All in all, my position is that I want the US
to succeed in Iraq and get the country restored
to normalcy with its own internal democratically
appointed government.
Fighting over whether we should have gone in
in the first place is largely based on 20/20
hindsight and political debate during this
election season. Obviously there are many who
dislike Bush and object to his policies. I just
see a difference between political rhetoric
and divisive arguments that prevent the country
from keeping its collective eye on the ball
as to how best to solve the current Iraq situation.
I guess I can agree up until this point....it may be used for political gain, this is normal and bidirectional, but the issue is very tangible....this adminstration has published a doctrine of pre-emption - the subject of much debate and the cause of a great deal of animosity, at home and abroad. That is the self granting of the right to attack another country on the presumption of a threat. At a minimum fairness would say that you act on bullet proof knowledge. To understand now that there are no WMDs -the reason bush touted for war, that the war may have been marketed to the american public, that we may have made serious mistakes, who made them, under what circumstances, what failures...all of these are crucial issues that need to be understood in their infinitesimal detail because the stakes are too high, people get killed, lose kin, come home maimed, their lives are forever changed...if in the process certain folks pay a political price, this is far less important than getting to the bottom of the matter.
Al |
