News-Record.com

Edwards is doing what he thinks he must to maintain his political viability. The war in Iraq has gone badly, its justifications have unraveled, and the president's approval ratings have plummeted. The national mood has turned so hot against George W. Bush and his costly conflict that some observers think no Democrat even slightly soiled by association with it can win the party's presidential nomination next time around.

It was time for Edwards to wash his hands of it.

He did so with forthright disingenuity, taking responsibility for the mistake of voting to give Bush authorization for launching the war while actually placing blame elsewhere:

"The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate," Edwards wrote. "The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for his war."

At least Edwards didn't repeat the wobbly excuse rendered by his 2004 running mate John Kerry of voting against it before voting for it.

But it's not much better to say, in effect, "If I'd known then what I know now, I would have made a different decision."

Of course he would. Who wouldn't?

If Bush himself knew then that 32 months into his invasion, Iraq would be a hornet's nest of terrorism, more than 2,000 U.S. military men and women would be dead, the financial cost would be running into the hundreds of billions and the fortunes of the Republican Party would be nosediving, I'm guessing he'd entertain a second thought or two. He might have been itching to start a war, but I doubt he wanted to make a mess of one.

Simply taking out Saddam was not a sufficient objective under the circumstances. Bush made a terrible misjudgment by relying on faulty information -- not only about Iraq's weapons capabilities but about the bloody insurrection and terrorism an American invasion would unleash.

Edwards faults Bush because he "won't accept responsibility for his mistakes.

"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 showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right."

That's the difference between the roles of a president and a presidential candidate.

While Bush certainly has admitted the obvious -- that he was wrong in thinking Iraq had significant WMD capabilities -- he can't repudiate the invasion itself. Doing so would say that all the effort expended there, and the lives lost, were spent in a morally indefensible cause. The only appropriate response to that would be an immediate withdrawal, an apology and, perhaps, even a pledge never to engage in military interventionism again.

All of which would throw Iraq into greater chaos, ultimately leaving it to forces of destruction, and diminishing our country's ability to act decisively -- appropriately, I would hope -- when future crises demand a military response.

Instead, Bush has to hold on to the goal of achieving something worthwhile in Iraq in the long run. Which is possible. Doing that should be everyone's goal.

Edwards acknowledged as much:

"The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now," he wrote.

Indeed, the remainder of his article offers some sensible ideas, centering on three objectives: "reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to me their responsibilities to help."

All of which are also part of Bush's game plan.

The third point should be aided by last week's al-Qaida attack in Jordan. Other Arab countries should see by now that a terrorist victory in Iraq will be a dangerous outcome for them. Al-Qaida would use Iraq as a base, not just for attacks against Western interests, but against other regimes in the region, with the goal of establishing radical Islamic governments in all. Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait -- Turkey, too, although it's not an Arab country -- all should provide assistance to the fledging government in Iraq, even security forces to help put down the terrorists.

It's safe for Edwards, Kerry, Hillary Clinton and others to reverse their positions on Iraq now, but anyone who wants to be our next president really should hope our current one succeeds in Iraq. No one should want to inherit a quagmire. Nixon and Ford didn't start the Vietnam War, but they're associated with its failure.

Democrats should be careful. Speaking out against our war effort too forcefully now runs the risk of encouraging our enemies. The last thing we should want is for them to think they can win if they can keep fighting for three more years.