If there's a less contentious way to put this, please let me know, but I have to say that I can't overstate how irksome it is that anyone who would consciously make the same mistake twice regarding something as grave as going to war is embraced with such enthusiasm. I'm talking of course of how he and Kerry said that knowing what they know now they still would have voted for the war.
That vote was predicated on Bush acting in good faith to only use force if and when all diplomatic levers had been exhausted. And of course he betrayed Congress after they violated the Constitution by abdicating its authority to declare war. (If you disagree, then take it up with Thom Hartmann, Robert Byrd and Peter Irons, author of War Powers.) Even Hillary Clinton said that after the fact it was obviously wrong to have voted that way. And when pressed by Tim Russert to reconcile why Kerry (and implicitly Edwards) had said he still would have voted the same way in hindsight, she embarrassed herself and the Democratic party by saying, "I think John's point was that you can't make decisions in hindsight." (Does that mean she doesn't see any value in re-evaluating decisions after the fact?)
>>>
So perhaps some of you can explain to me the wisdom of nominating a man who didn't realized immediately after Bush betrayed him that it would be doubly foolhardy to give him a second chance to betray that trust.
UPDATE: several comments corroborate that he DID indeed take that position.
http://www.dailykos.com/...
http://www.dailykos.com/...
UPDATE: fools on the hill proved my point: http://www.dailykos.com/...
"I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take," says one person in attendance, who paraphrases Edwards' argument this way: "We need to stick to this. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war."