Quote:
Originally posted by Skip N
He voted for the war in iraq before he voted againstv it whver the hell that meens. Not to long ago he said after all the stuff he new about iraq he still would have voted to go to war...yet recently he has been saying bush lied about all the circumstances leading to the war. Wich one is it???!! Did he support the use of force like he said....or does he not support the use of force like he said? cant have it both ways
|
Well, Kerry never really said he would have still voted to go to war, he said he would still vote to give the President the authority so he would have that option.
There is a subtle difference that is very important. If you remember the context back then, the hawks in the administration were telling the President to just invade and screw the UN. The President went before Congress and promised to go to the UN, build a coalition like in Desert Storm, and put a war vote before the UN. In return the President asked for the approval of Congress to use force, the idea being for the UN process to work there must be a real threat of war behind it.
Kerry was a huge proponent if holding Saddam accountable, but he also insisted it be done properly. The reality is that Bush abandoned the UN process when it became clear we didn't have the evidence to justify the threat as was laid out. Bush didn't build a strong coalition and didn't put the war vote before the UN as promised. Bush did mislead the country on Iraq.
So Kerry isn't really trying to have it both ways, it's just that your opinion of the situation has been formed not by Kerry, but by Bush. They have done a brilliant job of twisting his record and Kerry has done a terrible job of fighting back.
The Bush Administration took a risk that we could remove Saddam with a moderate force and get out quickly. They were wrong at just about every turn. Even today they don't talk about the violence much, even though our troops are being attacked and are dying every day. They don't talk about how the violence is getting worse every day. They insist the Generals in Iraq arn't asking for more troops, when in reality they are. They don't talk about the fact that the new Iraqi Government is not seen as legitimate. They won't discuss how we're not really giving Iraq Democracy as that would instantly lead to a Shiite majority. They don't talk about the fact the estimated number of insurgents has nearly quadrupeled in the past 6 months. They don't talk about the fact that they have yet to train very many Iraqi police and military, but they do say they've fully trained over 200,000 which is a lie Joe Biden exposed this week.
This isn't pessimisim, it's reality. Things in Iraq are not going well and it's directly related to our invading without planning, without International support and without enough troops. Saddam did need to be held accountable, but there was no urgency that said we had to go that spring. UN sanctions and the no fly zones had removed most of Saddam's ability to even think about WMD and the links to al Qaida were of no substance to be any threat.
All this time we could have using our military and economic might to combat real and urgent dangers from terrorisim. Working to better sucure our ports, our borders and our airlines. Working to combat the spread of radical Islam and the ability of al Qaida cells to regroup. Working to end nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran.
Instead we went chasing after non-existant WMD's in Iraq and perhaps to settle an old score. How many Administration insiders have come forth and said that Bush and Cheney were completely absorbed with Iraq from Sept 12th on? Lots...
The real motivation for Iraq is the neo-conservative idea that we can win the war on terror through direct American leadership (i.e. military domination). Some might say transform the Middle East by "spreading democracy". The major flaw in this idea is that it's A - extremely imperialistic and B - extremely stupid. The preisdent has chosen to spread Democracy not by extending the hand of Lady Liberty, but by packaging Democracy inside 2000 pounds of high explosives. As long as we are seen as the invaders, every bomb we drop and every round we fire will create more insurgents and a larger recruitment pool for al Qaida.
To win Iraq we need to leave. We can't just cut and run obviously, but we must have a clear plan to remove the American face from the occupation. Internationalization will help tremendously, as will active Arab and Islamic participation from neighbors. We must provide an incentive for our allies to provide troops and invest in the rebuilding of Iraq. Not give no-bid contracts to Halliburton and tell the rest of the UN they don't get to participate because they didn't support us when we walked away from the UN.
John Kerry understands this, Bush doesn't.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the President's priorities are not where they should be.
-spence