"I think she said......we need the military for smart, legitimate operations engineered by smart leaders. In contrast to using the military for stupid, illegitimate operations engineered by stupid leaders. I agree. "
No one has addressed what a 'smart, legitimate' operation would be. If smart leaders are required, where are they? I haven't seen any among the Democratic Party contenders. Shouldn't the country ensure that military operations are not engineered by 'stupid leaders'? Why would a Democratically controlled Congress grant a 'stupid leader' authority to undertake a military operation? Why did Viet Nam not teach us a lesson? Why did John Kerry, a man whose whole political career has been built on his belief that government cannot be trusted, trust that Bush would not go to war if authorized to do so?
Why did almost none of the members of congress read the entire 98 page NIE report than merely the summary? Shouldn't you at least do that before casting a vote, that might lead to war? If the actual existence of WMDs was the critical tipping point, shouldn't congress have demanded some proof that they actually existed? Did congress have no access to intelligence information, save for Bush's statements? Does the term 'war powers' mean anything, and should granting it be a solemn responsibility? Why would you grant it to a 'stupid leader' for an 'illegitimate purpose'. Yes, you could always correct the mistake four years later, but at a huge cost.
