Five years ago was a critical period in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq. At the time, John Edwards was busy planning his run for President and seeking to position himself as a Southern war hawk. He failed to read key intelligence reports available only to members of the Senate that cast doubt the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam possessed WMD and which influenced those that read them to vote against the war.
Edwards had made up his mind that the U.S. should invade Iraq. Edwards' judgment on Iraq was flawed in 2002 and it remains flawed today. He refuses to commit to the withdrawal of ALL U.S. forces from Iraq by 2010 or even 2013.
During the run up to the invasion many Democrats were voicing opinions as strongly in favor of the war as Bush and the neocons. Edwards stated stated on October 7, 2002, the same day President Bush in a televised address called on Congress to support his objectives for Iraq, that:
My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.In February 2003, the Democratic Leadership Council praised Edwards for his views on Iraq and criticized Democrats who advocated continued diplomatic outreach with Iraq through the United Nations:
Unfortunately, some Democrats are echoing the faulty logic of the French, who say Powell's presentation just shows the need for more inspections of Iraq. What would be the purpose of those inspections now that continued Iraqi defiance of its "final opportunity" for compliance with the United Nations has been established by the inspectors themselves?
. . .
And Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) said: "I have long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq's behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind. Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act. Saddam Hussein is on notice."
Which Democrats were the DLC referring to as using faulty logic? Bill Richardson, the candidate I'm supporting for President, was one.
On March 11, 2003, eight days before President Bush announced the U.S. was at war with Iraq, Richardson criticized the Bush Administration's rush to war in an interview on CNN.
At the time, most Americans supported going to war and were critical of the U.N. Richardson defended the work of the U.N. Richardson accurately predicted that a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq would undermine the U.N. and hurt the prestige of the U.S. abroad:
CROWLEY: I want to ask you the question, first, if there is no Security Council resolution approving of a war on Iraq, and if the Bush administration should go ahead, who loses in that scenario?
RICHARDSON: Well, I think the United Nations loses because it shows a lack of relevance to this crisis.
And, secondly, I think, Candy, that the United States loses because we're going into a major conflict without the blessing of the U.N. Security Council, without some of our major allies like France and Russia, and also those 10 other members of the Security Council, the 10 non-permanent members that have a voice right now.
So I think it would come at considerable cost especially if we're to win the war, which we would, issues relating to a post-Iraq configuration to the prestige of the United States worldwide to bring some kind of order to the Middle East and bring some kind of Persian Gulf-lessening attention. So, I think everybody would be a victim. The United Nations, the United States and, certainly, our NATO allies. I think would be hurt, too, because if they don't support us the breakdown of the NATO alliance might be next to go.
CROWLEY: Well, I want to cite a couple of figures for you. One of them just came from a CBS/New York Times poll, which showed that right now only about 34 percent of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a good job handling this situation.
Fifty eight percent think it's doing a poor job. On top of that, we also found that 55 percent would support an invasion, even if the Security Council says don't do it. What does that say about how Americans view the U.N., and has that changed since you were the ambassador?
RICHARDSON: Well, the United States as a populous, here in new Mexico, there's not much support for the United Nations. But at the same time, Candy, what everyone should understand is the United Nations does a lot of things that we, the U.S. as the only superpower, don't want to do.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
