Edwards Was Advised To Back War, Book Says

(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.

[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.

[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

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:

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".

[sero5]

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

[lars2008-2009]

jebby_one

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

[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

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]

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.

[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.