This on February 2003....
Not content with expressing support for Powell’s speech, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina indicated his retroactive support for the Bush administration, saying that he has “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.” Edwards commented, “Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/dems-f08.shtml Or this, In October of 2003....http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.
Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations.
I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.
And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people. MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us,
was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes. or this in December of 2003?In an interview on Meet the Press this past November, interviewer Tim Russert asked the North Carolina senator whether he regretted giving Bush "in effect a blank check for the war in Iraq." Edwards replied by saying, "I still believe it was right."
When Russert noted the absence of any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or any ongoing WMD programs, Edwards insisted that Iraq still posed a threat regardless of whether Saddam Hussein actually "had them at the time the war began or not" because "he had been trying to acquire that capability" previously and therefore posed "an obvious and serious threat to the stability of that region of the world." In short, the Democrats are nominating a vice president who believes the United States has the right to invade any country that at some point in the past had tried to develop biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons capability.
Given that that would total more than 50 countries, the prospects of Edwards as commander-in-chief is rather unsettling.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074
When did he get his first "clue", since the protests didn't quite do it? Because all of the protests occurred in earnest starting in Feb of 2003, to attempt to head off the war after our congress had failed us.
All over the world, there were protests.
If John Edwards was still supporting the war in November of 2003, nearly a year after it had started....where in the fuck was he, and why didn't he say something other than what he said?
Considering that it doesn't look like he really cared then what we thought?
Why should he really care now?.....
What changed?
Think about it.