Ezra Klein: More on Edwards

« Anti-War? Or Anti-This-War? | Main | Professionalizing Progressivism »

February 02, 2007

More on Edwards

Given that we were all at the DNC Winter Meeting today, his folks kindly agreed to snap interview on the Iran, Iraq, and more general foreign policy questions. We talked through the Iran issue at length, the lessons of Iraq, and even Israel and AIPAC. I have the audio, am getting it transcribed, and will try and post it at The Prospect as soon as possible. Stay tuned...

February 2, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Is there any way you can ask Obama about his views on Iran? He's the only one of the three who hasn't made an aggressive statement since 2004.

Posted by: Alon Levy | Feb 2, 2007 2:20:20 PM

Alon, keep in mind that statements such as those from Edwards so far don't directly translate to being "pro-war with Iran," or however it was you put it elsewhere.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 2, 2007 2:30:56 PM

Alright, I'll look forward to hearing what he said. Meanwhile, Ezra, I'll take the liberty of dissecting this statement of yours:

"I can't find an explicit rejection of the view I'm ascribing -- and I think, that if he had learned the lessons I'm talking about, he wouldn't have said what he did about Iran."

Well, I'm glad to see you acknowledge that you're "ascribing" a view to him. That's progress. But it's telling that you can blithely assume he holds it because you can't find "explicit" rejection. I’ll infer that you’ve found "implicit" rejection (but of course that’s just not good enough when you have an opposing point to make.)

So you can't find explicit endorsement, nor can you find explicit rejection, and you assume that he endorsed it, why? Because some statements about Iran, which you claim should be applied retroactively to a different problem and a different country, despite his repeated claim that it was wrong to vote for the IWR--he didn't say he was wrong to believe the intelligence; he said he was wrong to vote for the IWR--and despite his repeated endorsement of diplomacy with Iran, including direct diplomacy, and despite his long-held advocacy of strong nuclear non-proliferation:

“But we have more options than doing nothing or using force. That's a false choice. We have many more diplomatic tools to use and we ought to use every single one of them. For the United States, this means more active and creative diplomacy, including a willingness to engage the Iranian leadership directly.”

Banging the drums for war? Hardly. And this:

"Instead of accepting the weaknesses of the global non-proliferation regime we ought to work to fix it. For example, I believe that we should create a new global nuclear compact to reinforce the NPT. This compact would be a new international agreement to close the loophole that allows civilian nuclear programs to go military. The new nuclear deal with India, in fact, is an opportunity to embark on a wider international effort. The United States should work with Europe to take the lead. We need a global ban on the production of material for nuclear weapons and we have to establish global standards to safeguard this material."

And what does he say about spreading democracy? Judging from what Ezra “ascribes” to Edwards, I might guess that he thinks regime change is a dandy idea. But... “Spreading democracy is not about knocking regimes down; it's about building, building democratic institutions and communities that will protect basic freedom. Just as poverty and disillusionment isolate and drain hope from our people in our own cities it does exactly the same thing for every person around the world who feel like they have no chance.”

This is a complex issue, more complex that your prowar-antiwar formulation allows. The Quakers are antiwar; William Kristol is prowar; the rest of us are somewhere in between. (For the record, I'm just to the right of Quakers; as such I find Edwards far too hawkish, just as find the other serious contenders far too hawkish.) Indeed, let's play with your hypothetical; let's say that Iraq had had an active nuclear weapons program and was close to acquiring the bomb. Would it still have been a mistake to go to war? I surely think so, but I don't think many presidential contenders would publicly agree.

Let me repeat: I didn't like Edwards's rhetoric on Iran. But it struck me as fairly predictable: The disaster of Iraq and the ascendance of progressives notwithstanding, I don't think we've arrived at a point where Democratic contenders for the presidency will do anything less or more than talk tough to our "enemies" while charting a more moderate course than Republicans.

And why to use their tough talk to "ascribe" to them a proclivity for launching preemptive wars, especially when you have the capacity to directly ask his opinion? You took a few lines out of one speech and "ascribed" to him a dangerous foreign policy philosophy.

Dishonest? No. Unfair? I think so.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 2:54:19 PM

he didn't say he was wrong to believe the intelligence; he said he was wrong to vote for the IWR

The way I read him, he puts this wrongness in the context of the intelligence. Why do you think he does that?

David, I think you're oversimplifying what Ezra said. He didn't reduce things to pro-war/anti-war. And, contrary to what you said in the other thread, it does matter that Ezra hedged his ascription. It seems to me the most probable interpretation of Edwards' remarks would be that he hasn't gotten, or at least isn't willing to acknowledge that he did, the most important lessons of Iraq. That should trouble people.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 2, 2007 3:06:03 PM

david: There's a distinction to be drawn between what Edwards' speech indicates he would do as President (probably not start a war with Iran) and what it indicates he's learned about playing in the rhetorical minefield of foreign policy. When the current President is trying to start a war with Iran, having all the major Democratic Party candidates engaging in Iran "tough talk" provides very, very unhelpful validation to his premises. That shows me they've learned nothing. In fact, to me, that's the implication of this:

I don't think we've arrived at a point where Democratic contenders for the presidency will do anything less or more than talk tough to our "enemies" while charting a more moderate course than Republicans.

If that's true, it means they're going to continue to try to punt on questions of foreign policy, minimizing their differences with Republicans to the level of tactics rather than vision, and continue to try and win elections on domestic issues. That's both lame and electorally stupid when most of the country sees Iraq (and probably soon Iran, once we start that goddamn war) as the most important issue of the day.

So no, Edwards has not learned.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Feb 2, 2007 3:14:09 PM

I actually don't think it's unfair at all. Indeed, I think it's precisely the correct reading of what he said, though I don't believe it's necessarily what he met. In any case, I gave him the opportunity to restate all this in his own words and at some length, and that'll be going up a bit later on today (I hope). So the end result will be a much clearer and more useful look at his foreign policy thinking.

Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 3:15:13 PM

"David, I think you're oversimplifying what Ezra said. He didn't reduce things to pro-war/anti-war."

Maybe so, but Ezra felt a need to clarify this very point. Here's what he said: " I don't think Democrats should be simply "anti-war." I do think they should be very skeptical about the odds of successfully invading and reconstructing Middle Eastern nations, and should be very wary about doing so, particularly on any sort of "pre-emptive" or "preventive" basis."

Okay, I don't want to want to make assumptions about what Ezra is now "ascribing" to Edwards but it seems to me that he's now "ascribing" to Edwards a lack of wariness and skepticism "about the odds of successfully invading and reconstructing Middle Eastern nations...on any sort of "pre-emptive" or "preventive" basis."

Is he really saying that Edwards is not skeptical or wary about invading, occupying, and reconstructing Iran? What am I missing here 'cause what Ezra is "ascribing" to Edwards seems to be getting more and more absurd.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 3:19:22 PM

"I think it's precisely the correct reading of what he said, though I don't believe it's necessarily what he meant."

????????

You ascribe to him a belief that he might not in fact hold, but it's still a correct reading of what he believes because--because why? Because you want to be right?

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 3:30:33 PM

Ygelsias has weighed in, urging Democratic candidates to say, with regard to Iran, that preventive, premptive war is a bad way to fight nuclear proliferation and that overwhelming force is a bad way to fight terrorism. How bold! Is that really the threshold that candidates need to meet? Well, as a flagrantly unofficial spokesperson for the Edwards campaign, I promise Ygelsias (and Ezra) that the Senator agrees with both points and that he would be glad to put of a beautifully formatted document saying so. Would that make you boys feel better?

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 3:51:38 PM

The anti-war clarification had nothing to do with Edwards. No reading of Edwards comments makes him anti-all-wars. As Matt said, i should be more careful with my language. As for the next point, watch this: I say:

"Indeed, I think it's precisely the correct reading of what he said, though I don't believe it's necessarily what he met."

You say:

"You ascribe to him a belief that he might not in fact hold, but it's still a correct reading of what he believes because--because why? Because you want to be right?"

Notice how you change the world "said" to "believe?" In one, we go off the information we have, and make logical inferences. In the other, we know the true content of men's minds and souls. You may think I'm being unfair, but in your zeal to defend Edwards, you're becoming dishonest.

Meanwhile, what has actually happened is that I used uncertainty between your interpretation and mine to get Edwards on the record about all these issues. I've asked him these questions. And the interview isn't yet posted, but I can tell you that he would not -- would not! -- say that we would've been wrong to invade Iraq if the weapons has been there. I do not believe he thinks invasions of this sort are intrinsically bad. I do think he believes he shouldn't have trusted the Bush administration. I also think he's more cautious and thoughtful on Iran than his remarks suggested.

Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 3:56:45 PM

Alright, since it's now it's you calling me dishonest, I'm gonna go a little further into the weeds; then I'll let Johnny speak for himself.

You said, "Notice how you change the world "said" to "believe?" In one, we go off the information we have, and make logical inferences. In the other, we know the true content of men's minds and souls."

I used "belief" because in the original post you said Edwards believes, or appears to believe, that invading Iraq would have been a "good idea" if it had had weapons. You ascribed to him a belief, and you later acknowledged doing so.
That was before you said this: "I think it's precisely the correct reading of what he said, though I don't believe it's necessarily what he meant." To try to read what someone is saying IS to try to discern what someone means. You're essentially saying "I misjudged what he meant to say but nonetheless read what he said correctly." It makes no sense.

As for the substance, I said below that no serious contender would go on record saying that it would've been wrong to invade Iraq even if it had had WMD.

As for this: "I do not believe he thinks invasions of this sort are intrinsically bad," I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but this would be a good question: "Do you think invasions of this sort are intrinsically bad?"

But here's the critical point: "he's more cautious and thoughtful on Iran than his remarks suggested."

Come again? Virtually your entire argument that he was pro-preventive, preemptive war was based on his comments about Iran, so now it seems to me that his being more thoughtful and cautious on Iran would compel you to reevaluate, no?

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 4:28:12 PM

I would think it would compel me to say he's more cautious and thoughtful on the subject of Iran, which is, mind you, what I said. Moreover, I'd think it would compel me to post up the transcript of the interview, so folks could have a fuller picture, which is exactly what I'm doing. Indeed, not only didn't I let my interpretation stand as the last word, I sought out an interview, asked your specific question (in addition to others), and am posting the thing whole, rather than colored through my commentary. I really don't know how much more transparent or constructive I could be.

As for the distinction above, I think, based on the available evidence, that you had to interpret his claims as somewhat hawkish, and that you should interpret his claims vis-a-vis Iraq as being disconnected from the lessons I think folks should learn from Iraq, which are about the difficulty of invading Middle Eastern countries at all. I tend to think the evidence from the interview supports my read of his opinions on Iraq and somewhat more restrained opinions on Iran. That's why I conducted it, to find out. But folks will be able to draw their own conclusions soon enough.

Posted by: Ezra | Feb 2, 2007 4:38:49 PM

When the current President is trying to start a war with Iran, having all the major Democratic Party candidates engaging in Iran "tough talk" provides very, very unhelpful validation to his premises.

On the other hand, if the President is just trying to intimidate Iran, as seems far more likely, the tough rhetoric from the Democrats might be useful.

Is he really saying that Edwards is not skeptical or wary about invading, occupying, and reconstructing Iran?

Add an "enough" in the right spot and I think you've got it.

You may think I'm being unfair, but in your zeal to defend Edwards, you're becoming dishonest.

Phooey.

he would not -- would not! -- say that we would've been wrong to invade Iraq if the weapons has been there

As suspected. It could be he really doesn't get it (likely enough), or that he just doesn't think it prudent, when running for President, to admit that you were so unwise, rather than just misled.

As for the substance, I said below that no serious contender would go on record saying that it would've been wrong to invade Iraq even if it had had WMD.

That too.

Virtually your entire argument that he was pro-preventive, preemptive war was based on his comments about Iran

More not sufficiently anti- than pro-, the way I read what Ezra said.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 2, 2007 4:52:10 PM

On the other hand, if the President is just trying to intimidate Iran, as seems far more likely

You may think that's more likely. But remember lots of sensible people (including, supposedly, Kerry) thought he was just trying to intimidate Iraq. I think we're going to war.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Feb 2, 2007 4:59:13 PM

"I would think it would compel me to say he's more cautious and thoughtful on the subject of Iran, which is, mind you, what I said."

Ezra, it was Edwards's comments on Iran that led you to assert that he'd learned the wrong lessons about Iraq. You said, "[Hillary] doesn't believe she was wrong [about Iraq]. She believes the intelligence was. John Edwards' disappointingly belligerent comments on Iran suggested something similar."

Now that you've discovered that his position on Iran is in fact less belligerent than you believed, you should, I would think, reconsider your opinion of what lessons he's learned or hasn't learned from Iraq.

In any case, I appeciate the work you did today and, as always, your blog, which is essential. Have a good weekend.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 2, 2007 5:10:07 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘