Who do you trust to keep us out of the next war?

[CarolNYC]

With all this talk about the IWR, I was wondering if anyone is thinking about who they would trust to keep us out of the next war, because you know there will be people pushing for a next war, even with the mess the Iraq War has become. In fact, there have already been people pushing for war with Iran, no doubt North Korea too, etc, etc. The world's a scary place and there are too many who feel the way to deal with it is to show how tough we are.

With that in mind, I was thinking of whom I would trust to keep us out of the next war. I'm glad for those who are trying to extricate us out of the current mess as quickly and painlessly as possible but that will only go so far if we're soon into another misguided military aventure....

So, these are the people I would trust to do everything they could to keep us out of the next war and who have the experience and skill set to help accomplish that:
1. Wes Clark, of course. He's been out there trying to stop the rush to war with Iran ever since Fox starting beating the drums for it last New Years, he's brokered peace already and he's well respected around the world.
2. Al Gore, who spoke against the Iraq War before it started and who, I believe, is well respected throughout the world as well.
3. John Kerry, who despite his IWR vote, did speak out often against the war and has pushed for discussions with other countries in the region much as Clark has and, I imagine, is also well respected abroad.

There may be others too but those three come to mind off the top of my head....

I'm not sure about Obama. I do think, based on his comments during the runup to the Iraq debacle, that he would have the inclination to keep us out of another war but he doesn't have the experience to do it. However, I imagine he'd make sure those that did were involved....Like Clinton sending Holbrooke and Clark to broker the peace at Dayton.

I believe that Dennis, of course, would have a great desire to keep us out of any more military confrontations. Not sure how he'd go about it, though, or what kind of experience he's had that would help him accomplish that goal.

There are others who I just don't know enough about to make any judgment on but would love to hear about...like Bill Richardson, who does have foreign policy experience, Chris Dodd, others....

And there are some who I know I could not begin to trust to keep us out of the next war but, as a Clark supporter, I see how we're not "allowed" to voice any kind of criticism or skepticism about anyone who might possibly be running for President in 2008 (except, I suspect, Hillary) and I don't feel like getting dumped on or being the cause for the whole mess of us Clark supporters to get dumped on, so I won't mention them here....

[mike_c]

1. for starters, someone who was unabiguously opposed to invading...

...in the first place. If they were in Congress, that means someone who voted against the IWR. If they weren't in congress, someone who expressed unabiguous opposition to the invasion of Iraq BEFORE it happened.

[nevergiveup]

6. you are so correct

We should look for those who opposed this insanity from the beginning and this includes Obama who spoke out early. I do not have much trust in those who jumped on this war bandwagon at the get go.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

15. Obama

is the only current big name elected official that stands out. The reason is the fact that he went against the grain on the war. Most democrats just went into it gung ho. Being a freshmen senator he could have got on the bandwagon. But he decided it was a bad idea. That takes real guts because as a freshmen you normally have no voice at all. I believe that Obama will act like Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis he will do everything to prevent a war.

I am tired of hearing how good Kerry is on this site. He voted for the war & that is a fact. He did not have the guts to stand up & say no. He voted for the war because it was popular with the majority of the people. Now he is saying we need to get out because people do not like the war anymore.

[talk hard]

18. Obama wasn't in Congress yet when the IWR was taken.

But he did speak out against the war. So did Al Gore. And youre rirhgt, Kerry DID vote for the IWR and refused to back down before the 2004 election. ONly when it was safe politically and the polls changed did he change his mind.

[karynnj]

34. You ignore that the vote was in Oct 2002

The invasion was in March 2003. Kerry spoke against going to war in January 2003 and in April 2003 called for regime change at home and said that Bush should not have gone to war without exhausting the diplomacy - The war was favored by over 70% of the country then. Clearly he didn't wait on the polls.

[blm]

20. Kerry has a long record of being an activist antiwar voice and helped shut down more

wars than anyone else in Congress.

He voted for accountability just as he did in 1998 - and he opposed INVADING Iraq unless weapons inspections and diplomacy FAILED - when weapon inspections and diplomacy proved military force was NOT NEEDED, Kerry CONSISTENTLY opposed military action.

But, it's expedient for those with little historic context to offer anything but the black and white version.

BTW - Obama while IN the senate refused to sign the Letter of Inquiry on Downing Street Memos, and was against Iraq withdrawal plan even after everyone in DC had known for months that Iraq was in Civil War since the beginning of 2006.

[talk hard]

22. keep spinning!! -- Kerry still voted YES on the IWR

which enabled Bush. Kerry is responsible and is an opportunistic political hack, not even fit to be mentioned in the same sentence with Obama and Gore.

[blm]

25. Sure, that's why there isn't ANY lawmaker who's uncovered more government corruption

in the last 35 years than John Kerry has or helped to end more wars.

Somebody here really doesn't like the anti-corruption, open government leaders of the Democratic party. Oh well - we're used to grief from the coverup wing of the party.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[talk hard]

28. funny he never mentioned it LIKE I SAID when had an open mic

and the media attention -- he had the opportunity to talk about and did not -- you are the Master of Spin and this hero thing is all in your head. Everthing he does and says contradicts what you say. Sorry to burst your balloon but this crap you keep spewing is baloney.

[blm]

31. Everything I say is backed up in the National Security Archives. Coverup Dems sure

hate the anti-coruption, open government wing of the party.

Funny, how the ONE person who has uncovered and investigated and exposed the most government corruption gets the most scorn from you.

Funny, how the coverup Democrats get the pass from your scorn.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[karynnj]

35. He did speak about BCCI in his speech on terrorism

given at the University of Pennsylvania in September 2004. This was his MAJOR signature speech on terrorism. It was the speech that George Will recently referred to when he said "Kerry had a point on how to fight terrorism." I assume he was given a microphone. There was a pretty big crowd in Philadelphia for it.

He also spoke about it in The NY magazine article where he spoke extensively and seriously on how to deal with terrorism.

[Mikey929]

36. FYI

FYI -- Obama was not in the Senate when the war was voted on. He's only been there for two years.

[CarolNYC]

2. Jimmy Carter

Oh, I would trust Jimmy Carter, too, but I don't think he's gonna run. :)

[babylonsister]

3. I really think it's critical that, whoever it is, has military experience.

I know, McCain is going against the grain :eyes: but I think it's really important that anyone who has "been there, done that", might have more of a clue on how to avoid going there again.

[gemlake]

10. Like Colin Powell?

Not just McCain. Military experience, even in Vietnam, doesn't seem to matter, when it comes to bad ideas for war.

[MH1]

4. I agree with your three - Kerry, Gore, and Clark.

In the order I listed, but part of that is because a) I know more about Kerry and Gore and b) it's hard to overcome the innate distrust of a General when it comes to matters of war and peace.

My biggest concern about Clark is that I am not sure he is even onboard now with the reality that our soldiers can't do any good in Iraq with the incompetent leadership the Bush administration is providing, so it is time to start bringing them home NOW.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. Pretty much everyone you mentioned.

90 percent of dems will not go to war, especially with the stench of Iraq in the air. No way will most want to waste our kids and money on any more folly.
If you are not sure of Obama, I heard on hardball that he sent a letter to Bush accusing him of throwing more bodies needlessly and they are more than just numbers. Check out his web site.
Clark would not go to war because those who know war are less apt to go and start one.

[mtnsnake]

7. Kerry is one of your choices? Yikes!

Long after he voted for it, I'll never forget how in August of 2004 John Kerry said he would have voted for the IWR again, even if he’d known then that no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

I'll also never forget how the theme of his entire campaign was a war theme and how he tried to make himself perceived as a better "killer" of terrorists than Bush was.

People like that make me worry.

Gore and Clark I'd agree with, though.

[karynnj]

32. Kerry spoke against the war before it started

and said many many times that it was the "wrong war" and that Bush did not go to war as a last resort. Remember the litany of things he said on the war that Bush didn't do - they were all things Kerry said in 2002 Bush promised. This is not insignificant - these were publicly said.

The Boston Globe said Kerry didn't hear the if clause - and so gave the same answer he gave a million times to what he thought was the same question. This answer in fact makes littel sense to the question - and he did in September and October answer other questions saying that he would not have gone to war. He even admitted that he knew that meant Saddam could still be in power.

I know you don't like him - but you are clearly ignoring 1000s of things he said vs what he said in the GC - which was about a vote, not the war itself - something he made a distinct of all 2004 and now says the vote itself was wrong. You really have to work to see Kerry as a warmonger.

If you have any question of when Kerry things war is justified, check out his Pepperdine speech where he anwers that question - rather than a question specificly on Iraq. If you remember things he said repeatedly in 2004, much of this will be familiar.


" Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war—the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends—should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one’s adversaries to behave likewise. Throughout the centuries there have been Christian political leaders who argued otherwise; who contended that observing Just War principles was weak, naïve, or even cowardly.

It’s in Americas’ interests to maintain our unquestionable moral authority — and we risk losing it when leaders make excuses for the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo or when an Administration lobbies for torture.

For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear: sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to—you go to war only because you have to. The words “last resort” have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger."


Video:
http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm

[Solo_in_MD]

8. I disagree with your basic premise

A better question would be: Who would use trust to make the right decision about committing US forces into combat. The next time the right thing may be to go in militarily.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I agree.....the military could be used for real intervention that could save lives.....

like they could have in Rwanda and now Darfur.

Unfortunately, after Iraq, we're back to were we were before Somalia (scared to death, even if innocent lives are being butchered day in, day out).....and the Butchers will go hog wild and we won't feel or see a thing! How sad......but now it will be this way.

And since we've devalued the United Nation down to a pitiful bureaucratic circus, even their hands are tied (cause I would have always preferred that we do anything and everything military via that organization as well as via NATO).

but then againy...that's what we get for doing "tbe Biggest Blunder in history" just cause so many thought we could, and wanted to get back to elections and such.

This world ain't about going for peace now, in particular after they've seen the US at it abyss in decision making/intelligence gathering/strategic bonafides, etc.....

We are the laughing stock and we've earned it outright. What we need are some savvy diplomats at the elm, ASAP! Till then, I laugh and cry all at the same time....but tell you this; it ain't really funny.

[Mikey929]

37. War sometimes is the answer

World War Two comes to mind. So I can't rule out war as a necessary action IN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES.

Darfur represents an interesting issue. Most DU'ers seem to be against all war, yet there is strong support for military action in Darfur. I'm grappling with the issue of how to decide when military intervention is OK and when it is not. What right do we have to invade a country even if it's for humanitarian interests? Aren't U.S. servicemen going to die as a result? What do we tell those parents?

I don't have the answers. Just wondering.

[FrenchieCat]

40. Well first I will say, if it ain't worth dying for then it ain't worth fighting for.....

However, that is what we as Americans are supposed to decide....IF and when a cause is worth it

But the grappling that you are doing will always be opened to debate.
Do we intervene if the only interest that our action would serve would be humanitarian in nature? What kind of premium is one willing to put on our volunteer army vs. the lives of say.....800,000 Rwandans?

Guess the answer to that question lies within each and every one of us. And I guess it depends on what the United States really stands for, i.e., what are our true values and our morals? :shrug:

Each case has got to be measured on its own.....and not as part of some ostrich nation policy.....if I had my way.

But again, I would only want us to deal with these types of issues by working with international institutions.......

[CarolNYC]

14. True....

There are times when military intervention may be warranted....I was one who thought we should have intervened in Liberia too.

Your wording is better than mine. Thanks.

[talk hard]

9. Kerry? ARe you freakin kidding?

It there is a next election around the corner, and there most certainly is, you can't trust him to NOT vote for his own political ass. He has already shown that his ass comes first.

I wonder if you are saying this to get the Kerry loons to jump on board and cover Wes' ass. Wes was clear -- you don't need to solicit support.

Get real.

[CarolNYC]

13. Kerry

I'm not freakin kidding and I am real.

You know, I was disappointed and really upset with Kerry's vote on the IWR, which I do suspect was a political decision, and I was upset and annoyed with some of the decisions he made as a candidate too....but I honestly don't think he's a warmonger. He may not have done enough for my taste to keep us from going to war while he was a Senator planning on running for the Presidency, but I do think he would try his best as President to keep us out of another mess like the one we're in, and I can't say that about everyone who's planning on running.

Thanks though for impugning my sincerity and the integrity of my post and all. I guess, as a Clark supporter, one can't post anything constructive about any possible 2008 candidates either without having motives questioned. Sheesh! I give up.

I wasn't here for the primaries last time (too busy making phone calls, writing letters, knocking on doors, standing on street corners, etc to spend any time here) and, if this place right now is any indication of what it will be like next time, I hope to not be here again.

[talk hard]

16. not impugning your integrity or sincerity

just think mentioning Kerry in the same sentence with Gore and Clark under these conditions is off base. Whatever your reasoning, he voted for the war, the others were clear it was a bad idea. Kerry helped make it happen.

[blm]

24. Kerry helped take Iran and Syria off the table - those who NEGOTIATED on IWR

had much less choice than those who did not and did not have to vote.

Had Gore been in the senate and HIS suggestions were added to the IWR then he would have been expected to support IWR, too.

I would guess that Iranians and Syrians, at least, are grateful for the Dems willing to negotiate.

[MH1]

21. Thank you for an honest post.

Your post is more helpful in making someone like me consider Wes, than all the posts trying to make him into something he isn't. I think he is a good man and probably a worthy candidate (I need to learn more), but the more I see of people trying to set him on a pedestal by trashing others with distortions and untruths, the less I am inclined to consider him. Then I see a post like yours, and it makes me more interested again.

Keep up the good work!

[talk hard]

23. we'll be watching the Kerry and Clark people go at each othrer's throats

in the primary. Pass the popcorn. Ha-ha-ha.

[blm]

26. Clark and Kerry people were almost always respectful to each other even during the

primary.

We actually tend to take honest governance seriously and respect REAL history more than soundbites and false spin.

[talk hard]

27. ya, right --- except that's baloney and you know it

I read it here. Keep spinning!

[blm]

29. You read it wrong. Kerry and Clark camps got along pretty well throughout 2003-4.

Anyone who claims otherwise couldn't have been reading the majority of posts by those two camps or they have a serious reading comprehension problem.

[talk hard]

30. so who am I going to believe -- a serial exaggerator or my lying eyes?

ha-ha-ha

[blm]

33. If you believe yourself then why don't you poll those DUers who were here then?

Sorry, I don't recall your input here during the primary race in 2003 and 2004, but I do respectfully recall many of my DU compatriots in the Clark camp then.

[rockymountaindem]

38. Me too n/t

[JNelson6563]

12. Gore

:toast:

The only name on any list I trust implicitly.

Julie

[qwlauren35]

17. Kucinich immediately comes to mind.

And sadly, no one else does. Maybe Dean. But not as clearly.

[The2ndWheel]

19. The Easter Bunny

Because there will be another war.

[TayTay]

39. If they don't have to be running for PRes

The I would put a lot of others in there. I think Sen. Leahy would be another person who I think would do everything he could to not entangle America in an unjust war. I think he's a fair person and someone I would trust. I also like Sens. Levin, Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy and a few others who are very good thinkers.

Question for you:

Who in these Senate Committees that deal with war and peace and funding of same do you trust. (I would keep my eye on Webb, I think he is going to be a real interesting guy to watch.)

Armed Services

CHAIR: Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Reed, Akaka, Nelson (Fl), Nelson (Ne), Bayh, Clinton, Pryor, Webb, McCaskill

Foreign Relations

CHAIR: Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Nelson (Fl), Obama, Menendez, Cardin, Casey, Webb

[NCarolinawoman]

41. Ha ha! Neo-con Lieberman and anti-IWR Webb on the same committee together!

James Webb to Lieberman:

"Joe, why do you insist on a surge in troops? Why do you support this God-forsaken war so much? My son is over there, is yours?"

Oh to be a fly on the wall.