Why Kerry Is Right on Iraq

[BlackJack8324]

By Fareed Zakaria
Newsweek


given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject.

Bush's position is that if Kerry agrees with him that Saddam was a problem, then Kerry agrees with his Iraq policy. Doing something about Iraq meant doing what Bush did. But is that true? Did the United States have to go to war before the weapons inspectors had finished their job? Did it have to junk the United Nations' process? Did it have to invade with insufficient troops to provide order and stability in Iraq? Did it have to occupy a foreign country with no cover of legitimacy from the world community? Did it have to ignore completely the State Department's postwar planning? Did it have to pack the Governing Council with unpopular exiles, disband the Army and engage in radical de-Baathification? Did it have to spend a fraction of the money allocated for Iraqi reconstruction—and have that be mired in charges of corruption and favoritism? Was all this an inevitable consequence of dealing with the problem of Saddam?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5709288/site/newsweek/

1. ends justify the means?

That's the simple danger of the initial premise.

[chuck555]

4. ?????

Please explain.

6. first & second sentence

given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed.

End, topple Saddam.
Means, military invasion.

[Nightjock]

2. Thanks Blackjack. That helped alot.

I am one of the people dissapointed in Kerrys answer, but lately here at DU it feels like you cannot voice disapproval of Kerry or you get slammed ....so I have stayed silent.

Which really sucks because this forum used to be a santuary for me where you could ask questions and get answers.

That article made alot of sense and I thank you for helping answer a question I was afraid to ask.

[Larkspur]

3. Ok, based on that logic, Ariel Sharon is the greatest threat to Middle

East peace. When does the US invade Israel and topple Sharon and his Likkudite thugs?

[chuck555]

5. Call them up.

It makes so much sense.

[JPZenger]

7. He's looking diplomatically towards the future

Kerry has served for years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I believe he is being cautious on his statements about the Iraq War because he doesn't want to screw up our foreign policy after he is President. In any case, we will have to stay in Iraq for some time to maintain some stability. If he publicly states that the War was a big mistake, it will be harder for the U.S. to maintain a presence in Iraq. Instead, he is acting like a diplomat and using nuance.

Unfortunately, the American public responds better to simplistic cowboy movie dialogue.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. My post on the Robert Scheer thread could be inserted here

Please click here.

[90-percent]

9. Iraq rationalization

seems kind of like learning in grade school all of America was taken from the native Indians over 200 years ago.

"Oh, my great great ancestors did it. I certainly wouldn't have because I'm so nice. But, in a way I'm glad my ancestors got this really neat land of the free country for kids like me to grow up and become President!"

Now that we conquered Iraq even though it was illegal and wrong, we can't just "give it back". We might as well finish up the 14 bases and start shipping all the oil back to the USA. Damage had already been done before Kerry was elected, right?

Who in Iraq is gonna get all the money from the oil?

-85%