Carpetbagger rightly says Krugman's column goes too far about IWR yes people

[beachmom]

This is currently on the Rec List about Krugman's column and how the winning ticket for '08 is Gore/Obama, because they were right to go against the Iraq War in 2002:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/8/7312/37379

But Carpetbagger, although agreeing that antiwar people SHOULD be lauded for being right, that doesn't mean those who voted yes should be ignored:

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/9279.html#more-9279

Krugman concludes that those who failed to raise important questions about the war, and those who acted as a cheerleader at the time, should no longer be taken seriously “when he or she talks about matters of national security.” Personally, I wouldn’t go nearly this far.

In 2002, the notion of a war in Iraq was wrong, but it wasn’t ridiculous. For that matter, there were plenty of credible people (including John Kerry, for example) who failed to foresee the president screwing things up this badly. That was a different mistake, but it hardly means we shouldn’t take these people seriously on matters of national security forever more.

It’s far different than, say, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who not only failed in 2002 but who continue to lead the cheers for the president’s tragic policy to this day.

There were some smart people, with good intentions, who got this issue wrong four years ago. Those who got it right deserve kudos, but isn’t it a bit much to dismiss others who have since come to their senses?




Where I think Carpetbagger gets it wrong is thinking Kerry favored the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. True, Kerry got the vote wrong, but by early 2003, it was obvious Kerry was in disagreement with the president. It is unfortunate that even the people who are defending Kerry still don't get that he never favored the war.

[ProSense]

1. Kerry didn't get the vote wrong:

BARNICLE: And when they read this history 20, 30 years from now, they will read about the fact that you and others voted for the war in Iraq.

KERRY: We voted—Mike, you see, I think what you fell into just now is the sort of quick and simplistic, if I can say so respectfully, summary of that vote.

(CROSSTALK)

KERRY: ... no, no, no. I mean, that vote was a vote to do what the president said he would do. That was a vote for using force as the instrument of last resort for weapons of mass destruction enforcement.

And the president told us, number one, he would go to war as a last resort. He didn‘t.

Number two, he would go to war with a legitimate coalition if necessary. He didn‘t.

And number three, that he would exhaust all the remedies that were available to him at the United Nations and elsewhere. He did not.

So we were misled. And I said very clearly in my speech on the floor of the Senate, I said, here‘s what I‘m voting for. I‘m voting to enforce Saddam Hussein living up to the weapons of mass destruction.

Here‘s what I‘m not voting for. I‘m not voting to go unilaterally. I‘m not voting to go without a coalition. I‘m not voting to go as a mater of non-last resort.

So I think the president abused that power. And I think a lot of us feel that way. What‘s important is in 2004 when I ran for president, I said clearly, wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. This is a mistake.

Transcript

[beachmom]

3. With 20/20 hindsight of how Bush lied and how poorly he conducted

the war, he got the vote wrong. I understand why he voted that way AT THE TIME, but WITH hindsight, he got it wrong. You know, Kerry is human and voted the wrong way, but his THINKING was right at the time. It's just that Bush didn't deserve to receive the benefit of the doubt.

[ProSense]

5. He got

trusting Bush wrong and has said so repeatedly. Hindsight can't change the facts and circumstances surrounding the vote, nor the fact that Bush violated it!

[beachmom]

8. See Tay Tay's post. He said he got the vote wrong. And I agree. nt

[ProSense]

9. I know what he said.

I also know what he said on Hardball three days ago and repeatedly over the past three year. Apologizing in a sound bite does not mean that he voted for the war.

[beachmom]

11. I never said he voted for the war. And he's right to correct people

when they said he did. But even given that, he still said he shouldn't have voted yes to the IWR. I'm puzzled why you're arguing with me on this. You know that when I go OUT THERE, I always defend his intentions with that vote. I'm totally with you on that. But it was still the wrong vote when given hindsight ability.

[ProSense]

13. That is a statement in

hindsight because if Bush had followed the IWR to the letter a war would have been avoided. There are people who don't give a damn about politics and politicians who know this vote had nothing to do with the war and can't even understand all the apologizing BS! If complete scrutiny is given to this vote, some of the very people who voted againt the IWR are responsible for perpetuating the war!

[politicasista]

25. I don't understand

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (the liberal saints of DU) are lauded as heroes for voting against it. Even I have heard them say (i.e. Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, etc) that IWR was the proudest vote to cast against in their careers.

It's is not easy talking about Iraq in my household because my family will never understand why Democrats went along with trusting Bush in the first place when there were those that knew better. :shrug:

[TayTay]

6. Kerry has clearly stated this:

Take Back America Conference June 12,2006

Let me say it plainly. Let me say it plainly. It's not enough to argue with the
logistics or to argue about the details or the manner of the conflict's execution or the
failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to acknowledge that the war
itself was a mistake. (Cheers, applause.) To say the simple words. (Applause.) To say -
- to say the simple words that contain more truth than pride.

We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true. It was wrong, and I
was wrong to vote for that Iraqi war resolution. (Cheers, applause.) And I will vote --
(prolonged cheers and applause) -- and I will vote -- (cheers and applause continuing) --

We cannot -- one of the great lessons of life is that you cannot change the future if
you're not honest about the past. And we cannot have it both ways in the war in Iraq.

http://home.ourfuture.org/tba06/docs/0613cfaf-kerry.pdf

[karynnj]

14. That is exactly what Kerry has said himself for at least

a year (since the Georgetown speech).

It is also why his answer is necessarily more complex than Edwards'. Edwards in voting for the IWR actually did vote for going to war - and was a cheerleader for it throughout 2003. Edwards' vote and nonchalant "I was wrong" together tell us nothing on his philosophical views on when war is justified. I seriously don't know whether Edwards as President would have taken us to war, I know Kerry wouldn't have.

If you read the section on war in Kerry's Pepperdine speech, you can see why Kerry has to both admit his vote was wrong and why he has to insist the vote was NOT a vote for war. Kerry's error was in thinking there were people (GHWB etc) or institutions (the UN) which could stall and possibly derail the war GWB was clearly already fighting for. He also trusted that on matters of war and peace, the President would not lie. Consider how sharp Kerry's comments on trusting Bush were in his torture speech - it is clear that Kerry profoundly regrets having his name on the IWR and will never trust Bush again.

The criterion Kerry enumerates that he says Bush promised are needed make for sensible foreign policy and are required to make this a "just war" as defined by St Augustine. Beyond even his Vietnam anti-war history, this goes to his core beliefs. Look at how many phrases here match Kerry's 2002 and beyond comments on Iraq.

In the Pepperdine speech, Kerry says:

"Augustine felt that wars of choice are generally unjust wars, that war -- the organized killing of human beings, of fathers, brothers, friends -- should always be a last resort, that war must always have a just cause, that those waging war need the right authority to do so, that a military response must be proportionate to the provocation, that a war must have a reasonable chance of achieving its goal and that war must discriminate between civilians and combatants.

In developing the doctrine of Just War, Augustine and his many successors viewed self-restraint in warfare as a religious obligation, not as a pious hope contingent on convincing one's adversaries to behave likewise.

<snip>


For me, the just war criteria with respect to Iraq are very clear:
sometimes a President has to use force to fight an enemy bent on using weapons of mass destruction to slaughter innocents. But no President should ever go to war because they want to -- you go to war only because you have to. The words "last resort" have to mean something .

In Iraq, those words were rendered hollow. It was wrong to prosecute the war without careful diplomacy that assembled a real coalition. Wrong to prosecute war without a plan to win the peace and avoid the chaos of looting in Baghdad and streets full of raw sewage. Wrong to prosecute a war without considering the violence it would unleash and what it would do to the lives of innocent people who would be in danger."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091801046_5.html

As to Kerry's position on the IWR and the war itself:

Here's part of the reason given by Kerry in voting for the IWR,

"Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances"

In true fact, Kerry did not vote for the nearly unilateral war of choice that occurred. Bush went against the promises he publicly made to get the votes. Kerry's Senate speech was absolutely consistent with things he said before the vote where he was as against the war as anyone and with his statement of his beliefs at Pepperdine.

Although Clinton usurped Kerry's reason in voting for the IWR for all Democrats except Lieberman, neither he or his wife or most Democrats who voted for the IWR spoke out against the war before it started or during the first few popular months - as Kerry did. That speaking out - promised in Kerry's floor speech - confirms he voted for the reasons given and should have made it clear it wasn't political. Had the war been a huge success, those comments would have labeled Kerry correctly as against the invasion.

[sandnsea]

18. I agree with you

People have simplified that vote to the point there isn't much else he can say about it except it was wrong. I think he is saying, given what he knows NOW, it was wrong. That's a very different thing than, given what he knew THEN, it was wrong. It'a also a different thing than, given the distortions about the purpose of the IWR, it was wrong. He had the same view as so many others, who were supposedly against the war - that it was necessary to deal with Iraq and WMD and that it was going to take a threat of miliary force. I still believe those who didn't think it was necessary to get tougher on Iraq were wrong. They can't say they were right to vote against the IWR and then point to anything to do with the inspections process to justify their vote. They voted against the military threat that got the inspectors into Iraq and they were wrong on that. But nobody ever talks about that.

[ProSense]

31. That is the debate I can't wait to hear! n/t

[wisteria]

2. That is my opinion also.

I think the media is wrong in promoting this very idea. The fact is, what those out of power would or would not have done is actually not relevant. They were not in a position to have to actually make that difficult decision. It also promotes the idea that those who voted for the IWR, voted for war- this is just nonsense. I have away felt, especially for Senator Kerry, it was a vote to protect this country.

Gore,Obama and Dean were not faced with having to vote for or against. So, frankly, I don't care to hear what they may or may not have done.

And, in a broader sense, we need to move past the finger pointing of who did and who didn't vote for the IWR. This argument is counter productive. What is needed are talks, ideas and action on a bipartisan basis. Senator Kerry is taking the right path on this.

[TayTay]

4. Revisionist History is going on here

Agian, go back to people who actually know what went on then and what happened.

This is not John Kerry's or any other Democrats war, (well, except Lieberman and Gephardt.)

Again, from the Frontline program, The Choice 2004 (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/interviews/winer.html ). The person being questioned is Jonathan Winer, long-time Kerry associate and a lead Senate Investigator during Iran-Contra and BCCI:

The vote for the resolution to go to war in Iraq -- did you ever discuss this with him?

A few times. I was not on a staff at that point, and so I wouldn't participate unless he called me in for what was a group meeting. I participated in a couple of them by telephone from my office. … It was a very hard vote, because he could see the arguments, both directions, as to whether you vote yes or no on the resolution.

He would have preferred, like a lot of other people, the resolution that Joe Biden and Richard Lugar had come up with, which would have slowed the rush to war while putting the authority behind the president to get U.N. inspectors back in, to make sure Saddam Hussein couldn't use WMD. That was the point of the resolution.

The Bush administration wanted something more than that. They wanted something without any strings attached, so they could just go to war. John was comfortable with it. Democrats were not comfortable with that, because they didn't want Bush just going to war unilaterally. They felt that was risky. John definitely was unhappy with that, and expressed it.

He'd been boxed. The Bush administration had chosen to box him and all the other Senate Democrats. "You either vote with us, in which case, you're responsible for it, too -- and we're going to do whatever the heck we please -- or you vote against us, and allow Saddam Hussein to be not held accountable. The president's position will be weakened, the United States' authority will be weaker in dealing with the rest of the world, and you not having stood up for American strength." …

The vote was designed to be an impossible vote for someone like John Kerry. That's why the Bush administration insisted on making the vote that way. It's a vote either to support the president, or undermine the president as the president's trying to deal with weapons of mass destruction that may be in the hands of an evil dictator.

John Kerry was not going to vote to undermine the president when the president was being directed to go the U.N. Remember, President Bush didn't even want to go to the U.N. There was a question of even going back to the U.N. to get inspectors back in. So it was a way of pushing it in the right direction, and hoping that the Bush administration would then do the right thing.

You're not given the choice of being 100 percent on these issues. You're not given the choice of doing exactly the way you would want to do it when you're a senator. You may not even be given the choice of doing exactly what you'd want to do when you're president, but you have a lot more power to shape the world.

As a senator, you're often forced to vote between two very difficult propositions, neither of which may be attractive. This vote was designed to be as unattractive, ugly, unpleasant, difficult, horrible, and damaging as possible by the Bush administration for Democrats, and in particular, any Democrat running for president. That was the point. That was the intention. It was designed to be a wedge vote, separating a John Kerry, for instance, from his natural constituents.

It actually worked very, very well for them. Remember, after that vote, they got the Senate back, and they increased the number of seats they had in the House. That's because the Democrats' base were depressed, were made miserable by that vote. It was designed to do that. It was a wedge vote. It was a brilliant move by Karl Rove. …

[beachmom]

7. And the evil of that vote continues to this day.

Why can't people realize this was Karl Rove bullshit, and MOVE the hell ON?

[ProSense]

10. Maybe because

spinning it as a vote for war serves their agenda.

[beachmom]

12. Yep. I think those who live by the Karl Rove Sword will die by it as well. nt

[MBS]

15. oh, your question is phrased just perfectly!

That's just exactly right. Thanks.

[Mass]

16. By what strectch of imagination do you think this is about Kerry?

Does Krugman give names? Because Kerry was never a cheerleader of this war, Krugman said so in other columns. (after reading the column, he is righly speaking about the right-wingers like Kristol, and other PNACers who are now posing as our saviours - I am tired of reading their columns or hearing them on TV telling us how Bush screwed the war and did not listen to them when they are responsible of this mess in the first place).

As for the two bloggers you posted, they are only bloggers. They may be wrong sometimes.

The first blogger just wants to push his dream tickets.

The Carpetbagger has it wrong in that Kerry did not want a war (and therefore does not fit in the category Krugman describes). He has it right that he did not think that Bush would screw things that badly. He said so again and again, and he also recognized his responsibility and that he should have voted against the IWR. But the blogger is projecting is feelings here: he may have been not that opposed to the war himself and having people he respects seemingly having made the same error is reassuring.

Edited after reading Krugman's column to reflect what is in the column. The rest is just a little bit more of propaganda by people who cannot read.

[Mass]

17. And for those who want to know what Krugman actually said:

http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/2006/12/they-told-you-so.html

[Mass]

19. The best way to see it is NOT about the IWR is that Skelton and Spratt , who are in

the list, voted FOR the IWR.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

Steve Benen is wrong to bring Kerry here. voting for the IWR is not the point Krugman makes.

[sandnsea]

21. Then it's just a goofy column

You can't cherry-pick what people said to justify 'getting it right' - when if you read more of what they said you discover they also got it wrong. I'll just chalk this up to too much Christmas cheer the night before he wrote the column.

[sandnsea]

20. Thanks

But perhaps if Krugman read more of what people say and said on the war, he'd discover why you can't just cherry-pick a vote and a couple of statements, and make that a case for who to listen to on the war.

Because Ike Skelton also said in 2004, "We cannot leave Iraq. This has to be a success. If it's not a success, the credibility of the United States of America as a leader in this free world will hit rock bottom. We cannot allow that." Being 'right' in 2002, but so completely wrong in 2004, makes him... what??

In his 2002 speech, Al Gore also said, "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country...The President should be authorized to take action to deal with Saddam Hussein as being in material breach of the terms of the truce and therefore a continuing threat to the security of the region. To this should be added that his continued pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is potentially a threat to the vital interests of the United States. But Congress should also urge the President to make every effort to obtain a fresh demand from the Security Council for prompt, unconditional compliance by Iraq within a definite period of time. If the Council will not provide such language, then other choices remain open, but in any event the President should be urged to take the time to assemble the broadest possible international support for his course of action."

And we all remember Howard Dean's 'give 'em 60 days and attack' rhetoric.

The left has never been honest about the debate and the general thinking towards Saddam at the time.

[Mass]

22. This is NOT about the vote - Skelton voted FOR the IWR.

This is about being responsible. (Krugman did not go after Kerry. At worse, you can fault him not to quote him (or Clark, or Kennedy, or Boxer, ...).

The two bloggers that beachmom quoted distorted Krugman for their PERSONAL GOALS:

- Steve Benen to defend his favorite candidate who actually supported the war (see some posts on GD a couple days ago).

- the other blogger to defend his dream ticket.

[sandnsea]

23. Did I say it was?

No. I gave you quotes of things people SAID, regardless of whether they even voted. The statement by Ike Skelton in 2004, which just goes to show how totally wrong Krugman's argument is since Skelton got it so horribly wrong in 2004. The totality of what people said, not just a vote or a cherry-picked comment, is what should be considered.

[wisteria]

24. After reading the entire piece, that is the problem I have. Kerry

should have been included in the list. I think it is a glaring omission. Yet, he mention the two recent media attention darlings, Obama and Gore. Krugman should know Kerry deserves recognition.

[JI7]

34. he mentioned John Kerry in previous articles

i really don't see the problem here. it's taking sensitivity to any criticism to a bizarre level. even when Kerry is not being criticized the fact he isn't mentioned even though others arne't is seen as an attack or something.

[fedupinBushcountry]

26. To bad Krugman wasn't at this thorough questioning of JK

in Dec. '03. William Pitt was there and here is how he put Kerry's response to the IWR vote:

This meeting took place on Dec. 4, 2003.

There are but a few weeks to go before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. Time has grown short. In an effort to galvanize the message Kerry wants to deliver in the time remaining, he convened a powerful roster of journalists and columnists in the New York City apartment of Al Franken last Thursday. The gathering could not properly be called a meeting or a luncheon. It was a trial. The journalists served as prosecuting attorneys, jury and judge. The crowd I joined in Franken?s living room was comprised of:
Al Franken and his wife Franni;
Rick Hertzberg, senior editor for the New Yorker;
David Remnick, editor for the New Yorker;
Jim Kelly, managing editor for Time Magazine;
Howard Fineman, chief political correspondent for Newsweek;
Jeff Greenfield, senior correspondent and analyst for CNN;
Frank Rich, columnist for the New York Times;
Eric Alterman, author and columnist for MSNBC and the Nation;
Art Spiegelman, Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist/author of ?Maus?;
Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post;
Fred Kaplan, columnist for Slate;
Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate and author;
Jonathan Alter, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek;
Philip Gourevitch, columnist for the New Yorker;
Calvin Trillin, freelance writer and author;
Edward Jay Epstein, investigative reporter and author;
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who needs no introduction.

We sat in a circle around Kerry and grilled him for two long hours. In an age of retail politicians who avoid substance the way vampires avoid sunlight, in an age when the sitting President flounders like a gaffed fish whenever he must speak to reporters without a script, Kerry?s decision to open himself to the slings and arrows of this group was bold and impressive. He was fresh from two remarkable speeches ? one lambasting the PATRIOT Act, another outlining his foreign policy ideals while eviscerating the Bush record ? and had his game face on. He needed it, because Eric Alterman lit into him immediately on the all-important issue of his vote for the Iraq War Resolution. The prosecution had begun.

?Senator,? said Alterman, ?I think you may be the most qualified candidate in the race, and perhaps also the one who best represents my own values. But there was one overriding issue facing this nation during the past four years, and Howard Dean was there when it counted, and you weren?t. A lot of people feel that moment entitles him to their vote, even if you have a more progressive record and would be a stronger candidate in November. How are you going to win back those people who you lost with your vote for this awful war??

There it was. Your record is the best, Mr. Kerry. But you voted for the war, Mr. Kerry. Howard Dean was right, Mr. Kerry, and you were not. Your campaign has been wounded, perhaps mortally, because of this. Explain yourself, and while you?re at it, explain how you are going to win back enough Dean voters to keep you from becoming a footnote in this race.

For over a year now, Kerry has struggled to respond to that question. His answers have seemed vague, overly nuanced and evasive. On Thursday, seated before the sharpest knives in the journalistic drawer and facing the unconcealed outrage of Alterman, the Senator from Massachusetts explained why he did what he did. The comments below reflect Kerry?s answers over the course of a long conversation and debate on the matter.

?This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,? Kerry said. ?I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That?s what I voted for.?

?The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,? continued Kerry, ?I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn?t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You?re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.?

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought
Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words ?weapons inspectors? were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush?s people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, ?Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn?t vote for me.?

Pointing out Bush?s mistakes is relatively simple, but what of solutions to the Iraq mess? Kerry was questioned at length on this, and gave the same answers delivered during his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on December 3: ?Our best option for success is to go back to the United Nations and leave no doubt that we are prepared to put the United Nations in charge of the reconstruction and governance-building processes. I believe the prospects for success on the ground will be far greater if Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority are replaced by a UN Special Representative for Iraq.?

?I understand that the United Nations is reluctant to return to Iraq,? continued Kerry in his CFR speech, ?for good reason. But I believe if the UN role is absolutely clear and substantively real, the Secretary General and members of the Security Council will support this course of action. But one thing is beyond doubt: We will continue to have difficulty persuading other countries, particularly those with meaningful military capabilities, to contribute troops and funds for reconstruction unless and until we vest real responsibility in the hands of the United Nations and the international community.?

Alterman, for one, was sold. In his MSNBC blog report on the meeting, he wrote, ?It was all on the record and yet, it was remarkably open, honest and unscripted. Let?s be blunt. Kerry was terrific. Once again, he demonstrated a thoughtfulness, knowledge base and value system that gives him everything, in my not-so-humble-opinion, he could need to be not just a good, but a great president.?

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. ?Senator,? he said, ?the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you?re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.?

Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, ?You?re right. I was wrong to trust him. I?m sorry I did.? And then he was gone.

In the end, that is perhaps the greatest obstacle for Kerry to overcome. Liberal base voters never trusted George W. Bush from the beginning, and believed in their hearts that he was approaching the Iraq situation with bad intentions. The fact that Kerry trusted him, and trusted him enough to ignore Senator Robert Byrd?s dire warnings of constitutional abrogation of Congressional responsibilities which was inherent in the resolution, makes it hard for those voters to trust Kerry.

Yet for a Senator like Kerry ? who believes in bipartisanship, who chose to honor the office of the Presidency by practicing that bipartisanship, who trusted a number of publicly-made administration promises, who thought getting weapons inspectors into Iraq required the threat of force ? the choices presented in this vote were far more complex than those being made down on the street by the protesters. It can be argued that the best thing to happen to Howard Dean in his campaign was the fact that he was not a Congressman, and was not obligated to vote on the resolution when the chips were down.

None of this solves the immediate problem for Kerry. The nomination of Howard Dean takes on more and more each day an aura of inevitability. Kerry is still trailing Dean in key primary states, and Al Gore isn?t going to take back his endorsement. In order to regain any momentum and take the nomination, he will have to convince Dean supporters, more than anyone else, to switch to his camp. Dean?s stand on the war is not the central reason for the support he has gained, but it was what drew the attention of so many would-be Kerry people. That attention, with time, became support. With all the time that has passed, and with Dean?s campaign picking up such momentum, engineering a wholesale switch seems highly unlikely.

The punditocracy spent a good portion of their TV time on Tuesdsay declaring Kerry?s candidacy all but dead, while anointing Dean as the sure-fire eventual nominee. This may prove to be true, but not one primary vote has been cast yet. January becomes the proving ground. In the interim, you?ll find John Kerry on the campaign trail. His performance in Franken?s living room last Thursday, the tenor of his recent speeches, and his gladiator memories of his 1996 Senate race against William Weld, all indicate one simple thing. If John Kerry is going down, he is going down swinging.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

Kerry's mistake choosing to trust a President of the USA. I've always understood his vote, yes I was against the war, but I thought that if we got the inspectors in there it would stop Bush, I too was wrong, and I could not stand Bush, but I truly thought that no President would so blatantly abuse his powers.

[TayTay]

27. This is so true

Book after book has come out detailing what went wrong in the build up to, planning for and execution of the war. One of the determining factors was the screw-up of intelligence in the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein had been much closer to making a nuclear bomb than our intelligence services had thought. That impacted the thinking on this war.

The inspectors had been kicked out for years. We had no good information coming out of Iraq. The US was being setup by Chalabi and his people in the Iraqi National Congress group of exiles who wanted to use the US to get into power. They convinced Cheney and the neocons that Saddam had all these weapons. The intel was cooked to match the objective.

There was reason for suspicion. It was not clear-cut at all.

[karynnj]

30. You also had the fact that Scott Ritter

who actually was telling the truth in 2002 had lied in the late 1990s because he was against Clinton's policy. At that time, he was implying that there were still some weapons when they left. I have seen many people demand to know why he wasn't believed - but he told 2 stories in the then 4 years he was out of Iraq. I know I would have discounted everything he said - because it was clear he was lying one of the times.

The big problem is that it is very hard to prove a negative - especially whan no one was in the country for 4 years.

[karynnj]

29. I think that Krugman in the introduction of

The Great Unraveling: Losing our way in the New Century, he quotes John Kerry as saying in April 2003, "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Incidently, the head of the RNC then said "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest athe replacement of America's comandender - in -chief at a time when America is at war." He also said dozens of Republican politicians piled on to question the patriotism of Kerry, a decorated war veteran.

I always have read his column and do not think he ever has been less than complimenatry to Kerry - though I may have mised something. I do remember that the day I saw Kerry in Morristown, the people who wrote of the Priceton area event (Dave in Princton and Marjorie G - I think both people often on KG's blog mentioned that Krugman showed up and that he and Kerry were happy to see each other.

As others said, he criticized the cheerleaders - which Kerry wasn't. He also chose to quote lots of people. I don't know if he intentionally avoided Kerry - and if so for what reason. Kerry critisized the war throughout the entire campaign and has been a leading voice for how to get out - I seriously doubt that Krugman wants him to shut up.

[ray of light]

28. This makes me angry.

People THOUGHT the war in Iraq was only going to be instigated IF the facts warrented it. It bothers me when others simply toss out people like me as "War cheerleasders."

NO! We were not pro-war cheerleaders. We were thinking we had to defend our country. We did not KNOW we'd be lied to. We did not know about PNAC. We were media duped. And we were the majority back then. So just because someone voted "NO" to the war doesn't mean that they are more qualified to run this country than anyone. The facts could have gone the other way. And calling other presidential candidates, "Cheerleaders for the war" is patronizing to those of us-fully 80% of us--who were in the same state of mind as anyone who voted yes.

It's rude. It's stupid. And you don't discount 80% of the people this way.

(rant done)

[Mass]

32. So William Krystol (sp?the one PNAC guy) and Rumsfeld should be congratulated because they

are saying these things and others years after others? I think you are overreacting.

This is what this is about. As for Democrats, it goes after people like Lieberman. I do not understand the attacks on Krugman's column? Something escapes me. It is not about who voted for the IWR: 2 people in his honor roll call voted for it. It is about people who went enthusiastically to war and who had the mean to have the information. Are you in this category? If not, I do not understand why you have a problem with this column. Those who cheerlead for the war (meaning Bush, Rumsfeld, Santorum, Lieberman, Perle, Gingritch, may be HRC,...) should not be allowed to come out and said Bush botched their war and it could have gone well.

[JI7]

33. i agree, why are we taking the interpretation

of those with agendas on what Krugman is saying. reading this made it seem that Krugman was calling for a Gore/Obama ticket. when it's not the case at all.