But, anyway, that's not the issue. What's important is less what he did as a opportunist politician running for President, than what he would have done as the incumbent President. You seem to be suggesting that his dissembling means he might have, like Bush, invaded Iraq. Against the strenuous objections of France, Germany, Russia, and China, the UN, and the opposition of a large part of his base?
I suppose he would have only bombed and occupied nations that his European allies also sought to punish--like Yugoslavia. If this is meaningful to you, be my guest.
If that is your position, you would be saying, against all evidence and logic, that there was a bipartisan consensus for the invasion of Iraq, and all the past year's noise and talk of a split in the US ruling class over the war was just so much malarkey. In fact, as you know, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Eagleburger, Holbrook, Brzezinski, Albright, and Christopher -- who between them embody the consensus -- were very much against going to war, until the administration had proceeded so far down that path that they closed ranks with it in the overarching interest of preserving America's "credibility".
There were lots of "doves" during the 1960s and 70s, but that didn't seem to have any affect on the progress of the Vietnam war. When a war criminal like Kissinger is said to be "very much against going to war", I wouldn't put much stock in that.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
