"Why not Kerry?" Redux

(This is a long idea, so I might have to break it into two or three sections. I'll see how it goes.)

A person whom I count as a very good friend, and a very well educated and very principled, faith-filled man, stunned me on Tuesday. I discovered that he is pro-Kerry since he is vehemently anti-Bush.

We had a long discussion of the issues, and I expect that we will have more such in the future. But I left the conversation vaguely unsettled, and I thought then that I'd have to blog this one out.

First off, I have to say that I suffered from the same presumptiveness-shock that I disdain so much in lefties. That is, I've noted in the past how much I dislike the fact that people (often priests!) presume that everyone in a given conversation is on the same [leftist] side of an issue. I can't count the number of times that I've been at a clergy social event and somebody at the table [insert here your favorite pejorative descriptive that generalizes those of such opinions!] derides a person, thought or position that I hold strongly -- with the clear presumption that nobody in their right mind, or within earshot anyway, could possibly hold an opposing opinion! They are often speechless when I utter any kind of rejoinder (and, I presume, feel embarassed not for themselves but for me, who in their view holds such an idiotic, defenseless position that one can't begin to know how to talk to him!)

I recognized that presumptiveness-shock in myself when my friend spoke up about Michael Moore's film and his hatred for Bush. I almost didn't know how to respond. It was enlightening to understand a bit of the lefty dilemma when I confront their presumptions.

But as to the meat of the discussion . . .

The brunt of my friend's anger at Bush was (and I hope I paraphrase him accurately, as I'm sending him this blog) that Bush has led us into an unjust war, a war that has cost the lives of approximately 1,000 Americans and an untold number of Iraqi men, women and children. He feels the war is unjustifiable, even though he cedes the removal of Saddam Hussein as a very good outcome.

I asked him whether he thought that Mr. Bush had lied to us about the WMDs, and he said "no," that he believed that the President believed that the WMDs were, indeed, present. He averred that he had not heard of UNMOVIC's recent report that WMDs were present in Iraq before, during and after the war, and that they have been shown to have been moved to Syria, Jordan and even the Netherlands. He felt that the requirements for a "just war" had not been met, and that our preemptive strike at Iraq was not "proportionate means." He didn't really respond to my critique of his argument that the "current" Iraq war was merely the finalization of the 1991 Gulf War, since Hussein had regularly cuckolded the US during Clinton's reign and had played "hide and seek" with its WMDs, in direct violation of its cease-fire agreement. He also felt that the "end-game" or "exit strategy" was badly flawed, and that there was no clear way out or end to the carnage in sight.

This was the first of his objections to Mr. Bush as a candidate for reelection. My own support for Mr. Bush has waned somewhat during the last few months (as he's opened again a channel for US money to be spent on "family planning" overseas), but I disagree with my friend over whether this "current" war meets the criteria for being a "just" war.

First, I think that much of what's being seen as the after-effects of the war are being partially reported and deliberately obfuscated. None of the major news services have any people on the ground in Iraq, because they fear the loss of life of their news staff -- predictable and understandable enough. However, the news we're consuming is therefore coming from Iraqi "stringers," many of whom are even less fair-and-balanced than the Western newspeople they're supplanting (!). Soldier after soldier returning home recounts a completely different reaction to the American presence than does the media.

Secondly, I think that most people today agree that a substantial (if not predominant) part of the "resistance" is not Iraqi resistance at all, but rather is armed provocation by Muslim externs seeking to prevent the establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East. Just yesterday I heard reports of Iranian intelligence agents captured after leading assaults on occupation forces. One can hardly blame or excoriate Mr. Bush for the actions of the enemy! There clearly IS a nexus between Al-Qaeda, Muslim fundamentalists and the current terrorism in Iraq. One would have to be willfully blind to miss or deny it.

...to be continued....