I've ruffled quite a few feathers around here lately because I won't bow at the alter of John Edwards' version 2.0. He's hitting some pretty notes lately, isn't he? Being the first to ditch the Fox debate, calling for Gonzalez' resignation. Why, he could almost be Howard Dean by the way some are treating him!
I am having a hard time buying it, though. I don't trust him or his "change of heart" on the Iraq war.
More below the fold:
John Edwards never backed down from his vote to authorize war in Iraq the entire time he ran for president or vice president in 2003-2004. Over and over and over again, he repeated that the invasion was the "right thing to do."
I disagreed with him, so I did not support him in the primary; however, I did vote Kerry/Edwards in '04.
Long after the 2004 election, Edwards suddenly has a change of heart; he admits his war vote was a mistake. Now, supporters of his will tell you that it is admirable to admit a mistake and learn from it. I would not disagree. Admitting mistakes is a cornerstone of leadership. One cannot grow if one cannot learn from mistakes. One cannot learn from mistakes if he does not admit to making any.
So admitting the Iraq war vote was a mistake, taken at face value, was a sign of courage.
But was it really? I mean, by the time he admitted to that very obvious mistake, the country had decidedly turned against this war, and the electorate was certainly angry enough to make that clear last November.
So, was this admission of his a reflection of a true change of heart; is this a political calculation now that the tide has turned away from the president and this war; or has Edwards always felt the invasion of Iraq was wrong?
Political Wire reports that
"John Edwards "was skeptical about voting for the Iraq war resolution and was pushed into it by advisers looking out for his political future," according to an upcoming book by political consultant Robert Shrum, the AP reports."
Folks, if this is true, it is very, very significant. If, in fact, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina was skeptical about the most important issue of our time and did nothing about it because Bob Shrum of all people told him it would be bad for his presidential ambitions, then the man simply has no business being president.
Because, here's the thing. If Edwards had reservations about the invasion of Iraq but didn't express them and voted for the damnable Iraq War Authorization in order to play it safe at a time when the president was enjoying huge approval ratings, then he is certainly capable of turning against the war when the president's poll numbers are in the dumps and the American public wants this war over ASAP.
Now, notice that my diary very specifically avoids saying that Edwards cannot be trusted but rather asks the question. Notice also that I use the conditional "if" this is true premise. Of course, the Edwards camp is denying Shrum's account:
"An Edwards spokesman disputes the account, saying the former senator "cast his vote based on the advice of national security advisers and the intelligence he was given, not political advisers."
One final thought. Would anyone who voted for this disaster ever admit to doing so because he or she had presidential ambitions? Or, would they claim to have voted based on bad intelligence that many of us laypeople saw right through until their dying day?
Can we trust that he has had a genuine change of heart, or do we conclude that his reversal on this issue is as calculated as his initial vote? Will we ever know? How can we ever know whether a candidate is genuine or just very, very good at playing to public sentiment?
Simply put, can we trust that Edwards 2.0 is the real deal, or will we see a version 3.0 next year that doesn't resemble this man at all?
What do you think?
link to the article: http://politicalwire.com/