Edwards Was Advised To Back War, Book Says
Democratic Presidential Candidate Now Says He Was Wrong To Vote To Authorize Attack On Iraq
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Edwards's Ideas For Change
FTN 02.25.07, part 2, In Full: Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., talks to Bob Schieffer about his healthcare plan, the Iraq war and why he knows that he can win the presidency.
-
Photo
A new book says former Sen. John Edwards, who is running for president, was pushed into supporting the Iraq war while in the Senate by advisers focused on his political future. (AP / file)
-
Who's Who
2008 Democratic Hopefuls
Clinton, Obama and Edwards lead the chase for the Democratic nomination.
-
Who's Who
2008 Republican Hopefuls
McCain and Giuliani head up the Republican pack chasing the presidency.
Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004.
Edwards spokesman David Ginsberg disputes the suggestion that Edwards was making a political calculation with the 2002 vote that he has called the most important of his career.
"John Edwards cast his vote based on the advice of national security advisers and the intelligence he was given, not political advisers," Ginsberg said. "He got political advice on both sides of the argument, and made his own decision based on what he thought was right, not political calculation."
After standing by his vote throughout the 2004 campaign, Edwards has recently acknowledged being conflicted about his decision in October 2002 and says it was a mistake. But Shrum's book, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," provides the most extensive insight into Edwards' private discussions over the decision. The Associated Press obtained excerpts from uncorrected galley proofs of the book, scheduled to be published June 5 by Simon & Schuster.
Shrum writes that Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, called his foreign policy and political advisers together in his Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. Edwards was "skeptical, even exercised" about the idea of voting yes — and his wife, Elizabeth, was forcefully against it, according to Shrum, who later signed on to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
But Shrum said the consensus among the advisers was that Edwards, just four years in office, did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security. Shrum said Edwards' facial expressions showed he did not like where he was being pushed to go.
Edwards, campaigning for the 2008 nomination among Democrats who are overwhelmingly anti-war, has said he voted yes because he was ultimately convinced by intelligence reports saying that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He's said in recent months that he was conflicted because he was worried that President Bush wouldn't work with the international community to avoid an invasion. Since then, he has said repeatedly that he shouldn't have voted for the resolution.
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



But I feel pretty good about another candidate:
BARAK OBAMA, 2008!
Edwards wouldn't do that because it is "icky" and "gross"
Just knowing that you are so vehemently opposed to Edwards makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside and my support for him is further solidified.
Doesn't say too much about the strength of his convictions.
This seems to be a democratic problem -- spineless candidates who listen too much to their advisers.
That was Kerry's problem too. He played it too safe until he was swiftboated into oblivion!
And if I were you, I would sell my Halliburton stock well before the election, you selfish, greedy p r i c k!
You talking to me with that "choke" comment ? At least Edwards has the guts to admit when he's wrong.
Who took seriously the ridiculous claims that even a 5 year old would have questioned.
Who actually looked at George Bush and thought he could lead a country after leading the state of Texas right down the tubes.
Who used to think it was entertaining to watch Don Rumsfield do a press conference instead of actually asking the moron tough questions and demanding answers.
Who actually let a sitting President get away with press conferences without taking any questions.
Who too have gotten rich off this war. Whose anchors run around on Leno and Letterman like movie stars while young men and women get killed and maimed for nothing.
When was the last time you heard one of these folks admit their substantial culpability in this mess ?
But, my advice to you will also be, watch that Edwards. We did here in NC and learned the hard way. Maybe similar to the Texans with ol Georgie Boy.
You talking to me with that "choke" comment ? At least Edwards has the guts to admit when he's wrong.
Posted by tejasdemo at 04:54 PM
--------
tejasdemo,
I do apologize. But that was a swipe at Musty2U.
I am very much in the John Edwards camp and I will be campaigning for him.
It's that old "run with the pack" or "mob" mentality. No one wants to buck the system, and in fact, only one presidential candidate had the courage to do so.
I sort of identify with Edwards because he was born into a poor family and dragged himself by the bootstraps. What I don't like about him is he had to become a lawyer to do it. Washington is full of lawyers and other no-accounts who never really worked a day in their lives, and we know the mess our Capital has become.
It appears to me that Edwards' weasel-words are just weak-asssed excuses and now he's trying to make up for a bad deed to get people to like him.
Forget it, John. You're not my first choice, or second, or third. The only way I'll vote for you is if you are the (D) nominee, 'cause I've NEVER knowingly voted for a (r) at any level of government.
You should move to Mexico, troll.
Any intelligent candidate for office will have a staff for the same reasons. It is a mark of intelligence to seek advice from informed sources. Advice/advisors can, and sometimes do, turn out to be wrong.
It is a mark of good character to admit mistakes. As a matter of fact it is impossible to correct a mistake until and unless the mistake is recognized and admitted.
Remember, a large majority of people approved of the Iraq invasion based on the information and spin put out by this administration. I seriously doubt the same majority still feels that way today. It is easy to find fault if the candidate is not of your own party.
It sure is helpful to be an independent
In this case it says that you are intelligent enough to recognize the lies you and everyone else were fed and the character to admit it.
His only talent is in abnoxously complaining about what he thinks other people did wrong.
That's not enough to qualify him for anythng beyond being a jerk.
Nope! But one big (*lucky) win that makes a man a trial lawyer does not make him presidential material. I suspect, if not for that big win, he would still be just a trial lawyer in NC.
*lucky in that he drew that case, after all, what jury would vote against a child.
Guess that makes you a jerk too.
--------------------------
and apparently anyone that's in business is rich and we need to take all their money away from them and give it to the little people. Ops, I mean give just some of it to the little people.
That said, Edwards big cases don't seem to have been frivolous. The pool case involved a girl who was disemboweled and the company at fault had had 12 prior similar suits against it yet refused to change anything or put even a simple warning label on the drain covers.
No just rich people that screw little people. It's called the law. If you do damage to someones property or person you owe them reperations rich or poor.
Thanks for playing "Who Wants To Look Like An Idiot". You win.
Posted by Winstrv"
It says that you're a politician.
I can't count the number of politicians who've left office and ONLY THEN are able to truly speak their minds. This goes for BOTH Republicans and Democrats. The system truly is messed up.
Only a neocon nuts with twisted "values" favor an evil Goliath over David.
If you do damage to someones property or person you owe them reperations rich or poor.
--------------------------------
so, how many poor people did Edwards help sue?
Let me guess??? ZERO ?
or, how many little people did Edwards help sue?
Let me guess??? ZERO ?
or, how many people with moderate resources did Edwards help sue?
Let me guess??? ZERO ?
or, how many people with only a half million or so did Edwards help sue?
Let me guess??? ZERO ?
Thanks for playing "Who Wants To Look Like An Idiot".
Do you even know what a personal injury attourney is? Do you know, by definition, what they do?
Edwards made much of his career by representing common citizens against corporations who injured them physicly or financialy. He took cases where there was clear negligence and or a callous disregard for public safety.
Thanks again for playing "Who Wants To Look Like A
Moron". Man you are good at this game. Have you played before?
"Edwards made much of his career by representing common citizens against corporations who injured them physicly or financialy."
-----------------------------------
Yes he has. But for the life of me I can't understand why that serves as qualification to be President of the US, or Vice President for that matter.
He helped to get BIG settlements from corporations. That's not the same as FAIR settlements except in the eyes of the neo-commie part of America who believes that large corporations should be punished simply because they are large corporations.
-
by lars2008-2009
March 14, 2007 10:14 AM PDT
- Jebby_One
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 48 CommentsReally? So can you name a settlement that wasn't fair? These things are decided by a jury. Please educate me.