|
Within the past 12-18 hours. You posted this on Tom Rinaldo's post about Clark as well. Now, let's set the record straight. Edwards did say that a few years ago. Here's what he said 53 weeks ago from today, in an e-mail that many in the netroots received (and he has not changed his position): Dear Benny,
I was wrong.
I wrote these words about my vote to authorize the Iraq war in a Washington Post op-ed piece and I want to share my views with you as well.
Almost three years ago, we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a very dear price. It is not right, just or fair that we made a mistake, but they pay for that mistake.
The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth. While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and to show that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.
The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the President -- and that I was being told by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.
George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: twisting intelligence to fit their pre-conceived views about Iraq's threat; failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.
Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it actually ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill that our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.
The urgent question isn't how we got here, but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.
What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.
A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing American presence; building Iraq's capacity; and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.
First, we need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.
We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections and a new government has been created, we should begin the redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq.
Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces. That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.
Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule outlining that as we certify that Iraqi troops are trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will withdraw.
Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. It's not just in America's security interest for Iraq to succeed, but the world's -- and the President needs to create a unified international front.
Too many mistakes have already been made to make this easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most importantly -- our troops who have died or been injured there and those who are fighting there today deserve nothing less.
America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. Over 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war; and over 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.
John This is what the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle had to say about Edwards after he wrote his op-ed in WaPo: Former VP hopeful is setting himself apart from crowd and party
(November 15, 2005) — Practically absent from the national political scene since last year's presidential election, Democrat John Edwards made quite a splash last weekend. Without equivocation, the unsuccessful 2004 candidate for vice president admitted he was wrong to vote to support going to war in Iraq.
Edwards' candid admission and his plan for winding down the war came in an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post. It was particularly noteworthy because it marked the first time that a high-profile Democrat who supported the war publicly acknowledged making a mistake.
The admission, no doubt, will strengthen Edwards' efforts to appeal to grass-roots, anti-war Democrats as the race for the party's 2008 presidential nomination gathers steam.
True, other prominent Democrats considered to be presidential timber, such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Evan Bayh, have hardly worn their "yes'' votes on the war as badges of honor. But they have refused to renounce their actions.
Instead, these big-name Democrats have argued that they were misled by the Bush administration, which provided flawed intelligence.
End of story.
By accepting "responsibility" for his mistake and devising a plan for action, Edwards is not only setting himself apart from the crowd of presidential aspirants, but from the party as well.
After all, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean seems to be relishing the withholding of details about the party's agenda on Iraq and change, overall. "Right now, it's not our job to give out specifics,'' he told a TV news show Sunday.
Never mind that polls show that 52 percent of swing voters believe Democrats have no clear vision for the future.
At least Edwards seems to recognize the urgency of seizing the moment and the importance of acting differently to achieve a different outcome. I'm not certain that Obama is a warmonger either. And I think it's great that Edwards is saying to Obama, join the Presidential hopefuls party if you want. There's plenty of room. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
