Guardian article: Ann Clwyd the "firebrand left-wing MP" is a strong Blair supporter and supporter of the Iraq war. Clwyd argues that the war was just on the basis of Saddam's human rights abuses alone.
Clwyd admits that the question of weapons of mass destruction was the wrong one on which to base the war. But rather than blame the protagonists, she says that the fact that there is only a shaky legal basis under the United Nations for military intervention on humanitarian grounds - apart from to avert genocide - shows that the UN needs to look again at its own charter.
I think as candidates scurry to lay claim to the mantle "anti-war" they would do well to address Clwyd's concerns. Clark has made it clear that he believes in military intervention for the purposes of maintaining a basic level of human rights. Dean supported the first gulf war and Afghanistan but it is clear that his positions have been, shall we say, evolving on a variety of issues since those heady days when he was a full-fledged member of the DLC. Dean's current approach to foreign policy is ambiguous. Does he support military intervention abroad in support of human rights?
In arguing against the war on Iraq both Dean and Clark argue that the war was not needed from the perspective of ensuring the security of America and that the aftermath of the war was not handled properly. Both have argued for a greater reliance on international institutions. But neither, to my knowledge, has laid out a case for human rights motivated intervention. This is an important oversight because many on the left including the Clwyds, Blairs, Hitchens believe strongly in such interventions. If we would like to win the next election I think we are going to have to appeal to the voting blocks those folks represent.