John Edwards on Iraq vote: "I was wrong" - WaPo editorial

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

...more...

YES.

YES YES YES.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110305I.shtml

Thanks, John.

We'll see what happens to Edwards. If nothing comes of his column, other Democrats may be emboldened to say the same thing. And considering that nothing has happened in more than a week since this column was published, it may be that nothing will happen.

Come on, Democrats; the majority of the voters think Bush is a liar. Say that he lied to you, too. His credibility for the remainder of his term has to be zero, and Democrats are going to have to do it alone, because the popular media aren't too interested in reporting this.

B Boxer (D) was quoted in the paper today as saying her vote (giving Bush war powers) was a mistake.

wh

Boxer voted against it, and has consistently spoken out against the war.

er, Feinstein.

out a non-apology apology, waiting to do so of course, until her husband had raked in a suitable pile of blood-money.

She was on the "Daily Show" about a week or two ago whenever Reid closed the Senate and she said she voted against it and it was the best vote she ever did in her life.

John Edwards has a good positive and optimistic attitude.

I hope we hear this from all those who gave W the license to kill in Iraq.

Regardless of how late in the game it is, this was a great statement. You earned some big points in my book Mr. Edwards.

But he mutters about no permanent presence and doesn't address the huge embassy and the bases we're building with the intent to stay forever.

And it's a pipedream that we can safely reduce our forces and the Iraqi army will stand strong.

I understand the need to believe in an honorable exit. I do. There isn't one.

WE NEED TO LEAVE.

tell 'em what they want to hear. Pie in the sky. Morning in America. And he's in no position to do anything other than talk. Yakety Yak.

I just signed up, but have lurked for some time. I read your posts religiously and am in awe of your writing ability. This is my first chance to actually post to you and say "you rock bro!"

Your blogging at the DC protests was awesome, I kept hitting refresh every two minutes.

I always wanted to know though, have you ever tried to be a writer for one of the major national papers? I'd love to read ya daily.

Always nice to see another Queensryche fan here ;) :toast:

I signed up. Revolution calling, Speak, and Spreading the Disease had lyrics that totally connected to me on what's going on right now. (e.g. "fighting fire, with empty words while the banks get fat and the poor stay poor and the rich get rich and the cops get paid, to look away as the 1% rules america)

I am sure there are those that will say...a little too late John, I will not be one of them. I am proud of John Edwards at this moment. PROUD. He is standing up and admitting he was lied too, and the vote for war was wrong, it is a step in the right direction. Let them all stand up!


- While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right. - John Edwards

LET IT BEGIN

Thank you Will :hi:

LAME

What JRE doesn't understand, or refuses to admit, is that it was not simply a "mistake" to vote for this war, but that the War itself, under any rationale given for it, was unjust, illegal, unecessary, imperialistic, cynical, and murderous. It need never have happened. He supported it. He parroted the talking points for it. He helped sell it. And now, when it has all gone awry, he's trying to say that it was a "mistake". The time to say that was before it happened, not when he's trying to burnish his resume.

He and that other John had several opportunities to repudiate their vote for what was already proven to be a war without merit, but they chose to obstinate and they chose to follow the failed "mee too" politics. This is a good step for him, but no longer will I support any enabler of right-wing agendas.

When are you gonna jump on the Feingold bandwagon, Sir Pitt?

I'm sure it takes a lot of courage for him to say that.

Nice job, John. The truth shall set you free. Much respect.

The majority of people in the country -- an ever growing majority -- are against this war. The time to show courage was before he voted for it. He believed in it, he helped sell it. This is cynical political posturing, and craven ass covering. Feh!

if John Edwards himself had voted against it. American armed forces wouldn't be in Iraq right now. :eyes:

support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was much easier at the time to vote for the IWR. Those who didn't were reviled. It's much easier now for a Dem to issue a mea culpa. No doubt Edwards wants to be a mover and shaker and likely still has political aspirations. The war and support for it is an albatross for a Dem now which is why they're playing the "we wuz fooled" card.

Even the Repub "freedom fries" Congressman Walter Jones from NC did an about turn some time ago and cosponsored a bill to require a plan for pulling out the troops from Iraq. It wasn't a popular move with his party or constituents. http://www.alternet.org/story/22281/

I just can't see any Democratic Senator from a Red State looking weak on defense a year after 9/11.

We all know why the Dems who voted for the IWR. Let's stop kidding ourselves here. It had nothing to do with WMD, Sadaam, the Iraqi people, or even George W. Bush.

It had to do with 9/11 and the 2002 & 2004 elections. In the summer of 2001 all the polling showed that Richard Gephardt was going to be Speaker of the House and Tom Daschle would be majority leader (without having to have a Republican senator leave the GOP) after the 2002 elections. Then 9/11 happened and Bush and company used it to their advantage from the get go. They made Max Cleeland look unpatriotic (a man who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam) and he lost.

But what could the Dems do? Speak out against a war with a country that the White House says is a threat. Of course the Repunks would have tried to paint the Dems as weak on defense. But the bad thing is is that the media would have let them get away with it. They beat the drum to go to war more then Bush and the Repunks did. The media knew WAR meant RATINGS. After 10 years CNN finally became a major player in news during the 1991 Gulf War. So CNN, MSNBC, and Faux News Channel knew if they loudly beat the drum to go to war they'd get big ratings like CNN did in 1991 and the coporations that own these "news" outlets (who are already in the GOP's back pocket) knew the higher the ratings, the more they could charge for advertising. MSNBC fired Phil Donahue because he gave the channel a "bad face" as America was about to go to war, and hired Michael Savage. It was the media the that made Bush President in the first place!

So the Dems in the senate would have been up against the party that controlled the House of Reps. and the White House and a ratings hungury media. I'm not trying to defend the Dems who voted for the IWR but we have to look at it with 2002 eyes not 2005 eyes. I was against the IWR and thought before the vote America should not go to war with Iraq, but I did think that Sadaam had WMD. Not because Bush or Powell said so, but because he was Sadaam! And I'm sure many more ignorant people thought so too, not because of anything Bush and Co. said but because Sadaam was evil, he wanted WMD, and had used them before (thanks to Reagan's support of him during the Iran-Iraq War).

We aren't Republicans here, we know everything is not black and white.

expediency is hardly a justification for their going along in such a rush in a matter of such consequence to the nation and the world. Or for the long silence afterwards so that now it's actually "news" when 3 years later Edwards admits he was wrong.

Oh and despite the Dems who did vote for the IWR, the Repubs still continued to portray the Dems as weak on defense. If any of them thought they were going to win points or catch a break with the Repubs by joining up with the Administration and supporting the war, well they were wrong about that too. (As Kerry/Edwards learned in 2004.)

Dem Senators in red states who voted against the IWR: Byrd, WV; Conrad, ND; Graham, FL. I also remember Byrd's speeches and warnings in 2002 and 2003. He was like a voice crying in the wilderness. His speeches and comments are even more powerful and impressive going back and reviewing them in 2005. And a sad commentary on his fellow Dems who couldn't rustle up the guts and integrity to stand with him and for the country.

even if all 50 Democratic senators, along with Chafee and Jeffords voted against the IWR that STILL would not have stopped the Republicans and the media who both wanted to go to war. All it would have done was delayed the war by a few weeks or months. In the long run the media would have made the Dems look weaker by going along with Bush & Co. and the 2002 elections would have been 1994 all over again, probably worse. Hell Bush would have done it anyway without Congress' approval he himself said so. Bush tied Iraq with 9/11, the media let him get away with it, and the Dems did little to stop either of them. Yes 2,000 soldiers have died but it's good the Dems finally do something now before the number reaches 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000. We can't bring those 2,000+ back, but maybe the Dems can save another 2,000 lives by finally doing something now.

Byrd is an institution in WV he knew he wasn't in trouble of losing his seat that he has held for decades. And Florida is more purple then red. The only thing that makes the state red is Jeb Bush's voting machines. Plus Graham knew he wasn't running again in 2004 so he had nothing to lose. He had his sights set on the White House back then.

Anyway I don't judge John Edwards' entire life or career by this one IWR vote in the Senate. Just like I don't judge Bill Clinton's career by signing NAFTA. I'd rather somebody admit they made a mistake 3 years later rather then never admit it like Bush has and will continue to do.

abetting. Edwards didn't just vote for IWR, he was a cosponsor of IWR and vocal supporter of the war. That's not a badge of honor. If you're arguing that Edwards and other Dems who supported the IWR were justified on the grounds of craven political cowardice, well that speaks for itself.

I have no particular animus against Edwards and voted for the Dem ticket in 2004. But all the excuses still do not justify the IWR. It was bad legislation that did indeed amount to giving Bush a blank check since despite the hoops Bush was supposed to jump through there was nothing to prevent him from doing precisely what he did.

And if Bush threatened to go to war without Congress' approval, all the more reason NOT to go along and provide Congressional support to its own disenfranchisement. The US is supposed to be a republic, not a Presidential dictatorship. Bad from a Constitutional perspective and bad politics. It certainly did not stop the Repubs from attacking Dems as weak on defense, as supporting terrorists and all the other nonsense.

Additionally, the Dems had a one seat majority in the Senate going into the 2002 elections. What was their position in the Senate after the election? That worked out well, didn't it?

So good that Edwards finally after 3 years speaks out. But its not exactly an act of courage to do so now.

going to lose in 2002 anyway. If they all voted against it, the MEDIA and the Republicans would have painted them as weak on defense (remember this is only ONE year after 9/11 not four years) and they would have lost. And even if all the Dems voted for it they still would have lost in 2002 because the MEDIA and the Republicans would have painted them as being weak on defense??? Makes no sense right.

Why is that you ask, because none of this makes sense. Bush and Company made the Kool-Aid, the MEDIA surved it to the American people and the MAJORITY of Americans drank it and supported the war in late 2002. We have to remember this country is divided, yeah we know about our side but we must not forget the other side votes too (not all of Bush's 51% was because of Diebold). The Democrats were going to lose in 2002 no matter what they did. The Republicans have "won" 2 elections since 9/11. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, the GOP lost seats in 1998, and Clinton won in 1996 and up until 1994 the Democrats controlled atleast one body of Congress if not both for a long time. We just didn't forget how to lose elections, we just got to get back to the issues that are the bread and butter of the Democratic Party. The economy/jobs, education, health care, civil rights, women's rights, and social security. Those are the things we should focus on. Talking about terroism, abortion, same sex marriage, guns and the IWR is not a fight we are going to win, atleast not in the media.

Tim Russert yesterday showed 16 issues the Democrats can run on in 2006 and win the 2006 elections with. But yet we stay on the subjects that favor the Repunks. Even on this board I bet there are more posts about the IWR then there is about education or health care or civil rights. We need to move the public's attention to OUR issues to be successful again.

I'm not going to attack Democrats who voted for the IWR or the ones who voted against it. It was not the Dems idea to even use force in Iraq that was the Repunks idea. I know had Edwards or Kerry or Hillary had any kind of REAL power in 2002 that we would not have gone to Iraq in the first place. But attacking them only divides the party at a time when we need to be united agianst the evil Bush empire. This party is like a family and you don't attack your own family. Like a family you take care of your problems in house away from the public's view.

The Democratic Party is the party of different ideas, of ALL ideas, and that may even mean ideas that one side does not like. We need more Conservatives & Moderates in the party. We use to have them in the party. I'd take a Lyndon Johnson or Mark Pryor over a George Bush or Trent Lott any day.

John Edwards - “The Right Way in Iraq”, Seconding the Call
November 13th, 2005

Ron posted the first quips from John Edwards OP/ED in the WaPo earlier tonight. It’s great to see John Edwards step up to the plate and second the call that John Kerry made recently to bring the troops home after the December election in Iraq.

Edwards reiterates in his OP/ED what Kerry laid out first in his speech at Georgetown on October 26th, and most recently in the Senate on November 10th with his “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act.”

John Edwards says “A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq’s capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.” These are all basic points that Kerry has made repeatedly.

I’m also pleased to see that Edwards followed Kerry’s lead with a public statement about being misled by the Bush administration on the reasons to go to war in Iraq. After Bush’s abominable speech yesterday that was replete with lies about WMD’s and 9/11 references, we need more Democrats to step forward and tell it like it is, as well as throw their support behind a real plan to get us out of Iraq.

As I said two weeks ago, after Kerry’s Georgetown speech, we need more Democrats (and Republicans) to come forward on this… “Now the question remains… Who’s Next?”

LINKS - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1136

Democratic voters would get behind those Democratic candidates who were on the ball enough not to be "misled" in the first place.

We might elect somebody who doesn't need to apologize.

...John Kerry had made a similar statement last August, he might well be sitting in the White House today. :-(

(I know that Kerry had complained about Bush's handling of the war and misleading Congress on the IWR during the early part of election 2004, but, when asked directly just after the Democratic Convention, he said that, if he had known then what he knew now, he still would have voted for the IWR. As a result, Rove and his minions were given more ammunition in portraying Kerry as a "flip-flopper," which may have proven decisive in an election as close as last year's.)

had chosen a running mate with an anti-war position. Why we needed two war pigs on the ticket, I'll never understand.

and Thank you Sen. Graham, Boxer, Kennedy, Feingold, and all of the Senators who voted RIGHT.

Unfortunately when one waits this long (2.5 years and a lost election) to make this admission...when the polls finally are showing that Americans disapprove of this war in the majority, it does seem kind of convenient for Sen. Edwards to have now seen the light. Wonder what new piece of information convinced that he was wrong originally?

Thank goodness there are some Dems with nothing to apologize for!

They are the true heros and the real leaders. With all of that political pressure to vote for the IRW back in 2002.....these great Senators stood firm. Kudos to them....and I am glad that Sen. Edwards finally gets "it".

Senators who got it right and therefore have nothing to apologize for:

Senators voting Nay on IRW in 2002:
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

They are the true heros and the real leaders with insight.

With all of that political pressure to vote for the IRW back in 2002.....these great Senators stood firm on the important issue of War and peace.

Kudos to them! :toast:

Here are the list of co-sponsors on the Lieberman Bill which was the IWR that finally passed in the senate.

LIST OF SENATE CO-SPONSORS for S.J. 46 (Lieberman's Senate equivalent Joint Res.) :

Sen Lieberman, Joe (Author)
Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002
Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002
Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002
Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002
Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002
Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002
Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002
Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002
Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002

Along with Sen. Zell Miller (There's your FIRST clue this was wrong) and Sens. Evan Bayh, John Edwards and Joe Lieberman (There's your SECOND and FINAL clue this war was a stupid idea) co-sponsored S.J. 46 (107th congress) which was the equivalent of Hastert's H.J. 114 which was the "IWR" that was eventually passed by the congress.

Here are is a collection of facts and links about "the IWR", and its relatives:

The Bill page for H.J. 114 (joint Iraq war resolution that was passed by the 107th congress):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:

A human-readable text of the Res
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

House Roll Call (296 Yeas, 133 Nays, 3 NV)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Senate Roll Call (77 Yeas, 23 Nays)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Sponsor: Hastert. Cosponsors (136)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@P

Other similar proposals: S.J.Res. 45 (Daschle-Lott), H.J.Res. 114 (Hastert-Gephardt), S.J. Res. 46 (LIEBERMAN) were modified proposals.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:S.J.RES.46:

A more sensible version with check and balances was drafted by Al Hastings in his H.J.Res. 110, but it was not considered on the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00110:@@@P


http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/2256

Probably the simple facts that the war is going badly, and that it is now increasingly popular, even safe, to criticize it. Pure cynical opportunism.

I choose to be inspired.

meaningful.

Paging Hillary, Joe.

Spin that.

When he says that it is hard to say he was wrong because men and women are still fighting and dying because of that vote.

I never really thought about it that way before. I think a lot of Democrats, including Kerry and Edwards, probably kept themselves in denial for a long time for this reason.

Millions of Americans knew it but were derided for being "unpatriotic." Other countries knew it but we sold "Freedom Fires" in the Congressional Dining Room. Congress abandoned its Constitutional duty to be the sole arbiter of when and where our nation goes to war. That was cowardly and traitorously contrary to their oath to protect and defend the Constitution - their most fundamental duty!

Removing our military (promptly!), and canceling corporate predation and piracy isn't enough. The war criminals must be prosecuted and imprisoned!

:silly: :dunce: :evilgrin:

:rofl: :rofl:

doing the same thing. if they do decide to "apologize", they'll just be "following the dems" and there's no way that's gonna happen.

And there are people on this site that want him to be president?

For cripe's sake!

It is so friggen blantant that he voted the way he did and continued the pro-war talk FOR HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER!

How does that blood on your hands feel, Johnny boy?

Boring, too.

only to spew bile at Democrats. It's tiresome and pointless and entirely too predictable.

I've been posting here since the early part of 2002.

I'm not spilling bile at Democrats, just stating the facts on Johnny boy's sudden revelation.

The thought that a vote I might make could kill thousands of innocents, would make me dig very hard for the truth 1st.

My Rep. Pete Defazio did:

"I sat through a large number of classified and unclassified briefings from administration officials prior to the congressional vote in October 2002 to go to war. Based on the evidence that was presented to me by the administration, it was clear even before the congressional vote, and certainly before the U.S. went to war in March 2003, that the administration hyped, manipulated, and
misrepresented the intelligence regarding the threat posed by Iraq's previously known weapons of mass destruction programs and stockpiles. The administration did the same when it attempted to link Iraq with al-Qaeda. It was also clear to me that the administration had no realistic plan for what to do after overthrowing Saddam Hussein."

Why din't Johnny boy?

Why exhaust yourself?

This what your hatred of the man is all about: he didn't block an appeals court nomination, and you've defined him as an enemy of those with physical challenges. Regardless of his tireless advocacy for the rights of the disabled, regardless of his high ratings from organizations of the disabled, you cannot ever admit that you're wrong. You have made up your mind, and the only times you seem to surface are when anyone says something nice about the man.

It's irrational. It defies all evidence. It's extremely selfish, and it's beyond just being a vendetta.

This man is a friend to the downtrodden and challenged. His whole adult life has been that of being a champion of the weak, yet your ego rages on with an unsubstantiated need to be correct.

How many other politicians would admit mistakes of this sort? How many other politicians are as receptive to input and as honorable with their advocacy? This is the junior Senator who almost single-handedly tried to stop the Ashcroft confirmation. This is the guy who put the sunset clause in the Patriot Act. He fought tirelessly against the tax cuts.

None of this matters to you.

You haven't the decency that he has; you can't admit a mistake or recognize subtleties.

after killing someone "oops", sorry, didn't mean to do it.

Wouldn't it have been better if Kerry and Edwards had come out with this a little earlier--like around the time of the 2004 Demcocratic convention?

There's alot more information out there now; the Downing Street memos, the Libby indictment the daily drip of faulty intelligence sold and caveats ignored.

It's time for the rest of the pro-war Democrats to get on the same page with thier colleagues.

and please note I said start.

With this statement, you have my attention. But before I even consider casting a vote for you ever again, you have some very serious ground to make-up.

Il be listening to you, but you're going to have to make your case like you've never made it before.

Much respect to John Edwards. :loveya:

I didn't expect him to admit it. I know many Americans supposedly don't like to vote for those who say they were fooled, but we can drive home the fact that Republicans don't even see an obvious mistake. The one thing I disagree on is withdrawal - we should start getting out now. Granted, maybe we could help guard for a little while at places like schools and hospitals - but our days as an occupying force should end.

saying they are so damn sorry for their vote at that time. the time & date-stamped political reality at the time was that were they to have put forth any other alternative they would have been hoisted onto spikes in the commons.

while many here on these boards seen this bush kid coming, how were they to have known, so steeped in shrum-like notions of civility as they were then as well; that they would be handing the reigns to a group of truly whacked out nut-balls.

all debate was stifled; all of it!!! and it is the bush admin (rove at the top), and the 4th estate :eyes: that must be made to pay that price here & now imo

:patriot:

I don't think Kerry has made this step yet. It was a mistake because of extreme haste and pressure from an over eager Republican Party to go to war. A genuine leader would not have allowed themselves to be rushed in such a manner. I guess that is one reason the Kerry/Edwards team did not win.

Already he's done something that our "president" is unable to do: admit a mistake, in a public forum, over an issue as critical as war.

I'll take it. I've always said that if Edwards comes out against this war I'll be for him in the 2008 primaries, and this is a big first step.

Spot on, William Pitt:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110305I.shtml

If the Democrats and the media expect Bush to accept responsibility and admit fault, they must first do so themselves. The stain of their actions is still there, still with us. They must find the courage, today, to admit they were wrong

Thanks, John. (Don't worry, we'll love you in 2008 too. Your running mate, err, not so much.)