Edwards would have gone into Iraq, knowing what he knows now?

[jpgray]

From a Hardball interview:

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don’t think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don’t think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don’t misunderstand me.


What do you folks think of this?

[Oreegone]

1. Obvious

That truly sucks.....it looks like all we got is pro killer choices...

[ShaneGR]

2. I think you're desperate

Kerry voted for it. Clark supported it before he ran for president.

Your point? It's common knowlege any of them would have done a far better job than Bush.

[jpgray]

3. Easy friend, just posting his own words--no commentary. (nt)

[ShaneGR]

6. Which is a violation of the posting rules

You have to post your comments on the material you are posting. But I won't hit alert. Cuz I'm cool.

[jpgray]

7. If that's true, I'll put my own opinion here

If the Iraq war matters to you, the most important thing is that both Kerry and Edwards voted for the IWR. Since intent cannot be guessed or measured, you have to look at each candidate's comments and judge them in conjunction with their vote. One could make the case that Edwards stands by his vote and Kerry is weaseling out of his. One could also make the case that Edwards supports this incorrect war while Kerry has changed his mind. One will piss off a Kerry supporter, the other an Edwards supporter. Neither has any real base beyond assumptions and guesswork.

[ShaneGR]

10. The IWR thing is not most important to me

The most important thing to me is how would a Democratic President view trade policy. Does he support NAFTA? If so, screw him. To me here in Ohio, I see the devastation it has brought. Certainly we need fair trade agreements, but not agreements that screw us all over.

We need a polished professional champion to end that corporate BS, and Edwards is my guy to do it.

[tameszu]

29. Clearly not

I can't imagine that foreign policy is very high on many Edwards' supporters' agenda.

And by the way, it wasn't clear until recently whether Edwards supports NAFTA. He was opposed to getting rid of NAFTA in the South Carolina debate...so I actually guess it's still not clear.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. I believe both Edwards and Kerry are sincere in their belief that each

would do a much better job of managing the Crusade.

[tameszu]

28. Nope, Clark didn't support it

He has consistently called the war "elective surgery."

He was one of the few war-skeptical commentators in March, just before Bush actually invaded.

[burrowowl]

4. We are stuck with voting

Democratic, the lesser of 2 evils.
Unless DK gets the nomination.
I fear things are going ot get a hell of lot worse before they get better.
Between Kerry and Edwards, Kerry has a little bit better voting record on things almost liberal.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

8. He basically covers Bush's ass with this entire set of responses

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

[jpgray]

9. There's another difference--Kerry believes Bush misled folks (nt)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. In fairness to Edwards, he says he never put much stock in it in

the first place, but my issue with his claims are as follows:

He removes all culpability for the rigged and deliberately jaded info received.

He basically adopts the mantra of WEAPONS PROGRAM as a justification for preemptive war, and he misses the opportunity to point out that Afghanistan is now returning to rogue forces since we took our eye off the prize.

Why would I vote for him over Bush when I can get preemptive war void of an actual imminent threat from Bush?

[roguevalley]

12. Here's a novel approach Edwards: Q: Were you wrong?

Even after we find out it was a BIG FAT LIE!?!?!

Edwards: Nope. See, I'm making a principled stand
about my decision and sticking by it even if it is
wrong, unprincipled, internationally illegal and
craven.

I am just boggling with disgust here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. To me "I take responsibility" is the most political answer one can give

It's the one everyone wants to hear whether they are actually taking responsibility or not.

BTW..I don't hate Edwards..I'm just not willing to turn foreign policy over to him and while I don't support NAFTA, I don't believe in protectionism either.

[GreenArrow]

15. well if he didn't put much "stock" in it

why the fuck did he vote for it? And he clearly has no problems with the actual act, only with its prosecution. Even that's debatable; if things were going well in Iraq, WMD found, insurrections quelled, Sadaam smoked out of his spider hole, would he be patting Dubia on the back at the same time as he patted his own?

I just don't trust the guy.

[DjTj]

13. The NEXT THING out of Edwards' mouth:

EDWARDS: I stand behind it. But if I were president of the United States, instead of going to the United Nations as an afterthought, which is how this president did it-If I had been president of the United States, I would have been building the case over a long period of time, bringing an international pressure on Saddam Hussein.

I think the result of the way he built up to this war was he made it virtually impossible to get United Nations support.

Kerry and Clark both have said that they wanted to put international pressure on Saddam and build a coalition.

Come on people, I know it's fun to catch candidates misstatements and wave them in the face of their supporters, but here is the truth:

None of our Democratic candidates (not even Lieberman) would have gone to war the way Bush did. None of them would have asked for a Resolution a month before an election, none of them would have been massing troops before going to the UN, and none of them would have gotten us to where we are today.

[SerpentX]

16. And I believe ...

They all wanted the inspectors in and the UN sanctions lifted as soon as possible.

[GreenArrow]

17. the point is:

no imminent threat, no reason to go in. Did I misread his statements earlier, or didn't he say he would still go in even knowing that things weren't as they were painted?

None of our candidates would have gone to war the way Bush did, but Edwards apparently, would still have gone to war.

[DjTj]

22. Edwards said he still believes the intelligence...

...in that Hardball interview.

I think a week later, he went on O'Reilly and started to have some doubts:

O'REILLY: All right. Did President Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction?

EDWARDS: I don't know the answer to that question.

O'REILLY: Do you have suspicions?

EDWARDS: Did I say that? You said that. I -- what I believe -- first of all, I think this is something that we should treat not hysterically, but in a very responsible way. I think it's a good thing that Saddam, who you know that I supported the war in Iraq. I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is gone. I think we should be proud of what our young men and women in the military did. I think the result of the war is a very good thing. And I think now the responsible thing for us and the Congress to do is to determine if there is, in fact, a discrepancy between what the intelligence community, our intelligence community, told us or told the president.

I don't know what they told the president. My view is we ought to tap down all the emotional response to this, and in a serious way, try to determine whether there's a problem in our intelligence gathering.


He was one of the Senators calling for an investigation of the intelligence after David Kay's report. He believed the intelligence before Kay spoke out, and now he wants to know if it was wrong. The pre-David Kay Hardball interview should be taken with a grain of salt.

[RafterMan]

26. No, he doesn't say that in the Hardball interview

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[DjTj]

31. He's only referring to the African deal

Please actually read the interview...he still believed the Soviet and other stuff, it's pretty clear.

[RafterMan]

32. Oh, I've read it.

>So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

That wasn't about the African deal.

It staggers me to think that someone actually believes that trolling around for Soviet nukes provides a rational justification for invading them.

Face it -- John Edwards stands by the Iraq War. He said it, pure and simple.

[DjTj]

33. John Edwards stands by the Iraq War.

I never disputed that fact.

He believed the intelligence before him about Saddam trying to acquire nukes and about WMD programs.

He voted for the IWR believing Saddam was a threat.

That's all I've been saying in this thread.

[RafterMan]

34. And he continues to believe that it was wise policy

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

[DjTj]

35. Like I said in #22...

...he felt that way during the Tweety interview, his tone was a little different in the O'Reilly interview, and now his position is that he needs to see what the situation was with the intelligence.

Later on in that very interview he says:

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don’t.

I don’t think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush’s approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn’t work with others. He doesn’t build coalitions. We were promised...


If there was a credible threat and there were no alternative, Edwards believes it was a wise policy. This is the position shared by a majority of Democratic leaders and a majority of Democratic voters.

[RafterMan]

37. But but but

"Saddam Hussein is a threat because he is trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we should invade" IS "the Bush policy on preemptive strike"!

It's the same thing! Did I misrepresent Edwards' position from the Hardball interview in the summary quote? What portion of it does he disagree with?

The position he articulates in the interview is the Bush position *exactly*.

[DjTj]

38. Yes.

Edwards supported Bush's policy.

He just would have implemented it differently. From still the same interview:

EDWARDS: I stand behind it. But if I were president of the United States, instead of going to the United Nations as an afterthought, which is how this president did it-If I had been president of the United States, I would have been building the case over a long period of time, bringing an international pressure on Saddam Hussein.

I think the result of the way he built up to this war was he made it virtually impossible to get United Nations support.

[RafterMan]

40. The support wasn't there

Other countries just didn't want it to happen -- they couldn't see how SH was a threat to America any more than I can. The primary concern of our allies in this affair was unchecked American power, not Saddam Hussein.

When he bumped into this wall, would it have stopped John Edwards?

Not according to him:"I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage."

Also, if you concede that JE supported Bush's preemptive war policy point-by-point in the interview, what would you say are his grounds for saying he did not support Bush's preemptive war policy in the same interview?

[DjTj]

42. Good thing he didn't have to do it then...

...I think Edwards believes the support would have been there. He seems to suggest that he wouldn't have been held hostage by the Security Council, but he also knows he wouldn't have been massing the troops so early and I think he honestly believes he could have gotten the Security Council to at least impose sanctions and force real inspections.

I'm not even sure John Edwards has played out all the scenarios in his head, because he's often said that it's meaningless and insincere to go back and second-guess a particular situation that will not happen again. Anything I try to come up with is pure speculation.

Rehashing the "What if Gore had picked Edwards, was elected President, then was assassinated so Edwards was the post-911 President that decided to confront Saddam Hussein" scenario is a fun intellectual exercise, but the real question we should be asking is: Will President Edwards pre-emptively attack North Korea? Iran? Syria? Nobody's bothered to ask him these questions yet, but I'm pretty confident it's not on his agenda. However, the last time I checked the PNAC agenda... (If you try to claim that Edwards is secretly an advocate of PNAC, I'm not going to respond)

[RafterMan]

43. Cute.

You can have your tinfoil hat back, it doesn't fit me. I'm glad you regard it as a fun intellectual exercise. Since I can't see the future, I'm limited to extrapolating from the past and policy statements to make my best guesses as to how a candidate will govern.

And based on his astonishingly low threshhold for a threat that justifies preemptive action, I'd guess pretty badly.

And by the way, we had sanctions and real inspections in place when we invaded.

[DjTj]

44. Alright, I want to call a truce on this...

...because all we have as evidence is one interview that Edwards did on Hardball (not exactly the greatest truth-extracting medium) and I don't feel like digging around for all the other Edwards quotes on this subject that I can find.

This is just an intellectual exercise because we'll never find out the real answer. I will concede that out of the Hardball interview, you can draw the reasonable conclusion that Edwards could have sent troops into Iraq. Even if that is true, the hypothetical second-term Edwards would have learned his lesson by now and would definitely be backtracking on his preemptive war doctrine - heck, I've seen him backtracking in the past 3 weeks in the wake of David Kay and he's not even the President right now...

When I think back over everything that happenned leading up to Iraq though, it still seems ridiculous that anybody could have taken it all the way up to armed conflict. We kicked the inspectors out because we didn't believe them?! Who does that?! I tend to just get angry again when I look over the timelines ... I've tried to put it behind me and I wouldn't have gotten behind Edwards if I was still hung up on IWR and all that. I prefer to worry about the future, and I know the foreign policy future under Edwards is much better than that under Bush. I also don't think there will be a significant difference between Edwards and Kerry (and they would no doubt share many of the same advisors).

What makes me feel best about Edwards is this line from his stump speech (yeah, I'm a sucker for that speech):

"America's also had two different images around the world over the last 30 or 40 years. It used to be the image we were all proud of: America this great shining light, this beacon of freedom, democracy, and human rights that everyone looked up to. And now the image George Bush has given us: America acting on its own, unilaterally, disrespecting the rest of the world. It doesn't have to be that way. You and I can build a world and an image of America around the world where we are once again looked up to and respected and the truth is this: Every child, every family in America will be safer and more secure if they live in a world where America is once again looked up to and respected. That's the world that you and I are going to create together."

Those are not the words of a man that will repeat the mistakes of Iraq.

[RafterMan]

45. Well, it's simple

I'm not "hung up" on the Iraq war -- I have the honest, reasoned opinion that it was a great blunder, and we will be paying for it in unexpected ways for a long time. I am greatly concerned that Edwards does not seem to see this. It causes me to question his judgement. I worry about the future, too. You trivialize this position in your attempt to psychologize it.

You trust that Edwards will be different. Fine. But on the Hardball show, he had *many* chances to show it and didn't. So I don't trust him to be different.

The soaring rhetoric is fine, but JE has not shown me he has grasped the magnitude of the error. Until or unless he does, I cannot help but see him as part of the problem.

[DjTj]

46. I think Edwards' answers were politically motivated.

He went into the Hardball interview wanting to appear strong on national security and through some back and forth perhaps he came off stronger than he wanted. Tweety certainly pushed him that way, and Edwards wanted to err on the side of strength.

I think he understands how we have ruined relations with the rest of the world, and his policy proposals and rhetoric certainly reflect that.

However, I can offer you no proof of the sort of realization you are looking for, and I seriously doubt you will hear it from Edwards during this campaign. The easiest criticism of him is that he is soft and inexperienced on national security, so he will do his best not to give Bush any soundbites to paint him that way.

I see it as a political move, and you may see it as me rationalizing, but I just really don't see a hawk in John Edwards at all. What can I say? I trust him. You can make your own judgment.

[RafterMan]

48. ???

A ten-post defense and now you say you think he was lying?

Huh.

Well, it certainly politically motivated *me*.

[BurtWorm]

49. I find this response just as troubling as the earlier one.

Again, while trying to sound as though he's being fair to all parties, he takes the Bushist stand that there was something wrong with the intelligence gathering. This sounds as though he is trying to blame some flaw in the intelligence gathering process...but for what? He seems to be claiming the war was a positive thing. His position is unintelligible. Why is it "responsible" to determine whether there's a "problem in our intelligence gathering" if the "result of the war is a very good thing?"

[SerpentX]

24. And no reason not to rattle our sabres ...

and try to get the inspectors in and the sanctions lifted. They both gambled and got burned.

[charlie]

18. At least a couple of them

wouldn't have gone to Iraq at all, which is why tweezing out the differences between the frontrunners is cold comfort to me.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Kucinich is the only one that I know of that would NOT have gone in

at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but even Dean and Clark had ticked off a list of justifications for if and when etc.

[charlie]

20. Moseley-Braun and Sharpton

wouldn't have. Also, if I remember right, Graham would have at least back-burnered the notion for other pursuits against terrorists.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. Graham felt that Syria was a bigger threat

Thanks. I was asking in earnest.

[WiseMen]

21. Kerry LED opposition to Bush's Rush to War. Dean wanted to ignore that

but it was true. Kerry strongly opposed war except as a last resort
under imminent threat.

[ibegurpard]

25. Dean's been dispatched, remember?

Focus, focus!

[tobius]

27. Kerry,Edwards and bush have positions the majority of the public do.

Massing troops forced the hands of a lot of people and I believe that Kerry and Edwards both say that w/o a credible threat hussein would have continued to oppose any type of inspection regime.

How to reconcile those positions with the passionate, grassroots support that wants to run on "bush lied, people died!" ? Kerry is the hands down favorite, he has shown the ability to say just enough to give some ammunition to all sides of a position.




You can't say you love your country and hate your government." - Bill Clinton, 1995

[RafterMan]

30. Sounds like more than massing troops and forcing hands

Q: Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

[tobius]

36. remember "permission slip"? nt

Agent Smith: Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability- Matrix trilogy

[roguevalley]

39. so essentially he's not opposed to unilateral war when he wants it, hang

Old Europe: "I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage."

Not a shred of regret, not a blinking of awareness, not a single back step that he might have been wrong even now. He was for it then, he's for it now. As for O'Reilly ... when did he do this show and have some backpedaling? When he was running for Presnit or when it became a liability with the changing attitudes of the electorate he says he's most fit to defeat bush over?

Is he keeping his attitude of 'war is good sometimes because we sort of thing that guy over there is like hitler' up because he feels if he's the one, he can match bush on that or what by being able to say so?

He knew what the Patriot Act was, helped write parts of it -maybe good or bad ones, no one knows- and knew about it better than anyone else in the party and he STILL voted for it!??! He STILL won't say the war was crap. He voted for the war because it was politically expedient to do so, because his own presidential ambitions were more important than principled stands that would have cost something and he felt the country would not support an anti-war candidate.

Funny that stance now, that this war should become such an albatross, that his stand against it if he had taken one would have been applauded. Even if the times hadn't changed and people would not have seen what this is, he would have had the cold comfort of knowing HE DID THE RIGHT THING WHEN IT WAS COUNTED. But he didn't. He wants me to think he is a man of principles but when he had a chance to SHOW it, he caves.

I am very angry to read this about him. He is just another suit with ambition.

[RafterMan]

41. I don't give him that much credit.

You say "He voted for the war because it was politically expedient to do so, because his own presidential ambitions were more important than principled stands that would have cost something and he felt the country would not support an anti-war candidate".

I don't think so. I think he might really, actually agree with Bush on this one.

It's chilling.

[roguevalley]

47. You are probably right:

"I don't think so. I think he might really, actually agree with Bush on this one.

"It's chilling."

I am really stunned here.

[Guava Jelly]

50. He was pandering

Edwards needs to and kerry needs to step up and admit they were retarded for voting for that stupid resolution.
I am Sorry would be a good start.
They only voted for it i believe because it was before the 2002 elections and they were all afraid of being painted weak on defense.
they were muscled and they caved.

[in_cog_ni_to]

51. I think it's frightening as HELL.

Edwards will not make it to the WH because of his skewed Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. I can't believe Edwards has been so naive as to think Saddam actually had ANYTHING to do with 911. I will make sure EVERYONE "I" know knows what his position on Iraq/911 is. ALSO....the man NOW knows that everything this administration said PRIOR to illegally and pre-emptively attacking Iraq was a LIE and he STILL thinks we were right to do what we did??? YIKES! NO THANK YOU! :scared: