The New Road

Kerry On Iraq

I recommend you watch this video to see just how little the Republican Party thinks of your intelligence. To reduce Kerry's arguments this way (including the thoroughly debunked "Are you an anti-Iraq candidate? Yeah." line) is akin to compressing Bush's arguments on Iraq to "war is good."

War is a tough decision. It's a decision that costs lives and dollars and destroys countries. If you say that voting against a bill funding our troops but not reducing the tax breaks to do it is voting against the war then you are making silly compression arguments that undercut the logical thought process due a decision as important as one to go to war.

Obviously the Republican party wants you to abandon thought. To think of thinks in start black and white terms that bear no resemblance to reality. Let's apply some of this stark Republican reality to the situation we face today:

Is the war in Iraq going well? No.

Are the people in Iraq happy we are there? No.

Have we gained the support of the world by going into Iraq? No.

Have we lost allies by going into Iraq? Yes.

Are we better off for having gone into Iraq? No.

Was Abu Gharaib bad? Yes.

Were there al Qaeda in Iraq? No.

Was there any connection between Iraq and 9/11? No.

Were there WMDs in Iraq? No.

Based on this condensation, nobody should support Bush. It's obvious. But we all know that reality is not a yes or no proposition. We all know that the answers here are more nuanced (except for the last four). Perhaps we need to let people express their whole opinion without cutting them off (e.g. "Are you an anti-Iraq candidate? Yeah."). Perhaps we need a leader and a government that doesn't insist on jingoistic boolean logic style answers to complex questions that cost lives.

We let the Republicans have their say and explain their positions. But Democrats are being forced into this yes/no silliness. So if you are pro-Bush and you don't agree with the positions above, what do you say? Let's take the last one, about WMDs. I say no. What do you say? Yes. Of course not. We haven't found anything. A yes would be lying. But the right answer is somewhere between yes and no. We haven't found any, that's true. But we have found some intent.

So maybe this yes/no thing isn't a good way to run a country. Maybe this yes/no thing is trying to simplify issues beyond the point where you can make informed reasonable decisions. Maybe we need to acknowledge that some opinions are more complex than yes/no. Maybe you need to hear what John Kerry had to say since the beginning which has been very consistent once you listen to it fully. Maybe you need to stop listening to people that want to compress everything into yes or no when it suites their argument.

Why do people listen to Rush Limbaugh? Who compresses John Kerry into yes or no about Iraq. But when it comes to Abu Gharaib goes on and on with his excuses and finally ends up trying to convince us that torture is really a good thing, when you think about it in the right context.

So the Republicans think it's ok for Rush Limbaugh to go on and on justifying Abu Gharaib. But when it comes to Democrats you have to compress it down to yes or no.

Compressing arguments into yes or no is a sure sign that your opponents case is weak. The war in Iraq has gone badly so instead of trying to fix it and talk about what they are going to do, they spend their time using weak attack tactics like argument compression to lambast Kerry. A strong argument holds up in a strong debate. Everyone knows that. So in going to this yes/no right/wrong debate style the Republicans have conceded that the war is indefensible. Their argument is weak. They are weak. And this proves they are weak.

Well, there is one yes/no answer that I will gladly give. Do you want four more years of Bush and his cronies? Absolutely, positively no.