The politics of war: Readers respond to "Missing in Action," by Tim Grieve, and "Be Very Afraid," by Mark Follman. Plus: Rice's "total inability" to accept responsibility.
Apr 12, 2004 | [Read "Missing in Action," by Tim Grieve.]
If a man who can't swim jumps in the water and you hope he'll drown, the best thing to do is simply let him drown. Pointing out to bystanders that the man was stupid to jump in the water when he didn't know how to swim will only prompt someone to jump in to save him. Bush will sink to the bottom without any assistance on Kerry's part.
Kerry famously said: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" All one need do is remove one's nationalistic bias to see where Kerry is coming from. There are Iraqis dying for Bush's mistake as well. Do they not deserve the benefit of a careful and well-considered withdrawal? Will leaving them high and dry help humanity in some way? Have a little compassion. This isn't some theoretical exercise -- there are human lives at stake.
I believe Kerry when he says that Congress thought they were handing Bush a negotiating tool and nothing more. Who in their right mind would act the way Bush has acted? And if this weren't an election season, it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear Kerry admit that he made a mistake in trusting the president. Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? And it's always easier to second-guess someone else's actions than it is to walk in their shoes. John Kerry is a good man. Give him a break, all right?
-- Mark Freeman
Thank you for this timely article on Salon. I've been thinking the same thing for the past two weeks -- it's just terrible: Kerry promised he would fight for us, but he's laying back, and giving away the farm by talking, lecturing even, on stuff like the budget.
And then there was the other day on Chris Matthews' "Hardball," when Kerry gave a long convoluted answer to his opponent's question about oil, and what exactly he would do. Instead of just redirecting the question back to the Middle East, which is where everyone's mind is (or should be), we got an alternative-energy lecture! I'm a fan, but I thought it was ridiculously off topic. The country is in a state of panic about the escalating events in Iraq, and we have no idea whatsoever as to what Kerry's plan is -- if he has one.
I could not be more disappointed by this turn of events. I think there are several others, Howard Dean, John Edwards even, hell, Al Sharpton, who could do a better job of stating the Democratic position. Whatever it is. I have no faith anymore that we can win. I think people are too terrified to think. I don't know what the answer is in Iraq, but I do know that the people in charge will not do the right thing, whatever it is.
-- Loretta Jacobs
I don't understand this article at all. There are so many variables in play that will influence the outcome of the election in November that it seems foolhardy to spend a lot of time staking out a position this early. Bush is doing a hell of a job making the case against the Iraq war all by himself without Sen. Kerry's help. Since every Kerry statement or ad will be met with five ads bought with the $200 million in campaign funds that the Bush camp has, Kerry is simply being smart not to engage the issues right now, given the Republican smear machine. I am very comfortable letting principles take a back seat to politics when it is so early in the campaign, and the stakes in November are so high.
-- Bruce Emory
Personally, I can't imagine a worse idea for Kerry than to try to insert himself into the current crisis in Iraq. If the situation stabilizes, then those who talk about civil war will look as foolish as the retired generals who criticized the original invasion when it briefly slowed down. A bad situation will suddenly look good compared to the dire predictions that didn't come about.
If the situation doesn't stabilize, then, sadly for all involved, there will be no need to editorialize.
-- Arthur Simon
Get Salon in your mailbox!