at all? WOW!

[AP]

95. You missed the point: the nexus of character, policy, experience,

and conviction practically guarantee Edwards's success.

[Tweed]

104. What policy? What experience?

Please tell me what Edwards' policy is? Do you mean his votes in the Senate? The Iraq War? No Child Left Behind? I think most people don't want that kind of policy.

As for experience, I think that guarantees his failure. He has never lead this country in an executive or leader way.

That character though, yeah Edwards acccent is so adorable.

[AP]

111. The policies Clark is copying. The experience Clark missed by joining army

Clark has even copied Edwards's policy book's title, "Real Solutions."

[Tweed]

117. I won again! Clark isn't copying Edwards on NCLB and the IW!

Plus you don't cite what policies Clark is copying Edwards on. Edwards has the common American experience then because most people don't join the army. That might play well with people, but wait, Edwards isn't a common man, he is a millionare. Clark has never made over $50,000. Awesome, I'm going to bed for real this time. Clark for President. Good Night Everybody

[anti-bush]

120. He hasn't ?

I suppose the years as a lobbyist and working for CNN don't count.

[AP]

121. Napolean crowned himself king.

You didn't know that Clark was a plan-burglar?

Edwards shares this experience with America: almost every dollar he has came from income that was EARNED by hard labor. Clark made the bulk of his money trading on government connections and peddling influence.

Also, I believe Clark was making over 90,000 bucks his last year, and got a lot of perqs, like free housing, a couple MB 500s for him and his wife, drivers, etc.

Which experience do you think most Americans understand.

[Qutzupalotl]

135. Clark made less than $50,000 for the vast majority of his 34 years

in the service, and never made more than $100,000/year there. Edwards, on the other hand, made well over $30 million. A testimony to Edwards' skill, true, but which experience do you think most Americans understand?

[fujiyama]

13. While you're trying...

to clear whatever misconceptions some may have about Edwards, I'm curious, did Edwards really ask who Yitzak Rabin was?

I'd have to say that'd be REALLY pathetic if that's true.

[anti-bush]

21. Unsubstantiated Rumor

The Edwards campaign says that Peters' anonymously sourced story "has no bearing in fact" and that Edwards has never been to an event that included Leah Rabin.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088902/

[Tweed]

20. Truth about Edwards still biggest flaw!

Here's what you wrote for No. 3 (my caps)

Senator Edwards has SERVED (not chaired) on the senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was one of the first Senators to VISIT Afghanistan after the Taliban was forcibly removed from power, and MET with US troops and coalition forces. Edwards has also TRAVELED to Pakistan and Central Asia to DISCUSS the war on terrorism. He has VISITED our vital ally, Israel, and other Middle East states to DISCUSS the peace process, and has MET with America’s key allies at NATO Headquarters and in London. He has an extensive plan for foreign policy.

Visited places, met with troops, met with America's key allies at NATO? Served on one committee? The United States is quite possibly in one of its toughest positions in international relations ever. We have a conflict to settle in Iraq, we still have a large amount of US troops in Afghanistan, a sworn enemy of North Korea has nuclear capabilities, a wealthy madman continues to organize a jihad against our country, and most of the world has lost a great amount of respect for our country. The man to fix all of this is someone who has visited some countries, met with some American troops (an amazing accomplishment to chalk up), met some of our allies and never chaired a defense committee?! You've got to be kidding me. I'm sure he has an extensive plan for foreign policy and I'm sure its wonderful due to his travels around the world. :eyes:

I'll take my chances with a candidate who has LED our NATO allies into battle, NEGOTIATED international treaties, served as a FOUR STAR GENERAL, and has actually has had his eye on the INTERNATIONAL FIELD for 34 years.

[AP]

26. see post 24.

[Democrats unite]

33. see post 28.

[AP]

36. see post 35.

[Democrats unite]

40. See post 39.

[AP]

47. etc.

[Tweed]

52. See post #44

[Democrats unite]

53. See post 49.

[Tweed]

44. See the situation in 2004 and compare it to 1860

1. 1860 Lincoln is overrated. He won the civil war eventually due to several Southern mistakes and low morale. Plus, the Union had more people, more factories, and more railroads. Yes, and they still came quite close to losing early on and the South wasn't fighting to take over the North, they were fighting to hold onto their lands. The idea was to fight and hope the North eventually got bored and just let the situation go. It isn't easy to rally soliders on that.

2. 2004 The country isn't at risk of dividing, instead the world is. Worse apart about it, our foes are more numerous and more powerful. Nuclear bombs could destory us all. We can't even see the enemy that is poised to attack us first. We need someone who is familiar with the country's landscape, not some first-time Senator who uses visits and meetings to be experience.

[AP]

57. Right. Lincoln held this country together at a moment when it was at its

greates threat of dividing and Lincoln was overrated.

Sure.

We could use a Lincoln today.

FDR is the other great president because he fought of fascism from within America. He was also a Columbia Law School graduate and never served in the armed forces.

[Democrats unite]

60. In case you didn't know FDR was Sec of the Navy.

Maybe not enlisted , but was part of. Lincoln was also assinated & a Republican!

[anti-bush]

62. Lincoln was

Republican when the Republicans weren't really Republicans.

[AP]

67. As was Churchill in the same era. Know why? Because the navy was the key

to power. Control the seas and you control the world.

No coincidence that people in those positions ended up appreciating how the world works.

However, notice, it wasn't the admirals in those navies who became president and PM. In the US, it was a Columbia Law graduate who was driven to public service by his admiration of his cousin.

[Democrats unite]

68. He was Sec of the navy.

on edit: I should also point out Richard Nixon was a Lawyer. Go ahead keep brining up that thing about law schools.

[AP]

76. Interestingly, Nixon cared about the working class and the environment.

He was shitty on foreign intrigue, and hated the constitution. But he was despotic, no doubt, because the anti-labor, anti-environment corporatocracy was screwing him from the far right, while the anti-Vietnam, anti-CIA liberals were going after him from the left.

You know why it's interesting that he was a lawyer? Well, because he was poor growing up, and law school was one of the few avenues for hard-working smart people to achieve economic success in proportion their willingness to work hard.

Like Lincoln. Like Clinton. Like Edwards.

[Democrats unite]

79. You know why it's interesting he is a lawyer?

A Liar, a cheater, a thief, thought he could rape the Constitution. Go ahead defend Nixon all you want. I will just sit back and watch the hole get deeper

[anti-bush]

81. And...

Nixon was voted for by Clark.

[Democrats unite]

82. Link please.

Your not getting off that easy.

[anti-bush]

88. Link

"Clark says he voted for Richard Nixon during the Vietnam era, and later for Ronald Reagan as the Cold War was coming to an end."


http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=97

[AP]

98. heh heh heh

[Tweed]

85. Bring more people into the party

Clark has learned the error of his ways and sides with us now. Many people are angry at Bush and are looking to vote against him possibly, but they won't put it into the hands of some man who has next to no foreign policy experience. The fact that Clark voted for Nixon and Regan in the past will make it eaiser for Republicans and Indepedents to vote for him. That of course being after the fact that he is an international dynamo.

[anti-bush]

92. Well

Why would they put it into the hands of somebody with no domestic policy experience and no experience as a public official.

Your argument rings hollow.

[Tweed]

100. Because

If my argument rings hollow then both of our arguments ring hollow. They won't elect someone without international experience and they won't elect someone with domestic experience. Perhaps this is why John Kerry is winning? He has served as a Senator since '84, and has extensive experience in foreign policy and fought in Vietnam.

The thing is that we have a body for creating domestic policy. It's called Congress! They write the laws to begin with. It is the president's job to be the international rep for the country and work out treaties and deals. Clark clearly would get us better situations then Edwards.

[AP]

107. John Kerry is winning largely because of money.

If there were a fair fight on a level playing field between Edwards and Kerry, I'd bet every penny I have that Edwards would win it so long as the Republicans didn't plan ricin in Bill Frist's office on the day you had to decide which one was better. No, I take that back. Edwards would still win.

It isn't the job of the presdient to deal with foreign policy while Congress deals with domestic policy.

Congress actually has control over foreign policy too, and the president's real job is to use his office as a platform from which to argue and persuade the congress and the public to put through his or her policy agenda.

If Clark intends on governing according to your formulation of government, I guess nothing will get done for four years.

[anti-bush]

109. Well

If you believe that's the president's only job, then more power to you. And how he would "clearly" get us better situations is not that clear at all.

[AP]

99. Historically, voters have cared more about character than experience

If we valued experience, we wouldn't term limit presidents.

Edwards has oodles of character, and he communicates it well.

Clark may have oodles of character, but the persona he conveys is mostly that of former General who's trying to sell the notion that it's a dangerous world in which a guy who used to wear a uniform will make you feel safer.

[Tweed]

112. Did I just win? You admitted that Edwards has no experience and Clark has

both experience and character. You also admitted that Edwards' policy stinks because you didn't defend it! So, Edwards is a one-trick pony of character. Your view of Clark's character is biased based on how you like your candidate and how the media portrays Clark. Everyone I talk to likes Clark. Vote Clark! He has experience and character! Good night I will reward myself with some sleep.

[AP]

122. Even if I said that, it wouldn't mean you won.

I said that voters care more about one than the other. I didn't say Edwards didn't have either one. I said that Clark isn't communicating his character (or really, either) to the public very well.

Whether you "won" isn't for you or me to decide.

[Tweed]

64. Actually the country was most threatened

when a General was pretty much running things! Remember the American Revoultion?! Not only is history in our favor, but experience is in our favor too. Damn, why do people support this Edwards guy anway. He is a nice guy, HUGE future. He just needs to wait!

[Tweed]

106. Argument undisputed!

[AP]

124. Huh? I'm not even sure what your argument is. Revolutionary War, Civil War

and WWii -- the times when the future of the nation was serioulsy in doubt.

I'm not sure if anyone was running the US during the Revolutionary War, but I'll give Washington some credit for giving America a good start. The Civil War and WWII -- major props to a person who was a one-term congressman and a lawyer immediately before becoming president, and to a law graduate in a wheel chair for holding things together, both with a major concern for making sure wealth flowed to those without it, and a concern for building up a strong working class.

[Renew Deal]

32. The truth about Edwards is worse than the lies.

The truth:

Voted for IWR and the Patriot Act and NCLB and the Bankruptcy reform act.

He also owed about 11,000 in taxes from his millions and didn't pay his taxes.

BTW, what happened with the deal for his house and some Saudis?

[AP]

38. Like that he said that tax cuts were the enginge of growth? Oops. That was

not HIS lie.

Care to tell the truth about the 11,000 -- it was a property tax bill he didn't receive, and when he received the late notice, he paid immediately.

It wouldn't be like some Republican to fail to send him the bill so they could have something to smear him with during the election, would it?

[Renew Deal]

41. That's another slick move by Edwards

He votes against the tax cuts, then wants to keep them because they are effective. Why didn't he vote for them if they were effective? Why doesn't he want to repeal them now? Election year pandering is the answer.

As far as Edwards tax bill, maybe he was too busy counting his millions to pay taxes.

[anti-bush]

54. Black & White? Nope.

Against the tax cuts for the wealthy, for the middle class tax cuts. Not every bill that is voted on is Black & White. Hardly any of them are. Is it possible to be for middle class tax cuts, and vote against the President's tax cut bill? Yes.

[AP]

125. These arguments were all in the post abandone by Edwards detractors

yesterday and which were addressed.

As for the property tax bill, DC didn't send the bill. You going to presume that he received it?

[Democrats unite]

43. Well since we are throwing numbers around again

500 + service people pretty much sums up about Edwards.

[AP]

126. Clark wanted to sacrifice GI lives in Yugoslavia to save civilian lives.

[Evanstondem]

34. I'm tentatively supporting Edwards, but on #5

His statement doesn't gone far enough to truly fix No Child Left Behind. I want to see a specific proposal for fixing the standards, which need to be made more realistic and less punitive. The underfunding is less important -- I'd rather do without any additional money if NCLB isn't fixed.

[anti-bush]

45. Read the statement on his website

He wants to end the punishment for schools falling behind, improve pre-school progrms, sponsor after school programs, and change the way teacher evaluations are handled.

[FubarFly]

51. Number 10 is a dealbreaker for me.

;-)

[frustrated_lefty]

58. My unshakable view:

Edwards is one of the good guys. I expect to see him president. He's too young (yes, I know he's 50). He's too young, too green in the political field.

I have no animosity to Edwards, he is a good man, he will serve our nation well....just not yet. ;)

[Tweed]

70. Excatly, Edwards will be a star soon

Right now we must beat George Bush. This country will elect a man who counts his foreign policy experience as meeting with US troops right after the fall of the Taliban, meeting with some NATO leaders and serving on one international related committee

[D G]

65. Thank you!

This is my favorite type of post on DU - cutting through the bullshit - and from what I've seen so far tonight it's been pretty *$&@! thick.

[SangamonTaylor]

103. I agree.

This post is top notch.

I'm tired of seeing lies being perpetuated by people trying to spread disinformation.

[DebJ]

114. Patriot Act / NCLB / too young

"Lie #1. Edwards co-wrote the Patriot Act.
I recall hearing Edwards say this himself in an early debate. I have taped several debates but I don't know if I got such an early one. (Of course he wouldn't say that again later.) If I get time, I'll take a look.
---------
Lie #5. John Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, but has changed his position and is now against it.

Truth : Senator Edwards voted for No Child Left Behind, and believes that we should improve the bill and properly fund it... He believes there are core values in NCLB tho improve our education system..

NCLB holds teachers and school systems responsible for irresponsible parents. In good neighborhoods or bad, the largest predictor of success is home life. Head Start and other programs will help, testing hungry children from schools with no books doesn't do anything. Like all Repub policies, it is a finger-pointing tactic. Blame the teachers who use their own pay for school supplies. Don't help the kids. Howard Dean, on the other hand, knows how to help kids and it isn't by testing them (which is really simply testing the teachers) Take care of the kids with food, medicine, parents with jobs, and money for the schools instead of budget deficits. NCLB is simply a red herring, designed to blame those suffering from social problems for the problems, and old right wing tactic. NCLB is useless. My understanding is that even a child with an IQ in the seriously retarded range MUST be brought up to grade level....this is physically impossible. How can this be defended as good?
========================================
Lie #9. Edwards is too young to be president.

Truth : John Edwards is 50 years old, despite his youthful appearance. John Kennedy was 43 when elected, Roosevet 42 when he became president, and Clinton was 46. Edwards will turn 51 in June.


Yes. He looks like someone who has lived the stress free life of a multimillionaire. Someone who has felt my pain.

[anti-bush]

119. sigh...

#1 - again, an unfounded rumor/lie.

#5. No Child Left Behind targets resources for early childhood education so that all youngsters get the right start. NCLB increases funding for schools and children so teachers do not have to pay for their own school supplies. The Reading First program makes federal funds available to help reading teachers in the early grades strengthen old skills and gain new instructional techniques. There are some good things in NCLB. There are also ways to improve it. Edwards believes in both.

#9. - Oh puhleeze, spare me.

[DebJ]

123. NCLB: my main source of information has been the National Education

Association or NEA.

If Edwards wants improvements to it, I would presume that he would not support anything saying that a mentally handicapped child must be brought to grade level. Is there anything in his campaign info about that? Or could you get him to add that in?

I can tell you what some schools have done because of NCLB: steal an hour a day from learning reading/writing/arithmetic and instead teach kids how to take tests. One full hour a day of pure b.s., every day.
So kids aren't being helped to read. They are being helped to take tests... How many teachers do you know? Or school administrators?
Do you listen to the people who actually work with this nightmare?

Hungry kids from non-supportive homes will not learn. They don't even care if they pass the tests. Some don't care if they survive tomorrow. This is the number one issue to attack; what does NCLB do for that, accept Leave no teacher, school or school board a behind because parents are irresponsible or incapable (and need help).

[dawn]

116. Great post, thanks!

Maybe I should quote you on my website. I get some stick for supporting Edwards from some of my visitors.

The only thing I disagree with him on is the IWR vote. And I'm not much of a fan of NCLB, but perhaps if it was fully funded, it would have some chance of doing some good for students.

But the main reason I support Edwards is because of his anti-NAFTA, Fair Trade views. He won't give tax breaks to businesses who ship jobs overseas. And he won't give big business a free ride. His past as a trial lawyer is a big plus in my book.

Clark dropped down my list when I heard what he said about offshored software jobs. "Let 'em build the software in India! We'll do other things here." My husband and I are in IT, and we've watched out friends lose their jobs to Indian workers one by one.

I'm not trying to slander Clark...I still like him. But I didn't like that statement. I know he retracted it, but I can't seem to forget it.

[windansea]

127. I'll take hairdo's for $1000

[mmonk]

130. use lifetime scorecards

and multiple year votes. Besides being for current US foreign policy, Patriot Act support, be sure to include his 76% League of Conservation Voters score.

[PurityOfEssence]

131. This just shows how deeply unscrupulous Clark is

His campaign's reaction to Edwards' response DOESN'T EVEN MENTION the tax cut voting issue.

The percentage of "voting with Bush" is radically lower than Clark claims, and it's a scurrilous argument to start with, since so many votes are rather innocuous.

This should be read by all Clark supporters and all who don't quite cotton to Edwards; he's a remarkable person and we'd be crazy to squander him in favor of a candidate like Kerry, who will have a harder time against Bush. I like John Kerry, and even though the marks against him are largely facile (northeast intellectual, dry) they are substantial.

[elsiesummers]

132. I'm really glad someone posted this.

Even though I am an Edwards supporter, I didn't know the detail about Edwards writing the sunset provision in the Patriot Act.