[Vision2020] Opinion not normally seen on V2020

[Joan Opyr]

Wayne writes:

If Kerry is using the tactic of his support for the Iraq War as a political ruse, he is on risky ground.  His statement will certainly reduce the enthusiasm of some or many of his supporters -- some my even vote for a third party candidate.

If he really believes that the human suffering and chaos wrought to Iraq is justified without WMDs, Al Kada connections, etc., then I really must reassess my opinion of his reasoning ability, integrity, and values.

With all due respect, I think this is a misreading of what Kerry actually said.  He was asked if, knowing what we now know about Iraq, WMDs, Al Qaeda, etc., he would still have voted in favor of giving President Bush the authority to use force.  Kerry said yes, he would have voted for that authority.  He also said that he would not have used that authority as Bush has used it, i.e., Kerry did not say that he would have invaded Iraq.  He did not say that he would chosen a unilateral course of action.   

Perhaps this is overly nuanced for some; perhaps it seems too qualified and too complex.  It looks to me like Kerry has consistently maintained that the threat of force -- not necessarily the actual use of it -- was an appropriate tool in our diplomatic arsenal.  He was asked this question repeatedly during the Democratic primary debates and his answer never changed.  Saddam Hussein had responded positively to threats of force in the past; when the first George Bush amassed troops in the Persian Gulf, Hussein sent frantic messages through various diplomatic channels saying that he would withdraw his troops from Kuwait.  We refused to take yes for an answer; hence, the first Gulf War.  The same again this time around.  Hussein pushed the envelope right up to the edge, but after the Congress voted to authorize the use of force, Hussein announced that the U. N. inspectors were welcome to come back.  Bush II chose instead to invade.

Nuanced or not, the threat of force is an effective weapon, but it is not the same as the actual use of force.  Imagine I've drawn a line in the sand . . . at the playground on Friendship Square.  I tell you that if you step over it, I'll break your nose.  You know that I'm prepared to break your nose.  You see that I've got on my boxing gloves.  You decide not to step over the line.  I don't care -- I step over the line onto your side and break your nose anyway.  Who's to blame?  Me, you, or the people who paid for my boxing gloves and gave me a lift downtown?  We can argue about whether or not Kerry's vote to give this particular tool to George W. Bush was wise or unwise, but we cannot argue that he voted in favor of chaos and suffering in Iraq.  Congress was not given the opportunity to vote on a formal Declaration of War.  They haven't been given that opportunity in any U. S. military conflict since World War II.   

And perhaps that's the problem.  All of our Presidents post-FDR have felt free to send soldiers into battle without Congressional oversight.

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment  Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040811/1dcb81d9/attachment.htm