even as the gop attack against rep jack murtha (d-pa) shifts into high gear, ex-sen (d-nc) and vp candidate john edwards has come out against the war and said he was wrong to vote to allow it.
that's for the best, but i still want to stress that the dems will make a serious error if their next presidential nominee supported the force authorization resolution in 2002.
anybody who swallowed the bush wmd scare tactic didn't think it thru fully when it mattered most. if they had, they would've realized the real value of wmd is as a deterrent against invasion, so it's highly unlikely saddam would've kept it secret if he had them.
the bushers now claim wmd wasn't the only justification for war, but it obviously was their main argument, both to congress and to the UN: until shortly before the invasion they kept saying they just wanted to disarm iraq, not change its regime.
of course, if that were true, why didn't they let the UN inspectors finish their work?
you have to be pretty naïve to believe they didn't seek regime change all along, but why do they have to be so manipulative about it? couldn't they just openly brand saddam a criminal and say they wanted him to step down and stand trial for his crimes?
that should've been US policy from 1991 on, and it should've been the stated goal of international sanctions and augmented by diplomatic and legal efforts.
but i guess politicians have trouble being straightforward about anything.
17 hours ago
No comments:
Post a Comment