|
Edited on Fri Sep-22-06 10:21 AM by AlGore-08.com
The real problem with folks who voted for the IWR, is that "yes" vote shows that they lack important qualities we'd need in a President. There are only two reasons to have voted for the IWR:
1.) They agreed with the Bush admin that the war was necessary. This means that the person who voted for the war lacks the ability to find out what the real world consequences of their policies. There were a number of people and groups who, while the IWR was being debated in Congress, correctly pointed out that Saddam had no role in 9/11, that a war in Iraq would hamper or even "loose" the "war against terror", that there was no exit plan and that could turn Iraq into the next Vietnam, that it could lead to a regional war, etc. But folks who voted for the war either lacked the ability to determine who was right in this argument - - or they had a Smirk-like lack of curiosity which led them to not even research the issue.
Either way, it doesn't bode well for that person's future decisions. Even if things are so bad in 2008 that a ham sandwich with a "D" after it's name can be elected President, the far right will not disappear. We will not be free of folks like "Curveball" who want the U.S. to use our troops to overthrow their political opponents. We will not be free from folks in the intelligence and military communities who feel that the only solution to an international problem is to go to war.
The folks who voted for the IWR would face similar hard choices as President. What makes anybody think that they'll suddenly develop decision making skills because a Marine band plays "Hail To The Chief" every time they enter a room?
2.) They knew that the war was not necessary but the political benefits of voting for the war were more important to them than the consequences of that war. This is abhorrent, but some of the folks who voted for the war undoubtedly did so because they were afraid of the political consequences of voting against it. Even worse, some voted for the war, knowing it was bogus, because they wanted to be able to ride the mindless flag waving to the White House.
Again, Smirk's leaving in 2008 will not end political pressures for pols to do stupid, hurtful things. If somebody lacked the spine to vote "No" on the IWR, what makes anybody think that they will spontaneously grow one just because they take Air Force One to their family reunions?
IMNSHO, the argument that "I wasn't voting for the war, I was voting to authorize Smirk to go to war if he really needed to" is the worst of both of these faults wrapped up in one ugly sound byte. For this to be true, the person who voted for the IWR had to lack the ability to figure out that voting to authorize the war could lead to a war - - and what the consequences of that war would be. Or, again, it shows that they think that they can vote for the war while it was popular and paint themselves as the victims now that it's unpopular.
On one level, it doesn't matter whether somebody voted for the IWR because they couldn't figure out it was a bad idea, or because they value human life less than their career. Either one shows that person does not have the qualities we will need in the nex President.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
