![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Getting up on the online soapbox again
Oct. 30th, 2004 06:56 pmTwo things. The first, I've posted to my newspaper's guestbook. Last I looked, no one has answered my question.
---
I have often heard that John Kerry can't be trusted because his testimony before the Senate prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in the torture of American P.O.W.'s.
I can see the passion in those who make this argument, but to be honest, I do not understand it.
How could John Kerry have had all that power? How could one young man, who wasn't even there any longer, have more power over the outcome of the war than all the military men, diplomats, and propagandists who were still in the thick of the fight?
Please explain it to me. Thank you.
---
This is what I just put up as a reply to a post praising Bush for getting rid of Saddam.
I agree. Saddam Hussein was a despot and a madman. I was horrified when I learned, back in February of last year, how he murdered thousands of Kurds with poison gas, and I am glad he is out of power in Iraq.
However, I still think that President Bush should have allowed the U.N. Inspectors to finish their jobs, instead of rushing in.
Thanks to the President's resolution to go to war, Hussein started to destroy his stockpiles of weapons in March of 2003. He destroyed the weapons with the U.N. and the world watching. I clearly remember hearing the story on the radio that day. You can, too, here. Hussein never actually threatened the U.S. with these weapons, but we know from history that the was willing to use them against his own people. I cheered on that day, because I had faith that once his people saw that he was not as strong as he boasted to be, they would rise up against him and depose him themselves, as President Bush Sr. hoped would happen after the first Gulf War.
But even though George W. Bush had claimed that his reason authorizing the war was to get Hussein to destroy his weapons, and Hussein did start to destroy his weapons, that wasn't still wasn't enough. Our president raised the ante, and gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of power. Being a proud man, Hussein refused; the U.N. inspectors, and other international workers, left -- in the middle of an incomplete job (that story is here).
Now, we learn that 377 tons of high-grade military explosives have gone missing. Bush says that isn't so much, considering all of the weapons we've already destroyed -- but "isn't so much" means diddly-squat if any of those explosives are used against our troops -- or even here at home. Bush also says it's not his fault because maybe Saddam took them before we got there. We know they were safely under lock and key when the U.N. was there; "Maybe Saddam took them" certainly doesn't make me feel any safer -- how about you?
Why weren't the troops warned of the kinds of things stored in that bunker? Why weren't they ordered to search the place thoroughly while they stopped over there? If the President is right, and Saddam stole the explosives sometime between March 8, and April 8, 2003, we certainly would have had a better chance of finding them back then than we ever do now.
These errors in judgement, and the glib way the President makes excuses, are among the reasons I will be voting for Kerry and Edwards on Tuesday. No, I do not expect Kerry to solve the problems in Iraq without any more trouble. Humpty Dumpty is off the wall, and whoever gets elected will have a really hard time cleaning up the mess. But I do expect Kerry to listen to his advisors (even those who disagree with him), and to learn from his mistakes -- which are two critical things Bush has failed to do.
---
I have often heard that John Kerry can't be trusted because his testimony before the Senate prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in the torture of American P.O.W.'s.
I can see the passion in those who make this argument, but to be honest, I do not understand it.
How could John Kerry have had all that power? How could one young man, who wasn't even there any longer, have more power over the outcome of the war than all the military men, diplomats, and propagandists who were still in the thick of the fight?
Please explain it to me. Thank you.
---
This is what I just put up as a reply to a post praising Bush for getting rid of Saddam.
I agree. Saddam Hussein was a despot and a madman. I was horrified when I learned, back in February of last year, how he murdered thousands of Kurds with poison gas, and I am glad he is out of power in Iraq.
However, I still think that President Bush should have allowed the U.N. Inspectors to finish their jobs, instead of rushing in.
Thanks to the President's resolution to go to war, Hussein started to destroy his stockpiles of weapons in March of 2003. He destroyed the weapons with the U.N. and the world watching. I clearly remember hearing the story on the radio that day. You can, too, here. Hussein never actually threatened the U.S. with these weapons, but we know from history that the was willing to use them against his own people. I cheered on that day, because I had faith that once his people saw that he was not as strong as he boasted to be, they would rise up against him and depose him themselves, as President Bush Sr. hoped would happen after the first Gulf War.
But even though George W. Bush had claimed that his reason authorizing the war was to get Hussein to destroy his weapons, and Hussein did start to destroy his weapons, that wasn't still wasn't enough. Our president raised the ante, and gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of power. Being a proud man, Hussein refused; the U.N. inspectors, and other international workers, left -- in the middle of an incomplete job (that story is here).
Now, we learn that 377 tons of high-grade military explosives have gone missing. Bush says that isn't so much, considering all of the weapons we've already destroyed -- but "isn't so much" means diddly-squat if any of those explosives are used against our troops -- or even here at home. Bush also says it's not his fault because maybe Saddam took them before we got there. We know they were safely under lock and key when the U.N. was there; "Maybe Saddam took them" certainly doesn't make me feel any safer -- how about you?
Why weren't the troops warned of the kinds of things stored in that bunker? Why weren't they ordered to search the place thoroughly while they stopped over there? If the President is right, and Saddam stole the explosives sometime between March 8, and April 8, 2003, we certainly would have had a better chance of finding them back then than we ever do now.
These errors in judgement, and the glib way the President makes excuses, are among the reasons I will be voting for Kerry and Edwards on Tuesday. No, I do not expect Kerry to solve the problems in Iraq without any more trouble. Humpty Dumpty is off the wall, and whoever gets elected will have a really hard time cleaning up the mess. But I do expect Kerry to listen to his advisors (even those who disagree with him), and to learn from his mistakes -- which are two critical things Bush has failed to do.
