Editorial posted that is unfair but is bringing up uncomfortable

issues. Basic argument is that Clinton information started the policy on Iraq that caused war. Clinton is certainly not innocent but this is a nasty editorial that trashes both Kerry and Dean, but not Murtha -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x174542

At least it's mot on one of the more read boards

http://www.alternet.org/authors/5434/



'nuff said.

...okay, not 'nuff, because a lot of people like Democracy Now! But I've seen them twist things badly before, and find false reasons to slam people for their own agenda - like in this article saying Murtha was "disowned by powerful Democrats like John Kerry".

Such blatant falsehoods really lose them potential supporters (like me). It's sad.

Kerry defended Murtha that night on Hardball and then did so the next day on the floor of the Senate.

Scott Ritter has a new book that looks at the history of the weapons inspectors program in Iraq. (He is not kind to the Dems or Sen. Kerry.) He also puts a lot of blame at the feet of the Democrats. (There is something to this. Mistakes were made.) However, there is a 'plague on both your houses' sense to this that seeks to smooth over genuine differences in how the two parties have addressed the problem of Iraq.

It's not that easy. We, as a nation, do not have a consistent policy on when interfering in the affairs of another soverign nation is okay and when it isn't. The Rethugs hated the intervention in Kosovo because it was done for purely humanitarian and peace-keeping reasons. The Rethugs saw no strategic gains for the US, didn't see how it affected the US security concerns and were very unsupportive. Yet, the intervention did help stabilize the region. And we are still there. Mistakes were made.

Should the US have interferred in Rwanda? What is the policy of the US government when genocide is happening, but the security of the US is not at risk?

Did the Democrats play the war card in Iraq in the '90's. To an extent, yes. The Democrats did not want to look weak against Saddam Hussein. Mistakes were made.

And my opinion of the person I did not post over there: Another lefty who does not want to see the problem from where they come, but only in order to destroy the Democrats.

I think he misses totally the issue. We are here because of a foreign policy doctrine that links our development to oil. As long as we are not ready to really change that, this will happen again.