Digby really hits the nail on the head here about what troubles me most about the hawkish statements of Dems like Hillary and Edwards....And I know some Edwards supporters will dismiss concerns with, or criticisms about, Edwards' recent remarks as irrelevant or maybe they'll call me obsessed...but, if you're saying I'm obsessed with trying to keep us from going to war with Iran, then HELL YEAH, I'm obsessed and the rest of us should be too! Yeah, I'm running around with my hair on fire about this. Don't you guys see what Bush is leading up to?
Waiting until it's too late to stop it and an apology three years later just isn't going to cut it this time. Did we learn nothing from the Iraq debacle!?!!!!?!!!!?!!!?!!!!?!!!!!! We can't keep allowing this to happen every couple of years...
Digby, regarding Edwards' remarks at the Israeli conference:
This is very, very discouraging. In a different world, perhaps it could just be chalked up to rhetorical excess and presidential politics and leave it at that. But in our world today, those are words that will be used to justify what the Bush administration is planning to do. It's deja vu all over again.
These Democrats are explicitly and openly endorsing the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. There can be no other way to read this and I cannot think of a greater mistake at this juncture for the Democratic party to expressly align itself with such lunacy. What are they thinking?
Further from the same blog:
That will not happen (or will be irrelevant) if the Democratic candidates are once again publicly boosting this dangerous nonsense with bellicose statements to AIPAC as Clinton did the other day and Edwards did earlier. I understand that Israel has deep concerns about Iran, but the AIPAC people are being as myopic as the neocons and failing to see that they are in much greater danger --- as is the whole world --- if the US goes down this path. Democrats have got to either persuade these folks that they are wrong or they've got to simply walk away if they are going to be required to match this provocative Bushian sabre rattling in order to keep their support.
It's helping Bush make his case for attacking Iran and any Democrat who helps him do that is helping along an impending catastrophe...........
From a political standpoint, there is no margin in Democrats backing this in any way shape or form. It is not enough to leave a little out that says "we would have exhausted all possibilities." It's the failure to repudiate the Bush Doctrine that binds them to Bush's actions.
I think they are foolishly counting on Bush not following through which is a shameful miscalculation if not political malpractice...
Democrats cannot abet this, not even rhetorically, to satisfy a powerful lobbying group that may be as mad as the neocons and the Bush administration. This time, they will not be let off the hook. Bush is out in two years and if any of them are on record talking trash about Iran at this delicate moment, they will be held accountable for what follows.http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117045277517722142And then later, after the Ezra Klein interview:
George W. Bush is the only president we have and he has set forth a preventive war doctrine which says that we will stop threats before they appear. That is the "option" we are discussing here in the real world and it most certainly is the one that both Edwards and Clinton knew they were leaving "on the table." ..........
Here, again, is what Edwards said in Herzliya:
"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."
That's a pretty emphatic endorsement of keeping ALL options, which includes the Bush Doctrine, on the table, don't you think? And
since Bush is going to be president for two more years that means that our presidential candidates, whether they mean to be or not, are endorsing his right to exercise that option. Believe me, if Bush goes forward and we are looking back two years from now, nobody is going to parse that statement to mean that he didn't really back Bush's right to do this.
What they will be left with, if anybody is left with anything, is an argument that while they thought it should be left on the table, they didn't ever really mean for him to use it ----- or that they wanted him to do other things first --- or some other nonsense that will sound just as convoluted as their excuses about the Iraq war resolution did in the last election.
.........
Politicians apparently feel they must say that they can't take any options off the table.
But there is no reason they must go before a particular political constituency and forcefully imply that they would use the Bush Doctrine against Iran if it failed to meet certain conditions. The Bush Doctrine must be repudiated not reinforced.
.......
Democrats must lead the way, not blindly mouth political cliches about "options" in front of war hungry audiences. We can't do this a second time. *To be clear. I don't mean to pick on Edwards and Clinton particularly. He's clearly backing down from his comments, but that's exactly the problem.
Dems have to stop endorsing this crazy warmongering and then backing off. It not only gives the president cover to do what he wants (not that he needs or cares about cover) but it makes it impossible for the Democratic party to make coherent foreign policy. It's going to hamstring us for the next five years if they do this again.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_digbysblog_archive.html#117046464485756663 Do I think that Edwards or Hillary WANTS to go to war with Iran? Probably not....but could they PLEASE stop giving the President cover to do so. This is not just about what these people would do as President somewhere down the line. This is about what they will allow Bush to do right now. This really is a serious issue, whether people want to accept that or not. The best time to stop a war really is before it starts.
Both Digby pieces are really good and I encourage all to follow the links and read them in their entirety.