Kerry's Flip-flop on Iraq, by Robin Shepherd

[Martin Eden]

This commentary appeared in the Perspective section of Sunday's Chicago Tribune. I'm not in total agreement with this author, but my biggest problem with Kerry remains his vote for the Iraqi War Resolution. In my opinion, his vote was incredibly poor judgement or a capitulation to political concerns. I don't think his explanations have been adequate, and his contradictions leave him vulnerable on foreign policy. Nevertheless, I'm impressed by the foreign policy Kerry has articulated (link at bottom of this post).

Flip-flop on Iraq
By Robin Shepherd, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington,D.C. and a former Moscow bureau chief for the Times of London
<snip>

Yet it was precisely the Bush doctrine of pre-emption to which Kerry gave his support in authorizing war against Iraq in the first place. Kerry now says that he favored more time for diplomacy, that he was basing his support on faulty information provided by the president, and that he was always concerned about alienating traditional allies.

All of this may be true, but the October 2002 resolution that authorized the president to go to war is about as open-ended an endorsement of pre-emption as one could imagine. It specifically authorized the president to act "as he determines to be necessary" to defend national security and enforce UN resolutions. If the United States is now isolated in the world, it is for reasons that Kerry himself has explicitly endorsed.
<snip>

If he appears implausible on the current Iraq war, he appears positively ridiculous on the first one, which he opposed outright. Explaining his stance to NBC's Tom Brokaw the night of his victory in the New Hampshire primary, he meekly ventured in his defense: "I thought the country needed to sort of come together a little more" before taking on that battle.
<snip>

The only thing clear about Kerry's thinking on foreign policy is that it is one gigantic mess. Two stars for bravery and three Purple Hearts in Vietnam may be impressive, but they don't substitute for clear thinking on grand strategy in the post-Sept. 11 world.
<snip>

Read the entire commentary:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0402150438feb15,1,7784978.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

If you're interested in what Kerry has to say about foreign policy, please read his December 3rd speech at the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

[trumad]

1. Oh well... He's our next canidate

so there ain't much point in bitchin about it now... Let's see how he fixes the mess wants he becomes Pres...

[stepnw1f]

3. Robin Shepherd

Is he primarily a business columnist? If so...I see a bias.

[papau]

2. And Bush's clear thinking on post-war Iraq,on not watching Osama post 2/01

Let's have this conversation.

Bring it on!

:-)

[buckeye1]

4. The vote never mattered.

We now know that war with Iraq was decided at the first meeting of the NSC in 2001. Later, Rumsfeld ordered plans to attack just days after 9/11. In Sept.2002 Bush declared that his lawyer determined that existing UN authority could support a war. The war powers act would have covered 60 days of warfare also.

If every Democrat had voted against IWR it still would have passed. Only Dennis Kucinch can claim credit here. HBDIII never voted and used this to bilk well meaning people out of a lot of money that was poorly spent.

Blowhard rhetoric and meetup jive conned so many. A bloated head in an empty suit. HBDIII needs to quit now.

[Martin Eden]

5. IWR did matter

I sincerely doubt Bush could have launched the invasion on the basis of existing UN authority or the war powers act. This is not to say that he couldn't have issued the orders and had them obeyed (I'm not clear on the legality); but rather, the IWR was a political necessity.

Furthermore, the IWR vote would not have passed the Senate if all 50 Democrats voted against it, bacause one Republican (Chafee - R.I.) voted nay.

But perhaps what matters most is that so many Democrats abrogated their Constitutional responsibility in matters of war -- and failed to provude the leadership that may have turned more public opinion against this war before it began.

Sure, IWR would likely have passed even if Kerry had toured the country giving passionate speeches against it. But if he had at least stood with Robert C. Byrd and other courageous defenders of our republic in opposition, the Democratic Party -- and Kerry's presidential campaign -- would now be stronger as a result.