John Kerry and War (NYT Ed)

[Brotherjohn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/opinion/29thu1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

On the one hand, this editorial infuriates me because it promotes the Bush campaign's idea that Kerry has waffled on the war, and specifically using what they call the "infamous explanation, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'"

In actuality, anyone paying attention knows that he voted FOR the bill that would have paid for the $87B by repealing some of the tax cuts to upper income brackets, and against the one pushed by Bush, that borrowed all $87B. Bush, and the Republicans, did the exact same thing in reverse (voted AGAINST the former, and FOR the latter), so they were guilty of the exact same thing (but in reality, there was no "waffle" at all; they were two separate bills).

The Times also implies that Kerry was trying to "parse his votes both ways... when Howard Dean's antiwar candidacy was breathing down his neck." They suggest that his campaign wishes he had just said ""I voted to spend the money - I just opposed increasing the deficit."

Now, wouldn't it be great if they were in charge of Kerry's campaign? But they are completely giving the Bush campaign a pass on misrepresenting the entire issue. And to say Kerry was somehow trying to get the anti-war and pro-war vote by saying "I'm anti-war and I'm pro-war" is sheer nonsense. Such a statement would never accomplish that if that were the statement's goal and context. Someone asked him about voting against the $87B, and he was simply stating a fact about which version of the bill he voted for.

Where the Times is forgiven, however, is when they suggest Kerry take a stronger stand on whether he would have voted for the IWR knowing what we know now. I DO think there is a risk of appearing to "waffle" here, too. But if handled right, it could greatly strengthen Kerry's argument that we were misled and Bush broke his word to use war as a last resort. The risk if he does not is that people will think he is no different from Bush on Iraq. I personally don't believe that is true, but I think a large percentage of voters do.

Kerry is already implicitly stating that he might have voted differently by saying Bush broke his word and didn't use war as a last resort. He needs to more clearly define himself from Bush on this issue. Here, the Times is right in saying that, knowing what we know now, since "Mr. Bush still insists that he was right to invade... Voters need to know whether Mr. Kerry agrees."

I realize this course is fraught with peril either way, and I myself am very unsure of the consequences of what would basically amount to saying that an ongoing war we are in was a mistake. But the direct question IS going to eventually come up (during the dabates if not before). And if Kerry doesn't take it on now, he won't be able to control it.

[KC21304]

1. Even this Kerry supporter from the earliest days

thinks they have it about right. I believe he would get more support from the public and even retired military etc if he and Edwards would tell it exactly like it happened.

[Brotherjohn]

2. I went back and looked at what Kerry said in his USAToday interview...

... of July 22nd.

It reads:
"He said he does not regret his vote authorizing the Iraq invasion but does regret that Bush broke his promise to pursue war as a last resort."
"Giving Bush the authority he sought 'was appropriate and is authority I would have wanted as president,' Kerry said Thursday in an interview with USA TODAY. 'He didn't use the authority correctly.'"

I can totally buy the idea that it's authority he would have wanted, but that it was mis-used. but it also seems to go further in implying that as president, given what we know now, Kerry wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

At the very least, he needs to repeatedly state loud and clear that the president violated his pledge to use war as a last resort. He could bring up Bush's breaking his specific promise to bring a second resolution, specifically authorizing the use of force, to the UNSC. REMIND them! People have short memories. If he makes this VERY clear, then he could perhaps get away with not directly answering the question of whether we should have gone in or not (it IS a very loaded hypothetical). But in general, I think he needs to make this a bigger issue.

One tactic I would suggest is to make an issue of how low a bar Bush has set for war, with implications for the future (Iran, Syria, N. Korea... NO ONE wants endless war). Push (and I mean PUSH) the idea that Bush short-circuited the very diplomatic process HE set in motion, and pulled the trigger pre-maturely. "Do you want a president who acts rashly in times such as these?" Take on the whole issue of pre-emptive war in that way.

People know in their hearts we were wrong (or at least jumped the gun) in Iraq, even if all of them don't want to admit it. This argument would take hold with them, I believe.

3. Looks like you are seeing what you are inclined to see

One example. You're irritated because ---
"On the one hand, this editorial infuriates me because it promotes the Bush campaign's idea that Kerry has waffled on the war, and specifically using what they call the "infamous explanation, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'"

In actuality, anyone paying attention knows that he voted FOR the bill that would have paid for the $87B by repealing some of the tax cuts to upper income brackets, and against the one pushed by Bush, that borrowed all $87B."

but the editorial says

"Mr. Kerry's history on the critical Iraq question has been impossibly opaque. He voted to authorize Mr. Bush to go to war. He voted against $87 billion to pay for extra costs - after offering an amendment to raise the money by increasing taxes on the wealthy. That produced the infamous explanation, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.''

Mr. Kerry is very, very sorry for that phrasing. His campaign is well aware that if he had simply said, "I voted to spend the money - I just opposed increasing the deficit," the Republicans would have been deprived of one of their most salient commercials."

So, how does what the editorial says any different than what you say?
After I read it, I had the exact same idea about why Kerry voted the way he did as I did after I read your description of it. Your description in bold and the Times's description in bold say the same thing don't they.

I can understand how you might not like the tone of the editorial.
That's a different question.

[Demeter]

4. I Hope Europe and Asia Stand Up To Kerry

and say firmly--John, get out of Iraq NOW; we aren't going to bail out the US, period. The sooner the US is out, the sooner the world can start to cope, recover and move forward to fix this mess. Vietnam recovered, so will Iraq. But the US must go home NOW!