How is it that Democrats voted for the War in Iraq? Maybe I missed it, because from my recollection, Bush never said that he was bent on ignoring the opinion of nearly all of our allies and cherry picking intelligence so that he could prosecute a looming threat like a blundering buffoon.
That came after Congress gave him the AUTHORITY to take the lead in making right and sound decisions with our national security.
And I'll come out and say it: I'd have done the same thing.
Let's be fair. In 2002 it was not nearly as clear that OUR president is a total and utter moron. It was not at all clear--as has become clearly evident--that the crux of all major decisions would be made out of sheer political expediency rather than out of what's in the best interest of our nation as a whole. We fought a war so that Republicans could look strong on defense amidst a failing economy and a terrified electorate. But there was really no way to know all of that at the time of that vote.
Jimmy Carter was on Charlie Rose the other night talking about the unprecedented short-sidedness of the Bush administration. He singled out the Iraq War as a prime example. Mr. Rose shot back at him that the vast majority of Democrats in congress voted for going to war. Rose went on to add that Kerry not only gave his vote, but during the 04 election said he'd do it again.
Well, Carter had more important things to talk about; so, he passed up the opportunity to say what I'm about to, that Kerry's position was correct and sound and had much more to do with foreign policy precedent than a vote for all out unilateral invasion.
With the War in Iraq, George Bush abused all of our trust by playing politics with our national security. But I believe it was correct to give the EXUCUTIVE BRANCH sufficient leeway to act in a timely and efficient manner if there is indeed an imminent threat to our country.
Kerry felt that to hinder the president's authority by forcing him to return to Congress to use force would not only reduce our military leverage but, more importantly, set a soiled precedent for future threats to our national security. This was about diplomatic leverage, not all out invasion.
Point blank. Senator Kerry was a fool to be so trusting in this particular president's ability to lead. But none of us would want, say, a Republican senate playing politics with President Clinton's efforts to stop a maniacal dictator from committing genocide in Kosovo.
Our national security is not in the interest of Democrats OR Republicans; it is in the interest of Democrats AND Republicans. This is what Kerry tried to tell the press at the Grand Canyon in 2004.
Democrats' vote for use of force wasn't a simple approval for war; it was about trusting in the ability of the Executive to make right and sound decisions for our country. It was about trusting Iraq could be--if not resolved diplomatically--than at least resolved efficiently.
But the Bush Administration failed miserably at both.
Therefore, blame Democrats for trusting the President, but don't blame them for screwing up the war. However, the real question becomes: if an idiot like me can understand something as simple as this, why can't Charlie Rose or Wolf Blitzer?
Let's hope today's speech can bring this issue back into the public eye, so Democrats can remind the American electorate what really happened in the run up to war.