Shrum: Silky Pony voted for Iraq war because political advisors told him to

posted at 1:55 pm on March 13, 2007 by Allahpundit

Edwards insisted in an op-ed in 2005 that he voted for war because of the (faulty) intel. Tain’t so, says his (and Kerry’s) former advisor Bob Shrum. Whom to believe: a guy who’s hawking a book or a guy who appeared on Fox News 33 times before discovering he had a principled objection to doing socoincidentally at the same time the nutroots were mounting a campaign against the network?

Advantage: Shrum.

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said if Edwards had followed his instincts instead of the advice of political professionals, he would have been a stronger presidential candidate in 2004…

Shrum writes that Edwards, then a North Carolina senator, called his foreign policy and political advisers together in his Washington living room in the fall of 2002 to get their advice. Edwards was “skeptical, even exercised” about the idea of voting yes and his wife Elizabeth was forcefully against it, according to Shrum, who later signed on to John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

But Shrum said the consensus among the advisers was that Edwards, just four years in office, did not have the credibility to vote against the resolution and had to support it to be taken seriously on national security. Shrum said Edwards’ facial expressions showed he did not like where he was being pushed to go.

This is the same tool who’s been badgering Hillary at every opportunity for not repudiating her own Iraq vote because, in his words, honesty and openness are absolute requisites in our next president. Mm hmm.

Actually, I’m not sure this hurts him. It takes some shine off his posture as the “authentic” nutroots anti-war candidate, but given how theatrically he’s groveled in repenting his vote, not much. Besides, both sides assume that most Dems supported the war because of political calculations; the same scene Shrum describes in Silky Pony’s living room surely played out in Hillary’s too. If anything, this makes it sound like his instincts were right and only the corrupting influence of Washington steered him from the good and true path, a narrative tailor-made for the nutroots’ faux revolutionary aspirations.

He’ll probably get a bump out of it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

That should tell the dimocraps that they should never vote for him because he cannot make his own decisions.

Mazztek on March 13, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Maybe, Mazztek, but it seems Kos is making all their decisions now anyway.

bbz123 on March 13, 2007 at 2:06 PM

Take heart, Silky! Give Petraeus and our brave troops the next six months, and your “Yes” vote will start looking pretty good again.

a4g on March 13, 2007 at 2:12 PM

He’ll probably get a bump out of it.

Not only that, but he’s got another reason to solicit donations.

yo on March 13, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Shouldn’t that read “Bob (0-for-8) Shrum”?

Must reading for summertime: A Bob Shrum memoir.

What’s the working title,Hire Me If You Want to Guarantee Defeat?

Oddly enough, I’m beginning to think the Breck Girl might start inching up in the polls if The Pantsuit keeps imploding like she has been of late.

JammieWearingFool on March 13, 2007 at 2:23 PM

So he can’t make a decision by himself.

But he is a slip and fall lawyer, so he’ll say anything.

How do you know when he’s lying, when his lips move?

Kini on March 13, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Man that Elizabeth Edwards is a large woman…

I know the dude needed a Beard and all but he didnt have to go all ZZ Top about it.

amish on March 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM

President Bush also was advised to go into Iraq based on intelligence, does that mean that Edwards LIED, just as the left claims that Pres Bush lied.

Sven on March 13, 2007 at 2:33 PM

If anything, this makes it sound like his instincts were right and only the corrupting influence of Washington steered him from the good and true path, a narrative tailor-made for the nutroots’ faux revolutionary aspirations.

He’ll probably get a bump out of it.

In fact, it sounds so much like that that I question the timing. Could Shrum be taking a bullet for Edwards?

Dash on March 13, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Bob Shum? The guy who never won anything is giving you advice, and you take it?

I wouldn’t take Shrum’s advice on what to have for lunch. “Order the limburger and prune wrap–it’s polling well among senior citizen voters.”

albo on March 13, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Democratic strategist Bob Shrum writes in his memoir to be published in June that he regrets advising Edwards to give President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq.

Shrum must regret any advice he gave to any candidate, since every presidential candidate he advised ended up a loser.

Ted Kennedy, 1980
Michael Dukakis, 1988
Bob Kerrey, 1992
Al Gore, 2000
John Kerry, 2004

Now he’s lending a hand to Silky Pony.

Kiss of Death.

fogw on March 13, 2007 at 2:59 PM

If anything, this makes it sound like his instincts were right and only the corrupting influence of Washington steered him from the good and true path, a narrative tailor-made for the nutroots’ faux revolutionary aspirations.

And that’s exactly what we need in a president: somebody who can be “steered…from the good and true path”. The nutroots may fall for this crap, but in time, this guy is going to be crushed for all of this. Pony-boy will be out of the race before it really gets going.

Rick on March 13, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Admittedly most Dems voted for the war because it helped them politically, but they also did so because they HAD ALL BEEN MAKING THE CASE FOR 13 YEARS!!! These people saw the same intelligence and were amking the WMDs in Iraq case long before Bush ever came along.

Shrum said Edwards’ facial expressions showed he did not like where he was being pushed to go.

As always I have to point out that Edwards’ wasn’t shakey… he was the pro-war Democrat and prided himself on it. While others ran from their vote, Edwards stood by his and stood by the President’s decision:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

MATTHEWS:Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they’re doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?

EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question.

I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told.

And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.

MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn’t go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there’s a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists…

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: … trying to get-No. I don’t think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn’t believe-But you weren’t misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn’t put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don’t-that I don’t have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the “don’t tread on me and if you don’t we’ll leave you alone.” We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

He quickly realizes that he’s pissed off a lot of liberal primary voters and tries to say he would have gone about it differently than the President, but he can’t seem to explain how, because he just go through saying he’d have done it exactly like the President and stands by how the President went about it. He actually tried to flip flop in a matter of minutes because he feared alienating the far left voters… yet he had no where to go because the comments I just cited leave absolutely no wiggle room for him. What would he have done differently, sent a hooker over to the hotel rooms of the foreing ministers of France, Germany, and Russia?

This guy is worthless and I hope soon enough we never hear from him again.

RightWinged on February 15, 2007 at 4:28 PM

RightWinged on March 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM

[Sing to Yankee Doodle]

Johnny Edwards went to town,
he’s a Silky Pony,
stuck his foot right in his mouth,
cuz he’s friggin phony

Silky Pony, loser wuss
Silky Pony, boring
Silky Pony, not to blame
Bob Shrum did thinking for him

fogw on March 13, 2007 at 4:00 PM

Randy of RW, your system/computer seems to be fixed. I saw your faux-art yesterday. This calls for another Edwards money-drive, something with “Schrumm made me do it” or “I was schrummed” – you know these thigs best…

He’ll probably get a bump collection out of it.

Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 6:50 PM

Randy of RW, your system/computer seems to be fixed. I saw your faux-art yesterday.

Entelechy on March 13, 2007 at 6:50 PM

I wish that were the case. My computer works fine, it’s my blog that I can’t use because of server issues and my host sucks. Admittedly my database isn’t their responsibility, but someone screwed it up, and it wasn’t me (I don’t touch the DB because I don’t understand it to begin with). I can’t even get my email at my RightWinged address still.

RightWinged on March 13, 2007 at 8:36 PM

Silky Pony, loser wuss
Silky Pony, boring
Silky Pony, not to blame
Bob Shrum did thinking for him

fogw

Well done. Can you imagine Silky Pony as CINC? Yikes! He’s such a tool. Money + Ego = Dhem presidential material.

It’s fun watching the Dhems go at each other. This is WAY too eary to start the presidential stuff though. Can’t politicos just, oh I don’t know, make law for a year before campaigning again?

Mojave Mark on March 14, 2007 at 1:03 AM

All that’s missing is Jane Fleming from the Hitler Youth Young Democrats, telling us how this is another example of the Silky Pony’s “leadership”.

ReubenJCogburn on March 14, 2007 at 3:26 PM