|
are wimps and didn't stand up to Bush. Thing is, politicasista, it pays to throw some arguments out there. Like the fact that the IWR has a signing statement attached to it that says Bush doesn't even NEED authorization from Congress. That he would have gone in with or without the IWR. That he lost the second U.N. vote (he knew he didn't have the votes, so just didn't ask for one), yet he went to war anyway. That weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998, and that had Bush used the authority the way Kerry said to, it would have been a real coup for him -- you know, "speak softly, and carry a big stick". The threat of force WORKED. Saddam allowed the inspectors into his country, and they were DOING THEIR JOB. It was Bush who broke his word, and suddenly pulled the inspectors out so he could make war. Also, don't forget the IWR was Oct. 2002, the invasion March 2003. For me, the U.N. resolutions were more important than the IWR, and the last one, Bush didn't get. He should have known right then and there to wait, but he didn't and that's why everything is a big, big mess.
To be honest, I think the "no" votes to the IWR are problematic, too. Are they saying that the possibility of Saddam having WMD is no big deal? Do they really want to protect national security, when they don't even want U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq? In 1991, the intelligence community was flabbergasted how far along Saddam's WMD program was -- they had UNDERestimated Saddam's capabilities. It was proper to get the U.N. back in there, and I can tell you, that Saddam would NOT have allowed them in had there not been a threat of force authorized by Congress and backed up by troops on the ground in Kuwait. That's the flip side of all these arguments. But Bush was stupid enough to think he could democratize and keep united a fractured country. Had his administration been competent, he maybe had a 30% chance. With the flagrant incompetence, he's had 0% chance.
Another line of argument I made with my Dad had to do with now. He continued to rail against the Democrats, how they need to cut off funding NOW. So I asked him, "have you called your senator?" I told him to stop complaining about it and start being an active citizen by engaging as a constituent with his elected officials. They DO listen to their constituents. I received no answer from him on that, and then I noticed he didn't bring up that subject again.
Don't think you're alone in having family members unsupportive of your support for Kerry. The point is be kind with them, but firm in why you support him. My short sentence about why I want Kerry as president is, "he is the ONLY one who will have the guts to get our troops out of Iraq". By the end of the weekend, my Dad was down to, "well, we need a fresh face and Kerry's unelectable". But he seemed to acknowledge that Kerry was the most ideal candidate.
|