Grrrrrr... Rei got to answer your post before me.
Essentially she said what I was going to say, recap:
1) "If the U.N. fails to take action to enforce its own resolutions..." Can you explain how this was NOT the case?
2) all POSSIBLE DIPLOMATIC means would be used first... Explain how that was the case when diplomacy had already reopened inspections which were ongoing at the time of attack?
Just to let you know, I am NOT happy with Kerry and Edwards for failing to figure out Iraq did not pose the risk the White House said it did.
That said, that can't make them LESS than Bush who actually reversed his public stance on Iraq (remember at the beginning of his administration he had Powell state... accurately I might add... that Iraq posed no threats to its neighbors), as well as being on top of the information gathering process.
Remember Paisano, Bush was the executive and was responsible for the EXECUTION of properly gathering information for congress.
Again the allegedly "dumb Texan" fooled them. They should have known of his hawkish proclivities.
The linked statement clearly indicated that they wanted to avoid war by giving the president the ability to threaten war, but that the war had to be last resort.
That is what that "dumb texan" said he would do. If he had hawkish proclivities that would make him go back on his promises, then that doesn't make him any less a liar now does it?
But I do agree with you, I do not like that Kerry and Edwards gave Bush (who had already proven himself deceptive) a power that only Congress should have. I wasn't happy when Congress did that in the first Gulf War and I was for that one. I think Congress should never hand the President that kind of power as if he turns out to be a liar, we get what we see here.
However, and quite ironic, it seems as if you have confused political opinion with intellectual capacity. How can you label them as somehow dumb for believing it is important to give the president power to negotiate? If Bush violates the agreement then they can still hold him accountable, which they are... right?
...acted on incomplete and conflicting information which in hindsight may not have been sufficient to justify the attack
You seem to be acting on the same. The facts are all out now. Members of his administration were set to war on Iraq well before 9-11. They were held in check and then after 9-11 had free reign. They helped shape intelligence to set the stage and Bush went right along.
Bush's JOB is to make sure his intelligence gathering services are NOT providing incomplete and conflicting info for himself and Congress. Thus BUSH FAILED AT HIS JOB... not Congress.
Oh and by the way, not everyone needed hindsight. With the exception of thinking he'd still have some minor stockpiles of bio-chem agents, I was right on the money well before the Iraq invasion.
All of my sources were public and pretty well documented. Many of the things "discovered" to be questionable were so well before the invasion.
As I posted on EvC... at least I think it was here... there was a whole group of top intelligence officials that created an organization to criticize the incredibly bad intelligence analyses that the President was using.
Given this, should Kerry and Edwards have known better? Yes. However, Powell, Cheney, Rice, Bush, and many proBushies kept playing the "but we know more than you" card. Well it turns out they had NO additional info. They didn't even have agents on the ground there (and this was NOT known by congress until a congressional review). The best info was well known and public... Liars.
By the way I just loved how you dodged the other lies I listed... or do you have info about Bush sending the measure to the security council, or delivering the war budget?
Would Saddam still in power really be a better option ?
Yes. If we were set to do it all over again, it would be BETTER not to do it again. Although I do not like Saddam and I think it is better for the Iraqi people if he wasn't around, this was OBVIOUSLY not the proper mechanism for his removal.
Would I want him back in place? Hell no. Now that he is gone he is better kept gone. We can't redo the past.
But if you can honestly look at Iraq, especially with all the intel now on what we accomplished vs the costs and say that was a wise decision... wiser say than using the money and material to secure Afghanistan and fight a war on terrorism... well then you either have a lack of honesty or intellectual capacity.
We got rid of Saddam? BFD. Can you explain how that investment HELPED US? Let's say he was in power today. How would we or even the people of Iraq be that much worse off? It would be the same as it had been for 10 years before that... nothing good, but nothing worse.
Oh yeah they are "closer to democracy". Uh huh.
And by the way, when have Republicans been for giant public funded social programs for other nations? You know what people in the US would be better without? Poverty, lack of medicine, lack of education... But we won't be fighting that anytime soon, eh?
He has no strategy for Iraq other than to either parrot what Bush is doing, or make vague promises of increased foreign support
I'm nonplussed how any PRESIDENT is going to help Iraq at this point. It is going to take boots on the ground working with Iraqis that are attempting to set up their own government.
That and lots of money for social programs we wouldn't bother paying for in the US.
Iraq is Bush's legacy to the world. And in the case of the US, to our children and grandchildren. Once it was started everyone was forced to commit to doing something or let it roll.
What I find odd is that you think the future is all about Iraq. What a strange worldview. When Kerry talks about foreign support he is not just talking about Iraq and that is a major difference between him and Bush.
Bush was a unilateralist and created a huge divide among nations. Being a loner and a "my way or the highway" guy is NOT being a leader. A leader is rallying the international community behind something they want to commit themselves to.
If you read Blair's comments on this issue you will see that part of his support was because he realized that Bush was commited to a course of action and it was better to support it than stay out if it was going to happen anyway. No one in our "coalition" was FOR the war, as in they were calling for it and desiring it. It was support for the US if we went in.
There will be more problems in the future. I personally want a President that will engage with other world leaders and not simply speak at them like they're a bunch of monkeys.
Oh yeah, and if we go to war then I want one with a head on his shoulders.
Pre-invasion Kerry addressed cadets (I think it was West Point) and answered questions. When asked about war planning he gave a specific outline of how it should be handled in Iraq, especially with regard to AFTER major fighting ended, and what would happen if such planning was not in place. He was right on the money.
That wasn't hindsight.
That's an argument from personal incredulity.
No... it was a sarcastic punchline.
In actual honesty if you can't figure out the reality given the amount of info we have available right now... instead parroting proBush propaganda... then I am hoping you won't vote at all as I do not value your opinions or lack of insight.
You could always do something dumber... you could vote for Saddam.
Weren't you the guy chastising me for not being able to understand when a joke was being told?
This message has been edited by holmes, 09-22-2004 04:57 AM
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
