Will the Opposition Lead? (Editorial in NYT)

[BishopMVP]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/15/opinion/15BERM.html

(If you have trouble getting in, use Username and Password:eatmenyt)

Any opinions?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

He makes a pretty big reach in this section:

But everyone who feels drawn to that conclusion had better acknowledge its full meaning: the unavoidable implication that we would be better off today with Saddam Hussein in power; better off with economic sanctions still strangling the Iraqi people; better off with American army bases still occupying Saudi soil (Osama bin Laden's original grievance against us); and better off without the progress on weapons proliferation in the Muslim world (unless you believe in the sheer-coincidence theory, in which case, you think that progress would have happened willy-nilly).

Essentially his assumption is the usual with-us-or-against us blather. A critic could conclude that we would have been better off not going in that going in the way that we did, and yet still think that better yet would be to build a true coalition in that manner of George H. W. Bush, give the inspectors 5-6 months if they want it, get a real UN resolution and a real commitment of troops and money from other countries, and then gone to war (if necessary). These are all things that could have been accomplished with a little effort. And I'm sure there are many other approaches and opinions on the situation..

I object to his position that either you agree with what the Bush administration did, or you think nothing should be done whatsoever about Iraq, the Middle East or WMD's. It's a ridiculous argument.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Oh yeah, and as to his actual point... I don't know that Dems would accomplish much by his maneuver, being that the Republicans control all three branches of the federal government. Sure Bush's rhetoric pisses off a lot of international observers, but it's his policies that are the real problem. And Democrats can send candy and flowers to foreign leaders, but they don't have the power to change policy, and until they do I rather doubt they'll accomplish much.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

better yet would be to build a true coalition in that manner of George H. W. Bush, give the inspectors 5-6 months if they want it, get a real UN resolution and a real commitment of troops and money from other countries, and then gone to war (if necessary). These are all things that could have been accomplished with a little effort.

With a little effort? Give me a break. George W. Bush spent a ton of time going before the UN and trying to convince them (which was where his focus on the WMD came from.) France and Russia were not going to agree to an invasion of Iraq. Chirac came out and explicitly said this before the last vote was taken.

I object to his position that either you agree with what the Bush administration did, or you think nothing should be done whatsoever about Iraq, the Middle East or WMD's. It's a ridiculous argument.

If you disagreed with the action we took, but felt something needed to be done about Saddam, then please, accept for the moment the premise that we weren't going to get Security Council approval for an invasion and explain what we should have done differently. If you can't accept the premise that we weren't getting full UN approval, then explain to me what would have made Chirac change his stance from saying under no circumstances would he approve a resolution to actually doing so.