Seems like politics and political aspirations will inhibit a meaningful debate on Iraq War and War on Terror..:-(
Posted : September 14, 2004 at 6:24 pm [America/Los_Angeles]
[via Daily Kos]
Bottom line — Kerry exercised bad judgement in trusting that W (President Bush) would do the right thing. Problem is, there were a lot of Democrats, even some I’s (Independents) and R’s (Republicans) in Congress that saw right through the Bush/Neocon charade. They had the guts to oppose the march to war… why didn’t (Senator) Kerry? What really pisses me off is that Dubya’s (President Bush’s) greatest blunder has become a non-issue for the Dems now.
Howard Dean spoke for a lot of us when he said “What in the world are all these Democrats doing supporting the President’s unilateral intervention in Iraq??!!
It sucks that we have to concede the Iraq issue, but that’s where we’re at. We need to move on, change the subject, play the cards we’ve been dealt and hope we can win this election on all the other countless (President) Bush f***ups.
A commenter on Daily Kos
I would encourage my readers to browse this blog entry (especially the comments) to get an understanding of what might be some of the reasons Senator Kerry is avoiding talking about Iraq. I thought the comment above summed it up pretty well.
On one hand, I am glad that Democrats:
- Agree to disagree
- Agree that President Bush’s decision to go to war was a catastrophic failure (and not a success)
- The peace after the Iraq War was ill-planned
- Senator Kerry mishandled the Iraq War issue during this Presidential Elections, which is such a blow to the aspirations of almost half of this country who were pinning their hopes on him to “expose” the real reasons behind it
It seems to me that Senator Kerry now has two options:
He can show political courage and attempt to confront President Bush and his inconsistencies on Iraq War head-on and set the record straight once and for all. Or, he can go back to his song and dance about Health Care and US Economy. Frankly, while I am aware that the former might very well turn out to be a political hara-kiri, I believe the voters of this nation would understand (cause they are smarter than we like to give them credit for), not to mention the fact that they deserve a healthy debate on this topic. It would be a shame to have the American voters go to the polls in a post-9/11 and post-Iraq War world without having any “real” choice between the two candidates on the issues of “Iraq War” and “War on Terror”.
Otherwise, this election really will be between President Bush backers and President Bush haters. Senator Kerry’s name on the ballot, for all intents and purposes, would merely be a “symbol” for President Bush haters to select. In other words, you could put Donald Duck’s name instead and it would make the least bit of difference in the 2004 Presidential Election results.
- Anand
Category: United (or not) State of American Politics 2004