No Cure for Bad Judgment
John Edwards, 2007:
"Iran must know that the world won’t back down. The recent UN resolution ordering Iran to halt the enrichment of uranium was not enough. We need meaningful political and economic sanctions. We have muddled along for far too long. To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table, Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."
John Edwards, 2002
"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies -- including our vital ally, Israel. For more than 20 years, Saddam has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every possible means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he has used them in the past, and that he is doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability. We must not allow him to get nuclear weapons."
Not to pick on Edwards: The entire Democratic foreign policy establishment was complicit in the grave misjudgments of American interests and capabilities that led us into Iraq. We desperately need a nominee who does not surround him/herself with the kind of advisors who fell into the Iraq trap. Because the world is filled with difficult problems, and there is no cure for bad judgment.
posted by Frances @ 11:07 AM
4 Comments:
I thought JE did a good job handling this issue on MTP today. He's staking out a fertile "I'm the guy who knows how to honestly admit mistakes" territory, which offers a strong stylistic contrast to both Bush and HRC.
Ability to admit mistakes isn't exactly the strongest warrant for leadership. But I guess we take what we can get in this bankrupt era.
I agree, Celine: Edwards was good on MTP today. But it's also clear from recent remarks that he's weak on foreign policy (because he's worried about the "wimp factor," as they used to call it). He'd make the same mistakes all over again were he in the Senate.
On the other hand, if Edwards were president, I have total confidence he wouldn't be as monumentally misguided as the current occupant of the office. No Democratic president would have started this war (assuming no Joe-mentum). But the Democrats who sold out the country back in 2002-2003 deserve very close scutiny and no benefit of the doubt.
Of our current crop of candidates, though, I am with you. I like Edwards the best, better than the content-free Obama. He's the best on domestic issues. But nothing important is going to happen on domestic policy until we're out of Iraq, which is years away.
Celine, I thought you did like Edwards better than Obama. I'm not strong, either way, though I'd choose Edwards if I had to vote in a primary tomorrow.
Neither candidate appeals that much to me in the current environment. I'd love to have a President Obama: I think he has the right values, and it'd do a lot for America's image in the world. But I've yet to see any real political courage or real leadership on his part. His rhetoric is positively vacuous, and he's too process-oriented.
Post a Comment
<< Home