I spent a lot of time reading the comments in today's rec'd diary on John Edwards. Seems the biggest knock on this guy in our Kommunity is his previous pro-military force position on Iraq.
By the time we get to the primaries, I don't think that's going to be an issue for him or any other Democrats who supported military authority. Here's why.
At this point I won't hold anyone's war authorization vote against him or her, though a war opponent will get a bit more marginal credit from me. I myself had an open mind, believing that even Bush must have something more than the cards he and his staff were showing. It's like the obstruction and perjury charges that came out of both Whitewater and Plamegate: Both prosecutors (and put aside for a moment your feelings on Kenneth Star) said that the reason no substantive criminal charges were brought was the extent of the obfuscation.
Fine. We followed the shiny object. Bush got his authority. Another theory is, granting the President the authority to wage war was for negotiating leverage. I can buy that, too. Up to a point. Let's face it: Bush and his cronies had most of us shared skitless. The third rationale is that the vote was purely political--can't look soft on terror, mind you--and on the heels of 9/11, it took immense courage to face the White House, the media, the GOP, and the voters and really vote your conscience if you believed war authority was wrong. I've never been in that position. I can't be that judgmental.
Any benefit of a doubt from me, however, ended when Bush gave Iraq 48 hours to prove it did not have WMDs. Anyone who knows anything about logic knows it is almost impossible to prove a negative. And in hindsight, the spectre of WMDs was as much about Saddam keeping Kurds and Shi'ites in check as anything else.
That's when I knew it was a put-up job, but hoped the Administration could handle things in a moderately acceptable way.
Coincidentally, the Iraq meltdown became apparent right about the time of the Katrina response failure--and each threw the other into sharp relief. If we can't handle a natural disaster response, how can we rebuild Iraq? If we can't rebuild Iraq, why are we there and letting our own people suffer?
Like an ocean liner changing courses, a wide, slow turn is made up of thousands of individual points on an arc. Those two events, however, were as close as a nation can come to taking a corner on two wheels.
And that's where I start my evaluation when it comes to Iraq policy. It was easy for Democratic members of congress to get Iraq wrong at square one, acting in good faith, and if their vote was one of political defense, I can forgive that. What has happened after things started falling apart is far, far more important to me. It is undeniable Bush and the GOP own this war. The "you did too" argument is no good for them anymore.
Clark, Kerry, Feingold, Obama, Edwards, Richardson--I would have no problem volunteering, contributing to or voting for any one of them.
Vilsack and Clinton, I would vote for over any Republican. But that's all I'd do.
I'm going to be a gentleman and not say what I feel about Lieberman, whose political career is likely ending with this Senate term. Hypothetically, I would vote for Chuck Hagel or Rudy Giuliani first. Even Lieberman would get my vote before McCain, Romney, Gingrich, Hunter, Brownback or Huckabee--and that would be on principles other than Iraq policy.
Personally, I think the whole Iraq calculus changes in another year when attacks start hitting the Green Zone. I believe the ISG has already been overtaken by events on the ground. The longer ANYONE supports a predominatly military approach, the worse they become in my eyes and likely in the eyes of the electorate.
Most of the Republicans will have a lot of 'splainin' to do by the summer conventions. I wouldn't cast that acceptance speech in stone for quite some time. And as long as the Dems keep up the public pressure on Bush, the better all of them--the Presidential ticket, and in Senate and House races--will do. There is no victory left in Iraq for us, only the least painful retreat. Bush is too much of a coward to do the right thing.
That may be enough to give the Democrats, ANY Democrat who wins the nomination, the White House.