But my definition of biP fp is that a common view is defined.
I agree, Mike, and that's what happened in the immediate aftermath of 9-11, to invade Afghanistan, to ratchet up the worldwide war on Al Q, to pass, ugghh, the Patriot Act, etc.
However, the various Iraqi motions, etc., were politically motivated and manipulated to an extreme so there is no consensus. There were no serious hearings about the threat, no serious debates, in the congress, about the connection between Al Q and Saddam, no serious debates, etc. Because the Bush folk did not wish to have them.
You can identify two broad positions on the dem side: invade and occupy but only with proper international approval and participation, which was not done; and, second, Iraq is not a part of 9-11, let's focus on Al Q, worldwide, and on the reconstruction of Afghanistan (mine). I do not include the Lieberman position--invade regardless of international position--because it was very narrowly held among dems.
Among the reps I think you can also identify two broad positions: Bush, including his realists and his neocon folk for simplifications sake; and neoisolationists like Novak and Buchanan, which, you may recall, Bush was during his campaign--we don't do nation building.
Bush force fed a vote. It was politically adroit, for the short term. Now he is paying the price because of it.
One of the things we learned, the military says this over and over, from the Vietnam war, is that the US should not undertake these kinds of ventures without widespread public support. Because of the force feeding of the process, because of the absence of international approval, there is no such.
Thus, serious criticism of the Bush foreign policy remains on the table. For anyone, such as Rumsfeld, to argue that it only hurts, is unacceptably defensive, pure and simple. |
