WILL HILLARY AND THE TWO DREADFUL JOES, BIDEN AND LIEBERMAN, BE THE LAST DEMOCRATS STILL SUPPORTING THE WAR BY YEAR'S END? OH AND, THE 2 NELSONS
>
A little background: most Democrats broke with House Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt, to vote NO on Bush's war against Iraq. In the Senate, however, it was a different story, with most Democrats voting with the foul Bush Regime. This year we've seen a steady flow of Democrats stepping up to the plate with their mea culpas, mostly saying that Bush and Cheney twisted the intelligence reports and misled them into thinking we had to act immediately in self-defense. All Democrats must do that and any Democrat who voted for the war and doesn't do that should be treated the way a respectable patriot would treat a Republican.
Gore has been a real inspiration throughout. But now some of the more middle-of-the-road Democrats like Dianne Feinstein from California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, both on the Senate Intelligence Committee, have come forward as well. And then, the Democrat who actually helped Bush get this through more than any other, Dick Gephardt admitted he had made a dreadful mistake by believing Bush's pack of lies. And today, former Senator John Edwards, busy preparing to run for president, came forward and owned up to his mistake: "I voted for the resolution. It was a mistake. The hard question is, What do you do now? Looking back, it's easy to say that it was wrong and based on false information. Anybody who doesn't admit that isn't honest, and that's the truth... I myself feel conflicted about it. But we have to find ways--and I don't mean just yanking all the troops tomorrow--but we have to find ways to start bringing our troops home. Our presence there is clearly contributing to the problem."
Clearly. Tell it to presidential hopefuls Joe Biden, Wes Clark and, most of all, Hillary Clinton, all of whom espouse positions uncomfortably close to Bush's completely failed policies. They think they can do it better but they will be even worse than Bush (if you can even imagine such a thing). Anyway, good for John Edwards; he qualifies to run for the Democratic nomination now-- although I still think he should go hang out with Cindy Sheehan and get arrested.
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 3:50 PM
3 comments
|
Reddit
3 Comments:
It seems to me that if you voted FOR this war, you maybe shouldn't be running for President on the ticket. I dunno. Many of us 'common' folk knew it was wrong. Where was their intuition about bush and their knowledge of the middle east when they voted?
I'm sorry, if you voted for the war, chances of getting my vote are close to zero. It would take some strong soul searching to convince me.
Soul seraching is a good thing, especially when you know you've done wrong, as Edwards did in his support for the Iraq invasion. But his support for it can't be taken lightly, no matter how much he realizes how wrong it was.
Real leaders have instinct and if they are on the side of goodness, they will lead to good things.
Forget Edwards, he's history.
But keep a close eye on Wes Clark. I'm not sure yet if he can win broad support and I'm also not sure if he has the chutzpah to
enter the arena in this dreadful atmosphere.
Ted Kennedy is a hero. Will he run? Should he run? Can he win?
I think so on all counts.
Dear Crunchyfrog,
Thanks for your nicely written piece and for raising some important questions. One of my friends who worked in the Edwards campaign-- don't get nervous; I had even more friends, and way higher up, in the Clark campaign-- just called to remind me about the tremendous animosity between the Clark and Edwards camps and suggested to me that you failed to identify yourself as a Clark staffer. I don't think that negates your points, although it does make easier to understand how you refuse to see that Clark's position on Iraq-- well stated (thank you)-- stems from his basic inability to understand that Iraq is not a real country but a manufactured hodge-podge put together the way it is more because of political exigencies in France and Britain and Russia than because of the people in the area. I'm happy General Clark wants to prevent civil war in Iraq; that is noble of him. Unfortunately it would mean that we would never leave there.
I admire Clark for having had the good sense to have opposed Bush's idiotic and ill-conceived incursion into Iraq from the start-- and on that scale he will always come up better than Edwards, Clinton, Biden (and a majority of Democratic senators). It's a shame he is so naive as to think that the U.S. can, under the horrible circumstances created by the Bush Regime, do more in Iraq than be a lightning rod for every kind of grievance anyone ever felt for anyone else in the region and thereby participating in a catastrophic downward spiral. Clark was correct in urging we not go in. He is dead wrong in pushing policies that would keep us there.
Post a Comment
<< Home