DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 14, 2007, 12:02:39 AM
-
The new Democratic-led Congress will be wary of giving Bush the authority to go to war in Iran. That reluctance, combined with Bush's desire to prove US power isn't hobbled by Iraq, could make a strike against Iran more likely.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/13/decision_against_war_could_also_backfire/
-
The new Democratic-led Congress will be wary of giving Bush the authority to go to war in Iran. That reluctance, combined with Bush's desire to prove US power isn't hobbled by Iraq, could make a strike against Iran more likely.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/02/13/decision_against_war_could_also_backfire/
Even among the pundits--including the heavily critical Chris Matthews--there is a push for Hillary to "admit that she made a mistake" about her initial vote re: Iraq.
At times I thought it anti-Hillary, but now I see that it truly is necessary to Hillary to admit her mistake. The precedent of Bush's inability to admit any mistake puts Hillary in a inavoidable box.
But the truth is that all the cowered Democrats will have , and should have already done, admit that they signed on and gave their endorsement by their vote. Until they do, the issue will remain a cloudy one, in spite of their current gutless efforts to confront this corrupt administration, and their imperialistic endeavors in Iraq.
Apologies are like that: you can walk around them and work hard to rectify the results of the transgressional action, but until true contrition comes from a heartful admission of wrongfulness, it will remain a conflicted endeavor, whatever the endeavor. We are wired that way.
-
The key here is that you are speaking of two different periods of time. For the war's initiation, like Hillary, I would have voted for providing the presidential authority to strike. The issue was that close, and, I assume, the information at the disposal of the Senate supported such a stance. For thepresent with the benefit of hindsight, encompassing all that we've learned in the interim, the vote to authorize war powers was dead wrong. First and foremost, the intel on the two pillars of invasion -- WMD and terrorist ties -- simply did not hold up to time, scrutiny and analysis. Arguably, those reservations should have been raised at the time authorization was sought, but two factors, at least, stymied such a clear-eyed view: the inexorable mood of the country itching for decisive (additional) action against our perceived antagonists, and the trust a duly-elected President of the Uniteed States should be deemed to have regarding such matters. As to the mood of the country, in their personal thoughts, where it played out, aye-voters must examine -- come to terms with -- whether their mature, best judgment was skewed by popular sentiment, contrary to the way a courageous representative should behave in a representative democracy. I will state the second issue plainly: was it another error of judgment -- at the time of the war's initiation -- to trust the president, that is, to give him the benefit of the doubt ... before matters played out further to give a more reliable reading on that issue.
-
Hillarr's dilemna was that not only did she trust the current president but she also trusted the previous president.
Bush's actions were no more than a continuation and escalation of the previous administrations policies.
-
What would be the choices available to the Next president?
Especially concerning Iran.
Are the choices diffrent depending on who it is , or are all potentials on the table for all of them?