What have we learned? John Edwards version

There's a debate going on today among some bloggers (see here and here, for example) on the lessons we should have learned (or possibly known before) from the Iraq war. The concensus seems to be that we should have learned, among other things, perhaps, that the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive wars against soverign countries that haven't harmed us is simply wrong. But have we learned that? Ezra Klein at The American Prospect probes these issues in an interview with John Edwards. It's not entirely clear that he's learned his lesson.

Klein begins probing on Iran:

So, I just want to get it very clear, you think that attacking Iran would be a bad idea?

I think would have very bad consequences.

So when you said that all options are on the table?

It would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table.

Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … We’re not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done. We’re not being smart about how we engage with them. But I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. And I think the reason people react the way they do -- I understand it, because, when George Bush uses this kind of language, it means something very different for most people. I mean when he uses this kind of language “options are on the table,” he does it in a very threatening kind of way -- with a country that he’s not engaging with or making any serious diplomatic proposals to. I mean I think that he’s just dead wrong about that.

So we should, first step, talk to Iran, try to open up negotiations?

Correct

Do it, if necessary, bilaterally?

Absolutely.

Okay, not as stong as I'd like, but he's moving in the right direction. But, Klein challenges him on a speech he gave to an AIPAC (the Israeli lobby) crowd that sounded as though he was willing to entertain a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

But so let’s talk, then, about AIPAC for a sec. This morning in the New York Post a story came out that last night Hillary Clinton was there, or was it two nights ago that you were both there?

It was last night.

And she said they should be engaging with Iran and they sort of booed and hissed a little bit. I think a lot of people, and I’m one of them, when read your comments to AIPAC, given where they are …

She’s right about that, by the way.

No, I know, you said that clearly earlier. I think a lot of folks read your comments to that audience, and to the Herzliya audience, as, given that you’ve said pretty explicitly that Israel cannot live with a nuclear Iran, and that keeping Iran from nuclear weapons is one of the gravest challenges of our time, that there is that line -- that you are drawing that line --that they can’t have them. That if you take seriously what you’ve said about both Israel and the threat Iran poses to them --

You know when you’re president of the United States you carry an enormous responsibility --

Sure.

-- and there are consequences to what you do. And I just, I would never ever prejudge something that serious in advance. I don’t think we’re anywhere remotely close to having exhausted diplomatic avenues. I don’t think we’ve done anything close to what we should be doing, and there are devastating consequences to a military strike. So, that’s my judgment about where we are today and where we ought to proceed.

One of the things, one of the realities, I think, of the responsibilities of the president, are that, is that, the criteria for ever using American force is pretty clear. You know when there’s an imminent threat to America, or our allies, when we have a treaty obligation, or when there’s some huge humanitarian crisis. But those are very broad, obviously, and so the kind of human being you have in the White House is enormously important -- I would argue more important than trying to have somebody predict, off in the future, what you’ll do when confronted with it, because I think its unknowable. I think what’s more important is to know that you have a good and decent human being who, who really wants to do the right thing and understands what the consequences are.

I guess he waffled around that enough to muddy the waters. But it really doesn't tell us what his position is. So Klein challenges him on his Iraq vote:

Let’s talk then for one moment about the past … Back to Iraq, if they had had weapons of mass destruction, if the intelligence had been correct, given what happened when we actually invaded, given the fact that it turned out that we could not elide the Sunni/Shia enmities, given all that, had the intelligence been correct, had the management been somewhat more competent, was the Iraq war an impossibility, should we never have gone in, or were we wrong to go in because we were wrongly informed? Was it morally wrong or was it --

That’s so complicated. I think that, can I rephrase slightly what you just said?

Sure.

If you were to tell me that they did have the weapons of mass -- it’s just so hard to answer these hypothetical questions -- I believe that my vote was wrong, I take responsibility for that. But it was wrong for two reasons; it wasn’t just wrong for one. It was wrong because, first, the basis for me voting for it was the weapons of mass destruction, and that was just false. But the second is I felt a great conflict then about giving George Bush this authority, because I didn’t trust him. And I resolved that conflict on the side of voting for it. Now seeing what’s happened, I would not resolve that conflict that way. This president should not have been given the authority to go into Iraq and I think on both fronts -- that’s the thing I can confidently say to you -- on both fronts the vote was wrong.

But you can’t confidently say that actually invading a country like Iraq for possessing active programs of WMDs would be the wrong thing to do?

Ever? Ever?

In the Iraq case, if they had possessed them, because, you know --

Well but that’s, see there’s the problem -- we didn’t exhaust the use of inspections. We didn’t take the steps that needed to be taken to ensure that they in fact had weapons. There are multiple steps that weren’t taken. We didn’t engage the international community in a serious way. I mean I think that uh, with these kind of hypothetical questions, what I am confident saying is we should not have gone into Iraq, that my vote was wrong. And it wasn’t just wrong because of the weapons of mass destruction; it was also wrong because of giving this president the authority.

Close, but not quite there. It leaves me uncomfortable that he might not actually repudiate the Bush Doctrine.

Note: The purpose of this post is not to pick on Edwards, per se. It's to explore where the Party is on this question. Apart from Kucinich, I'm not sure any of the candidates are where I would like them on this issue.