You are correct in that saddam is no islamic jihadist. Back in the days of leaky sanctions that victimized only the iraqis on the streets, there was no attempt to resolve this problem.
You are also correct that the missing or non-existent WMD is a huge black eye for bush.
However, back then, the evidence collected by everyone made all the leaders, Kerry, Kennedy, Chirac, Putin included, agree that the evidence was compelling, and the WMD risk was real. Chirac after the fact has denied what he believed, and Putin at least still admitted that they supplied some of the questionable intelligence of Iraq's plans.
Given the backdrop of 9/11, the common thought was that, here's a dictator who hates the US, has used nerve gas on villages, has shown territorial ambitions, and HAD WMD, and (back then widely agreed) was hiding something from the inspectors.
Forget the campaign politics for a minute and ask yourself honestly, given that information and situation, what should a US president do?
In spite of the WMD, I would say if there ever was a ripe target for a systemic change, Iraq appeared to be one that can work. And up till today, most iraqis still say they are happy that Saddam is gone. I think a successful Iraqi election should be in the world's best interest.
I also think overall, the overall war on terror cannot be said to be won until the governments themselves start to look closely at what is happening in the madrassas in their countries.
I don't believe Iraq is a diversion. I think it was a major blight to humanity that the US encouraged rebellion and stood idly by in the last Gulf war while Saddam's troops massacred the Shias.
Any election is not about choosing a saint, W is not the most articulate leader, not are all his policies acceptable to me. It is simply about who you believe can do a better job. My personal bias against Kerry is on what he did in the vietnam days. My own opinion of his leadership abilities is not that high based on the following :
(1) Having placated his anti war supporters with "Wrong war wrong place wrong time" doctrine, he now does his "I want to kill terrorist" message (with a nudge nudge wink wink to his base), my conclusion is, talk of withdrawal in 6 months is the real John Kerry, appeasing North Korea is the real John Kerry. What fills his mind is thoughts of "Who will be the last person to die for a mistake" --- The real John Kerry is the anti-war appeasement leader that today wears a hawk's mask, this is worse than Chamberlain, who at least was a gentlemen true to his words and find pandering for votes beneath him. Politicians who say different things every week should not rewarded for their ability to fool the public, but if Kerry is for toughing it out from Iraq, then I would be wrong. I doubt it though, his demeanour clearly projects "cut and run".
(2) A casual review of his voting record is enough to make you think. Kerry fundamentally does not believe in a just war. He voted against removal of Saddam from Kuwait, which is a basic litmus test for how to deal with aggression. These are his exact words before the U.S. Senate on January 12, 1991 :
I do not believe our Nation is prepared for war"
"But I am absolutely convinced our Nation does not believe that war is necessary. Nevertheless, this body may vote momentarily to permit it."
"There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war," said Kerry.
"I still believe that notwithstanding the outcome of this vote, we can have a peaceful resolution. I think it most likely. If we do, for a long time, people will argue in America about whether this vote made it possible," stated Kerry, placing his hopes on negotiating with Saddam Hussein.
That speech would have made pre-1939 Neville Chamberlain proud.
(3) The real danger in all this is not that Kerry has been wrong consistently on these foreign policy issues, or even that he thinks money spent on domestic issues is better than defending the country. The real danger is that this is the core of Kerry, someone who truly believes he can negotiate himself out of any situation. That might be ok for pork-barelling or bleeding heart idealism in the corridors of the senate, but how can you trust a person who in his heart actually believed you can negotiate with Saddam Hussein?
(4) Kerry's main domestic agenda is to raise taxes for the real engine for job creation --- small business owners. This goes against the spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation that lifted america from the recession of the Carter days. His policies if carried out, will stifle growth and cut the knees from america's abilities to create jobs.
(5) Kerry's trade stragedy is based on isolationism and fighting trade wars, it is based on preventing american companies from competing for lucrative export business. The simple fact is, even if you can legislate to force Walmart to buy only made in america goods, american companies still cannot export clothing that costs 50c more to make than bangladesh.
(6) Kerry's critique for the last 4 yrs is, "it's all bad, I can do better" without a concrete alternative beyond generalities. Anybody can do that. That is not leadership. That's political role-playing.
... some material obtained from :
newsmax.com
SbH |
