Josh Marshall has already posted very intelligently on this, but I have a few things to add. Yesterday, as we all know, Kerry gave his best and clearest speech on Iraq so far. But the conservative straw man-producing machine has already started on it. David Brook's column today contains several notable distortions of what Kerry said:
Finally, Kerry declared that it is time to get out, beginning next summer. The message is that if Kerry is elected, the entire momentum of U.S. policy will be toward getting American troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible and shifting responsibility for Iraq onto other countries.
Actually, Kerry didn't say anything even vaguely like that [UPDATE/CORRECTION: he did say something vaguely like it, a qualified version starting with the word "if"; see comments below for elaboration]. Brooks doesn't cite a quotation, because there is no quotation to cite, because that's not what Kerry said. (Would that it have been what he said.) The quotation he does cite is this:
The crucial passage in the speech was this one: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden." From a U.S. responsibility, Iraq will become the world's responsibility.
How it is that that quotation could be construed as "Kerry declared that it is time to get out" is beyond my comprehension. How it is that anyone could disagree with Kerry's actual statement, "we must make Iraq the world's responsibility," is even further beyond my comprehension. Even Bush seems to agree with the spirit of that statement. Otherwise, what would he be doing at the UN right now?! Why would have gone back to the UN after the war to ask for their help if he agreed with Brooks' implication, that somehow Iraq should not be the world's responsibility?
The president's case is that the world is safer with Saddam out of power, and that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy. Kerry's case is that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam; his emphasis is on untangling the United States from Iraq and shifting attention to more serious threats.
I find that bit particularly disappointing, because Brooks is an intelligent man, and when he says this sort of stuff, he sounds like a Bush parrot. Of course, Kerry's case is not "that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam." His case is "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." And that has the virtue of being what he said, as opposed to the Brooks version, which is something that no one has said.
Brooks would have you believe there are only two choices: remove dangerous Saddam or leave dangerous Saddam. Of course, the choice is a false one. In reality there are far more choices, and here are just four out of dozens of real choices: you can leave Saddam without UN weapons inspections and lift the sanctions; or you can impose a rigorous inspections regime on Saddam to make sure he hasn't acquired WMD while maintaining the sanctions; or you can depose Saddam and try to start a democracy in Iraq even though it's unclear whether this is possible; or you can despose Saddam and bungle the reconstruction of Iraq and make the country a more dangerous place than it was before.
But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can.
Brooks is right about something: "This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war." It does, because the war was a bad idea. But John Kerry has not positioned himself as the anti-war candidate, because Kerry understands that what's at stake is more complex than such a straight up-or-down debate.
To throw a wrench into all of this, you should Robert "Douchebag for liberty" Novak's column from yesterday:
Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.
But wait a minute! I thought Brooks said the president's position was "that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy." Now, I don't know who Novak's sources are, but no one can doubt that he knows some high-placed people, especially in a post-Valerie Plame affair world. David Brooks would sure have egg on his face if he criticizes John Kerry for saying he'd withdraw the troops next summer (which he didn't say with the definitiveness that Brooks attributes to him), and then have Bush, the guy Brooks supports, do precisely that.
And by the way, if Novak's sources are correct, why is Bush flip-flopping on national security?!
As a final note, what really bothers me about this whole thing is the fact Brooks is generally every liberal's favorite conservative. He's intelligent, articulate, and sometimes even fair. But in this column, he clearly distorts Kerry's position, and more than anything else, wants to make a left vs. right issue out of Iraq: "Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?" In fact, of course, Kerry's critique of the war is not particularly leftist: "The President’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it." It's a positively Nixonian national security argument! Those words could have been spoken by Pat Buchanan (who has said something similar) or Henry Kissinger!
A lefty critique might be something like this, and I'm just paraphrasing my own thoughts: "A lot of people, Iraqi and American, have died in this war, and it's not clear that the benefits out-weigh the human costs in both the short term and the long term; it's clear that the national security argument for the war is ill-concieved, and we're not willing to risk all those people dying for an unclear goal."
Brooks' oversimplification makes me think that conservatives aren't really interested in having a serious discussion about Iraq or about national security. A few months ago I wrote a piece about Robert Kagan's distortion of a line from Kerry's convention speech, which Kagan generalized to mean something that Kerry obviously didn't intend. Brooks, unfortunately, falls into the same category. It's hard to debate something when the other side is lying about what you actually said, as opposed to its merits.
-- Michael
Actually, Kerry did make mention of next summer, though not to the degree he states:
"If the President would move in this direction … if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces … train the Iraqis to provide their own security …develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people … and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year … we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years." (from http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html)
The point still stands, but Kerry does have ideas about when to start leaving and how long it should take... if we act now.
Posted by: bog | September 21, 2004 at 04:39 PM
"Bush seems to agree with the spirit of that statement. Otherwise, what would he be doing at the UN right now?! Why would have gone back to the UN after the war to ask for their help if he agreed with Brooks' implication, that somehow Iraq should not be the world's responsibility? "
What you seem to miss is that Bush has always gone to the UN. He got a 15-0 vote on resolution 1441. He has gone to the UN to bring as many countries along as possible. He turned over the forming of the interim gov't to the UN. He is turning to the UN to prepare for the elections. So him going to the UN is not a new thing, he has always involved the UN.
The big difference is he has not allowed the paralysis of the UN from preventing action. I have lost count the the number of resolutions the UN has passed. What Bush has done is taken the action dictated by the resolutions. When push came to shove and action was required the UN buckles. Millions of dead bodies litter this world in Rawanda, Iraq, Sudan while the UN passes resolutions but when it comes time for action they balk. We finally have a President who will take the action necessary on behalf of millions being bruatlized.
Posted by: d meyers | September 21, 2004 at 05:37 PM
Bush continues to get into messes others have to clean up; let's count 'em
- cocaine
- booze
- Texas Air National Guard
- MLB ball team
- oil
- and now Iraq
Posted by: Alex | September 22, 2004 at 01:54 AM
thanks, bog. you're exactly right. for some reason i missed that bit.
i suppose what bothers me, though, is that the phrase "begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years" should be something that everyone agrees upon, right? surely that's better than bush's vague formulation, "as long as it takes and no longer." and shouldn't brooks get his facts straight? and shouldn't we all really? what _does_ bush intend to do? i don't know for one, and certainly his current policies have failed. why would anyone vote for him given those two things? what the hell does "stay the course" really mean?
and you're also right that brooks overstates what kerry will do, saying "the entire momentum of U.S. policy will be toward getting American troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible," which of course, is incorrect.
d, while you didn't actually address the subject of the post, and while i assume you won't acknowledge that brooks was engaging in a distortion (because for you, that's ok, because our side does it too, right?), i'll respond to your point.
bush seems to have a complex, one might almost say "nuanced" opinion on the UN. perhaps it's less nuanced than it is "suits his convenience," but whatever it is, it's not consistent. when bush needs something, or is under public pressure, he'll go to the UN. when he is not, he won't. 1441 is an interesting case, isn't it? the security council did pass the resolution, but surely it meant only if Iraq were declared in non-compliance would the "serious consequences" be enacted. isn't it also interesting that the Bush administration withdrew the follow-up resolution, because not only would it have been vetoed, but it would not have gotten a majority of votes? sounds to me more like Bush is interested in the UN only when it suits him.
and as for your statement: "Millions of dead bodies litter this world in Rawanda, Iraq, Sudan while the UN passes resolutions but when it comes time for action they balk. We finally have a President who will take the action necessary on behalf of millions being bruatlized."
I find it absolutely incoherent, given that there are no American troops in Sudan, that Bush wouldn't have supported American troops in Rwanda (as he said in one of the Bush-Gore debates), and that liberating the Iraqi people was more an afterthought (a rationale used after the WMD one and the al-Qaeda link one failed to materialize) than anything else in the current war. You should be honest with yourself with regards to Bush's policy. He's no great humanitarian. He might sound like a nice guy when he talks, but his policies seem to be quite different.
Posted by: here's what's left | September 22, 2004 at 02:50 AM
In response to d: you have to admit there is a difference between "going to the UN" and acting unilaterally. It is not our job to enforce UN resolutions and that’s not why we went to Iraq. If it was our job to enforce UN resolutions we would have invaded Israel many times now, as they have a long history of ignoring UN resolutions. Many countries ignore UN resolutions, including us. Now, after burning many bridges, Bush is asking for UN help. Will other countries help after being snubbed? Will the administration open up contracts for bidding, so that other countries can help AND benefit from the reconstruction in Iraq? I think Bush and Cheney jealously guard those reconstruction contracts and the petrol-dollars. I don’t think they will share a significant portion of them. I hope I am wrong, especially if Bush is re-elected. The more countries that make a SIGNIFICANT contribution to Iraq, the less the burden on the US and our fighting forces. Also, as more countries help with material and people, the more likely that the several members of my family who are there, some for the second and third time, will come home. It is clear to me that Kerry fully embraces the idea of involving other countries as much as possible, whereas Bush is reluctant to fully do so.
Posted by: MikeS | September 22, 2004 at 11:55 AM
Another eloquently presented point that angers me in this post: the assertion by those on the right that the world is safer since the fall of Saddam. How? There is continued violence and more kidnapping and executions in Iraq. The train bombing in Spain. Chechnya. Where is this presumed safety?
Posted by: MikeS | September 22, 2004 at 03:12 PM
" find it absolutely incoherent, given that there are no American troops in Sudan"
So you seem to imply that the only approach America should take is send in troops.. I thought you were against that. The point is there is no one size fits all approach to the international problems currently being faced.
Bush has gone "multilateral" with 6 party talks with North Korea.. Somehow this is bad because "unilateral" talks are what is needed. Of course North Korea issue is not solved but so far the "multilateral diplomatic" approach has not yet been exausted. I guess we could always give them fuel and clink champagne glasses with Kim J. and say problem solved.... as long as they don't cheat...
It is Bush and especially Powell that is forcing the UN community to confront what is going on in Sudan. It is Powell leading the diplomatic effort and bringing the genocide to the door step of the UN and action is being taken... Why do you find it necessary to imply that there is no solution without US troops.
In Iran it is again Bush that is pushing the EU and the IAEA to confront the nuclear issue. It is my understanding the UN will be setting some sort of November deadline that Iran must meet. We will have to wait and see if Iran meets the conditions (I doubt they will).
My point on the millions dead was that the UN stands by and does nothing when millions and millions are slaughtered. It takes a President like Bush to do the heavy lifting that the UN never does..
As far as giving a time table for troops w/d that is totally silly. The timetable for w/d is victory and no sooner. Remember Clinton said we would be in Bosnia for 9 months, well years later we are still there. NO president should ever set timetables for w/d. The only timetable should be in terms of achieving the goals of the engagement. It is like sending 100's of firefighters to fight a forest fire. Does anyone say, when will the firefighters be pulled out? Of course not, they are pulled out when the forest fire is out.
I don't expect a timetable from kerry and I don't expect one from Bush. Timetables for w/d are meaningless because nobody can predict the events that may occur. You must have the resources to make adjustments on the ground and make progress towards your goal. Whether we are making progress towards our goal in Iraq is of course debatable and that is fine to have that debate but identifying a timetable is tacticly and strategically silly
Posted by: d meyers | September 23, 2004 at 12:34 AM
Mike, you are making a fool of yourself
"If it was our job to enforce UN resolutions we would have invaded Israel many times now, as they have a long history of ignoring UN resolutions"
If you do not know the difference between a resolution passed by every member of the UN and one passed by the security council then maybe you need to do some research. Please tell me what Security Council resolution Isreal is in violation of???
Also, please give me a working definition of "unilateral".
You are going off the deep end
"Now, after burning many bridges, Bush is asking for UN help. Will other countries help after being snubbed? Will the administration open up contracts for bidding, so that other countries can help AND benefit from the reconstruction in Iraq? I think Bush and Cheney jealously guard those reconstruction contracts and the petrol-dollars."
Tell me, who did the US get to lead the selection of the interim Iraqi gov't? Who did Bush get to organize the elections in Iraq? Also, it seems to me that it is Bush's policy that 100% of the Iraqi oil revenue is going to Iraq so what petrol dollars are you talking about?
Oh also, why in the world should France be allowed to be primary contractors in Iraq? Ask the Iraqi gov't if they would like France to be getting Iraqi reconstruction dollars.
So when Kerry said that Bush put together a "coalition of the coerced and bribed" you want Kerry to build a coalition by bribing other countries with reconstruction contracts? Makes sence to me.
"The train bombing in Spain. Chechnya. Where is this presumed safety?"
Where were you the entire decade of the 90's? there was 10 terrorists attacks on US interests alone. We are in a Global War against radical islamic fanatics that want to kill us. This is not a war between countries slugging it out but a war against individuals. The battleground is the world, right now the main battleground is Iraq. I would love to have all the terrorists in the world converge onto Iraq so our brave boys in the armed forces could kill them. Much better to have our armed forces killing them in Iraq then doing battle in the US. We are not sitting back waiting to be struck on our home soil again, we are bringing the fight to the terrorists and one of the main battlefields right now is in Iraq, not in the U.S.
Posted by: d meyers | September 23, 2004 at 12:48 AM
So you seem to imply that the only approach America should take is send in troops.. I thought you were against that. The point is there is no one size fits all approach to the international problems currently being faced.
i don't know what you're talking about, and my opinion isn't at issue here. you said "Millions of dead bodies litter this world in Rawanda, Iraq, Sudan while the UN passes resolutions but when it comes time for action they balk," and I was pointing out the inconsistencies in that statement, which I will repeat. (for the record, I applaud Powell for calling it genocide, but Powell has always been the vaguely sane one in the administration, and it's not as if the UN isn't doing anything.)
Bush has said the US shouldn't have gotten involved in Rwanda. And as for Iraq, humanitarian concerns were secondary at best. At best. The president doesn't seem to support military action in Sudan.
Millions of dead bodies litter this world in Rawanda, Iraq, Sudan while the UN passes resolutions but when it comes time for action they balk. It takes a President like Bush to do the heavy lifting that the UN never does...
your point still doesn't make any sense, and i don't know how else to say this, because Bush hasn't called for intervention in the name of humanitarian concerns. Personally, I would be much more willing to consider multinational military action if he did.
But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that Bush doesn't really care about international law, and that he uses it when it is convenient to him. A side issue is that multilateralism (6 countries meeting to talk with N. Korea) and international law (the UN) are not the same thing, and you seem to conflate the two.
You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to claim that Bush is a multilateralist, and that he cares about a international body like the UN, and you point to evidence like getting Brahimi to set up the transitional government. But that's just a talking point, because of course Bush would like to use the UN to do something that the American government can't do itself.
But then you turn around and criticize the UN, say they don't act enough, that they don't intercede in Sudan, etc., and that gives Bush an excuse to defy the Security Council when he feels like it.
But let's be honest here. Though Powell said what was going on in Sudan was genocide, Bush doesn't seem in any hurry to act. In fact in his address to the UN two days ago, he mentioned Sudan in precisely three measley little paragraphs. Here they are:
Doesn't sound like he's calling for a peace-keeping force does it? How can you say that Bush is somehow goading the UN into action here? Obviously, he's not.
But that's not even Bush's real problem with the UN and with multilateralism in general. Bush, and to be fair Clinton was this way to a certain extent too, disdains international law because Americans would have to follow it. Look at the International Criminal Court, which Bush won't adhere to. Look at the Kyoto Protocol. Look at Iraq for that matter (and remember, it's not just that the Iraq resolution would have been vetoed, it's that it wouldn't even have gotten a majority in the security council).
In any case, as you can't pretend not to know, Republicans hate the UN. It's Tom Delay that is always blocking the US from paying its dues. In a poll, only 37% of Republicans think the UN should have more influence in the world, compared to 59% of the general population.
In fact, Bush is running partially on the fact that he doesn't obey the UN! "I will never ask for a permission slip to defend this country."
Now, my personal opinion, which doesn't matter really, is that the US should obey and be an active part in constructing, international law, and that everyone needs to do a better job of paying attention to humanitarian concerns. That the UN should be reformed to be more democratic (I don't see any reason why France or Germany, or Britain or the US for that matter, should have a veto in the security council). And that the US should actually obey the security council, instead of disdaining it like the current administration does.
Mike is really right above when he says "Now, after burning many bridges, Bush is asking for UN help. Will other countries help after being snubbed? Will the administration open up contracts for bidding, so that other countries can help AND benefit from the reconstruction in Iraq?"
The Bush administration has acted in bad faith with the UN, and it was not willing to obey the will of the security council when it wouldn't sanction an invasion of Iraq. Why should they play nice with us if we won't play nice with them?
And I think you should be intellectually honest about this stuff. I will be: since my foreign policy thinking tends to have a utilitarian slant, there are many situations in which intervention for humanitarian reasons is justified and furthermore essential (Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia are great examples, but Iraq is obviously not one of them, nor is N. Korea most likely). The Democrats are better than the Republicans on this stuff (Clinton invaded Bosnia, against the opposition of Republicans), but both parties have a long way to go.
Bush, though he might talk the talk, certainly doesn't think as I've outlined above, and it would be even more of a joke to claim that your party does, as even a cursury amount of research reveals. In fact, it seems to me that Bush cynically manipulates humanitarian rationale to suit his own political ends. You can't seriously believe that the reason he invaded Iraq was to free Iraqis from Saddam, can you?
I'd like to remind you that the title of this post was "More conservative distortions of John Kerry's foreign policy," and so far you've only addressed an issue that I didn't even address in the post. Nor, I assume, will you admit that Brooks did distort Kerry's positions.
Posted by: here's what's left | September 23, 2004 at 02:19 AM
I'm am thoroughly confused by you. When we use force it is wrong and when we take a different approach it is wrong also
"Doesn't sound like he's calling for a peace-keeping force does it? How can you say that Bush is somehow goading the UN into action here? Obviously, he's not"
Why do you keep insisting that the only acceptable action is send in forces??? That is very Un-Lefty of you
Posted by: d meyers | September 23, 2004 at 11:15 AM
"At this hour, the world is witnessing terrible suffering and horrible crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan, crimes my government has concluded are genocide.
The United States played a key role in efforts to broker a cease- fire, and we're providing humanitarian assistance to the Sudanese people. Rwanda and Nigeria have deployed forces in Sudan to help improve security so aid can be delivered. The Security Council adopted a resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur.
We congratulate the members of the council on this timely and necessary action. I call on the government of Sudan to honor the cease-fire it signed and to stop the killing in Darfur"
Then you say, "Doesn't sound like he's calling for a peace-keeping force does it? How can you say that Bush is somehow goading the UN into action here? Obviously, he's not. "
so, please explain to me just what the heck "The Security Council adopted a resolution that supports an expanded African Union force to help prevent further bloodshed and urges the government of Sudan to stop flights by military aircraft in Darfur" is??? Not goading the UN into action, obviously he's not??? What the hell. The security council adopted a resolution that supports an expanded African Union force... sounds like action to me
Posted by: dm eyers | September 23, 2004 at 11:20 AM
"You want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to claim that Bush is a multilateralist"
here is where you misunderstand what I believe. My point is ever situation is different and requires a different approach. I do not pin down Bush and say he is a multilateralist or a unilateralist. When the mulitlateral approach is best he uses it, when a unilateral approach is best he will use it. I laugh at GW's critics accusing him of a go it alone foreign policy but then I point out North Korea, Sudan, Iran, or Brahimi where he takes a multilateral approach and you call it nothing more than a talking point. so what ever he does you are against it.
Bush has done more for the continent of Africa, in a multilateral effort, in 3 years then Clinton ever dreamed of in 8 years. Clinton, Albright, Holbrooke, etc, stood by, along with the Kofi Annan and the UN, while close to 1million Africans were slaughtered in Rawanda. And don't give me the excuse that GW would not have done anything because HE WASN'T PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, CLINTON WAS. GW has pledge 15billion to fight the dreaded AIDS in Africa.. just how much did the UN and Clinton do about AIDS in Africa in the 90's?
Posted by: d meyers | September 23, 2004 at 11:33 AM
D, you disappoint me.
“Please tell me what Security Council resolution Isreal is in violation of???”
Since 1990 there have been at least 10 resolutions passed dealing directly with Palestinian deportation and occupation that Israel has completely ignored, maybe more. Go ahead and parse them down, d, but that’s a fact.
“Also, it seems to me that it is Bush's policy that 100% of the Iraqi oil revenue is going to Iraq so what petrol dollars are you talking about?”
ARE YOU SERIOUS!! It is public knowledge that there was a “slight accounting problem” and the Coalition Provisional Authority could not account for millions of oil dollars from Iraqi oil before the recent handover. When the provisional government asked where the money was, the CPA couldn’t tell them. The money just disappeared. How can you say that money is “going to Iraq”?
“Oh also, why in the world should France be allowed to be primary contractors in Iraq? Ask the Iraqi gov't if they would like France to be getting Iraqi reconstruction dollars.”
Yes! Let the Iraqi government decide who gets contracts. I’m all for that. It shouldn’t matter what WE think of France, it’s not our money. But, besides that, if we want to replace our troops with forces from other nations, doesn’t there have to be “something in it” for them?
“I would love to have all the terrorists in the world converge onto Iraq so our brave boys in the armed forces could kill them. Much better to have our armed forces killing them in Iraq then doing battle in the US.”
The idea that we can use Iraq as some kind of a terrorist magnet, that we will succeed in attracting all terrorists to one place so we can exterminate them there is puzzling to me. You don’t think that our continued presence in Iraq is increasing recruitment for terrorist organizations? Terrorists, by definition, do not fight symmetrical wars. They are planning, right now, to attack us at home BECAUSE we are in Iraq, and precisely because they will not go up against our military head on. Yes, I believe the reports that the insurgency in Iraq is partially made up of terrorists, but it’s not ONLY foreign fighters. Also, there are more of them planning to attack is every day as more Iraqis die. One of the main reasons UBL attacked us in the first place was because we were on sacred Muslim ground in Saudi Arabia. Now we are occupying an entire nation. This strategy will not make us safer, it will make MORE terrorists.
D, our president has stated over and over that we are better off with Saddam gone. I don’t understand what that means. Also, with what’s going on in Iraq right now we are LESS safe. We are MORE of a target. We went into that country with questionable, at best, motives and evidence, and now we are all paying a price. So don’t accuse me of going off the deep end. This war is more crazy than I could ever hope to be.
Posted by: MikeS | September 23, 2004 at 11:57 AM
When we use force it is wrong and when we take a different approach it is wrong also
um, no. When one uses force unwisely, as in Iraq, and a lot of people needlessly die, it's wrong. When you use a different approach and it doesn't work, it's wrong. I don't think that's very complicated.
And don't give me the excuse that GW would not have done anything because HE WASN'T PRESIDENT AT THE TIME, CLINTON WAS.
D, it's really hard to argue with you when you won't accept the facts. Here is the exchange on Rwanda from the presidential debate:
I don't give Clinton or the UN a pass for not sending a peacekeeping force into Rwanda to stop the genocide. It was a terrible mistake. Clinton has since said it was a mistake not to, and I agree that it was a mistake. But your president has said that the US did the right thing in not sending in troops. You can't somehow say that Bush would have done something in Rwanda when he says very clearly that he wouldn't have. He said it. There's the transcript. How can you argue with this?!
GW has pledge 15billion to fight the dreaded AIDS in Africa
Yes, he did (actually I think it was only 10 billion) and I applauded that. Though, the AIDS funding he proposed was less than the Kerry-Frist bill. Which Kerry, you might ask? I'll let you figure it out. And what about his budget? Did it include the amount of money he promised? Here's the NYTimes:
Bush underfunded his own AIDS initiative. Great humanitarianism, that.
When the mulitlateral approach is best he uses it, when a unilateral approach is best he will use it.
Well, that hasn't worked well so far, has it? Iraq is a mess, and over 1000 Americans are dead because of the unilateralism. And N. Korea has developed nuclear weapons, after Bush's multilateralism. Having your options is open is one thing, but if you make the wrong decisions, you should be held accountable.
But here's what really bothers me. You say "every situation is different" and you seem to imply that the president should have all of his options open. But then, when you can't get a firm answer out of John Kerry on specifically whether he would have invaded Iraq (which it appears he wouldn't, which I agree with), you say the American people deserve a straight answer. I thought the president was supposed to keep his options open. Or does that just apply to Republicans?
But here's what really really bothers me about this: this post was about something totally different! But somehow we're talking about Africa and the UN, when the post was about how disingenuous your side is in painting John Kerry. Do you not have the intellectual honesty to admit that Brooks was wrong?
Posted by: here's what's left | September 23, 2004 at 03:28 PM