The Lies of John Edwards

41

By thecounterpunch

The Lies of John Edwards

By JOHN WALSH

The apology of John Edwards, former Senator and 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for voting for the Iraq war in 2002, has been widely praised. But his apology is based on a lie, one that other Democrats are likely to embrace and one which will serve their ambitions but hide the truth. We should have no illusions about this, for to believe otherwise is to set ourselves up for the continuation of Bush's war by a Democrat.

Edwards declared in an op-ed column in the Washington Post on November 13, 2005: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war." Sounds simple enough. "Had I known then what I know now, etc." Poor John Edwards was deceived. But was he?

Read more ...

More excerpt

There were 23 Senate votes against the war, only 4 of whom were on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. If we add to that 23, the five Democrats (Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller), we have 28. It would have taken only 5 more to sustain a veto against the war. Let's see who was available among the pro-war votes. There were Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Max Cleland (Yes, he voted for the war!), Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin (Yes, he voted for the war!), Ernst Hollings, Harry Reid (now minority leader) and Charles Schumer. (That's 8, bringing the total to 36.) So those Dems cannot say their votes did not matter. They cannot claim we would have gone to war anyway. If they had been willing to filibuster against the war or filibuster to allow the inspectors to complete their work, there would have been no war. These are Dems on whom progressives rely. They betrayed us, and they have blood on their hands since it was in their power to stop the war. But their ambitions came first. (Chuck Hagel who now professes to be anti-war and John McCain who wears his "integrity" on his sleeve would have made two excellent additions among the Republicans.)

Finally it is worth recalling that the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate at the time the war vote was taken on October, 11, 2002. So this is every bit as much a Democratic war as a Republican one.

Read more ...

Ralph Deeds profile image

Ralph Deeds Level 6 Commenter 5 years ago

Both of my senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow voted against Bush's reckless, needless and foolhardy invasion of Iraq. Here are some more far-sighted people--http://hubpages.com/hub/Krugman_Says_Honor_Those_W

Iðunn 5 years ago

disagree that voting on a course of action based on a pack of lies defines edwardz.

the responsibility for iraq lies solely with the Bush Administration, it's corruption, it's greed, it's short-sightedness and it's complete disregard for ethics and moralz.

thecounterpunch profile image

thecounterpunch Hub Author 5 years ago

That's precisely what JOHN WALSH denounced: he didn't take decision on supposedly packed of lies, he KNEW BUSH WAS LYING BEFORE VOTING BECAUSE HE AND ROCKEFELLER WAS PART OF THE COMMITEE WHO CONCLUDED BEFORE THE VOTE THAT THERE WAS DOUBT THAT SADDAM HAS WEAPONS.

If you know already Bush was lying BEFORE voting, how can you pretend you didn't know ? John Edwards has been backed by David Rockefeller at Bilderberg, Rockfeller THE symbol of Neocons capitalism, it won't be the first time that Rockfeller's neofascist right-wing puppet hide in leftist party, ... like Feminist Head Party discovered to have worked for CIA before:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Gloria_Steinem_American_fe

Submit a Comment
Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.



    • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
    • Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites

    Please wait working