EDWARDS: We've taken 90% of the coalition causalities . American taxpayers have borne 90% of the costs of the effort in Iraq.
CHENEY: The 90% figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well a the allies, they've taken almost 50% of the casualties in operations in Iraq , which leaves the US with 50%, not 90%.
FACT CHECK: Both men have a point here, but Edwards is closer to the mark. Edwards is correct counting only "coalition" forces-those of the US, Britain and the other countries that took part in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. 1,066 US service men and women had died from hostile action and other causes during the Iraq operation as of Oct. 5, of a total 1,205 for all coalition countries. That's just over 88% of the coalition deaths. For Iraqi security forces, estimates put the figure at 750, producing a total of 1,955. Of that, the Iraqi portion is 38% (not "almost 50%" as Cheney claimed) and the US total amounts to 55%.
Here you can see in retrospect that Edwards was almost dead on, and Dick Cheney was lying. Edwards stated 90% of the casualties were American, and the actual figure was just over 88%!! It seems to me that Edwards really handed his ass to Cheney on this question. How can you see it differently?
Another Edwards quote from that debate:
Cheney is inconsistent with everything they see every day. It's a continuation of, "Well, there's a strong connection between Al Qaida & Saddam Hussein." It's not true. It's a continuation of at least insinuating that there's some connection between 9/11 & Saddam Hussein. It's not true. It's saying, as Bush said last Thursday, and Cheney continues to say tonight, that things are going well in Iraq, contrary to what people who have been there have seen, including Republican leaders, contrary to what everyone in America sees every day-Americans being kidnapped, beheaded, parts of the country under the control of insurgents, even today, under the control of the insurgents. Cheney has still not said anything about what Bremer said, about the failure to have adequate troops, the failure to be able to secure Iraq in the short term. Remember "shock and awe"? Look at where we are now. It is a direct result of the failure to plan, the failure to have others involved in this effort. This is not an accident.
Now look at this quote. History has borne out the fact that Edwards was right on the Saddam-al-Queda connection. This is almost three years ago when this debate took place and Cheney was saying things were going well. They weren't and still aren't. Edwards took Cheney to task about the complete failure on the part of the administration to plan and involve the international community in this effort. Again, history has borne out Edward's arguments that night.
This question partly explains Edwards Iraq War vote, and takes Cheney to task for the administrations failure to capture bin Laden:
Q: If Kerry & Edwards had been president & vice president, would Saddam still be in power?
A: Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be done the right way. It means that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who attacked us on 9/11. Now, remember, we went into Afghanistan, which was the right thing to do. But we had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. And what did we do? The Bush administration gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before, had been working with bin Laden. Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and bin Laden.
Neither Edwards nor Kerry would have voted for the resolution if they would have known that Bush wasn't going to let the weapons inspectors finish the job. That is why Edwards apologized for this vote, not because Saddam wasn't a threat because he was, but because he realized he put faith in an incompetent leader, George W. Bush. Going into Afganistan was the right thing to do, and neither Edwards nor Kerry expected Bush and Cheney to drop the ball on bin Laden to rush into Iraq. Again, history has borne out that Edwards was right on this question also.
Then he took Cheney to task on Iran also:
CHENEY: 20 years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. Guerrilla insurgents controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress. The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections. The power of that concept is enormous. And it will apply in Afghanistan, and it will apply as well in Iraq.
EDWARDS: Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago. North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to 6 to 8 nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. It's a mistake. We should not only not lift them, we should strengthen those sanctions.
http://www.ontheissues.org/...
Now ask yourself, who was right? We have had free elections in Afganistan and Iraq, and now almost three years after this debate both countries are still in chaos. Now look at Edwards statement. With North Korea recently testing a nuclear device, and the continuing problems with Iran, who had this one right? Notice Edwards called for stronger sanctions against Iran, not military action. I think history bears out that Edwards was way ahead of Cheney on this issue.
Now, lets look at Edwards making a fool of Cheney on the Saddam al-Queda connection:
There is no connection between the attacks of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it. Colin Powell has said it. And Cheney has gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not. And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We need to be straight with the American people.
This statement by Edwards flat out proved Cheney a liar and told him to be straight with the American people. Kudos to Edwards. Now, Edwards again makes a fool out of Cheney:
CHENEY: I feel very strongly that the significance of 9/11 cannot be underestimated. It forces us to think in new ways about strategy, about national security, about how we structure our forces and about how we use US military power. Some people say we should wait until we are attacked before we use force. I would argue we've already been attacked. We lost more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor. And I'm a very strong advocate of a very aggressive policy of going after the terrorists and those who support terror.
EDWARDS: We were attacked. But we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein. The reality is that the best defense is a good offense, which means leading America returning to its proud tradition of the last 75 years, of once again leading strong coalitions so we can get at these terrorist cells where they are, before they can do damage to us and to the American people. We made clear that we will do that, and we will do it aggressively.
http://www.ontheissues.org/...
Of course Edwards was right again, and the theory of pre-emptive strike set out by this administration is garbage. Edwards is also right in that the best way to fight terrorism is to engage the world not alienate it.
So, it perplexes how anyone can say that Cheney defeated Edwards in that debate. Everything Cheney said has been totally disproved, and everything Edwards said rang of truth. Of course the MSM back then did everything to make it look like Cheney won the debate, but history has vindicated Edwards and made Cheney and the MSM look exactly like what they are, liars and fools.
But what about Edwards being a hypocrite on poverty? Many have tried to insinuate that he just used poverty after the election of 04 to keep his profile high for another run at the White House. Well, lets look at what Edwards was saying in his last run in 04. From his acceptance speech at the DNC:
We can do something about 35 million Americans who live in poverty every day. And here's why we shouldn't just talk about, but do something about it: because it is wrong. And we have a moral responsibility to lift those families up. We have children going to bed hungry? We have children who don't have the clothes to keep them warm? We have millions of Americans who work full-time every day to support their families, working for minimum wage, and still live in poverty. It's wrong.
There are men & women who are living up to their bargain, working hard and supporting their families. Their families are doing their part; it's time we did our part. We're going to raise the minimum wage, we're going to finish the job on welfare reform, and we're going to bring good-paying jobs to the places where we need them the most. And by doing all those things, we're going to say no forever to any American working full-time and living in poverty. Not in our America, not in our America.
Now from the primary debate at St. Anselm college on Jan. 22, 2004:
There's been no discussion about 35 million Americans who live in poverty. Millions of Americans who work full-time for minimum wage and live in poverty. In a country of our wealth and prosperity, we have children going to bed hungry. We have children who don't have the clothes to keep them warm. Maybe on some poll, that may not be a big issue, but it's important. The Democratic presidential candidates have a moral responsibility to talk about it and do something about it, because it's wrong.
From the VoteSmart Presidential Political Awareness test of Jan. 8, 2004:
I would increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to help poor Americans. I would also provide more support for child care and transportation, and lead efforts to ensure that fathers take responsibility for their children.
And from the Presidential Primary debate on Oct. 27, 2003 in Detroit:
Q: What is your urban agenda?
EDWARDS: I have a plan called Cities Rising. The idea is to bring jobs to urban America. Let's create incentives for new businesses, incentives for existing businesses. Second, to do something about public school systems. First, pay teachers better. Second, give bonus pay to teachers who will teach in schools in less-advantaged areas. And create wealth for things like homeownership.
And from a speech at the Take Back American Conference in Washington D.C. on June 5, 2003:
The fundamental difference between George Bush and us is that he honors wealth, and we honor work. We believe in giving real chance to every single American. He takes the side of insiders, we take the side of regular Americans. Look at this tax cut. He's about rewarding wealth, not work. He wants to make sure that we leave out millions and millions of working families and put a priority on cutting taxes for those who get money from trust funds, instead of those who drive the cars & answer the phones for those who get money from trust funds. These are not the values of the American people! What's the thread connecting all this? They value wealth, they want to protect it. They value wealth, while we value the work that creates it. We cannot play defense with this President, we must play offense. We must take this right at him, in the toughest possible way. This is a fight about values, this is a fight for the American people and it is a fight we will win!
Since Barack Obama wants to make Government Reform his own pet issue, lets look at what John Edwards was saying about that issue years ago:
From the Presidential National Political Awareness Test on March 3, 2004:
I support a ban on contributions by federal lobbyists to federal officials, public financing of elections, and other measures to reduce the influence of special interests in Washington. I strongly supported the McCain-Feingold bill. I believe in equal rights and dignity for gay and lesbian Americans.
From an AP Q&A on Jan. 25, 2004:
Q: After the inauguration, what would be your first action as president?
A: I will introduce legislation and sign executive orders to limit the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington. These measures will include: preventing candidates for federal office from taking contributions from Washington lobbyists; closing the revolving door between lobbyists' shops and government jobs; shining a bright light on lobbyist influence; and stopping the war profiteering in Iraq.
And another quote from the primary debate at St. Anselm College on Jan 22, 2004:
Q: Is there anything intrinsically wrong with being a lobbyist?
EDWARDS: No. There's something wrong with the impact that Washington lobbyists are having on our system of government. The lobbyists are taking democracy away from the American people. Lobbyists who make huge campaign contributions are lobbying the Congress every day. We need to restore the power in this democracy to the American people so that these insiders are not continuing to run this government.
What I would do is ban their contributions. I would shine a bright light on their activities so we know what they're doing. And I would make them tell us everything they're doing: Who they're lobbying for; the money they're spending; who they're trying to influence. The power of the American people to have their representatives decide only in the interests of the American people has been taken away. I've never taken any money from Washington lobbyists, but no one should be able to take money from them.
From a Moveon.org interview on June 17, 2003:
Q: What about Bush administration policies?
A: I've put forward an agenda that stands up for all Americans. My agenda includes a plan to make the first year of college free for any young person willing to work for it. My agenda for America includes a plan to protect older workers from losing their pensions, a plan to pass a prescription drug benefit and to stop drug companies from keeping less- expensive drugs off the market, and a $2500 family leave tax credit.
Now, Edwards is still calling for the plan to make the first year of college available for those who will work for it, and is still fighting for worker's pensions, and less expensive drugs. This shows he is in no way "re-posturing", and has cared about these things all along.
He also voted Yes on HR.2356 No. 2002-54. Here is an overview of that bill:
Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill). Vote to ban "soft money" contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
Now, look at this vote defending voters rights on S.565 vote No. 2002-38:
Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 2937; To permit the use of a signature or personal mark for the purpose of verifying the identity of voters who register by mail, and for other purposes. Voting Yes would kill the amendment. The amendment would allow a signature to identify voters who register by mail, instead of requiring showing photo identification or other proof of residence before being allowed to vote.
In short he was voting that someone only need provide a signature to vote, and not an I.D. On Bill S.27 vote no. 2001-64 Edwards voted to ban campaign contributions from Big Business and Big Labor:
Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000.
http://www.ontheissues.org/...
Now it is particular to note as a labor-friendly candidate John Edwards actually voted to lose many thousands of dollars of campaign contributions because of his devotion to cleaning up politics.
So, as I have tried to show, opponents of Edwards have very little to be disappointed in the debate with Cheney. History has shown that Edwards made Cheney look like a fool, as well as all the pundits who declared Darth the "winner". How could he have won a debate on lie after lie while Edwards was pounding him with truth. This also shows that Edwards has been committed to the plight of working people and poverty for a long time, and isn't just using it to keep up his profile.
Lastly, I think this shows that John Edwards cared about cleaning up government and was fighting to do just that long before Obama has tried to make it his signature issue.
Edwards has not changed or remade himself or exploited poverty to keep his name in the news. He is still fighting for what he was fighting for all along. Sensible plans to fight terrorism, One America and justice for all, and reforming our government to take big money out of the process and give it back to the American people.
you can dislike John Edwards and not vote for him and that is every much your right as an American. However, for so many fellow Democrats who support other candidates to try and make him look like he is a hypocrite who doesn't care about these things and has just started talking about them to try and win over the "Deaniacs" is just plain wrong. John Edwards is a leader within our party who isn't afraid to fight for issues like poverty, healthcare, and truly cleaning up our government. Trying to say it is just an act doesn't demean John Edwards, it demeans the people who peddle it as dishonest, and exploitive.
Comments are closed on this story.