Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
The flip flop is that he has previously said that Bush mislead us in to war, but he would have voted for it even without WMD. Is that a coherent position?
|
No, it isn't. I'd be a hell of a lot happier if Kerry had said "If we had known that there were no WMD and known there was no connection to al Qaeda, then I would have voted against going to war in Iraq. It was the wrong thing to do. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and an evil man, and I am glad to see him out of power. But Saddam Hussein was not a threat to this country. Removing a dictator who did not threaten the US was not worth losing over 900 American lives, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, damaging our alliances throughout the world, destroying the international goodwill that we had established through the successful and efficient war [using Clinton's military --I'd have him leave that part out] in Afghanistan, and distracting the world and drawing our resources away from the fight against al Qaeda. We had contained Saddam through the policy of inspections and limited bombings. We were supporting the Iraqi people in their own efforts to bring about democratic change. We should have continued those efforts, and we should have kept this country and the world focused on destroying al Qaeda. When George Bush misled us into war -- by claiming the evidence of WMD was absolutely rock-solid, when he knew that it was much, much less than certain -- he made America less safe."
Anyway. That's what I would have said. But this election is so tight and so fucking poll-driven that integrity of positions is taking a back seat to doing whatever the parties believe will garner advantage in the swing states.
