Former Sen. Mike Gravel said that anyone who voted for the war initially should not be president.
"More Americans died because of their decision. That disqualifies them for president," Gravel said. "It doesn't mean they're bad people. It just means that they don't have moral judgment, and that's very important when you become president."
Obama was asked the question first, and graciously (or cagily, take your pick) said that voting for the war did not disqualify a candidate. But I'm not interested in whether that was a good answer or not. And I'm not even that interested in the actual question, because we can assume that if faced between two candidates who voted for or supported the war (say Edwards or Clinton against any of the Repubs) that one need not resort to a third party candidate.
My question is: between a candidate who opposed the war (Obama, Kucinich, Gore, Clark) and one who voted for the war (Edwards or Hillary, and Biden and Dodd if we care), should the war be a defining issue?
More below ...
I think it should, and here's why. As Gravel suggested, and Feingold has suggested before, the vote to authorize the war was a political one. Everyone knew an invasion was unnecessary, as Iraq was not an imminent threat, even if there were WMD, which was unlikely. And everyone knew a preemptive war was illegal, and immoral. And authorities, from Bob Graham to Wes Clark, pointed out how counter-productive the war would be in our effort to confront real terrorist threats. Nonetheless, Edwards and Hillary (and the others) made a political decision to authorize Bush to send Americans to die in this unnecessary and illegal war.
I think highly enough of Edwards and Hillary to assert that they knew better, that they were not stupid enough or so lacking in judgment to believe Dick Cheney over Bob Graham, or to think that we should invade a nation that no one (including Bush and Cheney) stated had the capability to attack us. No, they made a political decision, that the war would end up being popular, and that those who opposed it would be relegated to "peacenik" status, not serious candidates for national office.
Hillary's claim that she was voting to merely give Bush the "big stick" needed to force inspections doesn't hold water. First, if that's true, she should have demanded that the resolution require a subsequent authorization to actually invade. Second, if that's true, she would have vigorously opposed the invasion, and Bush kicking out the inspectors to invade, when it happened. After all, Bush "betrayed her" then. Instead, she supported the war for years. And of course, her "based on what I knew" rationale is bogus. Many who were ignorant of the facts (Obama, and many of us) knew the war was unjustified, and many who knew all of the facts (Bob Graham and others) thought so too. And said so, emphatically.
Edwards' "apology" puts him in a different, and I think far better, status. I don't doubt his sincerity, his recognition that he was wrong to facilitate this war. But the fact remains that when subjected to political pressure, he chose to send Americans, and Iraqis, to an unnecessary death. (Whatever one thinks of Schrum, his account suggesting that Edwards knew better rings true, to me anyway.) As President, he will be subjected to far greater political pressures. (Relatedly, has Edwards said what exactly was his mistake? If he has, please respond, as I may have missed it. Was it doing something he knew was wrong? If so, that admits a dangerous moral weakness. Or was it not knowing it was wrong? If so, that reveals a dangerous lack of judgment. Saying simply the vote was a mistake doesn't say much about how 2008 Edwards will be different than 2002 Edwards.)
We have to judge these candidates on the judgment they have shown in their lives. I do not think we should disregard the judgment they showed in the most important political moment of their lives. Nor do I think we should consider their promises and future plans to be more important than the documented record of their judgment. Anyone banking on the promises of a politician, any politician, hasn't been around long. As Groucho Marx said, Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
Full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter, but I don't mean this to be a proxy debate between supporters of him and other candidates. I'm interested in reasoned argument on all sides.
Thoughts?