Edwards Was Advised To Back War, Book Says

Democratic Presidential Candidate Now Says He Was Wrong To Vote To Authorize Attack On Iraq

(AP)  Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future, according to an upcoming book by one of his former consultants.

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.

[pakaal]

If true, it's a gruesome look at how decisions are made in Washington. The advisors said Edwards didn't have the "credibility" to vote against the 2002 resolution? Bad statement. This doesn't make Edwards look very good.

[anvilheadsix]

I have really wanted to vote for him since he had the b@lls to tell Fox News to shove it but this makes me think less of him. If he was uneasy about voting for the war, why did he vote for it?? If he doesn't trust his conscience and listens to pundits, I can't very well support him.

[scott4261]

The difference is that John Edwards has expressed contrition for his vote authorizing the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton has not. I admire Edwards more and more as time goes on and he certainly has my vote in the primary (and hopefully in the general election).

[scott4261]

And people, they are all politicians and they all calculate to a point (don't think they don't). At least Edwards has acknowledged the error and is moving in the right direction. Hillary will not do anything but wet her finger and stick it in the air!

[musty2u]

Scott, this is still pretty sorry when Johnny boy is the best there is for a front-runner, but that is how it stacks for the time being. I say this as a NC resident, and, we had him before he went on the Senate ride. Our down home experience taught us too much about him to really stand behind him as a VP candidate let alone for the top seat from the get-go.

[scott4261]

We shall see...

[edjohn66]

Too bad Russ Feingold won't run. He voted AGAINST the war, AGAINST Bush's tax cuts, and AGAINST the Patiort Act - BOTH TIMES.

But I feel pretty good about another candidate:

BARAK OBAMA, 2008!

[mitywhity]

Hillary will not do anything but wet her finger and stick it in the air! ......Posted by scott4261

Edwards wouldn't do that because it is "icky" and "gross"

[mitywhity]

I will move to Mexico before I will watch this closet fairy prance around the Oval Office! His sham marriage rivals the sham marriage of the Clintons.

[scott4261]

Jeez, are you Ann Couter?

[scott4261]

Musty2U,

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.

[musty2u]

Ann's column "mysteriously has disappeared" in our local paper. No questions asked if the subscribers liked it or not. Instant censorship.

[jerr11]

Edwards Was Advised To Back War, Book Says

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!

[scott4261]

Musty2u, I say good riddance to the Fascist wench!

[musty2u]

Scott, go ahead and put your money on that horse. When things don't quite appear like you anticipated, remember ol' Musty saw through him.

[scott4261]

Musty2U,

And if I were you, I would sell my Halliburton stock well before the election, you selfish, greedy p r i c k!

[musty2u]

Pilgrim, I mean Scott, the volatility today caused by the Mortgage Brokers Assn report blathering about the liquidity crisis has led to a minor correction; however, this is dolly good in the long run. As to HAL, the after-hours trading has been up nearly 1.5%. I've said it before, not great, but it makes dinner.

[tejasdemo]

Edwards has my vote.

[scott4261]

Good for you (hope you choke!)!

[bildooreilly]

Face it, there's no excuse for voting for this war, then or now.... This snively little scumball should be sent to lead patrols in Iraq with his buddy Dubya and all the other traitors that voted in their own best interests instead of in the USA's best interest...

[tejasdemo]

Scott,

You talking to me with that "choke" comment ? At least Edwards has the guts to admit when he's wrong.

[tejasdemo]

The real culprits in the Iraq war are the media who pushed it hard.

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 ?

[musty2u]

Tejas, it was me he was chiding. I had refered to making enough ching for dinner in the market.

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.

[tejasdemo]

Gracias Musty

[scott4261]

Scott,

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.

[scott4261]

And tejasdemo, you and I are 100% in agreement on Edwards's contrition (and probably a lot of other issues in his campaign, as well). This story does not amount to much.

[torocaca]

"I have really wanted to vote for him since he had the b@lls to tell Fox News to shove it but this makes me think less of him. If he was uneasy about voting for the war, why did he vote for it?? If he doesn't trust his conscience and listens to pundits, I can't very well support him." Posted by anvilheadsix

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.

[torocaca]

"I will move to Mexico before I will watch this closet fairy prance around the Oval Office! His sham marriage rivals the sham marriage of the Clintons." Posted by MITYWHITY

You should move to Mexico, troll.

[Syndicate]

Everybody get that. He sold out his country for political gain. His only regret is that he made the wrong bet.

[scott4261]

ToroCaca, the case that made John Edwards a "millionaire trial lawyer" was against a pool manufacurer. In the case, the drain on the pool was so powerful that it started to pull a little girl's intestines out when she got stuck at the bottom of the pool. You wanna tell me that win was not justified?

[jn122736]

All members of congress have staffs and advisers to assist them in making decisions, simply because it is literally impossible for any one of them to be up to date and informed on every issue at any given time.

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

[jn122736]

Winstrv,

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.

[jebby_one]

Edwards is not a suitable candidate for President, or Vice President.

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.

[toolmangler-2009]

As an N.C. Democrat I say you people do as you want but Edwards will never get my vote. I have watched him for some time now. Got no time for him.

[torocaca]

"...the case that made John Edwards a "millionaire trial lawyer" was against a pool manufacurer...You wanna tell me that win was not justified?" Posted by scott4261

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.

Edwards has taken very strong positions since entering the 2008 race. His firm and steadfast campaign agenda is impressive because he has stepped out there with unequivocal opinions on the issues. Above all, his message is faithful to great Democratic ideals which is very appealing. He will have my vote if he is the nominee.

[lars2008-2009]

jebby_One

Guess that makes you a jerk too.

[bigdadpatrio]

An ambulance chaser by any other name is an ambulance chaser. Although this pool case was not a frivolous case, many ambulance chasing cases are frivolous. And the judgement was ridiculous (but we must blame 12 idiots for that)

[jebby_one]

"...the case that made John Edwards a "millionaire trial lawyer" was against a pool manufacurer...You wanna tell me that win was not justified?"

--------------------------

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.

[shingles1]

Everyone hates an ambulance chaser until the day that they stub their toe on a city sidewalk and decide to sue the city.

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.

[lars2008-2009]

Jebby_One

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.

[shingles1]

"When you say you knew it was wrong but voted to send troops anyway, what does that say about you?
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.

[lars2008-2009]

jebby_one

Only a neocon nuts with twisted "values" favor an evil Goliath over David.

[sero5]

All John Edwards has to say is that he was misled by the Bush prewar claims on WMDs, same for Hillary Clinton.

[jebby_one]

neo-commie states:

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".

[lars2008-2009]

Jebby_One

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?

[jebby_one]

Neo-commie states:

"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.

[lars2008-2009]

Jebby_One

Really? So can you name a settlement that wasn't fair? These things are decided by a jury. Please educate me.