Now that everyone's talking about Mike Bloomberg as potential Presidential material, it seemed to us like a good idea to take a look at where he has been on, you know, the most important political issue of our time: Iraq.

Right now Bloomberg is distancing himself from Bush and his foreign policies. As part of his whirlwind "I just may go for it" tour this week, he gave a speech on Monday at Google headquarters criticizing Bush's approach to foreign policy, though it's also worth noting that he stopped short of calling for withdrawal from Iraq. He said this:

"We are in trouble overseas. There's obviously an unpopular war, but a war that has no easy answers. The people that say, 'let's just automatically pull troops out,' I don't think have really looked at the consequences of destabilizing the world, and the genocide that may or may not occur, depending on who you believe."

And this:

"Our reputation has been hurt very badly in the last few years. We are, we have had a go it alone mentality in a world where, because of communications and transportation, you should be going exactly in the other direction. There's no one country that can stand on its own anymore, we're so interconnected through trade and everything else..."

It's worth noting, however, that Bloomberg tacitly endorsed -- and certainly didn't oppose -- Bush's international approach and his quasi-unilateral invasion of Iraq back in 2002 and early 2003, when it really counted.

A caveat: Bloomberg was always careful to equivocate about whether he fully supported the invasion. This was partly a consequence of his bizarre political predicament at the time: He had converted to the Republican Party, and was hoping to woo the GOP convention to New York, but he was also Mayor of a city that was intensely opposed to the war. So he always stopped just short of outright and full-blown support for the invasion.

Still, if you look at his public statements at the time, it's hard to concluded that he did anything but tacitly back the war and give it his blessing.

From The New York Times, September 14, 2002 (via Nexis):

Bloomberg Seconds Bush In Defending Use of Arms

BYLINE: By DIANE CARDWELL

SECTION: Section A; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk; Pg. 7

LENGTH: 752 words

Michael R. Bloomberg, the fourth mayor of New York to address the United Nations General Assembly, used the occasion yesterday to make a subtle case for military action against Iraq, underscoring the message President Bush delivered just a day earlier.

Calling the Sept. 11 attack an assault on the principles of the United Nations itself, Mr. Bloomberg said, "Freedom comes at a price -- and tragically, sometimes that price is the commitment to defend freedom by arms."

"No matter how painful, America understands its obligations to its citizens, and the citizens of the world," he said. "America has been, is and always will be willing to do its duty -- to sacrifice even its own blood so that people everywhere can live as individuals, responsible for their own destinies."

In a tacit reference to Iraq, Mr. Bloomberg added, "As President Bush has said repeatedly, we will aggressively pursue terrorists wherever they seek refuge and terrorist states whenever they threaten our security."

Here's another example that is less clear cut, from CNN in March of 2003 (via Nexis):

QUESTION: Did the president convince you war is necessary despite the failure of diplomacy? And what kind of course of action did you express to him?

BLOOMBERG: The president's made his decision. He said clearly the other night, Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave or we were going to take military action. And I think at this point, the debate's over.

And that's what democracy's all about, everybody gets a chance to express their views. We've elected the president to listen, and then to make a decision. He has made that decision. He is a forceful, strong leader. He's not going to be cowed or dissuaded. He's going to go out there and do what we all pray is right.

Again, not quite outright backing it, but certainly not opposing it, and more or less endorsing the President's proposed course of action.

Here's another one from The Times in March of 2003:

Mayor Bloomberg, who came to the church with several members of his administration and stayed after the service for a fellowship breakfast in the basement, called on the congregation to pray that the decision to attack had been the right one.

"If you take out a tyrant who clearly gassed tens of thousands of his own people, if you can stabilize a whole part of the world where, tragically, terrorism goes on every day, then it will have been the right decision," he said.

Again equivocating, but basically endorsing Bush's rhetorical take on Iraq, and endorsing the idea of an invasion in principle.

We're not saying there's necessarily a contradiction between his past and present positions. Rather, we're bringing these up mainly because amid all the talk about how "independent" and "nonpartisan" Bloomberg is, it's worth recalling that he wasn't independent enough to make waves by breaking with his own adopted party at that hugely crucial moment. And his voice as Mayor of the city hit on 9/11 would have carried real weight.

Of course, it's conceivable -- though we personally doubt it -- that he didn't think the invasion was a bad idea. Either way, we're just hoping this becomes part of the discussion. More of these as we find them.