The Iraq War was by far the most important issue to me in 2004, and that has not changed this time around. While Edwards' domestic rhetoric has appeal to me, his record on the war means I cannot ever vote for him in good conscience.
There were two clearly pivotal moments when it was possible to stop the war:
- Before the congressional vote to authorize the war.
- During the 2004 election cycle.
Edwards was on the wrong side of the war both times.
In the runup to the war he famously co-sponsored the Iraq war resolution, together with Joe Leiberman. Remember that during this period the Senate was split accross party lines. In fact, the Senate Republicans only had 49 votes in favor of the war! It was Democrats like Edwards and Leiberman made it easy for the war to be authorized, and gave creedence the perception that it was in fact inevitable.
I don't know if Edwards actively supported the war because he believed it was in the best interest of our country, or if he did it because he believed it was in his own best political interest. But either reason is unacceptable to me, and I believe either reason should disqualify him from getting my vote.
Sadly, Edwards was on the wrong side again in 2004, when the whole world was watching to see if America's voters and opposition party would reject the Bush doctrine. Apparently Edwards even pushed John Kerry to give his infamous "if I knew then what I know now, I'd vote the same way!" speech at the Grand Canyon. The speech apparently delighted those in the Bush campaign, and understandably so, since it meant there was little distinction between Bush's position on the war, and that of the leaders of the opposition party.
From the New York Times:
Mr. Kerry had increasing doubts about the war. But Mr. Edwards argued that they should not renounce their votes — they had to show conviction and consistency.
Mr. Kerry yielded to his running mate after Mr. Bush issued a challenge in early August: would Mr. Kerry still vote the same way, knowing now that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction? Mr. Kerry told reporters he would have voted the same, but done everything else about the war differently.
The Republicans delighted in another flip-flop. Six weeks later, Mr. Kerry gave a speech at New York University declaring that he would not have voted for the war, calling it a “profound diversion” from the real threat, Osama bin Laden. Mr. Edwards had argued against the speech in a conference call into the early morning hours. While Mr. Kerry was hailed for showing resolve, the campaign never fully recovered from the accusation that the Democratic presidential candidate — unlike Mr. Bush — did not know what he stood for.
Again, did Edwards take this position because he truly believed in the war? If so, how can we trust his judgement? Or did he support the war because he thought it was politically advantageous? If so, how can we trust his character?
And if there's a future crisis in Iran or Pakistan or Israel and hawks are calling for the United States to show off its millitary muscle, do we want a commander in chief who apparently either lacks sound foreign policy judgement or makes decisions based on how tough it makes him look to potential voters?
It's simply not a chance I'm comfortable taking. Edwards cannot have my vote.