War is Not a Process Issue
My friends Brian Beutler and Ezra Klein both lavish praise on Supreme Commander Harold Meyerson's column on the shape of the race. I agree with much of it, but I think this pearl of wisdom is fast become an overly entrenched bit of not-really-accurate CW:
For the Democrats, the contest is settling into a pattern set four decades ago: primary-season class conflict, in which one candidate appeals to a younger and more upscale electorate by talking about political reform and other chiefly noneconomic concerns, while another emphasizes pocketbook issues to the party's working-class voters. In primaries past, the upscale-reformer role has been embraced by Eugene McCarthy, Morris Udall, Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley and Howard Dean, while the part of the more populist bread-and-butter battler has been played by Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Richard Gephardt and John Edwards, among others. This year's upscale reformer, as Ronald Brownstein keenly noted in his Los Angeles Times column last month, is Barack Obama.So far, Obama is observing all the upscale conventions. Unlike Edwards, Obama is not campaigning against financiers who profit from outsourcing American jobs or drug companies that drive the price of medications to unregulated heights. Rather, he campaigns against the compromises, the shallowness, the corruptions inherent in our political and legislative processes. To create universal health coverage, Edwards prescribes taxing the rich, while Obama prescribes an open discussion, free from the taint of campaign contributions, that ultimately may lead us to embrace Edwards's prescription -- or not.
That's not wrong per se, but it's odd to think of Eugene McCarthy and Howard Dean as primarily "reform" candidates, and I think it's wrong to see Barack Obama in that light as well. These are all candidates whose primary base is, yes, with the upscale liberal demographic and therefore they tend to embrace reform issues that are important to that demographic slice. The three candidates I've singled out -- along with George McGovern, the one candidate from this lineage to actually secure the nomination -- are all foreign policy candidates as well. Specifically, opponents of seriously misguided wars in Vietnam and Iraq. These weren't -- and aren't -- trivial questions.
John Edwards is a sufficiently appealing figure that I greatly sympathize with the impulse among folks of a labor-liberal orientation to just accept his apology, decide there are no foreign policy issues at play, and construct this as a clash between the elite reformer and the dynamic populist. In my view, though, I need to hear more from Edwards about this other than that he shouldn't have been duped by Bush's WMD claims.
Comments
Good post.
Also, Barack Obama is half-black. Hugely significant.
But Obama would have voted for the war too had he been in the Senate [/petey]
There's another part of this too, which is a little difficult to describe, but the basic fact is that because Obama is black, with all that means in America, suggests that his 'reformist' bromides are more likely to be ways of protecting himself from being nuked as a Sharpton/Jackson type, rather than accurately representing an underlying liberal/college town self-congratulation in his actual policy orientation. It's Broderism-from-an-African-American and I think many people will realise that this is the sort of position he needs to adopt, at least as part of his toolkit, to get elected, even while they realise that Broderism is not a true description of the package on offer. Obama's open discussion is, I'd say, quite likely to end up well to the left of Edwards if he can get elected.
The perception that candidates or Presidents will have worked out foreign policy positions, absent the advice of specific advisors, is the pearl that needs to be thrown out. We might as well also get rid of the perception that neither candidate not Presidential decisions about foreign policy reflect the influence of the voting blocs important to the decider. I don't think John Edwards has the faintest idea why he shouldn't have voted for the Iraq war, except that it turned out to be wrong and, more importantly, unpopular.
Does anyone really think a Democrat will ever get credit from the general electorate for having opposed a war ?
I buy your objection with regards to McCarthy and Dean, but has Obama really played the anti-war card all that much? He's given a couple speeches that give it a stronger focus, sure, but for the most part he's tried to carve out a niche as a "reasonable" anti-war candidate - someone who opposed the war going in but isn't going to do anything too "drastic" to get us out (like, say, actually promising to pull out all the troops). Edwards's record as far as the actual decision to go to war is actually much weaker, sure, but he's certainly emphasized the importance of getting out a great deal more than Obama has. And neither one has really outlined a coherent foreign policy on anything broader than Iraq so far. If there's anything this campaign has been notable for so far, it's been a lack of clear focus on foreign policy relative to the importance of foreign policy in today's political climate.
his 'reformist' bromides are more likely to be ways of protecting himself from being nuked as a Sharpton/Jackson type, rather than accurately representing an underlying liberal/college town self-congratulation in his actual policy orientation... Obama's open discussion is, I'd say, quite likely to end up well to the left of Edwards if he can get elected.
Statements like this (and Petey's "Obama would've voted for the war" counterfactual) would hold up better if there were any evidence to support them. As Matt is so fond of reminding us, it could be that Obama sounds like such a squishy, moderation-loving Broderite because he sincerely favors squishy, moderate Broderism.
Edwards, not having the burden of actually being in the Senate, has been free to take a harder line on legislative tactics than has Obama. Their positions on the "what I would do if I were president" question are essentially the same.
I wonder, however, how many of Edwards' fans in the netroots have read Michael Signer's essay on "exemplarism" or realize that Signer is Edwards' top foreign policy staffer on the campaign. How many of Edwards' fans are familiar with Derek Chollet, his long-time national security guru. That kind of thing.
It's not that I worry especially that Edwards will have bad policies on Iraq -- indeed, I think even HRC would wind up implementing an Iraq policy closer to my preferences than to her preferences, thanks to the magic of objective political constraints -- but I worry that his broader strategic views may be wrong. I want to hear more from Obama on these issues as well, but he has a record and an advisory team that I trust, whereas Edwards doesn't.
"Does anyone really think a Democrat will ever get credit from the general electorate for having opposed a war ?"
If Obama is nominated, I think he will. The key is, he came out against it in 2002.
Edwards, on the other hand, obviously went along with the crowd for political reasons. He wouldn't have the same kind of edge on this issue that Obama has.
And neither one has really outlined a coherent foreign policy on anything broader than Iraq so far. If there's anything this campaign has been notable for so far, it's been a lack of clear focus on foreign policy relative to the importance of foreign policy in today's political climate.
This week, Obama postponed a major foreign policy speech that was supposed to address a broader approach than just Iraq. It was postponed due to the tragedy at VT. I think it's rescheduled for next week. We'll see how far it goes and if the issues addressed (I believe Stephanie Powers previewed it in general terms recently) are what people want to hear or go far enough. I think it's the first of several addresses planned.
"I greatly sympathize with the impulse among folks of a labor-liberal orientation to just accept his apology, decide there are no foreign policy issues at play, and construct this as a clash between the elite reformer and the dynamic populist."
Nice of you to sympathize with an imaginary impulse. I don't know of an Edwards supporter who thinks foreign policy issues are not at play. Indeed, Edwards has talked more about foreign affairs than either Obama and Clinton. Those of us drawn to Edwards have been encouraged by his call for defunding the war (opposed by Obama and Clinton), his plans to restore the country's moral authority by fighting poverty worldwide, his frequent demand for leadership on Darfur, and his endorsement of the Webb's bill calling for Congressional authorization for an attack on Iran (opposed by AIPAC, unendorsed by Obama and Clinton.) Slate calls his agenda a mixture of economic populism and international idealism, and that sounds about right.
That said, none of the candidates has presented a comprensive alternative to the Bush Doctrine, some articulation of principles that should dictate when use force and how we should deal with terrorism and nuclear proliferation. None of the candidates will, I expect, be critical enough of America imperialism to suit my tastes, but I expect that both Obama and Edwards will present a similar form of neoliberalism chastened by the war in Iraq. I have higher hopes for Edwards, actually, because, unlike Obama, he's rejected conventional DC thinking on "Free" trade, which is a sister to Empire.
Edwards, on the other hand, obviously went along with the crowd for political reasons. He wouldn't have the same kind of edge on this issue that Obama has.
This is the other thing. I think it's going to be difficult for a candidate whose own position is that he has a bad record on national security to cope with the national security issue. I also think Edwards' fans have tended to develop semi-mystical accounts of how politics work that make the objective political impediments to winning an election with Edwards' record and positions go away.
Mizner: Have you read the Signer article I linked to?
"Mizner: Have you read the Signer article I linked to?"
No, I don't see a link to any Signer article-what are you talking about?
Oh, I see--I'll read it and comment and prove you wrong again.
I also think Edwards' fans have tended to develop semi-mystical accounts of how politics work that make the objective political impediments to winning an election with Edwards' record and positions go away.
You could be semi-right here, but I would also remind that politics in the States actually is semi-'mystical', for better and for worse - the late GOP political hegemony was achieved not due only to tax cut and abortion policy (often in spite of policy, in fact). Very few people determine their vote via position-spreadsheets and policy papers written by advisors. I would argue that they're not completely wrong in that, but right or wrong, that's the deal.
Yeesh. I read the first two-thirds of it--more than enough to get the idea--I hope Bonior has more influence on Edwards's foreign policy than that asshole.
Speaking of which, I think Bonior, outside of his wife, has become his most important advisor and he was an outspoken critics of American hawkishness, Israel, and the war in Iraq.
My main point, in any case, was that when you said Edwards's supporters didn't care about foreign policy, you were using a strawman.
"In my view, though, I need to hear more from Edwards about this other than that he shouldn't have been duped by Bush's WMD claims."
Edwards' apology for supporting the war resolution was not an apology for having been "duped" by the WMD claims. It was an apology for trusting Bush to use the war resolution to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq rather than using it for regime change.
"But Obama would have voted for the war too had he been in the Senate [/petey]"
Folks in October 2002 were voting for a specific war resolution, not the regime change war that actually took place.
Given everything we know about how Obama has conducted himself since becoming a US Senator, I continue to think it an utterly reasonable assumption that Obama would have voted for that specific war resolution had he been in the Senate in October 2002.
his plans to restore the country's moral authority by fighting poverty worldwide
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of.
"I also think Edwards' fans have tended to develop semi-mystical accounts of how politics work that make the objective political impediments to winning an election with Edwards' record and positions go away."
Cool, two strawmen in two hours. Record and positions? What does this mean? His vote for the IWR, I guess. The Edwards supporters that I know, and I know more everyday, think that he would be a in a better positon--probably an unbeatable one---if he'd opposed the war from the beginning. But we beleive--not unreasonably, I'm quite sure--that he can overcome it because his position has tracked roughly with that of the American people, and because he was the first pol of his prominence to defy his consultants and say "I was wrong," and because there are a number of other factors that make him a great general election candidate: his message, his personality, his stamina, his wife, his accent...
And, after all, libs like me come back here time and time again to hear what Yglesias has to say about foreign policy even though you supported the war. If you can get past that position in the eyes of high-information liberals like us, surely Edwards can get past it in the eyes of low-information moderates in a general election.
If anyone's potential in a general election is very much in doubt, it's Obama's.
"It was an apology for trusting Bush to use the war resolution to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq rather than using it for regime change.
Posted by: Petey on April 20, 2007 11:25 AM"
Technically true, but any senator who didn't know what Bush would do with this power is a fool. Bush had already established himself as the "give him an inch, he'll take a mile" president. It was up to senators to understand this. Either Edwards was too stupid to do so or he just didn't care.
Given everything we know about how Obama has conducted himself since becoming a US Senator, I continue to think it an utterly reasonable assumption that Obama would have voted for that specific war resolution had he been in the Senate in October 2002.
Your initial statement about this was much stronger, so "continue" might not be the appropriate word choice.
If anyone's potential in a general election is very much in doubt, it's Obama's.
What, you mean because you decided not to support him? How'd that heuristic work out the last two Presidential elections?
The thing is, and I know other people have said this: it doesn't matter what Obama would have done. He's on record opposing the war, and Edwards is on record supporting it.
I believe that would give Obama an edge in the general election that Edwards wouldn't have.
To me, that's a much more important issue than who would be a better president once elected. I think all of the top three would be good, but again I'd give an edge to Obama based on his communication skills (inspite of his recent gaffe wrt the Virginia Tech killings).
I hope Bonior has more influence on Edwards's foreign policy than that asshole [Signer].
I read the whole thing, and, while banal (and wrong in spots), I wouldn't call it the work of an 'asshole'. Well, maybe an asshole, but not dangerous. I can understand why MY likes Obama's team better - I like them better too. But I have to wonder who it actually is being 'mystical' about politics here...
"What, you mean because you decided not to support him?'
Nah, because unlike Edwards he might not be able to beat McCain or Rudy or Thomspon among working class whites--an all-important swing group
And because anyone who tells you that he/she knows how his race will affect the race is lying
And because Edwards, witj his populist message, is trouncing Obama in the Midwest--a crucial area in a general election
All related points, actually.
Petey, Mizner, and others:
Note well that Illinois' other senator, Dick Durbin, did vote against the Iraq war resolution. And the politics of Durbin and Obama are quite close.
Given that in 2003 when he made his speech that there was relatively little upside as a US Senate candidate for him in taking the rather strident position that he did, why do you think that a shrewd politician such as Obama took the position he did?
I think he was listening carefully to his foreign policy adviser Tony Lake on this one-- and concluded that the Iraq war resolution didn't make sense.
after all, libs like me come back here time and time again to hear what Yglesias has to say about foreign policy even though you supported the war.
Ooo, Ouchie ouch ouch.
At any rate, I don't want to get anti-Edwards here. Edwards has done several things -- hiring Michael Signer, continuing to be very close to Derek Chollet, voting for the Iraq War, telling the New York Observer that recent books from Peter Beinart and Michael O'Hanlon have been big influences on my thinking -- that tend to make me skeptical about his foreign policy. That said, it's April 2007 and Edwards will, presumably, say more about national security in the months to come.
I think liberals who see a lot to like in Edwards' domestic policy positions and seeming electability (I'll include myself here) would do well to put a little more energy into getting Edwards to outline his views about foreign policy and a little less into simply arguing that his views are probably awesome. Maybe they are awesome. I'd like to hear it from him.
What was your position on the war again, Matt?
"I think liberals who see a lot to like in Edwards' domestic policy positions and seeming electability (I'll include myself here) would do well to put a little more energy into getting Edwards to outline his views about foreign policy and a little less into simply arguing that his views are probably awesome."
Hat trick! Hat trick! Third strawman in a row. No one in this thread has argued that his foreign policy is great, much less awesome. Indeed, I pointed to a few promising signs and spectulated that his foreign policy probably leaves something to be desired and pointed out that we needed to here more and agreed that he shouldn't listen to Signer.
It seems that Ygelesias has a problem not with Edwards but with Edwards supporters. Don't worry, Matt, most of us don't pray to him; we just think he's the best candidate. We see his flaws and want him to better.
Edwards' apology for supporting the war resolution was not an apology for having been "duped" by the WMD claims. It was an apology for trusting Bush to use the war resolution to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq rather than using it for regime change.
The problem with this explanation of Edwards' apology is that it is not consistent with the facts. If it were true he should have been making these kind of statements during the 2004 primaries. He was not.
I like Edwards. But there is no doubt he needs to better explain his foreign policy views. His Iraq War apology is important, but, because he was wrong to begin with, he should have a more substantial burden of proof to overcome when it comes to his views going forward.
anyone stupid enough to be duped by Bush's WMD lies is too stupid to be president (of anything).
"Note well that Illinois' other senator, Dick Durbin, did vote against the Iraq war resolution. And the politics of Durbin and Obama are quite close."
The two differences are that Durbin has no serious aspirations to be on a national ticket, and that Durbin has never made 'working across the aisle' his Senate calling card.
Pretty much all the Dem Senators who had either of those two traits voted for the war resolution. That's why there were 77 Senators in favor.
"Given that in 2003 when he made his speech that there was relatively little upside..."
The politics and substance of the war in 2003 were quite different than the politics and substance of the war resolution in fall 2002. Hence why Howard Dean expressed support for Biden-Lugar in fall 2002, but was an outspoken opponent of the war in 2003.
Mizner --
Given the current political environment, if Edwards' foreign policy views are seen as inferior to the other major candidates by Dem primary voters than he is toast. That is especially true if Edwards' strategy is, in part, to garner substantial net/grass roots support.
It is very unlikely that Iraq will not be the biggest issue in the Dem primary. Once the debates come, and the jabs by the other candidates and their operatives start picking up, Edwards will lose support quickly if he doesn't articulate a more attractive foreign policy vision than Obama and Clinton. His apology on the Iraq War will only get him so far.
MY I think liberals who see a lot to like in Edwards' domestic policy positions and seeming electability (I'll include myself here) would do well to put a little more energy into getting Edwards to outline his views about foreign policy...
I couldn't agree more. The fact is that Edwards is light on foreign policy and always has been, and I say that as a supporter.
DM It seems that Ygelesias has a problem not with Edwards but with Edwards supporters. Don't worry, Matt, most of us don't pray to him; we just think he's the best candidate.
Excactly.
Given that in 2003 when he made his speech that there was relatively little upside..."
"The politics and substance of the war in 2003 were quite different than the politics and substance of the war resolution in fall 2002. Hence why Howard Dean expressed support for Biden-Lugar in fall 2002, but was an outspoken opponent of the war in 2003."
Actually, Obama's initial anti-war speech that people often quote was in Oct 2002.
Edwards's record as far as the actual decision to go to war is actually much weaker, sure, but he's certainly emphasized the importance of getting out a great deal more than Obama has.
As long as we're citing historical analogies, it's worth noting that Gene McCarthy and George McGovern both voted for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Edwards' apology for supporting the war resolution was not an apology for having been "duped" by the WMD claims. It was an apology for trusting Bush to use the war resolution to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq rather than using it for regime change.
I don't think it was. Here's the op-ed. I don't see the words "inspections" or "inspectors" anywhere in it. What Edwards wrote was this:
I don't disagree with any of that. It does, however, make me worry that John Edwards believes unilateral preventive war should be an important aspect of American non-proliferation policy. The focus is exclusively on the accuracy of the intelligence and the result is a very thin-sliced critique of the Bush foreign policy. Maybe Edwards has a bigger, deeper critique he'll offer over the next few months, or maybe he doesn't.
The Iraq war resolution was signed, I think, October 2002.
Obama's speech on Iraq was October 26, 2002--not 2003 as I had posted. Renders irrelevant comments regarding Dean.
I don't think Obama's bipartisan-ness would necessarily have had any implications for his vote on the Iraqi war resolution.
Actually, this is all idle chatter.
The fact is that Obama made very clear where he stood in October 2002-- and nothing has come out that suggests that Obama didn't know something that the Senators who voted for the resolution knew about the situation.
And wasn't Edwards a leader as relates to the Iraqi war resolution-- not just a reluctant follower?
Better to talk about what Obama would have done were he in the Senate in 2002 than of the embarrassment of the populist Edwards and his $400 haircuts (even if his campaign doesn't pay for them). I can just see the 527's with their advertsements in the summer of 2008 if Edwards is the nominee-- John Edwards: Populist Posterboy for Hypocrisy.
"The two differences are that Durbin has no serious aspirations to be on a national ticket, and that Durbin has never made 'working across the aisle' his Senate calling card."
So? Considering in 2002 he was asking questions about what happens if the Shi'ites, Sunnis and Kurds end up splitting, he seemed to have an inkling the war wouldn't go well. Why would he hope in the future to run with a record of opposing a war that went well or supporting a war that went badly? There is a big difference between trying to restore some civility to political debate, searching for political comprimise and voting for the Iraq War. You're really reaching saying trying to be bipartisan = would have voted for the war.
By the way, from a purely horse race perspective, if Edwards does get a good deal of labor support, and Obama gets a good deal African-American and Merlot Democrats support, they will have Clinton in a very tough spot.
"By the way, from a purely horse race perspective, if Edwards does get a good deal of labor support, and Obama gets a good deal African-American and Merlot Democrats support, they will have Clinton in a very tough spot."
Yup, and you can change "if" to "when."
"Given the current political environment, if Edwards' foreign policy views are seen as inferior to the other major candidates by Dem primary voters than he is toast. That is especially true if Edwards' strategy is, in part, to garner substantial net/grass roots support."
I don't disagree. I'm saying they won't be seen as inferior. Move On just held a candidate forum on Iraq and Obama just barely beat Edwards. Among people who attended house parties--the most active activists--Edwards won by a lot; Obama finished 3rd. The debate about Iraq has moved past who supported it at the outset.
"I don't disagree with any of that. It does, however, make me worry that John Edwards believes unilateral preventive war should be an important aspect of American non-proliferation policy."
Matthew, separate of the whole Edwards issue, I'm constantly amazed at how you never seem to make the connection that Iraq was a rather special case in non-proliferation policy.
Unlike every other nation, we had weapons inspectors in Iraq by treaty, before they were ejected in 1998. Unlike (almost) every other nation, we were in an ongoing state of hostilities with Iraq prior to 2002, with an almost daily low-grade shooting war conducted from the air.
Conflating the particulars of the Iraq non-proliferation question with all other non-proliferation questions is exhibit A in how you're loose from your moorings on foreign policy at the moment. And it badly informs several of your other foreign policy assumptions.
Unlike every other nation, we had weapons inspectors in Iraq by treaty, before they were ejected in 1998.
They weren't ejected. They were withdrawn by the United Nations. This is stated in many places in official UN documents, explicitly using the word 'withdrawn'.
Unlike every other nation, we had weapons inspectors in Iraq by treaty . . .
Two more points call for correcting. 'We', the U.S., didn't have the inspectors. The UN did. The agreements governing their operation were not a 'treaty'.
[I] worry that John Edwards believes unilateral preventive war should be an important aspect of American non-proliferation policy. The focus is exclusively on the accuracy of the intelligence and the result is a very thin-sliced critique of the Bush foreign policy.
I don't have the same worry because I don't have any definite reason to have it.
It always comes down to the same thing with Edwards. Some liberals are simply scared of a skilled, practical politician. I, on the other hand, am scared of one who is anything but skilled and practical. We've all read the little Shrum bit about Edwards instinctively wanting to vote 'no' on the war resolution, and being convinced otherwise by advisors. For some, that is damning. For me, it is a.) exculpatory, in that his instinct was indeed correct, and b.) not as big a deal as some think. As John pointed out above, McCarthy and McGovern both voted 'yes' on Tonkin. It was a policy mistake on their parts just as Edwards' vote was. But voting in the Senate is simply not the same, catagorically, as being president. War, and everything else, *is* a 'process issue' to some extent. Edwards' statement above is not satisfactory from a broad policy standpoint because it's not a broad policy statement, it's a political statement. Another strawman, albeit qualified.
"They weren't ejected. They were withdrawn by the United Nations."
Play word games much?
Thanks, Gwen, for the correction on Obama's speech. I caught it quickly.
With Obama's foreign policy speech next Monday, and the first Dem candidate debate next Wednesday, we will learn a little more about Edwards vs. Obama on foreign policy.
I don't think Obama expects to win the nomination based on his early opposition to Iraq. I think he does, though, want to use his opposition to enhance his credibility.
I think it will be interesting to see for both Edwards and Obama who become part of their extended foreign policy staff/support team over the coming months. I suspect the Obama crew, to support Lake and Power, will come to look far more formidable than than the Edwards crew.
The most activist activists don't determine election outcomes-- just as $$$$ don't determine outcomes. It comes down to votes in primaries and caucuses.
Re: "Matthew, separate of the whole Edwards issue, I'm constantly amazed at how you never seem to make the connection that Iraq was a rather special case in non-proliferation policy."
I tend to agree with this. I'm not worried that a Democratic president will undertake a unilateral war. I'm worried about how clear and compelling their message about Iraq will be in the general election.
Reality Man:
I agree with you logic on why Obama would have been unlikely to support the war resolution 100%.
But I also agree that, at this point, this is almost irrelevant.
"The two differences are that Durbin has no serious aspirations to be on a national ticket, and that Durbin has never made 'working across the aisle' his Senate calling card."
Look, Petey, you can think whatever you want.
Ahhh. I meant to include this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po
Petey:
Play word games much?
No such thing.
The withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998 was the outcome of a complex affair in which all parties - Iraq, the U.S., and the UN - at least arguably bear some responsibility. The formal decision to withdraw the inspectors was made by the U.N. To say that Iraq expelled the inspectors is just false, and one of the many Big Lies the administration and its allies used in selling the war.
I don't understand the Derek Chollet thing. Is it because Chollet favors a Dayton-type solution to Iraq, which would necessarily entail maintaining US troops in a peacekeeping capacity after multilateral talks squelch the fighting? And the objection is that this is an unrealistic model for Iraq policy going forward?
"The withdrawal of UN weapons inspectors from Iraq in 1998 was the outcome of a complex affair in which all parties - Iraq, the U.S., and the UN - at least arguably bear some responsibility."
It's arguably possible that you're not playing word games, and that you're just not particularly bright instead.
"Does anyone really think a Democrat will ever get credit from the general electorate for having opposed a war ?"
No.
Who voted for Iraq war resolution is an obsession with Internet Dems.
Voters at large don't give a damn.
Not only they don't give a damn but they may even vote for a pro Iraq war hawk like McCain or Thompson.
That's because the issue in 2008 will not be who voted for what but who can get us out of the mess without complete humiliation. On that issue voters are more likely to vote for a candidate perceived as "strong". Like it or not in our political culture a hawkish candidates are seen as "strong", dovish candidates as "weak".
So don't be shocked if a hawk like McCain runs on a platform of "peace through strength" and wins.
Who would attack Edwards on his Iraq vote ?
Republicans ??
I wonder, however, how many of Edwards' fans in the netroots have read Michael Signer's essay on "exemplarism" or realize that Signer is Edwards' top foreign policy staffer on the campaign. How many of Edwards' fans are familiar with Derek Chollet, his long-time national security guru. That kind of thing.
After reading Signer's essay, I'm more inclined to vote for Edwards, but then again I don't consider the "lesson" of Iraq to be discrediting all forms of Wilsonian foreign policy. The only way to get there is to take the ridiculous position that Iraq is the inevitable result of Wilsonian policies, when in fact it is only the result of neocon delusions, Jacksonian obtuseness and cronyism.
Petey:
It's arguably possible that you're not playing word games, and that you're just not particularly bright instead.
I'm guessing you are altogether uninformed about the events at issue, and are insulting me in a lame attempt to distract attention from your ignorance.
I suggest consulting Kenneth Pollack's famous pro-war book The Threatening Storm. Curiously, Pollack several times repeats the lie that the inspectors were expelled or, as he likes to put it, 'evicted'. Nonetheless, the book also includes a brief account of the episode which makes it clear that such terms are incorrect.
Again, what's the problem with Edwards vis a vis Chollet? That Chollet would give a President Edwards bad national security policy advice about Iraq, in particular, that troops should stay rather than be withdrawn?
After reading Signer's essay, I'm more inclined to vote for Edwards, but then again I don't consider the "lesson" of Iraq to be discrediting all forms of Wilsonian foreign policy.
I know what you mean, but I would hesitate to even use the word 'Wilsonianism' at this point. The record of nominal Wilsonianism is mixed at best. Vague neoliberalism. Or whatever Fukuyama called it.
The problem with Signer's essay is not that it's so awful, but that it's fairly banal. But perhaps the situation itself is fairly banal and basically calls for nothing more. Soft power is banal, diplomacy is: that's the political problem with it. The neocons got away with what they did because they seemed dashing and dynamic. It was a con, but people fall for that.
I join MY in being interested in the next big new foreign policy sea-change - assuming there is one.
"I'm guessing you are altogether uninformed about the events at issue, and are insulting me in a lame attempt to distract attention from your ignorance."
So, I don't know that I'm wrong, and am simultaneously attempting to distract from the fact that I'm wrong?
I'll now subtract the "arguably" from my previous assertion that you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, David Tomlin.
if foreign policy is about dealing with foreigners, then Signer's 'exemplarism' is really bad foreign policy, because it's not gonna fly with foreigners at all
nobody's going to by into his utterly cheesy "US as the admired quarterback" metaphor, unless at gunpoint - it's just risible and I hope the Dems harbour no such illusions
Petey is an example of reason #1 you don't want a democrat in office as a middle east hawk.
I remember in the timeframe between Afghanistan and Iraq, I followed UK blogs fairly closely and I watched Labourites in real time switch from making fun of the U.S. case for war in Iraq to becoming Iraq hawks for no reason other than Tony Blair got on board and started making the same noises. That's why there is a "decent left" over there that will talk about how Iraq is a noble socialist mission and you could pull up rocks till hell froze over and not find anyone here to shovel that load of crap.
When Bushies say "Iraq threw out the inspectors", Petey would find the whole contorted doublethink to find that statement true ludicrous, but when Clinton made the same claim with the same wierd reasoning it's obviously true. Actions made from his sort of folks must be true, they think like him, and if Gore had invaded Iraq he wouldn't be in the anti-war camp, Gore would have had good reason (even if was just good politics, that's good enough). He'd have made the same journey the Blairites did and be frothing at the mouth about Jihaddi's right now, like the folks at Harry's house.
nobody's going to by into his utterly cheesy "US as the admired quarterback"
It is cheesy. But the point isn't to get 'foreigners' to buy into that idea. The American QB position, as it were, is a default position, and plenty of people in the world wish it wasn't the case, but know that it is, even after the wreckage of the truly very bush Era. A big reason they're so pissed off at us is that our position has been horribly abused, especially lately. They want us to be responsible, not invisible. We're still the gorrilla - one which needs to learn to age (AKA 'decline' vis a vis post-WW2) gracefully. How about calling for a 'humbler' foreign policy? That has a ring to it.
"when Clinton made the same claim with the same wierd reasoning it's obviously true."
It's not true because Clinton said it. It's true because it's true.
Hussein stopped co-operating with weapons inspections in summer 1998 and the US spent the next six month trying to get the inspections re-started via diplomatic means. When that failed, the US decided to bomb, and the weapons inspectors were physically taken out of the country for obvious reasons.
I've noted David Tomlin fulminating against the supposed evilness of the Kosovo operation before, and I have no idea if you two are anti-Bill Clinton hysterics or merely pacifists. But whatever your rationale, if you think it was the United States' idea to end the weapons inspections in 1998, your reading of history is not even vaguely based in reality.
Petey:
But whatever your rationale, if you think it was the United States' idea to end the weapons inspections in 1998 . . .
Strawman. Neither Ed nor I have said any such thing.
I've noted David Tomlin fulminating against the supposed evilness of the Kosovo operation before . . .
I'm guessing that by 'fulminating' you mean expressing an opinion you don't agree with.
I heard enough from Edwards when he spoke to AIPAC. Wrong man for the wrong times.
I don't agree with the whole idea of the column. For one, though Edwards is very much in the old mold of the 1970s liberal now, it was not lifelong. It was a new image from a year ago.
another, I attended one of Obama's rallies and he has alot of older people there. There is alot of excitement from the younger generation but, the older ones feed off the energy as well. Many are very excited, alot for the first time in their lives and want to be a part of it.
There were gray hairs going into the crowd to move up to get a glimpse and picture of Obama. some in walkers and canes.
I think this is why everyone is so off. They assume Obama's support is mostly young. The over 40s are just as crazy about him.
Petey, your little story about the weapons inspectors is a verbatim read of what a Bushie says about why Bush pulled the weapons inspectors and you are talking about non-existing fucking weapons.
That you would view anyone who didn't see the perfect logic in it as having some sort of anti-Clinton axe to grind just proves my point.
Good comment.Thanks admin.
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar
thankss
Two more points call for correcting. 'We', the U.S., didn't have the inspectors. The UN did. The agreements governing their operation were not a 'treaty'.
Thank you very much!
Thank you very much!
Post A Comment