Misinterpret, I Don't Think So !

Folks, the cake needed a topper and we now have it. It seems John Edwards misunderstood the question when asked if he was For or Against going to war in Iraq.

Former Senator John Edwards, a Democratic presidential candidate, told an interviewer on Wednesday that he had read the classified October 2002
National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize force in Iraq,
but his campaign retracted the statement yesterday. A spokesman for Mr. Edwards said the candidate had "simply misunderstood the question" and noted that Mr. Edwards had read only a declassified version of the intelligence report.

You mean to tell me we had a Senator that had no clue what the intelligence report said, yet voted? What else was left to understand. All of congress had been sitting there since September 11th having discussions from A to Z! No, he fully understood what he was voting for, as did Hillary. She only made her excuse sound a bit more believing. Can I for one believe that Edwards was forced to vote against what he believed in because to do anything other than vote 'For," would help guarantee his win for the seating of vice- president? Well, yes I can see where given some power as vice-president would make him vote against his own morals. According to his running-mate John Kerry that's exactly what happened.

That fall, as a vote loomed on the resolution giving Bush authority to go to war, Edwards convened a circle of advisers in his family room in Washington to discuss his decision. He was skeptical, even exercised about the idea of voting yes. Elizabeth was a forceful no. She didn't trust anything the Bush administration was saying. But the consensus view from both the foreign policy experts and the political operatives was that even though Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, he was too junior in the Senate; he didn't have the credibility to vote against the resolution. To my continuing regret, I said he had to be for it. As I listened to this, I watched Edward's face; he didn't like where he was being pushed to go.

Scott at Election Blog- The Stump, speaks loud in regard to this. He states;

I find it hard to believe that a candidate of Edwards experience with a background as a lawyer "misunderstood" the question. It's evident he read the NIE and voted based not on what was contained in the document but for political expediency according to 2004 running-mate John Kerry.

As I said, he voted not with his heart but with the political portion of his brain. He looked at the blow back and decided to vote for it to increase his chances of becoming vice president.

For his campaign aides to say he "misunderstood" the question is wrong. He knew the threat, he knew that it was the next logical step in the War on Terror and he knew what the consequences may have been in the short-term. I believe him when he says he's against the war because he's always been against the war. I'd have respected him more if he'd said it from the beginning and voted no. Instead he voted as he thought he'd had to, not how he'd wanted to.

I ask, is this the kind of man you would want in the Oval Office? A man who makes decisions not out of conviction but to score political points? How would the former senator handle a crisis being of this mindset? Short answer: not well. Edwards will be out by next April if not sooner and it will come down to a two-way race between Clinton and Barack Obama.

The American people got to know Edwards in 2004 and have now seen him even more in the last several months. They may personally like him and feel for what his wife is going through, but they don't want him as the president.

It would seem as if Scott titled his blog correctly, "John Edwards Stumbles Again" Being from the "Tarheel" state, Edwards certainly understands the southern slang when I say " Bless His Heart"