John Edwards's changing tune on the Iraq vote

AS HE runs for president, John Edwards has cast himself as a candidate who puts candor ahead of politics by saying he was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution.

But candor wasn't what he counseled as John Kerry's vice-presidential nominee, when he argued strongly against admitting error on Iraq, according to veterans of the 2004 campaign.

In waging his current crusade, Edwards has apologized repeatedly for his Iraq vote, not-so-subtly contrasting himself with Hillary Clinton, who has said she wouldn't vote the same way again, but who has also refused to express regret for supporting the resolution.

On a Feb. 4 appearance on "Meet the Press," for example, Edwards said he was very critical of himself for that vote, adding: "Anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got be honest and open, be willing to admit when they've done things wrong." Clinton's refusal to repudiate her vote is "between her and her conscience," he said at Feb. 21 forum.

That confessional stance has won Edwards considerable credit with Democrats.

Yet as John Kerry's 2004 ticketmate, the former North Carolina senator was anything but eager to acknowledge error on Iraq. Instead, according to several Kerry-Edwards campaign aides, Edwards argued repeatedly that the two should stand by their votes, even after it had become apparent that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction nor collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.

The matter came to a head in 2004. On Aug. 6, with no WMD found and no terrorist ties discovered, President Bush commenced an audacious political gambit, declaring that even "knowing what we know now" he would still have invaded Iraq.

What would Kerry have done, he demanded? To the dismay of many Democrats, Kerry, speaking at the Grand Canyon on Aug. 9, said he would still have voted for the war resolution because "it was the right authority for the president to have."

His response was quickly seen as a lost opportunity. However, one man who had been adamant that Kerry shouldn't disavow his vote was Edwards. Although Edwards wasn't with Kerry that day, the two had been traveling by train together over the weekend. Once Bush issued his challenge, the campaign knew the press would soon put the question to the Democratic duo, and so, prior to an event on that Aug. 7 in La Junta, Colo., Kerry and Edwards and various aides huddled to discuss possible responses.

"I specifically remember Edwards having a very distinct take," says one person in attendance, who paraphrases Edwards's argument this way: "We need to stick to this. We should stand by our votes, say we would vote that way again. If you admit a mistake, it shows weakness in time of war. That's what the Republicans want us to do."

Adds a senior adviser who was there: "There was a discussion about how to answer the question: 'Was your vote on Iraq a mistake?' John Edwards had a very strong opinion that we should not waver, and it would show a sign of weakness if we did." A third source confirms those accounts.

In late September, Kerry struck a different tone at New York University, calling the Iraq war a "profound diversion" from the war on terrorism and making it clear he would not have gone to war knowing Iraq had neither WMD nor ties to Al Qaeda. In campaign discussions preparatory to that speech, Edwards is said to have argued again for sticking by the war resolution votes.

"His view was that we shouldn't be having this debate, that we should stick by the vote, and more broadly attack the management of the war," says the first person.

Adds the second source: "He could tell the tide had shifted, but he made one more attempt at having us not change our position. He thought it would show weakness."

Asked about the difference between the advice Edwards was giving in fall 2004 and his stance now, campaign spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield would say only this: "John Edwards's campaign is about looking forward and not backward and bringing about the kind of real change that we need in this country."

Still, though the Edwards campaign would prefer not to look back, his counsel in the 2004 campaign raises this question: Is today's John Edwards really the candid candidate he would have voters believe? Or is his supposed candor itself just more political positioning?

Scot Lehigh's e-mail address is lehigh@globe.com.