Hardball:Sen. John Edwards (on Iraq: No. I didn’t get misled)

msnbc ^ | Oct.13 2003 | hardball

[Happy2BMe]

Talk about a "baited" interview. Edwards handled it very well.

[leprechaun9]

Matthews, the host of "Whiffleball", radiates as much grace as someone releasing gas in church!

[HenryLeeII]

What is this fat, no-ratings sissy talking about? American non-intervention in the Spanish American War? Mexican War? WWI? WW2? Korea? Nam? Grenada? IraqI? What planet is fatboy living on?

He must be referring to Clinton's non-intervention policy used in Haiti and the Balkans. I also appreciate the fact that Fatboy Matthews pointed out the truth that we went into Iraq "without the Europeans." I mean, who does George Bush think he is claiming that he has mulitlateral support just because the U.K., Poland, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, and Norway, along with Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, El Salvador, and 17 other countries have committed troops to Iraq? I will be returning to Fatboy Matthews again and again for The Truth, fair & balanced!

[Coop]

You showed me one poll. Wow.

While this poll underscores Bush's vulnerabilities, he does retain his core strengths — broad approval for handling the war on terrorism and an image as a strong leader. And while most Americans believe his administration intentionally exaggerated evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destructions, far fewer (21 percent) think it outright lied. Indeed, two-thirds think the administration honestly believed Iraq did possess these weapons. Most also continue to say the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/bush_public_approval_poll_040212.html

The poll also says Bush's support is stronger than Kerry's. Go figure. The sheeple are mostly hearing one side of the story.

President Bush has an edge on the other major issue of the campaign season--national security. When asked who they trust more on national defense issues and the War on Terrorism, 52% of voters prefer Bush while 37% prefer Kerry.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush%20Kerry%20February%206.htm

And all sorts of articles say this is the lowest trustworthy point in Bush's presidency. The news coverage has basically been all Dems, 24/7. What do you think will happen to his rating when he starts fighting back? ...if/when Iraqi WMDs are found?

I'm not sure why, but for someone who was so gung ho GOP during the 2002 elections, you sure do seem to be expending a lot of effort publicly doubting President Bush.

[MEG33]

Tis a puzzle!

[Eurotwit]

You are right. I should have included Oct 2003 inside the parenthesis, or at least in the comment field.

I appologize.

[Between the Lines]

Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote.

Responsibility? A Democrat? Backs the president? How is the weather in hell today?

[Eurotwit]

Btw., that's also why I did not post the story under the news category. Only under misc and wot.

Still, that's no excuse.

[MEG33]

If you get past reading about his backing of the war in Iraq,where he sounds admirable,you'll see he attacks the President's character.

[Between the Lines]

I didn't get that far. I refuse to go to MSNBC. Thanks for the info.

[prognostigaator]

You are right. I should have included Oct 2003 inside the parenthesis, or at least in the comment field. I appologize.

Sen Edwards ought not be the focus in this interview...
It is the statements posed as questions by Chris Matthews which revealed his nihilism then, as he does now....

[dartuser]

Actually, this morning I saw on FN that Kerry was equating his position on free trade with Edwards ... "My position is exactly the same ..." ... then Edwards said something about disagreeing quite a bit with Kerry on trade ...

Kerry is doing what you said already

[Just mythoughts]

The smooth talking Edwards most recent take about his vote was he did not know what President Bush knew.

This is what the leaked "memo" gives the road map to. We don't know everything President Bush knows.

That is their big problem, they have itched and whined and moaned all through the Administration about how secret the White House is.

So last year they knew they needed to plant the seeds of President Bush being a "liar" as per the old blowhard Teddy on the Senate floor. Their FEAR is that President Bush has intel they don't know and it might expose some of them in a compromising way.

They must at least get the masses to question President Bush's credibility.

[NYC Republican]

He'll be out of politics for the next 4 years, probably going back to ambulence chasing, so I can't see how...

[GraniteStateConservative]

I'm talking about overall honesty and trustworthiness, not just on particular issues.

I'm doubting the Office of Political Affairs. They don't seem very sharp. I don't know what's up with Rove.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Oh, thanks.

[Ditto]

What is this fat, no-ratings sissy talking about? American non-intervention in the Spanish American War? Mexican War? WWI? WW2? Korea? Nam? Grenada? IraqI? What planet is fatboy living on?

Good points Huck. In fact, we had a continious intervention in Iraq beginning in August of 1990 with Desert Shield, followed by Desert Storm, then ground troops and air support in Northern Iraq to save the Kurds in the winter of 91-92, and 10 years of enforcing the Northern and Southern no-fly zones.

In Matthews universe, I guess all of that is somehow not intervention. The guy is just not too bright once his mouth gets rolling.

[Coop]

I'm talking about overall honesty and trustworthiness, not just on particular issues.

So am I.

[Ditto]

(tell that to the Poles who just died, tell that to the Brits, tell that to the Aussies).

And the Italians, Spanish, Czechs, Koreans, Japanese, Bulgarians, Rumanians,.........

[Huck]

He's a total idiot. Non intervention is a myth. I don't think America has practiced it since Washington left office. Matthews is a punk. I can't stand him.