Did John Edwards lie to America on the floor of the senate?

[HFishbine]

Edwards maintained in an interview with Chris Matthews that he wasn't mislead by the "intelligence" in casting his vote for the Iraq war:

("So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled." http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/)

Yet, in his floor speech in support of the war resolution, Edwards refers numerous times to Iraq's WMD as reason for his support of the resolution:

"We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more."

"Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community..."

"That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

"Mr. President, the decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less."

(http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html)

You can't have it both ways, John. If you knew that the intel was bad, then you lied to America on the floor of the senate.

[Warren Stuart]

1. He qualified his statement

He did address the discrepancies between what he was told and what they found. But as far as the misleading part he stated.

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

[HFishbine]

2. Excellent point

And one that further suggests a lie to the American people. Edwards didn't put a lot of stock in it to begin with, yet spoke of it as justification for his vote in the well of the senate.

[Lex]

5. So I'm curious, did

Kerry "put a lot of stock" into what Bush claimed or not?

Has he said one way or the other? I bet he hasn't said.

I know Edwards has taken responsibility for the way he voted. Has Kerry? Or has he sidestepped and talked around the issue entirely?

[GreenArrow]

30. how has he taken "responsibility"?

Has he admitted he was wrong? Will he?

He has said he wasn't misled. Then what was his excuse? He's further admitted that he would have gone to war, just not the way Bush did.

What has he done to SHOW that he is not simply "responsible" but remorseful?

As best as I can tell, the differences between Kerry and Edwards can be summarized thusly:

Kerry: Trusted Busch. Busch did not reciprocate trust. Regrets trusting Busch. War was implemented in wrong way. Will continue to prosecute war.

Edwards: Wasn't misled. Took no stock in Niger intelligence, amongst other. Convinced that Saddam constituted an immediate threat which necessitated his removal. Is responsible, but has no regret, and would have pursued war with interntional coalition had he been president.

While they may have disagreed with its implementation, both voted in favor of long standing US policy. Both suggest that they could do a better job than Dubya, but niether has suggested in any way that the war was wrong.

[AP]

3. That was, I believe, a comment about the Niger claim. He said they saw

plenty of other good evidence, all of which the Republicans will start leaking in September if Iraq is an issue.

They've only leaked the bad evidence now to get Democrats to run solely on the war (rather than the economy) and to hurt Blair's Labour government.

[HFishbine]

7. LOL

First of all, who is the "they" that has "leaked" only bad evidence?

Secondly, what do you expect the "good" evidence to show? That no, Saddam really, really, really did have WMD?

[AP]

12. They would be the Republicans. Do you really think the media ISN'T

doing as they're told?

They have done NO serious investigative journalism since about 1998, yet all this incriminating evidence about Iraq is falling in their laps.

Right.

Look at how the press behaves. Did you read the Hutton Report? Did you hear on Democracy Now that the CIA PLANNED to blame the British for the Niger claim months before it came out?

I expect that we will discover in September that in the three or four months SH had to prepare for US attack he moved all his WMDs to Syria or some other country we want to attack.

It probably won't be much evidence, but it will be something that was actually in the senate intelligence reports, and it will be enough for the public to forgive Bush for everything else, and the media will play it up.

Mark my words.

[HFishbine]

14. LOL redux

"something that was actually in the senate intelligence reports..."

If that were the case, wouldn't John Edwards or John Kerry for that matter, be saying something like, "there is intelligence I saw that I cannot reveal yet which was very convincing?"

[AP]

15. LOL, because that's what Edwards DOES say.

I believe in either the Russert or Tweety interview, or both, he reminds the interviewer that he was on the Senate Intelligence committee, and they have seen lots of classified intelligence the public hasn't seen. He wants to investigate the entire intelligence gathering effort, but he does say there was plenty of good evidence. Clinton has said exactly the same thing.

You cite these things but don't know what they say. I remember that from months ago. You're cutting and pasting today. Take a close look.

Can I infer that you believe that my theory is valid then?

[AP]

17. Here's where he says it to Tweety:

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.

[HFishbine]

19. Which takes us back to the original point

Edwards acknowledges that the intelligence didn't match the facts. He maintains however, that he didn't put much stock in it to begin with, and yet he asked the American people to believe it. He's lying one way or another.

[AP]

21. Hello. He says he didn't put much stock in NIGER claim, and that there

was plenty of other CONVINCING evidence, and that he wants to investigate ALL of it, for the sake of America's safety. He says, today, it certainly looks like it was all wrong, but has said at least once, live on TV, that he thinks there's still a lot we don't know.

That sounds like it's exactly my opinion (even if there were no John Edwards running for president) and I wouldn't be lying to anyone if I made that statement.

[AP]

27. kick.

[GreenArrow]

32. "If that were the case, wouldn't John Edwards or John Kerry "

Actually they'd be saying something like: "we have intellgence that Sadaam moved all his weapons of mass destruction to Syria, and therefore we have to invade. Secretary of State Clark is working hard to put together a coalition. Syria must comply with all inspections and sanctions. There is also good reason to expect that another Middle Eastern power is involved."

Or something to that effect.

[Guaranteed]

31. LOL Is that a pro-war argument?

Are those allowed on DU? ROFL

[KC21304]

13. Huh ????

[AP]

16. Keep reading. He was talking specifically about Niger/Uranium.

[AP]

18. Here's the full quote:

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.

[littlejoe]

4. His remarks make him out to be either a liar, or not too bright.

Either way, it doesn't cast a very flattering light on his (stance?) on the issue.

[AP]

6. Whose remarks? You have a couple from which to chose.

Edwards's remarks are actually pretty clear.

[HFishbine]

8. Which remarks are clear?

That Saddam had WMD or that he didn't put a lot of stock in that?

[AP]

9. That there was plenty of good evidence, and there was some bad

evidence, like the Niger Uranium claim, which he didn't put much stock into.

He beleives the first thing we need to do is investigate the intelligence.

He also said once that there's still a lot we don't know, which I think is his way of warning us: Bush is going to find the good evidence just before the election.

[littlejoe]

20. I thought we were discussing John Edwards and his

inconsistencies.

[AP]

22. And it turns out there are none.

[IconoclastIlene]

10. The Whole Topic WMD/Iraq

I have to give the man the benefit of the doubt. The whole topic, time sequences of the whole mess of it all, could make anyone say things that are "clear as mud".

Edwards tends to think and talk very quickly, and sometimes I believe, he ought to slow down just a bit before he makes remarks.

The whole world is watching, not just a courtroom, or part of government, most of whom are probably taking a doze..

Other than that, whomever the Democrats decide to elect, I have said from the start (when Bush was elected), I would vote for and that goes for quite a few people I know.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi Madame_Bovary!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TheDonkey]

23. He probably still believes it, just like Sadam flying a plane into

our skyscrapers.

[DaisyUCSB]

24. What? He didn't say anything that could sanely be construed as a lie

Iraq never did comply with UN res 1441, and his vote was an effort to do what he, Kerry, Dean, and Clark all supported, getting the UN on board to put international pressure on Iraq to comply with 1441.

[DjTj]

25. So did Kerry.

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

They both failed us on this issue. If IWR is the litmus test, our choices suck. I'm basing my decision on other factors.

[Snivi Yllom]

26. Kerry is in the same boat as Edwards

Both are running away and trying to rewrite their past statements with Orwellian revisionism.

They never said it so forget about it.....right?

[IconoclastIlene]

28. Animal Farm

The last 4 years have been as close a brush to the aforementioned novel than I feel comfortable with and I over and above nitpicking, please try to remain a cohesive group. Keep the eyes on the prize. I fear that, 4 more years of the shrub, our country as we know it, good/bad indifferent will have had even more of an indelible scar which would run deeper and more infectious than it already has done to the soul of this land.

[jpgpenn]

29. more compelling info on Edwards!

Thanks for the post!

[Sean Reynolds]

33. Yes.

That or maybe his slick hair fell over his eyes?