May 25, 2007
What John Edwards Should Have Said to Bob Shrum About Iraq in 2002 (Brent Budowsky)
In his new book that I recommend nobody buy, Bob Shrum regales about how he and other Democratic consultants urged John Edwards to vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 to pad his national security resume.
What Edwards should have replied: “Shrum, the door is over there, I want you out of it within 10 seconds, or my foot will greet the place you sit. Don’t ever come into the United States Senate and give the morally repulsive advice that I should send thousands of troops to die in war for my political convenience or anyone else’s.”
It would have been swell if a few people in the Congress had said that to their consultants this week, too.
17 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I couldn't agree more; I'm actively not-buying Shrum's book right at this moment.
That vote was unforgivable on many levels; it was a complete political passing of the buck, throwing away the Constitutionally mandated power to declare war in order to appear hawkish on national security, while still not being held accountable for any of the consequences. Some have already paid the political price for voting 'Yes' to it, but not nearly enough.
Comment by Derek D. — May 25, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Shrum is an enabler of the corruption and war profiteering. The man practically invented the DLC, much less embraced them. Shrum is why Gore and Kerry lost. I wouldn't but his book either. Morally bankrupt, and DLC written all over it.
Comment by Chris in NM — May 25, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
John Edwards has demonstrated with great clarity that the one core belief he has is that his hair should look perfect under all circumstances. Everything else, to misuse a metaphor, is just dust in the political wind.
Comment by Igor R. — May 25, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
This was a much harder call than the one Edwards had to make in 2002. Here, you'll be accused of not supporting the troops, while then, you'd just be accused of not wanting to get the terrorists.
Obama really distinguished himself with this vote. I had been leaning toward him because of his opposition to the war, but I always questioned what he would do when actually put to the test. Well, he passed with flying colors. Obama's my man now.
Comment by Tim — May 25, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Oh, yeah, Bush says he wants to protect the troops. The best way to protect them is to bring them home. Bush allowed 9/11, the owner of the World Trade Center and his daughter did not show up for work on 9/11, and Bush's brother was head of security. And PNAC wanted a "new Pearl Harbor", and they got it. They wanted to invade Iraq for oil, and it happened.
Comment by Gary Anderson — May 25, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
So, really, this blog is basically much ado about nothing. It is a nothing blog run by people who may or may not have inside info about all of this but would never tell you if they did.
Comment by Gary Anderson — May 25, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
The vote on the war was not actually to invade but to give power to Bush to invade and at the time of the vote was said to be used so that he could have leverage to get Sadam to surrender the WMDs
Comment by al thelwell — May 25, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
Edwards needs to get advice from Shrum on how to keep his hair in place without looking like a metrosexual.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 25, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Shrum is the worst political adviser in the history of politics.
From Gore to Kerry and many before and inbetween, Shrum has managed big names to losing campaigns.
Comment by Larry — May 26, 2007 @ 7:28 am
Well, there is always Karl Rove.
Comment by hdhouse — May 28, 2007 @ 5:55 am
Those self-styled and self-serving "liberal hawks" (like Senator You-Know-Her from New York) — who continue caving in to the Shrub's "take the troops hostage" extortion — have demonstrated once again (as they did back at the time of "Gulf of Tonkin II" in 2002)that you cannot appease a congenital bully like Deputy Dubya Bush. "If you give a rat a cookie," as the saying goes, "he will only just demand a glass of milk to go with it;" and then more cookies, and more milk, and …
Or, put another way, as Charles Sanders Peirce did back in the nineteenth century: "Where two faiths flourish side by side, renegades are looked upon with contempt, even by the party whose beliefs they have adopted." Just ask the Clinton Partners in Pathos how much love and respect they earned from betraying their own fellow Democrats in return for doing most of what Republicans have always demanded but couldn't accomplish all by themselves. As the Chinese say: "Our enemies we just kill at once, but traitors we torture."
The sell-out, war-agitating Democrats now get to experience once again the contempt and torture they will allways receive for sucking up to Republicans who will only make them drink their own urine in "gratitude" for their obsequiousness.
Bob Shrum simply merits no mention at all. As former Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings (of South Carolina) once said to a candidate who had hired Shrum to advise him: "I thought you wanted to win." The same sentiment applies to advice and counsel by the former Democratic President Bill Clinton who never made a more brilliant political move than when he twice convinced Ross Perot to badly split the Republican ticket in 1992 and 1996. Triangulate that truth, Bogus Bill.
Nonetheless, having truthfully said all these things: the really galling facts facing Republicans in 2008 (as in 2006) involve the fact that to throw the bum republicans out, one must necessarily vote some other party in, even if that means voting-in Democrats who stand for nothing, promise little, and deliver neither. That has really got to hurt the Repugnant Ones. How convenient for the Democrats that — thanks to nearly universal revulsion at Republican malfeasance and mendacity — they find themselves in the situation of the ugly girl at an adolescent boy's first sexual experience. "She don't have to be good. She just has to be there." So if the Democrats simply show up in 2008, they will win the Presidency and even-greater margins of majority in the House and Senate. Too bad, Republicans, but you did it all to yourselves and richly deserve the drubbing you will soon experience. But losing to the spaghetti-spine Democrats (who don't even know how to play the game, let alone cheat at it) has to really rub salt in the self-inflicted wound.
How does that deeply thought out and carefully reasoned American voter analysis go? "Time for a change"? Yes, I think that will about cover things. Too bad for America that nothing much will really change except the name and party of the Warfare Welfare perpetrators, but I suppose we should all give thanks for at least the most minor of mediocre miracles.
Comment by Michael Murry — May 28, 2007 @ 6:13 am
Woulda, coulda, shoulda — Democrats and liberals always live in the past. The truth is, when the time came to vote on military action in Iraq, it was up to the Members of Congress and them alone to cast the vote. No one was forcing their hand. They all have staff to do research and investigate so that they don't have to rely on the information of people like Bob Shrum.
Now, the Democrats are making excuses for their votes on Iraq, claiming it was a mistake or they got bad information from the White House. If the Iraq vote is an example of their judgement and research when it comes to their vote as a Member of Congress, I'd hate to see their decision making process if they become President.
Comment by John Simmons — May 28, 2007 @ 6:57 am
The vote itself was an abomination, Mr. Simmons, the information that individual members of Congress had or did not have is irrelevant. Congress alone had the power to declare war on Iraq if they found it necessary, and they never did. In effect, they told Mr. Bush, "Do whatever you like". No Congress should give that power to any president. Ever.
Comment by Derek D. — May 29, 2007 @ 10:45 am
If it's true that Congress gave Bush the power to go into Iraq, then the Congress is to blame for the mess in Iraq now and Congress has the power to get out. But as seen by the recent failure of Congress to overturn Bush's veto of the Iraq bill, this Congress doesn't have very much power at all.
Comment by John Simmons — May 29, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
You seem to be confusing power with numbers, Mr. Simmons; if you'd like for Congress to be able to override Mr. Bush's veto, write your Senators and Congressman. They power is there.
Comment by Derek D. — May 29, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Try coming out of Chicagoland and learn how DC works, Derek D. In Congress, you can't have power without numbers and you can't have numbers without power. That, my friend is why the Democrats will continue to lose.
Comment by John Simmons — May 29, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
If coming to DC means I'll run into you and your babbling double-talk John, I'll be quite happy to stay here in Chi-town, thank you. You might want to check those last election results too, to see who lost.
Comment by Derek D. — May 30, 2007 @ 8:43 pm