Edwards says what needs to be said

During the presidential campaign, John Kerry had a pretty decent response when it came to describing his vote on the Iraq resolution that ultimately led to war. I gave the president the authority to deal with Saddam Hussein, Kerry said, but I didn’t know Bush was going to screw it up so badly.

It wasn’t a bad line, but it was the follow-up that seemed to get Kerry in trouble. Asked if he had it to do over again, knowing in 2004 what he knew in 2002, whether he’d vote the same way, Kerry said he would. That’s the part that never quite worked. If the Senate knew that there were no WMD, no nuclear program, no al Queda ties, no 9/11 connection, no unmanned drones, no mobile labs, no threat to the United States, and that Bush was cherry-picking the intelligence he wanted all along, why on earth would any sane person vote for the resolution? Why would there have even been a resolution?

Kerry didn’t want to say he made the wrong call. In a presidential campaign, no one ever does. The result was an awkward response to the most important issue of the campaign.

But what about now? What do Dems who voted for that resolution say about their choice? It seems to me they do exactly what John Edwards has done.

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.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn’t the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

Edwards’ line seems so obvious, it’s amazing others haven’t gone there before him.

It’s an approach that accepts responsibility and acknowledges reality before moving forward. Just as importantly, it turns the question back around at the GOP — Bush, among others, insists he’d do everything exactly the same way, even if he knew then what he knows now. If there’s a compelling explanation for such a position, no one’s thought of it yet.

So, Edwards becomes the first to use the magical “I was wrong” phrase. Who’s next?

I don’t think Edwards was wrong and I don’t think Kerry was wrong either. I think they made the best decision given the information they had. The information was bad. And I believe it was deliberately bad. I don’t get why republicans cling to the mantra that Dems had access to the same information as did the White House. You know that just isn’t true. The White House spun the info given to Congress, and the rest of the world, in the run-up to the war. Any normal, sane person, basing decisions on the info provided by the white House would have voted the same as Edwards or Kerry. Now if only the White House hadn’t distorted the information…

  • As Senators, both Edwards and Kerry blew it in their **Congressional** roles. Only Bob Byrd got it right when he called that abominible resolution an ‘abdication’ of Congressional oversight and responsibility to declear war. Everyone must read that thing and see how easily it let GWB do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted with just the facade of restraint or contemplation. I say that great blame goes to the Deaniacs who latched onto Dean’s campaign as the ‘anti-war’ candidate when it’s clear in the record that he supported almost essentially the same unrestricted language that Kerry, Edwards and other Dems unfortunately supported. If only Wes Clark had noticed this incongruity and properly capitalized on the situation, then perhaps the primary would have been different.

    Then again, what Presidential candidate wants to say that Congress should have more power?

    In all, it was a masterful **political** stroke by GWB’s team to jam the Dems in so many ways, but obviously a horrible, dishonest, tragic policy decision by these people. It’s yet another example that GWB and his people think good politics is good policy when the reverse is supposed to be true.

  • We think it is obvious and right for him to make this statement but we are talking about politics and specifically politicians in D.C. Neither places are big on accountability no matter the lip service given to it. Americans like accountability but we don’t seem to hold public servants accountable when we can, look at Bush’s re-selection in 2004. And anyway look what happens if someone does admit a mistake. In the next election the opposition uses it like a cudgel and the voters buy into it. America has become a country that is not fond of mistakes or failure – so we are all bear some responsibility for our current uncomfortable relationship to accountability.

  • I disagree with your analysis of Kerry’s explanation of his vote. First, Kerry agreed that it was a mistake to trust Bush, and he did so before the election last year.

    *****

    This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

    The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

    History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words “weapons inspectors” were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush’s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

    Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, “Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

    Pointing out Bush’s mistakes is relatively simple, but what of solutions to the Iraq mess? Kerry was questioned at length on this, and gave the same answers delivered during his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on December 3: “Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes. I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a UN Special Representative for Iraq.”

    I understand that the United Nations is reluctant to return to Iraq,” continued Kerry in his CFR speech, “for good reason. But I believe if the UN role is absolutely clear and substantively real, the Secretary General and members of the Security Council will support this course of action. But one thing is beyond doubt: We will continue to have difficulty persuading other countries, particularly those with meaningful military capabilities, to contribute troops and funds for reconstruction unless and until we vest real responsibility in the hands of the United Nations and the international community.”

    Alterman, for one, was sold. In his MSNBC blog report on the meeting, he wrote, “It was all on the record and yet, it was remarkably open, honest and unscripted. Let’s be blunt. Kerry was terrific. Once again, he demonstrated a thoughtfulness, knowledge base and value system that gives him everything, in my not-so-humble-opinion, he could need to be not just a good, but a great president.”

    The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”

    Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.

    *****

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

    Kerry was on the record about that long before Edwards and almost anyone else who voted to authorize the use of force if necessary. In fact, if you look back at Edwards’ comments, he lagged behind Kerry in speaking out against the run-up to and commencement of war.

    As to the second part of your premise, I think what Kerry has always maintained is that the policy decision he made – using a credible threat of force to compel inspections – was the right one, and I don’t see how you can argue any differently. The right thing to do is to make sure our enemies or suspected enemies know that we will use force if necessary, and then to trust the president’s judgment to carry out such threats as necessary. It’s our bad luck – which Kerry admits – that our president in this instance was a warmongering idiot.

    Now, as to how you stated the second part of your premise, I’d be interested to know if you can actually point to a question and answer on the subject from Kerry that’s equivalent to the question you propose. I know what you mean when you say this —

    “If the Senate knew that there were no WMD, no nuclear program, no al Queda ties, no 9/11 connection, no unmanned drones, no mobile labs, no threat to the United States, and that Bush was cherry-picking the intelligence he wanted all along, why on earth would any sane person vote for the resolution?”

    — but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen Kerry answer a question like that with, “Yeah, I’d do exactly the same thing even if I knew I was wrong.” That’s what Bush still says, but even if you don’t like Kerry you have to admit he ain’t no Bush.

    If, on the other hand, Kerry’s never been asked such a question – or more probably never answered as you’ve suggested he’s answered – then I’d like that stated. Because Kerry’s position is actually the only one I’ve seen in this whole mess that provides the U.S. with an actionable policy. The right is a warmongering embarrassment, the left is an antiwar embarrassment, and in the middle you have Kerry saying, “This is the right way to deal with these threats in a post 9/11 world.”

    I think he’s right. It’s not sexy or ideologically appealing, but I think he’s right.

  • One more thing….

    Edwards adopts the ideological language of both the left and the right when he says this:

    “It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002.”

    We all know what he means, but there was no vote for war. (And you did a good job in your post of not saying the same thing, instead accurately noting that the vote was to authorize the use of force.) The ideologues on the left and right don’t want to talk about the difference because it doesn’t serve them. The right wants to imply that anyone who voted to authorize the use of force necessarily supports Bush’s decisions, and the left wants to imply that anyone who voted to authorize the use of force is a Nazi.

    But there is a difference. Bush himself is solely responsible for starting this war, whether he was authorized to or not. Imagine a police officer being found guilty of an unlawful shooting, and then the police academy being accused of responsibility, and you can see this more clearly. As a policy decision I believe Congress acted appropriately and Bush failed us. We had the inspectors back in, then he – and he alone – started a war.

    I don’t know why Edwards has gone along with this ideological language, but I think it was a mistake for him to do so.

  • Everyone, on all sides, says we can’t cut and run (or words to that effect).

    Why not?

    Imagine if someone in power had had the courage to ask that in 1968.

  • Oy makes some very good points, and
    explains why Kerry’s answer can’t be
    encapsulated into a sound bite. Thus
    he loses the election.

    But I don’t think the Congress acted
    responsibly. They did not perform
    “due diligence” before granting
    the authority to use force. Had they
    done so, the Saddam-is-a-threat
    fraud would have been exposed.

    One third of the American people
    simply used common sense to
    determine Saddam was no threat.
    He was exposed in Gulf War I as
    a paper tiger, his military was
    decimated, he was crushed by
    twelve years of sanctions and
    containment, so how in hell did he
    suddenly manage to pose an
    imminent threat to anybody in
    2002 and 2003? There should
    have been a high level of
    skepticism from the outset.

    By the way, I think Byrd’s speech
    on this was a true masterpiece.
    Sorry, I haven’t got the link. I
    think it was on this site either
    Saturday or Sunday. He had it
    absolutely right, in my opinion.

  • Somewhere post election I read the reason for Kerry’s saying he would do it all over again. It had to do with where he was asked – at an outdoor event at the Grand Canyon. He didn’t hear the question properly due to the wind and some hearing loss (due to serving in Vietnam). When it was later pointed out to him by his aides he decided to let it drop lest he be labeled a flip flopper yet again.

    I wish he had spoken up and corrected himself. Better to say, hey I didn’t hear the question correctly, than to be made to look a liar or an idiot.

    And there were other things he could have explained better – he even had the perfect openings (ie re the $87B for it before he was against it in one of the debates). The courageous veteran became the too careful politician.

  • Comments are closed.