Monday, July 12, 2004
John Kerry and the War in Iraq
Kerry and Edwards on 60 Minutes this Sunday were again asked whether they would have voted against the authorization to violently attack Iraq if they knew what they know now as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee. They replied that they oppose the way in which the President used the authorization to go to war. Senator Rockefeller and a few other Senators have said they would not have voted for war. But our candidates hold out for a more nuanced position. The confusion is that there was no vote "for war". (Indeed, this remains an undeclared war) The vote that is referred to was an "authorization" given to President Bush in October 2002. This was actually a carefully limited grant of power to the President to use force in Iraq if necessary to ensure the security of the United States.
The difficulty is that the stance of the democratic candidates comes across as a serious case of waffling. They do oppose and reject almost everything about the war: the dismissal of the objections of allies, the use of false information (some of it known to be false) to justify the war, and the poor planning for the immediate and longer aftermaths. However, they still do not want to say they oppose the war. Evidently, they fear that opposition would be seen as opposing our military forces who have lost lives and opposing the removal of Saddam Hussein that they heartily approve of.
They need to bite the bullet. Yes, there are many good things about the war. But the fact is, as they have readily agreed in other forums, the war was the result of massively misplaced priorities. It was based on a preemptive strategy that only made sense if we were in imminent danger. We were not. So they should state clearly that had they known how the authorization would be misused, they would have voted against the war. They were misled. They made a mistake. Now admit it, and go on.
Their message should be that we have, whether for good reasons or bad, taken on a responsibility to the Iraqi people and the Americans who have sacrificed their lives or suffered grievous injury in Iraq. They intend to live up to this responsibility. While working to withdraw American soldiers from the country as soon as feasible, they will increase assistance to the Iraqi government and people so that they might very soon again take full control of their country's future. They will also make sure that the strategic and tactical mistakes that led us into this quagmire not be repeated during their term in office. In particular, they will make sure that the idea of preemptive attack is never again used to justify military actions that are not essential to the security of the United States.
Kerry and Edwards on 60 Minutes this Sunday were again asked whether they would have voted against the authorization to violently attack Iraq if they knew what they know now as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee. They replied that they oppose the way in which the President used the authorization to go to war. Senator Rockefeller and a few other Senators have said they would not have voted for war. But our candidates hold out for a more nuanced position. The confusion is that there was no vote "for war". (Indeed, this remains an undeclared war) The vote that is referred to was an "authorization" given to President Bush in October 2002. This was actually a carefully limited grant of power to the President to use force in Iraq if necessary to ensure the security of the United States.
The difficulty is that the stance of the democratic candidates comes across as a serious case of waffling. They do oppose and reject almost everything about the war: the dismissal of the objections of allies, the use of false information (some of it known to be false) to justify the war, and the poor planning for the immediate and longer aftermaths. However, they still do not want to say they oppose the war. Evidently, they fear that opposition would be seen as opposing our military forces who have lost lives and opposing the removal of Saddam Hussein that they heartily approve of.
They need to bite the bullet. Yes, there are many good things about the war. But the fact is, as they have readily agreed in other forums, the war was the result of massively misplaced priorities. It was based on a preemptive strategy that only made sense if we were in imminent danger. We were not. So they should state clearly that had they known how the authorization would be misused, they would have voted against the war. They were misled. They made a mistake. Now admit it, and go on.
Their message should be that we have, whether for good reasons or bad, taken on a responsibility to the Iraqi people and the Americans who have sacrificed their lives or suffered grievous injury in Iraq. They intend to live up to this responsibility. While working to withdraw American soldiers from the country as soon as feasible, they will increase assistance to the Iraqi government and people so that they might very soon again take full control of their country's future. They will also make sure that the strategic and tactical mistakes that led us into this quagmire not be repeated during their term in office. In particular, they will make sure that the idea of preemptive attack is never again used to justify military actions that are not essential to the security of the United States.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
