Reply #4: I find Kerry's case for acting compelling, but understand that it echoes

[karynnj]

Bush's case for eliminating Hussain. One major difference is that eliminating Hussain was not the reason given for going to war - it was an after the fact reason after the first reason was shown to be bogus.

Where I come out is that it is very hard to know where to draw the line when a leader is on the verge of killing large numbers of people. I feel uncomfortable with Kerry using the word genocide, because I don't think this is based on ethnicity - though it may be. You would think that one of the purposes of the UN is to prevent something like Rwanda, Cambodia or the Holocaust.

I didn't hear Clinton's comment, but if it is as you say asking who's side are you on, I have a problem with it. If the implication is that they are on Gaddaffi's side, it is beyond the pale. (This comes close to Bush's if you aren't with us, you are with the terrorists.) If it arguing that it is wrong for Democrats to side against a Democratic president, it is wrong for hundreds of reasons. The Congressmen are representing their constituents and they are suppose to act in accordance with their own intelligence and conscience. This is not football or baseball where you cheer your team regardless.

I also agree with Senators like Lugar and McCain, who have complained that Congress has not been consulted to the degree it should be. Look back over the various hearings that Kerry has had, especially on Afghanistan. It is glaring that the administration refused to testify - so the witnesses were outside scholars and people who were once diplomats. Here, Obama and Clinton are really taking advantage of Kerry's loyalty and the fact that if he publicly complained, the media would immediately take it as a Kerry/Clinton fight because he was angry not to get the SoS spot. As far as working with Congress goes, Hillary has seemed pretty high handed.