Reply #68: goals and implementation

[GreenArrow]

Members of both parties -- including Democratic Presidential candidates Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Edwards -- agreed with the policy goals Bush has pushed, if not the means he chose to implement them. At the end of the day however, it wasn't solely Bush's implementation of policy goals that was the driving force behind their votes; it was the pre-existence of certain long-standing, regional goals and interests, goals and interests adhered to by both parties, that commanded their support. The invasion was the way Bush et al chose to implement the policy, but the noxious policy mindset and worldview will continue to fester and create more problems down the road unless the country is willing to rethink it.

None of the leading candidates are; while they may make what they perceive as attractive noises about "ending the war," the toxic foreign policy mentality that created it will on live to work its evil another day. Hillary -- whom I will not vote for -- is at least more honest about the issue, and that's why she is going to win, because frankly, the American electorate, which may be sick of losing American boys and girls and treasure for this particular endeavour, has little issue with applying the same tactics and approach to other situations, as the case may be; the electorate understands there are "strategic interests" and knows that "Freedom isn't Free". The electorate is in sync with the foreign policy goals. The other candidates with their tepid anti-war rhetoric (and that's all it is: rhetoric) are every bit as co-opted and entwined in the tendrils of the mad policy mechanisms that virtually own them as Hillary is, but deem it wise to not be upfront about it. Their agreement need not be limited to foreign policy issues as well.