Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

View Article

Search Articles


The News & Observer ran a front-page article Tuesday on John Edwards’ statement that “I was wrong” to vote for the Iraq war. Edwards announced the switch in an op-ed article that ran in the Washington Post Sunday.

But alert bloggers knew what Edwards was going to say more than a month ago.

His wife Elizabeth posted a blog on the Orangepolitics website last month. It was mostly about their move to Chapel Hill. But she added at the end:

“John has said that the war was wrong and that his vote for the war was wrong. His taking responsibility for that vote, his direct statement that he was wrong (instead of watering it down with excuses) makes me very proud of him.”

Nobody reported his change in position at the time. So why did it take a month to become front-page news? It may be that the mainstream media is looking for news in all the wrong places.


Actions: E-mail | Permalink | RSS comment feed |

2 comments on “The Virtues of Blogging

  1. gpearce says:

    It took a month because what his wife was reporting was what he had said at UNC-Chapel Hill with only the local media present there (Orangepolitics is also a local blog… it does not have national viewership). By publishing it in the Washington Times, he went national with it. That is just how the media and politics works.

    Comment by Janet — November 15, 2005 @ 2:06 pm

    John Edward’s full op-ed was reprinted today in his campaign mouthpiece, the Charlotte Observer. It reveals perfectly why this man is absolutely unqualified for any position of trust or authority, in or out of government.

    He states that because of the Bush administration’s ‘failures,’ Iraq “…has become a far greater threat than it ever was.”

    Let’s see now, I seem to recall that under Saddam, Iraq launched an unprovoked attack on Iran that led to an eight year war in which hundreds of thousands died. And wasn’t it just a few years after that little tiff was settled, that Iraq invaded Kuwait, a key U.S. ally? Didn’t we have to spend billions of dollars, and lose the lives of over 200 servicemen and women driving Iraq out? Didn’t he also provide money and training for (and provide sanctuary for the leaders of) several terrorist organizations that were active against Israel, another U.S. ally? Oh, and if I’m not mistaken, Iraq also tried to build a nuclear bomb, but thanks to the Israelis (they blew up his reactor facility) was unable to do so. Hmmm. Sounds pretty threatening to me.

    But according to John Edwards, as a result of the Bush administration’s ‘mistakes,’ Iraq is far more threatening to us now than it was then. You see, in John Edward’s mind a democratically elected government representing all of Iraq’s religious and ethnic factions and working closely with the U.S. military to capture and kill terrorists, is a threatening thing indeed. He describes the new Iraq as “a haven for terrorists.” If you define ‘haven’ as ‘a place where Islamofacists from around the world congregate to die at the hands of overwhelming American and Iraqi firepower’ then I suppose he has a point.

    Incredibly, he goes on to claim both that: a) we must leave behind “a success, not a failure” and b) “we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq.” Thus, his strategy for winning this fight is to “run away,” a tactic he must have learned from watching old Monty Python movies. Got news for ya, General Johnny: it didn’t work in the movie either.

    Even his plan for withdrawl accepts the fact that some American forces will have to stay until the Iraqis are more fully trained. In essence, he is agreeing with the Bush administration’s current strategy! He differs only in that he would begin pulling our troops out before the Iraqis are fully capable–thus making the defeat of our Iraqi allies all the more likely, and rendering the sacrifice of American lives pointless.

    John Edwards has established himself as a shallow opportunist who is long on criticism but short on original thinking. Like all demogogues he plays to the passions of the moment, and consequences to the nation be damned. His legions of starry-eyed wanna-believers will undoubtedly swallow his ersatz apology, hook, line, and sinker. The media will call it an example of political courage, and his backers will claim that it proves he’s a stateman. But sensible people should ask themselves this: if he’s right about his vote being such a horrendous mistake, how can we ever trust his judgement again? How many ‘wrong wars’ does a politician get to vote us into before we retire him for good?

    Comment by Jim Stegall — November 15, 2005 @ 5:43 pm

  2. spock says:


Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :   Terms Of Use   :   Privacy Statement