Monday, March 15, 2004

I guess it's a good think honest comlumnists like David Brooks have decided not to take sides

In a characteristic sentence, which admittedly sounds better in the original French, Kerry exclaimed: "We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to `clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms."

Can anyone say Churchillian?

Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage. He has established the foragainst method, which has enabled him to be foragainst the war in Iraq, foragainst the Patriot Act and foragainst No Child Left Behind. If you decide to vote for him this year, there would be a correctness in that judgment, but if you decide to vote for George Bush, that would also be correct.

The link

Not only is Brooks taking a side, but he is also misconstruing Kerry's argument. The vote was a vote to allow the President to take action if it was necessary. That permission, says Kerry, was based upon the idea that the Bush adminstration would use every diplomatic means available, as well as create an international coalition if force was necessary.

Doubtless, there were dozens of Congressmen who voted in favor of the resolution despite their own reservations. Politically, it would have been a bad move, their opponents would have made them eat that vote.

In some ways, you could argue that the vote in favor was a strong stand, only 28 percent of Massachusetts voters were in favor of a unilateral invasion. In addition, the majority of people in this country had reservations about the war, if they weren't totally against it.
Sen. Welstone was the only Senator to vote against the resolution.

Calling people out on the resolution is a cheap way to try and score points.
It was not a vote for war, but to allow the President to use military means if the diplomatic means failed.
The text of the bill is here: resolution."'s a little bit of ironic titling.

No comments: