The Clarke-Kerry bluff/stall
Andrew Sullivan:
"The only cogent response I've heard from my post yesterday about the Clark/Kerry position on the war is that we should have pulled back in February and sent in more inspectors before launching a war without U.N. support. If that's Clark's position, I think he should say so. What it would have left intact, of course, was Saddam's monstrous regime, and because he successfully hid or froze his WMD program, a clean bill of health from Mr Blix or a successor. Would we have maintained sanctions under those circumstances? That's another question Clark and Kerry need to answer. I can't see how we could have in the medium and long run - at least on moral grounds. So how could we be assured that Saddam would not have been emboldened by the triumph of his allies in the U.N. and re-started his WMD program or upped his financing of terrorism in the Middle East and here? These were our actual options. I still strongly think Bush picked the right one. If you are going to criticize the war, you need to say what you would have done instead. And you also need to say what you would do differently now. Leave the country to the hands of Saddamites again? Hand it over to the U.N. and watch another genocide take place? Again, it's time the critics of Bush tell us what they're for. If not war in March, then what? If not sanctions, what? If not nation-building now, then what?"
Andrew Sullivan:
"The only cogent response I've heard from my post yesterday about the Clark/Kerry position on the war is that we should have pulled back in February and sent in more inspectors before launching a war without U.N. support. If that's Clark's position, I think he should say so. What it would have left intact, of course, was Saddam's monstrous regime, and because he successfully hid or froze his WMD program, a clean bill of health from Mr Blix or a successor. Would we have maintained sanctions under those circumstances? That's another question Clark and Kerry need to answer. I can't see how we could have in the medium and long run - at least on moral grounds. So how could we be assured that Saddam would not have been emboldened by the triumph of his allies in the U.N. and re-started his WMD program or upped his financing of terrorism in the Middle East and here? These were our actual options. I still strongly think Bush picked the right one. If you are going to criticize the war, you need to say what you would have done instead. And you also need to say what you would do differently now. Leave the country to the hands of Saddamites again? Hand it over to the U.N. and watch another genocide take place? Again, it's time the critics of Bush tell us what they're for. If not war in March, then what? If not sanctions, what? If not nation-building now, then what?"
Comments
Post a Comment