Louis Proyect wrote: > (A frequent argument on behalf of Kerry is that he would have not > invaded Iraq after 9/11. He might be an imperialist but is not a rash, > adventuristic unilateralist. Guess what, folks. He is a rash, > adventuristic unilateralist. He might not be a born-again Christian and > might favor stem-cell research, but on the burning question of the day, > he and Bush are agreed.) > > Kerry Defends Position on Iraq > Democrat Says He Would Reduce U.S. Troops Within 6 Months (snip) ----------------------
I don't attach much credibility to what opportunistic politicians say in election campaigns -- particularly in Kerry's case, where he perceives his electoral fortunes, rightly or wrongly, to be dependent on adaptation to a segment of the voting population infected with a high degree of chauvinism. But there's no evidence whatever that the Democratic leadership saw an invasion of Iraq as a pressing necessity, much less that they were prepared to break with their closest allies and the UN to initiate one. Either you're much too taken by what politicians running for office (or their aides) say, which I doubt, or you're grasping at straws in your effort to persuade us that there aren't any distinctions, tactical or otherwise, we need to draw between the economic and foreign policies of the two parties. MG
