Edwards in The Situation Room w/Wolf Blitzer (Transcript)

[Catchawave]

Snipped from: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/16/sitroom.01.html

Also from this show, and can be found at above link:
Barack Obama Takes Formal First Step In Running For President; President Bush Meets With U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; Jury Selection Underway In Trial Of Louis "Scooter" Libby;
Aired January 16, 2007 - 16:00 ET

I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

One former Democratic senator is running full steam ahead in his presidential bid and he's angling for your support.

But how might he size up against some others in his own party?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And joining us now, former Democratic Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

He's a candidate for the presidency.

Senator, thanks very much for coming in.

FORMER SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Hi.

Thank you for having me, Wolf.

BLITZER: Barack Obama announced today he is creating an exploratory committee, after, what, two years in the U.S. Senate. Do you believe he is qualified, he has the necessary experience to be president of the United States?

EDWARDS: Well, it won't be my decision to make.

I think that it's a good thing to have good people in this race. If you're running for president for the right reason, it's because you want to serve your country, and you have decided it's the best way to serve your country.

I have thought long and hard about that, and made that decision for myself. And I guess it will be for Senator Obama to decide in the next few weeks whether that's something he believes he should do.

BLITZER: Well, it sounds like you're not convinced that he is necessarily ready for -- to run for the presidency.

EDWARDS: Oh, I wouldn't pass judgment over any of the -- on any of the other candidates.

I think the campaign just beginning. Speaking for myself, I'm not exploring. I have made the decision that this is the best way to serve my country. And we will just see what happens as the campaign goes on.

I think we want good people in the race, because we desperately need new leadership in 2009.

BLITZER: Here is what you said Sunday in New York City. I want to play this little clip.

Listen to this.

EDWARDS: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EDWARDS: Speak out and stop this escalation now. You have the power, members of Congress, to prohibit this president from spending any money to escalate this war. Use that power.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

EDWARDS: Use it now.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: As you know, that was widely seen as a slap at Senator Hillary Clinton, who has refused to say she's ready to use the power of the purse, congressional authority, to go ahead and stop funding an increase, an escalation, or a surge, in the war.

Did you see that as a direct attack against her? EDWARDS: I wasn't, Wolf, thinking about anybody in particular. It was directed at members of Congress who, I believe, as a matter of conscience, should stop this president from escalating this war and from continuing in a long series of really tragic mistakes that -- that he's made in Iraq.

And, as I said in the clip you just ran, Congress has the power to stop this escalation. It's been done before in Lebanon, in Colombia, and toward the end of the Vietnam War. I mean, there is an historical precedent for it. And there's clearly constitutional authority for it.

It's time for members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, by the way, not just Democrats, but those who know, in good conscience and principle, that this war should not be escalated, to speak out and to take action.

BLITZER: Here is what Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton, said, reacting to what you said at the church on Sunday: "In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy" -- strong words from a senior adviser to Senator Clinton.

EDWARDS: Yes, it sounds a little oversensitive to me.

I -- my -- what I was doing, I didn't speak about anybody by name. I talked about members of Congress. By the way, I also spoke to the American people, who I need -- think also need to step up and be heard on this escalation of the war.

And I was specifically referencing Dr. Martin Luther King's speech 40 years ago, a year to the day before he died, in Riverside -- at Riverside Church, where he spoke out against the war in Vietnam, and talked about silence being a betrayal. And that was the theme of what I was talking about.

I believe I was right. I stand behind it. We should not be escalating this war. And I hope that members of -- of Congress will have the good conscience and the good sense to show some strength about this, and stand up to the president, and stop him.

BLITZER: Some of your critics will say: You know what? John Edwards is no longer in the United States Senate. He really doesn't have to vote on this issue. It's easy for him to say it. It's much more difficult for Senator Clinton or Senator Barack Obama or Senator Kerry, who actually have the responsibility of providing funds, if you will, for U.S. troops, to vote on these kinds of life-and-death matters.

What do you say to those critics?

EDWARDS: I say, first of all, when I had the chance to vote years ago on the funding of the war in Iraq, $87 billion at the time -- and I thought the president was headed on the wrong course. It turns out, unfortunately for our country, that I was right -- I voted no.

I am now a president -- a candidate for president of the United States, Wolf, and I'm going to be held accountable for the positions I take. And I think it is important for those who want to have a leadership position, whether it's in the Congress or whether they end up running for president of the United States, not to be being careful and cautious and weighing their options.

Now is the time for leadership. America needs leadership. The world needs leadership from us. And we need to have the strength of our convictions. Now is the time to stand up and speak up.

BLITZER: Senator McCain says to those Democratic critics and other critics: If you don't like the president's policy, offer one that you do like.

Give us, in a nutshell, what you would like to see happen over the next few months, as far as U.S. troop levels, the war in Iraq are concerned.

EDWARDS: Forty thousand to 50,000 troops out immediately -- second, a direct conversation with Maliki and the Shia-led government, saying, this -- there is no military solution in Iraq. You are going to have to bring the Sunni into this government in a serious way, in order for there to be a political solution, in order for there to be reconciliation, which the Baker study group talked about, shifting the responsibility to them, continuing the withdrawal of American troops over time.

And then last, but not least, we can't just deal with our friends in the regions, the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians. We ought to be dealing directly with the Syrians and the Iranians, because, at the end of the day, the Iranians, what they really what, I think, is managed chaos in Iraq. They don't want complete chaos.

They are in the Shia minority, as you know very well, Wolf. And a widespread Middle East conflict is not in their interests, certainly not before they have a nuclear weapon, if they get one. So, we -- they're in a position that we at least have some potential for helping -- having them help stabilize Iraq. But it will never happen so long as we are an occupying force there.

BLITZER: The Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, the other day, when I interviewed him, said: You know what? Over the past five years, since 9/11, there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and the president deserves credit for that.

Do you think the president deserves credit for that?

EDWARDS: You know, I think it's a combination of -- and the American people know this -- it's a combination of some good things that we have done. We have made -- done some positive -- taken some positive steps to improve our security here at home. We still have huge holes in our security, which have been talked about repeatedly.

And some of it, I think, is luck. So, I think it's a combination of some positive steps that have been taken, not just by the president, but by the American people and by our government. But, also, I think we have been lucky up until now. And I think what's happened with the situation in Iraq is, we have created a breeding ground for terrorists.

And what's happened specifically in the case of al Qaeda, instead of them being a top-down organization, they have been much more dispersed, and they are still extraordinarily dangerous.

BLITZER: We have got to go, but can we expect to see you at the first presidential debates in New Hampshire April 4 and 5? CNN is going to be co-sponsoring those debates with WMUR Television and "The New Hampshire Union Leader." Are you going to be attending those presidential debates?

EDWARDS: I will be there.

BLITZER: OK.

Senator, we will see you in New Hampshire, if not sooner. Thanks very much for coming in.

EDWARDS: Thanks, Wolf.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[blm]

1. The no vote on 87 billion was because of no accountability for the money.

Both Kerry and Edwards voted yes to the money IF it was accounted for and going to the actual military needs. They made the right choice, no matter how the GOPs spun it afterwards.

[karynnj]

2. Edwards and Kerry were actually asked about that in

more than one 2004 election cycle debates. He, as Kerry said in an unfortunate summary "voted for it before he voted against it". The fact is that vote was in Oct 2003 - and in both Oct and Nov 2003, Edwards was on tape saying he thought the war was justified. Now saying that he voted to cut the funding then is hypocritical and beyond dishonest.

This is the second major thing on Iraq where Edwards has - on tape - said things that are complete opposites.

The other was he has said that he did not believe there were WMD, but that there were other reasons (Hardball, Oct 2003) and in his apology and in this weeks Vanity Fair he said that he thought there were.

[blm]

3. Both Edwards and Kerry were right about not funding it for lack of accountability,

but it is just not accurate to use that vote as a measure or as a link to why the funding NOW should be stopped.

Though, like Edwards, I agree with Kennedy about stopping the funding for escalation, that vote in 2003 was all about accountability for the dollars spent, not about ending the war. If we notice inconsistencies like this, no doubt professional operatives for the GOP machine are collecting these gaffes, just as they do on any Dem challenger.

My suggestion to Edwards camp is to get him to clarify what he meant and fix it now just in case he faces a general election campaign.

[karynnj]

4. I agree with you 100%

"My suggestion to Edwards camp is to get him to clarify what he meant and fix it now just in case he faces a general election campaign."

It's early now - but something like thia could easilly lead to a very awkward MTP or Hardball where the tapes are shown or a flip/flop ad. (Remember Kerry didn't flip and they used it or worse they could question his honesty.)

He can correct this saying that he meant that he was willing to say no to get accountability - but at that point he was for funding the troops.

[benny05]

5. Vote was October 2002

And while I don't have a link handy, I'm pretty certain Edwards said something on the 2004 campaign trail (either as Pres or VP) that he didn't want to hand Bush a blank check. Kerry said the same thing.

[karynnj]

6. No Kerry said

that he wanted the cost paid for by rolling back some tax cuts to the wealthy and he wanted oversight on how the money was spent. The IWR was in October 2002. The $87 billion was in October 2003. It was supplemental funding for Iraq and Afghanistsan.

Kerry always made it clear that he was not voting against funding the troops - but against the specific way this amendment did it. Edwards in one of the debates agreed with him.

(Note it would have been weirder if it was 2002 - then Edwards would have co-sponsored the IWR and then before an invasion occured weeks later voted not to pay for it)

I seriously think he needs to correct this. (Because Kerry picked him for VP, it reflects on him so I hope he fises this)

Also - the US soldiers were NOT in combat in Vietnam when funding was cut (under Ford), they left in 1973. The funding cut was for the South Vietnamese. We never had a full-scale war in Lebanon and there were only drug enforcement actions in Columbia.

[benny05]

8. Misunderstood what you meant

You're right about the year and month of supplemental vote.

[venable]

9. For the record

in a primary debate it was Edwards who said that he would not vote for the additional 87billion unless

1) it came from a rollback of the tax cuts

and

2) it was accompanied by a specific plan to make this the last budget supplement.

He said he had neither.


I wish I could remember which debate it was, but i recall it very clearly, that answer.

[karynnj]

10. They both said the first - I don't recall either saying the latter

I said Kerry did, because I am absolutely certain he said that. Kerry actually explained it many times.

My point was that Edwards did as well and for reasons FAR different than what he says here. It was absolutely NOT because he wanted to pull the troops out - he was still JUSTIFYING THE INVASION in that time frame.

[Carolina Voice]

7. That was a very nice and positive interview.

Senator Edwars, as always presented himself in a very professional and sensitive manner. He didn't undercut anyone and he answered questions honestly. He is a credit to this country and to himself.

[Catchawave]

15. I thought so, here's the video...

Found it on his website with the transcript, d'oh me, always the last place I look!

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/16/124458/804

[dk2]

11. Blitzer did a better job

then some of the interviews he has done. I still think Edwards is right on the issues. Thanks for the transcript.

[Astrad]

12. Every question Blitzer asked

was premised on a negative.

BLITZER: Barack Obama announced today he is creating an exploratory committee, after, what, two years in the U.S. Senate. Do you believe he is qualified, he has the necessary experience to be president of the United States?

What is the relevance of this question? Why is John Edwards opinion of whether Barrack Obama is qualified meaningful? He's just trying to start a petty fight.

BLITZER: As you know, that was widely seen as a slap at Senator Hillary Clinton, who has refused to say she's ready to use the power of the purse, congressional authority, to go ahead and stop funding an increase, an escalation, or a surge, in the war. Did you see that as a direct attack against her?

Again personalized the issue into a tit for tat fight rather than asking the substantive question about how congressional authority could work to stop the surge.

BLITZER: Some of your critics will say: You know what? John Edwards is no longer in the United States Senate. He really doesn't have to vote on this issue. It's easy for him to say it. It's much more difficult for Senator Clinton or Senator Barack Obama or Senator Kerry, who actually have the responsibility of providing funds, if you will, for U.S. troops, to vote on these kinds of life-and-death matters. What do you say to those critics?

First of all what critics? Who are they? And anyway, who cares that they say that. The underlying premise of the question is that Edwards is an opportunist who doesn't have to live up to whatever he calls for.

[Mass]

14. And you are surprised because?

He is doing that with every single Democrat. Nothing new.

[fooj]

13. Jeez Blitzer...

Get those talking points fresh off the fax machine?:eyes:

[Gloria]

16. RE: Iraqi Govt......this answer is much better than the

"Iraqis have to take responsiblity...." This is much better stated.

Forty thousand to 50,000 troops out immediately -- second, a direct conversation with Maliki and the Shia-led government, saying, this -- there is no military solution in Iraq. You are going to have to bring the Sunni into this government in a serious way, in order for there to be a political solution, in order for there to be reconciliation, which the Baker study group talked about, shifting the responsibility to them, continuing the withdrawal of American troops over time.