So What's Your Beef?
The Left in this country have made much over the War in Iraq as grounds for dumping Bush. What are they going to do now, given this Kerry statement?
So, let me get this straight. You and Bush both accepted the same flawed intelligence in the weeks and months leading up to the war. You both believed in WMDs (which may yet be found). You have since criticized Bush for taking us into the war based upon erroneous information -- but now you tell us you would have supported the war even if the evidence had clearly indicated there were NO WMDs?
Now Kerry did ask four questions of his own -- and I'll answer them for him.
1) Why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace?
Well, Senator, there was a plan for the peace. It involved returning civilian control to Iraq as soon as possible (accomplished back in June) and allowing for free elections for the first time in decades. It also involved reconstructing the infrastructure, an ongoing process that involves American companies like Haliburton. In this it is similar to the pattern followed in Germany, Italy and Japan following WWII.
2) Why he used faulty intelligence?
Obviously, Senator, the use of faulty intelligence was obviously not intended. The problem is that virtually every major intelligence service in the world had the same general picture. So we are not talking about a US intelligence failure, we are talking about an international intelligence failure. How could that happen? Either Saddam had a massive disinformation campaign going on, or he was lied to by his own people which in turn meant that good intelligence painted a false picture of Iraqi capabilities.
3) Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war?
Meaning what, exactly? He said we would forge an international coalition to enforce UN resolutions, and did exactly that. He said we would catch Saddam, and has succeeded.
4) Why he had not brought other countries to the table?
Uh, he did -- some 40 other countries. I realize that didn't include Russia, Germany, and France (the three biggest Iraqi trading partners, who violated UN sanctions against that country), but one can hardly claim that it was the US going it alone.
Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."
So, let me get this straight. You and Bush both accepted the same flawed intelligence in the weeks and months leading up to the war. You both believed in WMDs (which may yet be found). You have since criticized Bush for taking us into the war based upon erroneous information -- but now you tell us you would have supported the war even if the evidence had clearly indicated there were NO WMDs?
Now Kerry did ask four questions of his own -- and I'll answer them for him.
1) Why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace?
Well, Senator, there was a plan for the peace. It involved returning civilian control to Iraq as soon as possible (accomplished back in June) and allowing for free elections for the first time in decades. It also involved reconstructing the infrastructure, an ongoing process that involves American companies like Haliburton. In this it is similar to the pattern followed in Germany, Italy and Japan following WWII.
2) Why he used faulty intelligence?
Obviously, Senator, the use of faulty intelligence was obviously not intended. The problem is that virtually every major intelligence service in the world had the same general picture. So we are not talking about a US intelligence failure, we are talking about an international intelligence failure. How could that happen? Either Saddam had a massive disinformation campaign going on, or he was lied to by his own people which in turn meant that good intelligence painted a false picture of Iraqi capabilities.
3) Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war?
Meaning what, exactly? He said we would forge an international coalition to enforce UN resolutions, and did exactly that. He said we would catch Saddam, and has succeeded.
4) Why he had not brought other countries to the table?
Uh, he did -- some 40 other countries. I realize that didn't include Russia, Germany, and France (the three biggest Iraqi trading partners, who violated UN sanctions against that country), but one can hardly claim that it was the US going it alone.
posted by Greg at
8/10/2004 08:07:00 PM
