I was leaning Dean until recently and I could still get behind him

[JAbuchan08]

More and more however, he seems to be stuck in a rut - he's a good attack dog - but is he presidential? Now I'm not sure what to think. I guess my main problem is the fact that many of these democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution. The thing is I can actually see myself in Kerry's and Edwards' shoes - I was not unilaterally against the Iraq war, I simply felt that GW didn't make his case.
If the UN had finished its inspections and determined Iraq was a grave threat to world peace I could have gotten behind an attempt to disarm that country. If GW hadn't lied would I have supported the Iraq war?
Probably not, as simply not lying about one's reasons for war is not the same thing as making a strong case for war.
Given the criticisms that I have heard the Democratic candidates give about the war I sense that there really isn't a whole lot of difference in their positions. John Kerry, John Edwards, even Howard Dean and Wesley Clark seem to have nearly the same views as I do about the war. They all think it was handled badly from its beginning to today.
I saw a backbone in Dean, where I saw Kerry, and Edwards hedging against a Republican backlash and conceding a pro-war majority based on factual bankruptcy to Bush. Clark on the other hand seemed as if he was all too eager to support the war until he realized how misinformed the information George Bush fed the Republic was. I'm still not sure why Wesley Clark changed his mind, and I'm worried that all he is is a four-star blank slate for his supporters to project their convictions on.
I'm starting to lean away from Dean, but have no real reason to back anyone else. It seems as if we are forced to choose between a loose cannon and cannon fodder. I know I'm asking for a flame bait, but I'd like to know how the supporters of these (and other) candidates answer these questions. I'm especially interested in hearing how Edwards defends his vote on the Iraq war.

[cthrumatrix]

1. listen to his message...screw the media...he has the people , the $$$

and the endoresements...he will only get better...we clearly need a change.

[bryant69]

2. One answer

From a speech Edwards made last year (in May).

"Last fall, many of us who supported the use of military force in Iraq warned President Bush about this problem. We argued that the United States needed to put the same amount of energy, effort and creativity into planning for what to do after Saddam was gone.

We supported the use of force to ensure that Iraq complied with its commitments to the international community. But we also called on the president to carefully plan for a new Iraq - a prosperous democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The president obviously did not heed our advice. The administration did not make adequate plans for the situation which now threatens the success of our mission in Iraq -- and in some instances, it apparently didn't plan at all. It now tries to explain away its failures as the "untidy" realities of postwar Iraq. Rather than make excuses, the administration must act before it undermines all that we have accomplished."

In other words, Edwards thought getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good idea, but he questioned the lack of planning on the President's part that has led to the current problems. Part of that planning was a lack of an international coalition.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[JAbuchan08]

3. Hey I think getting rid of Saddam was a pretty good idea

but I didn't think that congress had to relinquish its power to declare war based on shaky (at best) evidence. Is he saying that it was OK for Bush to lie us into war so long as he has a plan for the aftermath? It seems to me that this is criticizing the ends, but not the means - when just about anyone could judge from the means utilized - that America was being sold something that looked good on paper but didn't reflect reality.
Who other than Howard Dean criticized both the ends and the means?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. You really think so?

It seems many people have yet to realise the HARD TRUTH about Iraq: Hussein may have been bad, but his replacement maybe far worse.

Haven't you wondered why Bush is now trying to deny an election? Haven't you wondered who would WIN any such election? So what then? Install another dictator like Saddam?

If so, what happens to the Iraqi people? Should they be forever subservient to a US puppet who will rule them with an iron fist and hand over their resources to corporate interests?

Was getting rid of Saddam REALLY the smartest thing to do?

I sure don't think so, and I am willing to bet many Iraqis think the same way.

[beaconess]

4. From a speech he made BEFORE the war:

Edwards said this in October of 2002

"As I've said before, I believe the Iraqi threat demands action by the U.S. together with our allies if the United Nations Security Council is prevented from acting to enforce its own resolutions. But I also believe that this is a very good example of how American leadership in the world will produce a better result than American disregard . . .

"We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

"This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

"We know that military planning is in high gear, and that's good; but democracy planning needs to be in high gear as well. For example, we should be asking NATO now to start planning for a post-conflict peacekeeping role, and we need to start consulting with others now about sharing the financial burden of reconstruction . . . We must lead our allies to greater collaboration, we must lead our friends to greater vigilance, we must lead our partners to greater participation – and we must lead problem states into adherence with the international agreements and programs to prevent proliferation."

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. How do you build democracy by force?

That is a total oxymoron. The Shi'ites want a theocracy, and given a vote, that is what they would vote for. As they are the majority in Iraq, what do you think would happen? Do you think they would suddenly vote for a secular government?

Of course not!

So what kind of democracy are you going to impose? A democracy where the majority really have no say in how their country is run? What kind of democracy is that?

This is why the rhetoric of people like Edwards is so stupid. You may as well try and forcibly convert the Shi'ites to Christianity. It just won't happen.

[Snivi Yllom]

6. it's not over

Edwards and Kerry can't defend their IWR vote. They should stand up and be proud of their vote instead of trying to weasel out of it. It's important to have principles.

[HFishbine]

8. I understand what you mean

when you say "stuck in a rut." I see it too. I think that Dean got comfortable too early and fell back on what he thought would be the tried and true. Instead, it became the tired and cliched. I agree with you. Dean needs start being the real Dean again and abandon the canned Dean.

[K8-EEE]

9. I Loved Dean On Democracy Now Very Early On...

and I still respect the guy but frankly he does not seem to be dealing with the pressure very well; and I'm not talking about "anger" because anybody who isn't angry isn't thinking. But he comes off like a loose canon a lot of times and he would be facing even more pressure in the Gen election. I would like a cool candidate who could make GWB lose it!