Reply #49: You should post this at the Kerry Forum or the Blog [View All]

[HPLeft]

where the campaign staff will read it.

I personally better now understand Kerry's reasons for his vote, and also believe that the threat of force did, in fact, work (as the NY Times reported last week, in its story about the Lebenese-American businessman) - and Hussein did offer to cooperate, even if he didn't have the alleged weapons programs. Who knew that Bush-lite (with Bush 41 being the real Bush) would turn out to be such a bungler, ideologue, and war monger? This invasion is a disaster on almost every front with regard to United States policy - and it is exactly the kind of project that his father would never have attempted.

I'd be fine with Kerry taking heat for his vote if the heat were being dished out equally, and intelligently. Yet, I see Doctor Dean being celebrated as an anti-war candidate, even though he told Salon.com in February 2003 (a full 4 months after Kerry's vote) that:

"if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Fantasy has overtaken reality in this build-up to the 2004 primary season. People are seeing candidates as they want to see them, not as they really are. Empty, cliched rhetoric, anger and emotion have replaced objectivity and common sense. These are terrible indicators for the future of our Democracy, at least in my opinion.