Toronto Star: Kerry Fails Iraq Test

[AmericanErrorist]

What do Americans need in their president, post-9/11? Strong leadership, of course. Clear vision. Common sense. And in a dangerous, fast-changing world, the capacity to learn from past mistakes would be helpful.

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat who hopes to elbow President George Bush from office on Nov. 2, promises all of the above and more. But there was little of it on display Monday, when Kerry responded to Bush's challenge to spell out where he stands on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Rising to Bush's bait, Kerry said he would have cast the same Yes vote in Congress that he did on Oct. 11, 2002, to authorize the president to launch a pre-emptive war that began March 19, 2003, even if Kerry had known that Saddam Hussein had no ties with Al Qaeda terrorists, no weapons of mass destruction and posed no real threat to the world.

"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

It's depressing from a candidate who has attacked Bush for "misleading" the nation, who promises a better direction and who claims to want to re-engage with the world....

Practical politics undoubtedly prompted Kerry's reply. He is loath to admit he cast a foolish vote in 2002. He does not want to alienate voters who were similarly duped, and who are not keen to be reminded of it. And he must not be seen as "soft" on Saddam.

But Kerry comes off looking like "Bush lite" on Iraq, rather than as a candidate with better values and a sounder program. He seems weak. Muddled. Has he learned nothing from a slew of American investigations that have exposed the sloppiness of U.S. intelligence and the shabbiness of the rationale for war?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1092175810357&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795

[Gore1FL]

1. I am not shocked the Totonto Star got it wrong

There are a bunch of infomred liberals here that take the Rove spin this.

GOP Logic:

Bush likes Plaid

Kerry says he does not like poka-dots

Therefore Kerry Like Plaid too.

I really hated that 2002 vote. I didn't support it and was plenty pissed about it then and now.

The main reason I hated it: I didn't trust Bush.

Kerry's reason to vote for it: You should be able to trust the president, but Bush let us down.

Despite the opposing views on the vote itself, the reasoning behind Kerry's vote is not opposite of mine.

The long and short of this response: I hate Kerry's vote. I wish he had not voted in the way he did. To say that his Yes vote equates to what Bush/Rove said it does (which is what the article presents) is utterly false.

In spite of taking the opposite vote that I would have, his reasoning for doing what he did is much closer to my position than Bush's.

[Andromeda]

2. Yeah,

What he said. :)

[Dogmudgeon]

3. I guess we better vote for Bush, then

It's not a matter of "the lesser of two evils".

It's a matter of choosing a decent man with a few flaws, over a Jeebus-simple dry drunk intent on looting the Treasury and wiping his ass with what remains of the Constitution.

The whole "Kerry-voted-for-IWR" outrage is crap. A bad vote can't compare to four years of malfeasance. And keep in mind, Karl Rove takes no end of delight when the circular firing squad locks and loads.

Perfectionistic "progressive" moralists are about as progressive as PNAC is. We need progress, and we need it now. Vote for the best, encourage those who are better, and keep pushing forward. We'll never have the perfect leader, but we could have a much better world with imperfect leaders who are at least heading in the right direction.

--bkl

[Cronus Protagonist]

4. As soon as I read, "This amounts to ", I knew it was a rag

"This amounts to " gives the writer enormous latitude to fabricate whatever comes next. No flight of fancy is too high for this verbal trick, no stoop too low.

To use their own petard, "This amounts to " lonely masturbation of a shrill and pompous ideologue. Doesn't it?

SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[mazzarro]

5. This is one issue that Kerry must address in a more succinct way

now rather than later! I was mightily pissed-off with his and the democratic legislators' vote for IWR in general. But the continued vague response from Kerry when challenged oh the issue is not helpful. He needs to be clear and repetitive of the reasons why he voted for the resolution rather than the obtuse answer he has so far been giving. He should not expect the listening public to find more information about the resolution's vote on their own since the public is generally lazy, For this reason, I will prefer that every time Kerry responds to this issue that he states as follows:

(1) I voted for the IWR resolution because I believe the words of the pResident on WMD
(2) I voted for the IWR resolution because I had no concrete reasons to doubt the intelligence presented to the congress regarding WMD
(3) I voted for the IWR resolution because the administration pledged to use force as a last resort not at the first opportunity
(4) I voted for the IWR resolution because the administration pledged to assemble a broad coalition to enforce the UN FINAL decision on the issue
(5) I voted for the IWR resolution to strengthen the hand of the pResident in his dealing with the UN on the issue of getting the UN inspectors back into Iraq


If those were his reasons. Then I will want him to continue with some of the things he would done differently like:


(1) I would have used the privilege to assemble a true coalition of concerned world leaders based on mutually accepted threat analysis
(2) I would have used the privilege to get true consensus resolution from the UN Security Council by presenting truly convincing intelligence analysis and not made-up intelligence
(3) I would have used the privilege to demand the unfettered access to all nooks-and-corners of Iraq
(4) I would have used the privilege to ascertain that the security of the US, the region and indeed the world was no longer threatened by Iraqi WMD
(5) And once the WMD issue was taken care of, I would have used the privilege and opportunity of the UN-based coalition being in IRAQ to push for the unfettered democratization of Iraq by Iraqis under the auspices of the UN in order to further constrain and marginalized Saddam Hussein and his Baath party junta.


And like the rethuglican party, Kerry should continually repeat the same succinct answer every time he is asked the question until everyone is familiar with it - like it or not.