All the Way Home

What is wrong with me? John Edwards writes what is probably the best explanation we're going to get from a politician for his/her vote to support BushCo's War in Iraq and I'm unmoved.

He hit all the notes. He opened brilliantly and, yes, even courageously with "I was wrong." He accepted responsibility for what being wrong meant to people who did nothing but fulfill their contractual and personal patriotic obligation to their country:

It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a very dear price. It is not right, just or fair that we made a mistake, but they pay for that mistake.

He hammered the despicable people who wanted this unnecessary war and who stopped at nothing to get it:

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the President -- and that I was being told by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: twisting intelligence to fit their pre-conceived views about Iraq's threat; failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it actually ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill that our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

So what's wrong with me? Why can't I feel like this is my guy? Why can't I forgive and forget?

Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East. We must do more to support existing nonproliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants such as Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and in promoting democracy throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.

Iraq is a grave and growing threat. Hussein has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people.

Iraq's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and it poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam Hussein's arsenal and would stop at nothing to use it against us. America must act, and Congress must make clear to Hussein that he faces a united nation.

That was John Edwards in 2002 on the same page sounding a lot like Tony Blair and any neo-con you choose to mention. He did more than just vote for this war. Bob Moser in his most recent Nation article about Sen. Edwards talked to someone who remembered the day it ran:

"I can give you the exact date," says Kromm. "September 19, 2002." In that day's Washington Post Edwards wrote an op-ed headlined "Congress Must Be Clear," staking himself out as the Democrat most gung-ho to sic the troops on Saddam Hussein. Swallowing the WMD story hook, line and sinker, Edwards commanded his fellow senators to "send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." Though he made obligatory noises about "an effort to rally the international community" and "real steps to win the peace" before invading, Edwards threw himself fully behind the Congressional resolution to authorize Bush's go-it-alone invasion of Iraq.

"Either he was a hawk, or he didn't know what he was talking about, or he was guilty of the worst kind of political pandering," Kromm says. "I thought, 'You're trying to appeal to progressives, but you've already lost them.' I'm not sure he ever recovered from that."

Of Kromm's three options, it looks like Edwards is asking us to believe the second. I'm inclined to agree, with a heavy dose of political panderering thrown in. That would explain the Senator's plan for withdrawal redeployment:

First, we need to remove the image of the imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

This is never going to happen. At the very best we can hope for some kind of honest and effective investigation into the looting of Iraq by Halliburton et al. And you know what? That isn't going to happen either. I'm pretty sure that suggesting otherwise is the defiition of pandering. I think I'm too old or something to be able to hear talk like this without feeling betrayed in advance.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections and a new government has been created, we should begin the redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq.

"Change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq" = We're going to stay in Iraq forever. Everyone knows it, from the grunts on the ground to the mad geniuses who looked at where the oil was and said, "Okay, that's where we need to be ... forever." At this point, I don't know what the alternative is. I know it involves an energy plan that cuts Big Oil off at the knees. They can join Halliburton at the bar waiting for that to happen.

Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces. That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule outlining that as we certify that Iraqi troops are trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will withdraw.

Wait. I've heard this one before. Oh, I remember: As the Iraqis stand up, Americans will stand down.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. It's not just in America's security interest for Iraq to succeed, but the world's -- and the President needs to create a unified international front.

More bells are ringing.

June 28, 2005: Whatever our differences in the past, the world understands that success in Iraq is critical to the security of our nations. As German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said at the White House yesterday, "There can be no question a stable and democratic Iraq is in the vested interest of not just Germany, but also Europe."

Novemeber 6, 2003 Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)

As I say everytime BushCo sings this song, this isn't a plan. It's a worthy goal, or a Coke commercial. It's simply not enough anymore to make noise about internationalizing the effort. The war profiteers and Cold Warriors benefitting from it are too powerful to allow the kind of give and take that foreign countries will demand in exchange for wading into the quagmire. So if you're going to whisper in my ear, the first question I want answered, or even just acknowledged, is who's going to be in charge of internationalizing the oil and the rebuilding deals? Then we can talk about Israel.

John Edwards still doesn't want to tell us the truth. I can sympathize with him there because the truth is horrible. The options in Iraq that don't include fantasies like the thought that other countries are going to jump into the neo-con utopia turned quagmire are bleak. The fact is that the corporate interests for whom this war is being fought don't want to lose a penny of their investment in it and so we'll stay their course. The same course that's playing out right now in Haiti under our noses and in a dozen places I don't know anything about. Unless a politician is willing to address that key element of our foreign policy, I can't get bring myself to believe anything s/he says.

And so, for me, Sen. Edwards' op-ed sounds like another disingenuous political move. After I read it a few times, Springsteen's All the Way Home started running through my head. I couldn't figure out why until now and I'm starting to think that the Senator might want to look into the rights for his new campaign song.

I know what it's like to have failed, baby With the whole world lookin' on I know what it's like to have soared And come crashin' like a drunk on a bar room floor

Now you got no reason to trust me
My confidence is a little rusty
But if you don't feel like bein' alone
Baby, I could walk you all the way home

Well now our old fears and failures
Baby, they do linger
Like the shadow of that ring
That was on your finger
Those days they've come and gone
Baby, I could walk you all the way home

Love leaves nothin' but shadows and vapor
We go on, as is our sad nature
Now it's some old Stones'
Song the band is trashin'
But if you feel like dancin'
Baby, I'm askin'

It's comin' on closing time
Bartender, he's ringin' last call
These days I don't stand on pride
And I ain't afraid to take a fall

So if you're seein' what you like
Maybe your first choice he's gone
Well that's all right
Baby, I could walk you all the way home

Baby, I could walk you all the way home

Comments

[DavidByron]

There are layers of dishonesty and any politician short of Cynthia McKinney is going to be dishonest. Most of the blogosphere can't be honest either.

It's all about tactics and ass-covering. There's Kos saying we shouldn't even try to impeach because of some tactical reason. What happened to honesty, decency, justice? What happened to obeying the law?

Practically no-body even on the blogs will condemn the US soldiers who cary out this criminal war. The lies go all the way down and Bush has everyone complicit -- or almost everyone. Their tongues are tied because they are in on the lies at some point.

The left will never recognise that Clinton did alot of the same stuff Bush did -- lied about Kosovo, manufactured the evidence and started a war of aggression for much the same reasons as Bush.

Lies about what the war was about. Everyone fucking knew it was about oil and securing the endless Reich from the very beginning but no one to the right of Michael Moore can say it out loud.

I guess a lot of people in this country are heartiily sick of being lied to about now but unfortunately lies is all they will ever get. It's all about "framing" and how to jockey for position.

American exceptionalism cannot be challenged -- few even on the blogs say "Why do we have to leave Iraq? Because it's a fucking CRIME for us to be there, ok? We're the murderers." Instead we have all sorts of shit about how we should stay the course.

The divide and conquer strategy of Democrat vs Republican party loyalty - which seems to mean most at the lowest levels - means we pull to forgive the liars on "our side" while laughing at the lies of the other side. How's this for a piece of truth: the Pentagon swallows up half the budget; America's business is international intimidation by violence. Piracy.

Can't condemn the troops.
Can't challenge US exceptionalism.
Can't attack your own "side" lies.

And if any group ever does dare to buck the trend and tell the truth (like ANSWER or Cynthia McKinney or Nader) then that's the real enemy and they have to be attacked with more lies again.

Class warfare plain and simple: good for them, bad for us.

[Thomas Nephew]

No one can make anyone forgive and forget, and no one should have to forgive and forget. But if that's where you're coming from, nothing Edwards could say would ever change your mind anyway.

Edwards' 2005 "I was wrong" surely implies there was a 2002/2003 "I am right" to go with it. If we agree there was administration deception -- Downing Street, al-Libi, aluminum tubes, etc -- that can not logically have no bearing on votes taken by Edwards and others in good faith.

Yes, he then went beyond his Senate vote with that statement, but that's called standing behind what you've done and what you advocate; I think it compares favorably with others who did less, or equivocated more.

Others (including you, I take it) were prescient about the absence of WMD in a way that Edwards (and I) was not. While my "WMD+Saddam" apprehensions led me to disagree with anti-war analyses at the time, I did not dispute that those analyses were made in good faith. Is that your charge against Edwards? Was a good faith support for the war intrinsically impossible? If not, what would such a supporter say?

I don't see what the alternative is to a withdrawal timetable; I like the notion of some agency on our part better than throwing up our hands and saying we're there forever because our masters say we will be -- or abruptly leaving and shirking any responsibility for what happens thereafter.

And as for Kosovo, Mr. Byron, with all respect, don't get me started. Clinton and the West were if anything years too late in taking arms against Milosevic and his fellow bastards. I won't deny I probably drew the wrong lessons from that, but I do strongly dispute that it was the wrong thing to do.

[DavidByron]

Kosovo was a war of aggression waged in contradiction of the law - ie without UN SC permission. It was pushed using the same means as the Iraq war/s were - falsified stories created to demonise the side that the president wanted to attack. Media propaganda campaign which easily fooled all the useful idiots -- ie you in this case. The US actually funded a group it had previously recognised as terrorists (the KLA) as part of the falsification of intelligence. After the war the leader is dragged into a kangaro court specially set up by the US -- again in both wars. Come on. You have to be blind not to see the parallels.

I'd say a good faith support for the war was impossible. What possible good faith could anyone have? Aprehensions about Saddam's WMDs? But there were none. Iraq was very weak and known to be weak. If anything the security concern was that Iraq was too weak -- no longer a block against Iran. He didn't even controll most of his own country and you claim to have good faith he was about to invade the US?

Ridiculous.

[eRobin]

Others (including you, I take it) were prescient about the absence of WMD in a way that Edwards (and I) was not.

That's a really good point because remember days when I walked around buying Team BushCo's lies and feeling pretty frightened. But I kept coming back to my sources online, which argued against the possibility, my abiding distrust of Team BushCo, the fact that we had Saddam contained and my anti-war bias. It was very hard. Somehow I expected Edwards to be at least as strong as I was. I'd love to mitigate his decision by saying that he was running for office or that his decision really meant something whereas mine did not, but those two points just make what he did worse.

While my "WMD+Saddam" apprehensions led me to disagree with anti-war analyses at the time, I did not dispute that those analyses were made in good faith. Is that your charge against Edwards?

Absolutely. He pandered then. He's pandering now. Is he also pandering on poverty? The guy feels like one big bait and switch to me.

Was a good faith support for the war intrinsically impossible? If not, what would such a supporter say?

That's so hard to answer now. I want to say yes because I know that you must have supported it in good faith. But I feel like there were enough knowledgable people throwing up enough flags that support of the war was, if not in bad faith, then inexplicable.

I don't see what the alternative is to a withdrawal timetable; I like the notion of some agency on our part better than throwing up our hands and saying we're there forever because our masters say we will be -- or abruptly leaving and shirking any responsibility for what happens thereafter.

I'm not arguing for or against a timetable. I'm saying that Edwards is planning to be in Iraq forever but he's acting like he's talking about withdrawal - sorry, redeployment. He's talking BushCo's line and pretending he isn't.

My plan for Iraq would involve big giveaways to whatever countries wanted in on the rebuilding and accomodating the Arab states as much as possible without endangering Israel (good luck to me). And I'd be nationalizing oil and encouraging unions instead of building a Neo-con Frankenstein, which is what is happening now.

I honestly do want to get on the Edwards bandwagon and I think I'm capable of forgiveness, but everytime he has a chance with me, he blows it.