when it came time for those in congress to approve a formal plan of attack for the war on terror (after the taliban had been struck), senators like john kerry, joseph lieberman, and john edwards felt the most immediate target that should be addressed was iraq. believing this, they approved a resolution that allowed the threat of force and opened the door for military action to enforce violated UN resolutions, even if the action wasn't endorsed by the UN itself. they were criticized, and i believe correctly, by the anti-war community (such as howard dean).
likewise, i found it interesting that dean, who thought there was a better way to approach saddam's regime, said in the MSNBC debate that we "have no choice" but to unconditionally support bush's request for $87 billion. this from a candidate who repeatedly says he's against giving bush a "blank check" and opposed the "unfunded mandate" of "No Child Left Behind." i like dean, but this view seems to be either an about-face with his opposition to bush's handling of iraq or simply an acknowledgment that no better, feasible plan could be proposed to help internationalize and fund the nation-building. if so, i disagree and i think that it can then be argued that no better plan could feasibly be proposed to stop bush from attack iraq unilaterally (at least dean didn't suggest it was unpatriotic to vote against it, like lieberman did).
to me, the vote on the $87 billion was the perfect time for our representatives to demand accountability from our president and to push for an internationalized occupation. despite their support for the war resolution (which was really the only thing stopping our invasion being more unilateral than it ended up being) kerry and edwards opposed the bill--and clark applauded them for it. so do i.
so to summarize, we've got candidates who supported bush's rush to war in iraq as well as his approach to funding (lieberman), those who supported the resolution but admit they were misled by the WMD claims and demand this president be more forthcoming in his future operations before they sign over one penny toward the nation-building (kerry, edwards), those who opposed the war but feel we "have no choice" but to give in to bush's demands for appropriations without demanding any accountability for a failed post-war plan and lack of an international effort in the nation-building (dean), and those who opposed the iraq invasion from the start and continue to demand transparency from bush on what the exit strategy is and what we plan to do next with the terrorist-harboring states in the middle east like iran and pakistan (clark). in the smallest minority we have kucinich, who opposed the war and i believe voted against the $87 billion, but who didn't specify accountability or requiring a transparent plan for the middle east as his reason for doing so (kucinich supporters: if i'm mistaken on this, please let me know).
so when lined side-by-side, i find clark's view the most consistent and correct: afghanistan was right, iraq was unnecessary and ill-timed (but right in principle), and - in his words - "the president shouldn't play politics with our troops" (in other words, there should be incremental emergency funds going to our troops and the reconstruction while a bill can be formulated that reduces slush funds and outlines increased international involvement). he's also asked the administration to come clean on its strategy for the middle east instead of keeping us in the dark about syria, iran, north korea, pakistan, and damascus, unlike candidates like lieberman.
so who's right? should more time have been spent on drafting the bill for $87 billion that didn't include, for example, a $9 billion slush fund? is it contradictory to say the resolution shouldn't have been passed but we shouldn't try to propose a better way to nation-build? is it really unpatriotic to oppose the bill on the grounds that it shouldn't be an all-or-nothing decision essentially mandated by the executive branch? i'd very much like to hear everyone's thoughts on this now that we know where each candidate stands. thanks for reading.
(note: the poll's a bit wordy, so please read carefully before voting and keep in mind it is not asking who your preferred candidate is.)