Kerry
Position and accountability
a. Bush may have received faulty intelligence, but that does NOT ABSOLVE him of accountability for his ACTIONS. He was elected to command, and did so knowing that he would have to take on the responsibility and accountability that came with the job. He made the decision, acted on it, and should not be immune from the liability that he has to his constituents.
b. The President not only alleged, but paraded as true the idea that Iraq had WMD. In fact, it seems as if this was not fact, but an allegation that has yet to be verified. Whether or not WMD exist in Iraq to the extent that the President alluded to, it is quite reasonable for doubt to arise concerning evidence that was spoken of as if in hand. Those who say otherwise are either defending their party to nonsensical ends, or know something which most of us do not. There may very well be a massive stockpile of WMD in Iraq, but with so much time passing without reaffirmation, the people have a duty to question his motives during a time when our troops are fighting to the death to defend reasoning which until now, still remains educated speculation at best.
c. Saddam, although perhaps a supporter of terrorism, is not by any means the man we were after, if justice was truly our intention. Accusing him of supporting terrorism while failing to accuse farther into the Middle East is not just short sided, but provides a plausible pretense for a subversive act. This is not an accusation of conspiracy aimed at the President and/or his staff and/or the military. This is merely an attempt to show how weak and questionable their argument is.
Preemption vs. prudence vs. recklessness
a. The President government may use the excuse of preemption for his decisive action, but that in no way invalidates the benefits of prudence. Prudence however, is generally of greater importance [with exception] when compared to preemption when it comes to intelligent international diplomacy in our time. We, as developed nations, have a duty to remain prudent for the sake of prolonging peace, a state of existence that humanity has suffered for so long to momentarily achieve. We have a right, and, by the demands of our own American heritage, a propensity to question decisive action that threatens peace. This is not meant to be an accusation of fault on behalf of the present administration or its head, but merely justification for questioning its actions. If actions were taken that serve to demonstrate not only haste and carelessness, but intentional abuse by this administration, then the defense of preemption should certainly be challenged. Settling solely on preemption as the basis for a war has proven to result in even more dead citizens, which is why the issue of adequate justification becomes even more controversial. As Moore hinted at but did not elaborate, how do you expect to justify more death to achieve peace without irrefutable evidence?
Let us remember that it is irrefutable fact that United States did indeed lose 3000 or so souls on September 11th 2001, just as it should be an irrefutable fact that it was necessary that thousands more die in retribution.
Facebook
Twitter