Judgement is an Important Quality to Be President

Counterpunch published an article that raises some serious questions for those who insist that Edwards is perfect and can do no wrong.  Yes, he poses as a populist in his new image makeover but, let's look at his last image.  The hawkish democrat.
This past week questions have been raised concerning the Intelligence Committee and what they were told and kept secret in the run up to the Iraq War.
Much of the ire has focused on Dick Durbin because he was the one who told about it on the Senate floor a few days ago.
Because of this inside information before the vote, Durbin voted no.  Durbin and Levin even tried to get a bill passed to limit the power given to Bush.  This was voted down by more than one democrat.  Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, knew the same information given to Durbin and yet, not only voted for the war but, against the limitations of power by Durbin and Levin.
Counterpunch raises some important questions regarding this and Edwards posing as the great populist and running for President:

"On April 28, 2007 Sen. Dick Durbin attempted to cleanse the blood off his senate suit by admitting that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he had been told the opposite of what Bush was telling the Congress and the American people. But, Durbin remained silent. And, as Robert Lewis Stevenson wrote "The cruelest lies are often told in silence."
Durbin can't cleanse the blood of his senate suit so easily, but he is not the only one who has some explaining to do. There were sixteen members of the Senate Intelligence Committee who were given the same information as Durbin. They all remained silent. They let the administration lie to the Congress and mislead the American people into a catastrophic war. They let a war begin on false pretenses. A war that has cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqis their lives, destroyed their country and started a civil war. A war that cost thousands of Americans their lives and resulted in fifty thousand causalities of war -- more than two hundred thousand if illnesses like post traumatic stress disorder are counted. And, it has cost the American taxpayer more than $400 billion thus far with projected costs of over $1 trillion.

If ever silence was complicity, this is that time. Sixteen elected officials, sworn to uphold the Constitution -- a Constitution that gives the Congress the sole power to declare war -- knew Bush was lying when he sought the power to go to war and remained silent. They are complicit in Bush's actions because if they had been honest with the American people and their fellow elected officials the war could have been averted.

Among those sixteen members of the Intelligence Committee was Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and potential Republican candidate Fred Thompson. Can we trust these men to be president?

Edwards has apologized for voting for the war resolution. But now that we know that he was told by the intelligence community that the administration was lying is his apology enough? Doesn't this raise serious questions about his judgment? Voting for a war when he was told the basis of it was false is not the kind of judgment we need in a commander-in-chief.

Durbin's revelation raises questions not only about Edwards vote for the war resolution but also whether we can trust him to be honest with the American people. He knew we were being lied to about the most important issue a country can face. He knew his colleagues in the Congress were being lied to about the most important decision the Congress is responsible for -- whether to go to war. And what did he do about it? He remained silent. Can we trust someone who remains silent in such circumstances?

Edwards better hope that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was wrong when he said "In the end we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."

YOUR SILENCE
YOUR LEGACY

http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese0502200 7.html



Display:


He was wrong then, admitted it, now he's right. (none / 0)

I'll take that over people who are still buying the "war on terror" -- at least Edwards has figured out that it's B.S. and he's not afraid to say so.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:28:47 PM EST

aaaa (none / 0)

Just because Iraq isn't a part of it doesn't mean there isn't a war on terror going on elsewhere.

(14,000 terrorist attacks world wide in 2006)


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:34:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Illogical, if you buy into a 'war on terror'... (none / 0)

...based of the number of attacks, then you should be right with Bush in believing that Iraq is the central front -- that's where most attacks occur.

The point is that "war on terror" is like "war on drugs" -- it's not something you defeat with force. The harder we fight using military power, the more the world turns against us and Osama bin Laden gets what he wants.

That's what Edwards understands, and some others either don't or they're afraid to say that they do.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

RE (none / 0)

14,000 = +25% since 2005.  Iraq is making the world less safe.  Which is what I was getting at.  But thanks for saying I'm with Bush though, that's just so nice of you.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Thu May 03, 2007 at 01:01:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Our presence in Iraq is making the world... (none / 0)

...less safe. And Bush's "war on terror" is the excuse for why we're in Iraq. I don't think you're on Bush's side.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Thu May 03, 2007 at 03:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hash it over again if you want to. (none / 0)

The primaries will decide the fate of whom is the candidate.

Even though we like to think the net is all that, (and it is to a degree), not everyone in America even has a computer.  

The amount of voters is almost a laugh compared to the amount of citizens that could vote if they would.

So hash away, it's old new that Edwards changed his view, and he may again.  

It seems better to me to have someone who continues to evaluate a situation and  be wise enough to know that a change in belief about something is warranted.  To me it is called someone who is strong enough, wise enough and man enough to change and correct his path.

If some can't see the benefit in a change then just look at Bush because he is the poster boy for not growing, not learning, not paying attention to the facts and when things change he is stuck in the same old rut that his ego is keeping him in.

I would take John Edwards and his abilties and strength as a person to realize a change is necessary,long before Obama whom can come up with substance and or Clinton who flutters around calling in on President Clinton's contacts and favors.

John Edwards -  H*** yea that is the kind of President I want. Having someone who thinks their right all the time is what we have now.


Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG
by dk2 on Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:59:51 PM EST

Re: Judgement is an Important Quality to Be Presid (none / 0)

The more you look at edwards the more serious flaws he has.  However that doesn't really matter right now.

It will probably really only matter once the election is getting really close.


by sterra on Thu May 03, 2007 at 02:26:41 AM EST

Re: Judgement (none / 0)

you lost me with the part about "those who think Edwards can do no wrong." That's hyperbole.


by bruh21 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:20:24 AM EST

Re: Judgement (none / 0)

By the way- the problem with use hyperbole and other such approaches as I often see on the blogs is that sometimes you may or may not have a perfectly valid argument but its lost in language choice. Why go there if your argument has merit on its own. I hear this one on WBAI when a radio commentator was talking to a call in listener who he thought had made  a good argument but tipped it over the top so that it no longer seemed credible. anyway good luck.


by bruh21 on Thu May 03, 2007 at 08:23:35 AM EST

Re: Judgement (none / 0)

Good points. The diarist might as well announce it's a hit job when the first sentence of the diary insults Edwards supporters and then the second uses "poses" and "image makeover" in reference to Edwards. Very trollish and doomed to influence no one.


by Curt Matlock on Thu May 03, 2007 at 10:33:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.