Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

Kerry and Edwards embrace at New York's Radio City Music Hall, June 8, 2004

Remember Iraq? Not too long ago, that was Issue One in the presidential race. It may return to the biggest and most important, once John Kerry and John Edwards have used up the younger candidate's "Two Americas" shtick. And it will be worthwhile to recall just how much of a flip-flopping opportunist the number-two man on the Democratic ticket can be. When taking on Saddam Hussein was popular with the public, Edwards was all for it and leading the arguments favoring the use of force. When it became unpopular with Democratic-primary voters, he suddenly shifted his tune. Now, as American troops continue the hard work of helping the new Iraqi government secure the country and build a free society, Edwards calls the war "needless."

First, note that Democrats have claimed that Bush misled the American people, by claiming Iraq was an "imminent" threat. Bush never used the word "imminent," although he did use terms like "grave and gathering." But guess who did call Iraq an imminient threat?

I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. — John Edwards [Feb. 24, 2002]

Edwards said that United Nations approval of military action would be nice to have, but was not necessary.

GIBSON: "Do you think that the president should act, even if the United Nations does not grant him permission?" EDWARDS: "Oh, I don't think we should be bound by what the United Nations does. I mean, we should do everything in our power to try to get the United Nations resolution. We should do everything in our power to try to build an ally — a group of allies and a coalition to support what it is we're doing. But, at the end of the day, this is something that we have to show leadership on." [Fox News Channel's The Big Story With John Gibson, September 19, 2002]

Ultimately, Edwards decided he would vote for the resolution authorizing force against Saddam.

I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies. [October 10, 2002]

In fact, Edwards specifically rejected the Democratic argument that Iraq would distract America from the war on terrorism.

I reject the false choice between fighting the war on terrorism and containing the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, specifically the looming danger of Saddam Hussein. We must disarm Iraq, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. At the same time, we must remember why disarming Saddam is critical to American security - because halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and ensuring they don't fall into the wrong hands, including terrorist hands, is critical to American security. [December 18, 2002]

On the eve of the war, Edwards said he understood the need to act without all of our allies on board. In fact, he praised President Bush for making the tough call in the face of opposition from some countries.

It is also a test of Presidential leadership to have the backbone to say to those who strongly disagree with you — including your friends — what you believe. I believe that Saddam Hussein is a serious threat and that he must be disarmed, including with military force if necessary. [March 15, 2003]

And he shot back at those who called it "Bush's war":

"Make no mistake. Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Our world will be safer when he is gone." March 19, 2003

The Boston Heraldnoted, "During the buildup and aftermath of the Iraq war, Edwards bought and sold stock in several defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, United Technologies, General Electric, British Petroleum, and General Dynamics."

As recently as last summer, Edwards was still on board, speaking as a pro-war Democrat, talking about the benefits of a world with Saddam out of power.

Removing Saddam Hussein's government from power was the right thing to do. The fall of Saddam offered the best opportunity in a generation to transform the Middle East and promote democracy and human rights in the region. [August 8, 2003]

And as a vote on the $87 billion funding package approached, Edwards began talking about the importance of supporting the troops.

We have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. When we went into Iraq, the US assumed a responsibility to share with our allies the effort to reconstruct. That does not mean Bush should get a blank check... I will vote for what's necessary to support the troops. But we have a lot of questions that have to be answered first. We have to find out how he plans to bring our allies in, how much control he plans to give up, and what is our long-term plan there. I will vote for what needs to be there to support our troops who are on the ground. [September 25, 2003]

But suddenly, it became clear that Howard Dean's antiwar rhetoric was the favorite of Democratic primary voters. And, a few weeks after calling not funding the troops "irresponsible," Edwards said:

I will vote against the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq. [October 14, 2003]

As the Democratic campaign started to heat up, Edwards decided to hurl some gratuitous insults at our allies, fighting insurgents alongside American troops.

As our military leaders say, you have in Iraq swimmers and non-swimmers, that's the term they like to use. The swimmers are us and to a much smaller extent the British and nobody else.... Most of these countries are window-dressing. This is not serious. [January 22, 2004]

And now, as Kerry's running mate, Edwards has signed on to the idea that the whole thing was "unnecessary."

"With John Kerry as president no young American will ever go to war needlessly because America has decided to go it alone," Edwards said Wednesday.

But don't worry — if the polls show American support for the war effort picking up, Weathervane Edwards will flip again and sprint ahead to lead the parade.