Why Support for the War in Iraq Is Bad Foreign Policy

[BurtWorm]

I agree with the DLC that the Dems can't retreat into domestic policy bliss if they want to remain a relevant party, but I disagree whole-heartedly that support for Bush's war in Iraq is a sign of responsible foreign policy. In fact, the war is a perfect target for Dems to delineate their own responsible foreign policy from the insane one of the Bushists.

Explaining what's wrong with Bush's war explains what's right about a "liberal" Democratic foreign policy: Bush's war is unilateralist, and is winding up costing American tax payers far more than they bargained for--not only in terms of dollars, but in terms of lives, alliances, international security, and positive leadership in the world community.

My heart sinks when I get those "polls" from Democratic committees and they're all about health care, education, Social Security and fiscal responsibility. I've yet to see a single one address foreign policy. Dems should not yield this ground to Republicans but should bask in how awful theirs is and how practical and responsible ours is.

[bryant69]

1. How would you feel about the argument

That a democratic president would have taken us to war--just would have done it in a more sane and intelligent way--he wouldn't have invaded unilaterally, but would have gotten more allies than the UK and Australia. For Republicans to pretend that Democrats would have ignored the menace of Saddam flies in the face of reality, but had a democrat been in charge, it would have been done better, with more rebuilding efforts in place from the get-go, and a broader coalition.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BurtWorm]

3. A Democratic president might have taken us to war in Iraq

and probably would have done it in a more rational way. But that still wouldn't make the war right. The reason the war was wrong is that US interest in fighting it was never made clear (except if you read between the lines). The most compelling reason, the one most Americans seem to have fallen for, concerned the alleged threat Iraq posed to Americans, and that has been shown to have been based on a lie.

Democrats should stand for peaceful resolution, diplomacy, international cooperation and alliance, and principled pursuit of justice and promotion of democracy around the world. We should be challenging the use of American forces as police officers, but we should defend the use of American forces as peacekeepers. These are foreign policy principles Dems can be proud of.

[dajabr]

2. Today from ABC's "The Note," Dean to Lieberman:

Dean's response, in part: "We Democrats do have a grand tradition of world leadership exercised by Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman through John Kennedy to Bill Clinton. We have fought and won wars and we have managed peace and recovery. Never have we Democrats felt compelled to stand by silently when our country has failed to pursue alternatives short of war. I will continue to speak out against this war — no matter the day-to-day developments — because it is what I believe."

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote.html

(Towards the bottom of the "Lieberman" section)

[BurtWorm]

4. Exactly!

What really pisses me off abotu the DLC line on Iraq is its manifest cowardice! Accepting the war on Bush's terms...disgusting!