WASHINGTON, March 13, 2007
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.
-
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.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 48 CommentsReally? So can you name a settlement that wasn't fair? These things are decided by a jury. Please educate me.
"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.
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?
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".
Only a neocon nuts with twisted "values" favor an evil Goliath over David.
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.
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.
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.
--------------------------
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.
Guess that makes you a jerk too.
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.
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.
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.
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
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 48 Comments