Five years ago was a critical week in the decision by our nation to go to war with Iraq. While the Senate was debating the war, John Edwards gave a well-publicized speech in Washington, D.C. on October 7, 2002, supporting the Bush Administration's rationale for invading Iraq. Edwards is wrong on Iraq today. Edwards leaves open the door to the U.S. intervention in Iraq for years to come.

::::::::

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.

They get involved in conflicts in Kosovo, in the Congo in Africa, in Guatemala and Latin America. Immigration issues, AIDS, refugees. We don't want to get directly involved in these, but we use the arm of international support, legitimacy of the United Nations to do it.

Now, in the Persian Gulf, conveniently, the U.N. supported our efforts in 1991 to get a broad coalition. And I think we've used the U.N. in the war on terrorism to get international support.

But clearly in this Iraq crisis, the U.N. has to step up and simply enforce its [1441] resolution. And it's not doing that. So, it's going to be a big loss for the U.N. in terms of its peacekeeping relevance, unless it really steps up and gets tough on Saddam Hussein. I think that's the issue.

CROWLEY: So, am I right, am I hearing you correctly that you believe that the U.N. Security Council should pass the resolution that Britain and the U.S. are proposing?

RICHARDSON: Well, I would go a little differently, Candy. I think the U.S. and Britain should compromise. That's the essence of diplomacy. To get nine votes, if it means postponing for 30 days, or 15 days or 10 days, a new resolution with benchmarks on Iraq's behavior, let's do it. I think that France and Russia are basically gone.

They are going to veto. But it would be a partial victory if we get nine votes for a victory of a majority in the Security Council. If we don't do that, I think it's going to be tremendous prestige loss overseas. I think, domestically, it's going to cause more problems for the administration. The Congress will be divided. This is a time when it's frustrating, but what's the rush, really. Iraq is not heading down Baghdad into the United States.

Again, it is a threat, but it's not an immediate threat. It's not something that is like the war on terrorism, where we're under alert from a potential terrorist attack in this country. So let's be judicious. Let's be calm. Let's be patient.

Edwards is wrong on Iraq today. Edwards leaves open the door to the U.S. intervention in Iraq for years to come. Edwards refuses to make any absolute pledge to leave Iraq. He first has to take office and any withdrawal will depend upon the circumstances.

When asked at the AARP debate in September in Iowa if he would bring home our troops by 2010, Edwards answer is "it's impossible to say." At the debate in New Hampshire a week later, Edwards response was he couldn't make a commitment in answer to the question of whether our troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.

With Edwards, his promise to bring our troops home is conditional. In contrast, with Richardson, it is absolute.

Edwards also puts forth another justification for the continued U.S. military intervention in Iraq: the "embassy argument." It is a red herring designed to create confusion and doubt in the minds of anti-war voters that want all of our troops out of Iraq and may be considering supporting Richardson.

Under Edwards' reasoning, the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Richardson would withdraw in less than a year 159,000 of our 160,000 troops but somehow his plan is flawed. We can't support Richardson's because we have to have an embassy and with an embassy we have to continue our military intervention in Iraq.

What absurdity. Edwards wants it both ways - bash Bush for the war but keep sizeable forces in Iraq and not offer any guarantee of a withdrawal. That way Edwards doesn't offend the Washington D.C. political and military establishment by purportedly abandoning Iraq.

Richardson's view view on the embassy is that if we need thousands of troops to defend the embassy then our personnel are not safe and they are coming home and embassy will be closed: "residual forces -- 5,000 to guard an embassy -- that means that the embassy is not safe. I would pull the embassy if it is not safe."

Richardson understands the essential truth about the U.S. intervention in Iraq today: "Our troops in Iraq are now the biggest obstacle to political change."

This is where Clinton, Obama and Edwards fall gravely short on Iraq. They lack this fundamental insight. While they call for an end to the war in their stump speeches, when directly questioned each refuses to commit to bringing our troops home when they become President. They say our withdrawal depends upon the situation in Iraq when they become President. Moreover, they leave open the possibility our troops will remain in Iraq until 2013.

If Clinton, Obama and Edwards understood that our troops are unwittingly perpetuating the conflict, they would not keep our troops in Iraq one day longer than necessary for their safe withdrawal. Instead as noted by Helen Thomas they are not providing leadership on the most critical issue of this election, the path out of Iraq:

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party's leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy. These Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week, at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, along with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: "It is very difficult to know what we're going to be inheriting." Obama dodged, too: "I think it would be irresponsible" to say what he would do as president. Edwards, on whom hopes were riding to show some independence, replied to the question: "I cannot make that commitment."

If you want to make an informed choice on whom to support for President and don't know much about Richardson I encourage you to visit his website at www.richardsonforpresident.com. To learn about Richardson the person, his upbringing and what events shaped his life, watch a recent ABC news interview or read a summary of the interview.

 

Authors Bio:
Stephen is a resident of California and Democrat.