Reply #53: Why would you say that?

[sandnsea]

Every single candidate, every world leader, every WMD expert, said Saddam Hussein must disarm and must not be allowed to get bio/chem/nuclear weapons. Why would Kerry not take that seriously? Why would he make the exact same statements in Sept, Oct, Jan, and Mar; warning Bush to take the correct path in order to succeed in disarming Iraq without creating the chaos that we have?

"In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs -- on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war."

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5596.xml Sept

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5459.xml Jan

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_marapr_2003/JKessay.html Mar

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722.xml Mar