Friday, September 17, 2004

Kerry on Iraq

Anthony Cordesman echoes a claim that I've been hearing alot recently: That while President Bush has unquestionably screwed up Iraq, Sen. Kerry has not articulated anyway to solve the problems Bush has created. This is a fair point, and for the most part, its an accurate criticism. However, there is at least one key point of differentiation between Kerry and Bush on Iraq policy. I blogged earlier on Spencer Ackerman's articulation of this difference, namely, that Sen. Kerry can secure international cooperation and support--even if its not of the military variety--that the reviled Bush cannot. That's an important plus for Kerry, and Bush is not helping matters by burying his head in the sand and pretending nothing is wrong.

I'd like to think this is the first step in answering Powerline's challenge for me to find Conservative reasons to vote for Kerry (as opposed to just voting against Bush). In fact, since I think a clear articulation of POSITIVE reasons to vote for Kerry is severely lacking, I'm going to start compiling positive reasons to vote for Kerry.

Starting off with...his education plan!

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Another fair point would be not to take it for granted that Iraq is "screwed up."

What evidence is there that Kerry could secure more international support? If this means that France would be giving us a "thumbs up" or that the U.N. Security Council would back U.S. military actions, then I would say that is incorrect.

To debate the point:
What nations could Sen Kerry have rallied that President Bush did not?

How would he have "secured" them?

Would he have rallied more countries outside of Europe?

Would he have been able to do so without financial offerings to any of these countries, or rather, what would the "price" be?

It should also be asked, would a president Kerry have pushed to invade Iraq? I doubt it, but would like to hear an arguments that would support otherwise.

If he would not have pushed to invade Iraq, what would he have done to fight international terrorism (as the U.S. policy is generally not to be involved in another country's domestic terror fights)?

Finally, would those measures have dealt a heavier blow to international terrorists than the invasion of Iraq?

-Shawn McManus