Images

Paul Krugman explains why Hilary Clinton and others should have followed John Edward's lead and admitted they were wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution: NY Times: Many people are perplexed by the uproar over Senator Hillary Clinton's refusal to say, as former Senator John Edwards has, that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Why is it so important to admit past error? And yes, it was an error...The answer ... in two words: heckuva job. Or, if you want a longer version: Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, who said Saddam had W.M.D., Tommy Franks, who failed to secure Iraq, and Paul Bremer, who botched the occupation. For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences. ...The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those ... words... "I was wrong" matter so much to the Democratic base. The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn't sound like another George Bush..., someone who doesn't suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them. And there's another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards ... is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom..., which still Ð'-- in spite of all that has happened Ð'-- equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security... By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views. In truth, it's the second issue, not the first, that worries me about Mrs. Clinton. Although she's smart and sensible, she's very much the candidate of the Beltway