Continuing my response to Ben's comments, I thought, first of all, that I had accidentally clicked on MoveOn.org's site. But it does show the depth of anger against this president. To be fair, Ben greatly moderated his thoughts in his reply to my last post. Is Bush perfect? Only the most naive would say so. Ben says that John Kerry admits "that the war was a big ... mistake," something "no Republican -- except for you, Dean, until you took it back" had the courage to do. I'm trying to search back where I thought the war was a mistake. Let me say it, the war was NOT a mistake, for the most part. The conduct of the war was NOT a mistake, for the most part. The preparation for the war and attempt to put together a larger coalition, right up until the war started, was NOT a mistake, in my opinion. And Ben agrees the war had beneficial results, he disagrees with the length of time given to finding a negotiated settlement and the breath of the coalition. Even John Kerry equivocates when asked about the war. He does not rule out unilateralism, in spite of his stump speech. It again seems like the main disagreement was how long Bush tried inspections and how many countries were in the coalition.
Were mistakes made? Only the most naive or a "Bush cheerleader" would say that none were made. But saying mistakes have been made is a far cry from saying "the war was a big ... mistke."
I believe this administration "didn't think things through enough" especially about this period of occupation. I think they were surprised by the lingering opposition to liberation. Whether they "don't currently understand the dynamics of the situation as well as their liberal counterparts" remains to be seen. To say that there are other "people who understand a situation better because they've studied it longer and had more successful experiences navigating it" would be a matter of opinion. Who had access to the intelligence, flawed as it was? Where were those opposed to the war during the debate and as the intelligence was looked at. Who are the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence committee?
"Losing the cooperation of most of the world" although not a laughing matter, is not an insurmountable problem. As I recall, "most of the world" was not with us in the First Gulf War, although I could be mistaken, and to accuse Bush of "acting like the unaccountable king of the ... world" is just extreme and seems irrational. And sad to read because it shows that irrational emotion is overruling logic. And irrational emotion begets extremism almost every time.
Again it shows the depth of hatred toward this man. And one has to wonder why. This seems more than politics, but I'll be hanged if I can figure it out....
Again, to be fair, Ben moderated some of his vituperation in his comment to my last post, which I was glad to see. Because, as I've written before, logical debate on issues is what's needed, not rhetoric and emotionalism. Not that we don't strongly hold our views, but like the strangest marriage I've ever seen, James Carville and Mary Matlin, those views don't ruin our relationship.
Posted by Dean
at 3:31 AM CST
Updated: Saturday, 13 March 2004 12:48 AM CST