John Edwards Pulls a Zachary Taylor

I have to say that this disturbed me too. John Edwards basically said two different things about Iran to two different audiences, a militaristic tone at the Herzliya Conference in Israel, and a more measured tone to Ezra Klein of TAP.

Kevin Drum is correct:

There's nothing new about this. It's standard issue politics. But the internet is making this game harder to play, because every word you speak, at every venue, is now easily accessible to people who aren't quite as jaded about this kind of thing as most political reporters are. People like me. And I'll tell you: I'd sure feel a lot better if even a small part of Edwards' comments to the Prospect had made their way into his speech at Herzliya.

Me too. Zachary Taylor was reputed to do this kind of thing in the election of 1850, completely contradicting himself on the issue of slavery whether he was talking in the North or in the South. Of course, they didn't have the technology to actually notice this for quite a long time.

Many liberal bloggers have been distressed by this idea that Iraq was just a bungled execution rather than an insane policy that should never be repeated. It's best expressed by the ever-present Ezra Klein.

Put it another way: Hillary believes, or appears to believe, that if the weapons had existed and the management had proven more competent, this war would have been a good idea. John Edwards, who recently assured an Israeli conference that "under no circumstances" can Iran go nuclear and "all options are on the table" to stop them, seems to believe the same. During a recent interview, I asked him about the lessons of Iraq. "You shouldn’t assume," he said, "because there’s a consensus about something that it’s accurate. We need to be very skeptical about information that’s not direct about what’s happening." That's a good lesson about intelligence. It isn't necessarily a lesson about the wisdom -- or lack thereof-- of invading other countries.

The lesson I've taken, by contrast, is that toppling Middle Eastern governments, occupying their societies, and trying to impose pluralistic democracy is an almost impossible endeavor, one with far more potential for catastrophe than completion. And it's easy to assume, listening to politicians who have turned against the war, that they've gleaned the same. That isn't necessarily true. Just because they oppose the Iraq War in retrospect, doesn't mean they oppose the theory on which it was based. They may have turned against the lies, or the mismanagement, or the unpopularity. But they may not have substantially raised the bar for the use of force. Given Edwards' recent comments on Iran, he seems comfortable hinting at another war with a more powerful Middle Eastern country over the issue of WMDs. Hillary certainly is. Being anti-war, it seems, is rather different than being anti-this-war.

And I would add that, in doing so, there is a tacit agreement that the Bush Doctrine is not foolhardy, and a tacit release of power to this President to have a free hand in dealing with Iran. This is happening despite the fact that the Administration is already seen to be lying about Iran's involvement in Iraq, as well as about these repeated denials about planning for war (those carrier groups in the Persian Gulf are just a collection of "welcoming ships," I guess).

Edwards was apparently better on Iran yesterday with Tim Russert, but I can't help but think that there's a lack of conviction to what he's saying. He's taken up issues far more on the left in this run for the White House than he did in 2004 or in the Senate. But when speaking in front of a crowd who expects there to be a forcible end to Iran's nuclear program, he can't help himself. I know that AIPAC is an incredibly powerful lobby, even though it doesn't express the mainstream opinion of most American Jews. In fact, I think it'll take a Jewish politician to finally tell them to cram it. But I've always had this sneaking suspicion that Edwards talks a better game than he plays. Democrats need to chart out a definable course on foreign policy, and not be tempted to go along with the most hawkish of ideas in order to rake in some more campaign contributions or avoid public scorn.

This worries me. I generally think Edwards is on our side but that he has a will that can be malleable.

UPDATE: Since I'm the blogging HQ of the Gravel for President campaign (not really, but I actually mentioned him this weekend), I will add this comment of his from the DNC meetings to say that judgment BEFORE the fact is extremely important. You can say that your vote on the war was a mistake, but there were plenty of people who understood that mistake before the first bomb dropped.