Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Edwards implicates the Clinton administration in Iraq war
Edwards, having discovered that George Bush cannot run for a third term, needs to find another excuse for his vote to invade Iraq, a vote which his progressive base abhors. He can't just explain it away by saying he was too stupid to see past the web of Bush lies -- after all, he sat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and had access to the classified information that formed the basis of Bush's case for military action. At the time, he was one of the more vocal Democratic supporters of action.Based on early indications, the 2008 presidential election, which has now begun, is shaping up to be quite a spectacle. Who knows, maybe when its over Bush won't be the "worst president ever" after all.
So now he's blaming members of the Clinton administration for lying to him as well. That's certainly convenient. After all, Hillary Clinton is his biggest competitor for the nomination, and shifting blame to her husband for the Iraq war would suit his needs perfectly. He can now argue that he was no sap -- he checked on the information and got the same answer from the previous Democratic administration.
However, this opens up a completely new problem for Edwards and the rest of the Democrats. They have claimed for at least the last two years that Bush Lied (TM), that the entire basis of the war was based on his deceptions about the intelligence. Their campaigns have created an impetus for impeachment in some Democratic circles based on this supposed set of lies. Now John Edwards, years later, claims that Clinton administration officials gave him essentially the same analysis about WMD in Iraq -- exposing the Democrats as liars and smear artists themselves.
17 Comments:
By 
Charlottesvillain, at
Tue Feb 06, 02:41:00 PM:
Shochu John,
I think you may be right about what it will take to win the Democratic nomination, although it remains to be seen whether the Iraq litmus test will ultimately be more important than the "electability" canard. As we know, in 2004 it looked like it would all hinge on Iraq, until it didn't. I still think Hillary is the candidate to beat, due to money and star power.
I suspect, however, that the general election could very well hinge on policy issues we are currently overlooking, and Iraq may be a bit of a footnote. Bush is not running, so running against Bush is no recipe for guaranteed success, and positioning relative to someone who is not running sounds like a red herring to me.
By T ChristopherPhillips, at
Tue Feb 06, 03:09:00 PM:
Edwards isn't running against Bush so why not segue into the true contest against the Clintonistas. The Breck girl may be despicable but he's not stupid.
By 
, at
Tue Feb 06, 03:17:00 PM:
From Dan at paynehollow:
"I still think Hillary is the candidate to beat, due to money and star power."
Hillary won't make it through the primary process. She's got too many on the Left too disgusted with her. If the Dems DID nominate her, I think that's about the only thing they could do to lose this election.
-Dan
By skipsailing, at
Tue Feb 06, 03:46:00 PM:
I think it was nixon who said "run to the right in the primary and to the middle in the general"
the democrat primary process will be interesting this time around. I suspect that the candidates will have to go far left to gain traction and this will damage them in the general election.
surely the republicans will have "people" at the major events, gathering sound bites, bites in the ass of the candidate when the general election is up for grabs.
If Hillary morphs into cindy to win the nomination, her opponent will spend a fortune repeating hillary's words ad infinitum.
For a glimpse into the addled thinking of the Howard Dean party one need look no further than john's prior post. That sums up the position of the party pretty well.
Good luck with that in the general, it should be interesting.
By , at
Tue Feb 06, 08:55:00 PM:
Now John Edwards, years later, claims that Clinton administration officials gave him essentially the same analysis about WMD in Iraq -- exposing the Democrats as liars and smear artists themselves
Cepting you're forgetting one thing: Even with the same analysis about WMD in Iraq, Clinton/Democrats didn't choose to take us to war.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Feb 06, 09:32:00 PM:
She's got too many on the Left too disgusted with her.
Any dem wanting to win the general needs to throw the moonbats overboard anyway. I would have thought they'd learned this after the Gore/Kerry losses.
By , at
Tue Feb 06, 09:35:00 PM:
Arguing over the Iraq War will be like arguing over Vietnam by the General Election. Iran and it's nukes, Al Qaeda, Pakistan sliding into Al Qaeda's orbit (with their nukes), China playing footsie with Al Qaeda and Iran just because, and various terror attacks against the US will dominate.
A bit of Polonium 210 at say, the Final Four or any US subway system and thousands of people dying like Litivenko, you'll have a whole different perspective. One Dems running to the Left have no answer for.
Anti-War peace at all costs "in our time" appeasement fever has taken over the Dems. They even had a Hezbollah terror Imam give the DNC convocation, calling for Allah to destroy Israel and America as Dems dutifully bowed their heads.
Rudy or McCain promising to nuke Iran and other troublesome Muslim terror nations away or something along those lines versus Dem surrender to Sharia is basically what we've got. And we'll look back on Bush with the fondness we have for Coolidge's more innocent time.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Feb 06, 11:53:00 PM:
"What will it take for you to believe how unpopular this war really is?"
Amongst whom? Santa Cruz and New York? Your circle of friends and relations? There are entire swathes of the country, including major states, (such as my own) who feel the opposite. My entire family are registered Democrats who support the war whole-heartedly; the same breed of conservative Democrats who were revived in these last elections. Do they not count?
The situation in Iraq is better now than in was in November 2004, (functional government, peace in 3/4 of the country, Zarqawi dead and Al Qaeda scattered, we're finally fucking up Iranian agents) when President Bush defeated John Kerry. But now rabid anti-war ideas are mainstream.
I don't see it.
BTW, I found a reference to the mass roundup of Mahdi Army members I talked about before.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/troops-round-up-600-militiamen/2007/01/23/1169518709429.html
It doesn't mention the same details of the Arab story however.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070124/world/iraq_us_sadr
A second from Canadian news, with a political spin.
Just to prove that I don't just make this shit up.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Feb 07, 01:51:00 AM:
where the candidates stood in relation to these doomed policies of the last few years will be brought up again and again, as well they should
As long as they take it all the way back to the Clinton years too, I have no problem with that.
By , at
Wed Feb 07, 04:54:00 AM:
I can see you still got your head up your ass SJ
By , at
Wed Feb 07, 07:04:00 AM:
[From Dan at paynehollow who is STILL experiencing technical difficulties, at least at this website!]
John asked:
"What will it take for you to believe how unpopular this war really is?"
I'm with John. The Democrats would have a very hard time losing this election and any Republican that wants to win it will have to distance him or herself from the war and from Bush.
This from a Red State Kentuckian (although, admittedly Blue Louisville resident). This war is clearly unpopular, clearly thought to be wrong, clearly thought to be a bad idea that will make things worse not better - by a majority of Americans according to the polls.
The fact that you find yourself surrounded by folk who agree that it's a good thing just means that you're surrounded by the minority.
Time will tell, of course. But my prediction is that this will be a cakewalk for the Dems UNLESS they nominate Hillary.
-Dan
By skipsailing, at
Wed Feb 07, 07:09:00 AM:
Yes, and now, as luck would have it, that position is now mainstream, which is why Hillary and Edwards are having such a hard time explaining away their pro-war past. What will it take for you to believe how unpopular this war really is?
Its far from mainstream, that's a fantasy you and Dan share but its simply not the reality. No doubt you've got all sorts of polling "data" that comforts you in your little world john but the americans I talk to understand the stakes far better than you.
are there people who oppose the war? sure and those that I encounter have no more to offer than you john. Smarmy know it alls with thier new religion. No thanks.
Further john, people with courage don't have to "explain away" their choices. Unlike most of the childish left, adults understand that their choices have consequences. Edward et al are simply trying to avoid facing the consequences of their choices. It makes them look like whiny oportunists and leads me to believe that those who follow them are fools.
You're attempt to change the subject seems to have worked. Good for you. We started out talking about a feckless presidential candidate and wound up discussing the war for the millionth time.
But SJ not all of America will be so easily distracted. Not all of America thinks that Howard Dean is a brave and insightful man. Many of us despise the Democrat party because it seems to us that the Democrats value their power more than the value our country.
if you'd like to explain that away, be my guest.
By Dan Trabue, at
Wed Feb 07, 08:42:00 AM:
"Many of us despise the Democrat party because it seems to us that the Democrats value their power more than the value our country."
Many on the left feel the same way about the Dems. BUT many on both sides feel similarly about the Republicans, as well.
Again, you find yourself surrounded by those who agree with you that the Iraq War was good. I find myself surrounded by those who agree with me, that the Iraq Invasion was/is a horrible mistake and against American values and detrimental to American security. And those around me include my traditionalist Southern Baptist friends and family.
So, in anecdotal evidence, that's a tie, right?
That's why I think it illuminating to look to polls. Anecdotal evidence is, well, only anecdotal and is only worth that much. It's interesting but far from the whole picture.
Polls, on the other hand, do a better (not perfect) job of giving a fuller picture. None of us will know for sure until Nov 2008, will we? So, you can discount our anectdotal evidence all you want, and you can ignore the scientific polls all you want, but you've got nothing to back your position but a hunch based on those you find around you.
Nothing but a hunch. As long as you want to rant based upon that reality, fine. Knock yerself out, Skip.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Feb 07, 10:54:00 AM:
SCIRI is a problem, no doubt about it.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Feb 07, 10:54:00 AM:
The unpopularity of a war does not translate into an easy victory for the peace candidate. Look at the Presidential election of 1972. Nixon, who had the charisma of a wet wolverine, won the popular vote by a margin of 23.2 percent, despite the highly unpopular Vietnam War.
In my view the only Presidential candidate who can benefit from an ongoing mess in Iraq is Giuliani (if he can win the Republican nomination).
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Feb 07, 10:05:00 PM:
"You're read of the situation is certainly rosier than the NIE that was released on Friday, which describes your "functional government" as persistently weak and unable to abate the ethno-sectarian violence."
According to this qualifier, the United Kingdom is/was persistently weak (and thereby, as you imply, non-functional) as well, unable as it was to put an end to violence in Northern Ireland. For decades. Even though that only makes up a fraction of the country as a whole. I had no idea that Britain was such a chaotic quagmire.
Now that it's established that 'functional' doesn't mean 'perfect' or even 'free from violence,' perhaps you can invalidate my other points from the same sentence, that you ignored.
"I can try to help, but, be forewarned, it may involve looking at "data"."
I did a search on 'Iraq War Poll' and the only even remotely comprehensive hit that I got that wasn't from 2005 or before was here, from last September.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html
It's mixed at best.
Sixty-one percent, however, said they believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Of those, 26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops, while 35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn. Another 34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained.
That is, 1/4 wanted to call it quits, and 69% don't. Which is just about the same percentages who were initially against and for the war in the first place. Which you can find here: http://deseretnews.com/photos/a031903poll.pdf
Feel free to throw me some more meaningless numbers, but keep in mind that caveat about sourcing, given below.
"None of your two articles even mention Iran."
Surprise.
"Blaming it all on the Iranians is far easier for an Arab audience to stomach than the notion that Iraq's hell is caused by Arab on Arab violence. Again, I would be interested to see how the lone article you found that made those Iran claims sourced them."
The same way that our media sources... from unnamed individuals who wish to remain anonymous. The idea that such reports should be ignored because they're coming from Arabs (despite their mastery of the local language, proximity, and ready access) smacks of the very type of arrogance that I so often hear leftists preaching about. But if you choose not to believe it because you don't trust the source, I suppose that's your business. Do recall, however, that that street goes both ways (and that our media outright lies about US military affairs) the next time you want to wave a news article and someone calls bullshit.
"I will do so if they say something obvious and verifiable, such as the sky is blue, the earth revolves around the sun, or SCIRI is chock full of Iranian agents."
Wait... you'll concur with a non-professional source with a clear political agenda here, (apparently because it matches your pre-existing beliefs) but you don't buy the idea that the Mahdi Army is 'chock full' of Iranian agents because it's from an Arab press agency? Fascinating.
By , at
Thu Feb 08, 06:31:00 AM:
SJ Against my better judgment
How can you have better judgment with your head up your ass?
