Reply #37: Dean and Kerry: two bad positions on Iraq

[welshTerrier2]

Pete, are you Kerry's defense attorney now??

Talk about compartmentalized arguments ... your point that Kerry did the right thing and it was bush who betrayed us is absurd ... you conveniently ignore the context of the

situation and its participants ...

how can you just set aside the history of the bush cabal ... how can you just ignore the blatantly obvious intentions of the pnac crowd to invade Iraq ... how can you ignore lie

after lie told by bush and his cronies to justify his desire to invade iraq ...

your right ... it's not about "sending a message" ... it's about standing up to the evils of an out-of-control administration ... it's about speaking the truth to the american people ...

it's about doing everything you could do to stop this madness before it occurred ... it's about understanding the damage to U.S. prestige in the world ... it's about stopping the

destruction of long-term international relationships with countries we depend on ... it's about blocking the draining of our military strength in a vietnam-like quagmire ... it's

about protecting the bankrupting a treasury that already has run up record budget deficits ... it's about not financing a war we cannot afford at the expense of critically needed

domestic programs ...

If senators voted on bills for the sole purpose of 'sending a message' to the executive branch, chaos would ensue.

So, Kerry's point that he voted for the resolution to "send a message" to Saddam is OK with you? i agree with your point that this is too important an issue to be "sending

messages" ... but it doesn't seem like you agree with your own point ...

any way you slice it, putting the weight of the american congress squarely behind bush gave bush "aid and comfort" ... we've had many arguments on DU about the legal impact

of the resolution and whether it had any real constitutional significance ... but Kerry's own stated intent, at a minimum, was to give symbolic support to what bush ended up

doing ... his vote allowed bush to invade Iraq with the Congress in his pocket ... his vote gave away his right to dissent, and he failed to dissent, once it was clear bush had no

intent of seeking a diplomatic solution ...

and, if i might throw in a gratuitous observation, Kerry has run a pathetic campaign so far ... if he's to have any chance at all, he'd better get his act together very soon ...

btw, lest you Kerry supporters feel picked on, I agree with you that Dean was not quite as clear about the war as many would have you believe ... his "60 days" statement and

his "with or without the U.N." statement had me withdraw my early support for him ...

both Dean and Kerry failed to stand up for the principle of "imminent threat" ... while both correctly observed there was no imminent threat, neither agreed to adhere to that

standard as a pre-condition for war ...

Dean's statement that, and i paraphrase from memory, "if bush presents evidence of WMD I would give Saddam 60 days and then would invade Iraq with or without U.N.

approval" is NOT OK with me ... even if Saddam did have these weapons, the standard is imminent threat ... not possession of weapons ... Saddam was encircled ... his every

move was monitored ... even his neighbors understood he had been neutered ... this is not some small, ideological argument ... war is among the most serious business nations

conduct ... if someone would like to defend Mr. Dean's position on this point, have at it ... i'm listening ... it's not about whether Dean is or isn't "anti-war" ... it's about whether

we agree with his values on whether any given war is or is not justified ...