|
for a plethora of reasons, one of them being that he voted NO on IWR, led the Progressive Caucus in organizing the anti-war vote in the House (60% of Dems voted NO), and spoke out against the war in the House, at anti-war rallies, and in other public venues. His first statement condemning an invasion of Iraq is in his "A Prayer for America" speech, given in February, 2002, long months before the October 2002 IWR vote.
Al Sharpton also opposed the war, spoke at anti-war rallies, and deserves credit for that. Howard Dean and Wesley Clark have mixed records about the war, with each of them making statements in the fall of 2002 favoring the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. To make such statements while Bush was lobbying to launch a pre-emptive strike against Saddam was to support the Bush doctrine that allows the United States to attack any country it labels as a threat to its interests. That's a dangerous doctrine.
Support for the Bush doctrine was also implied in voting for IWR, which John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and Joe Lieberman all did.
The only clear way to show opposition to the Bush doctrine is to vote for Kucinich or Sharpton in the primaries. Second best is voting for those who now repudiate their statements and/ or votes of 2002 and clearly state that they do not support pre-emptive wars nor the Bush doctrine that allows them.
Unless Kucinich or Sharpton is the nominee, all Democrats will be faced with voting for someone who was second best on the Iraq War, Bush doctrine, etc. How do we decide if a candidate other than Kucinich or Sharpton is NOW going to hold to the views he voices? Try this:
1) Pay careful attention to his statements about foreign policy in the following months. Are they consistent? What does he promise to do as president?
2) Look at a man's record and see if he has a good history of keeping his promises.
|