Scheer: Kerry Made a Bush League Error on Iraq

[depakid]

It was a sucker pitch, and John Kerry fell for it like a rookie. I'm talking about President Bush's latest cheap gambit — turning his own unjustifiable and costly invasion of Iraq into his opponent's problem. Bush mocked Kerry's Iraq position for its "nuance" — a word that manages to sound both French and less than fully masculine.

At Bush's prompting, reporters asked Kerry if he, knowing what we all know now about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction, would still have voted, as he did in October 2002, to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. Instead of smacking that hanging curveball out of the park by denouncing the Bush administration for deceiving Congress and the nation into a war, Kerry inexplicably said yes.

Of course Kerry went on to make an important critique of Bush's conduct of the war, but he got slammed by the Bush team as well as the media for losing in the "gotcha" derby.

The irony is almost too much to bear. After all, for two years Bush has flip-flopped relentlessly on just exactly why it was a good idea to occupy a troubled Muslim country that posed no military threat to the United States. Now Bush is getting political mileage out of exploiting Kerry's stubborn refusal to admit he was had by All the President's Con Men.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer17aug17,1,3197764.column

I think Scheer has it right- Kerry's answer may be explained, it may have even been correct, but it was nevertheless a tactical blunder, based on the phrasing of the question and the inevitable reaction of the corporate media.

[still_one]

1. You have to move on

In addition, if there are debates, and this is brought up, Kerry has an opportunity to redeem himself

[wtmusic]

3. agree

there's only so much harm specific wording can make on an issue like this, and still 10 weeks to set the record straight.

[David Dunham]

2. Why Kerry voted 2 years ago is the PAST. Forget it. Care about Iraq now!

[depakid]

4. The point Scheer is making goes beyond one answer

to one question- it's an example of what Kerry can't allow to become a pattern of, as Scheer puts it "whiffing on Bush's curveballs."

If there's anything that's certain, it's that Rove through Bush will be throwing a lot more junk Kerry's way, and he'll need to hit back hard and be much more straightforward if he's going to win the "gotcha derby."

[KoKo]

9. Exactly, and I will add his "Sensitive War" comment. He can do better

than this, and can our Dems who are weak on Porter Goss nomination.

What are they thinking, here? Do they not remember what Al Gore went through? Gore should have one in a landslide but their snipeing and twisting of every word he said caused Americans to see him through the RW & Media distorted lens. The fact that the election was stolen in Florida shows exactly what "they" can do.

Bill Clinton won because of the Carvil/Begala "War Room" where they had rapid response to every attack. He won TWO TERMS.

If Kerry and his Campaign Managers don't get there butt in gear they will have another close election on their hands. We don't have room for many more of Bush's stunts, even though Kerry's numbers are rising, Bush & Co. still have the keys to the arsenal and the dirty tricks and the whole government spy agencies at their finger tips.

[Larkspur]

7. Kerry blew it 2 years ago and most likely will blow it on Iraq

should he be president. I have no faith in Kerry or Bush on Iraq. Both created that mess and they will want to dump it on others to clean up.

[Xipe Totec]

14. Kerry Was Up For Reelection 11/05/2002

Less than a month after the Iraq War Resolution vote. If Kerry had voted no, there's a good chance he would not be a Senator running for President right now.

The Republicans controlled the Congress and the Senate and therefore controlled the timing of the vote to maximum effect. Voting nay would have been political suicide for Kerry.

Let's move on.

[Skittles]

15. I agree

that vote is NOT "PAST" - Kerry said recently he does NOT regret his vote. I find that VERY DISTURBING.

[KoKo]

8. Move On...from stolen Election, Mid-Term Election Losses, a War based

on Lies, Loss of average Americans freedoms to protest, to breathe clean air and water and women's reproductive freedoms, and attacks by the media on every one of us who disagrees with the Doctrine of Pre-Emptive strike and the Bush's Nazi's dreams of the American Empire?

You have GOT to be kidding! The "Past" is ever with us, David Dunham, and those who choose to forget it are doomed to repeat it. (a loose quote from someone famous, whom I can't remember right now)

[xray s]

5. better for Kerry to get jammed on a curve ball now...

...that way, come October, when the season is on the line, he'll be ready to hit the next one out of the park.

[chuck555]

6. Tactical blunder?

Try devastating trap. You shall see.




That said,most people care not. I think at least 60% of us bought the "Kick their ass,Steal the gas". Think about it. If gas goes up 20 cents its a tragedy. cheap gas is a constitutional right,if not a right from God.

most supported the war until it got long and costly.

They marched in UK,Italy,Spain ,Australia and here. All of them went to war.

It didn't work in the 60's and 70's and it won't work now. High time to think of something better.

[Jack Rabbit]

10. I respect Kerry's reasoning, but I agree with Scheer

I and many others around the world marched against the invasion before it happened because we were not convinced that Iraq was a serious threat of any kind and certainly not an immediate one; because we were quite aware that there was no relationship between Saddam and al Qaida; and because we knew that the neoconservative case for war was based on cooked intelligence. In short, because there was no case for war. This was based on information that was public at the time. Those who marched were not just knee-jerk pacifists, but informed citizens as well.

Those members of Congress, including Senator Kerry, who claim they were misled by Bush and his aides really don't have a leg on which to stand. Bush was lying; they knew or should have known he was lying; they should have told him that unless he presents a more pressing case for war they would not support it.

That would not have stopped Bush. He has claimed almost dictatorial powers in what he claims to be a war against terrorism but what on closer inspection is nothing more than a series of acts of colonial piracy unrelated to anything that happened on September 11. A vote against Bush in Congress would have been met by action and more dishonest reasoning and, in the wake of the inevitable success of a war against nation that couldn't have withstood an invasion by a high school drill team, dares to just even think of doing something about it.

Senator Kerry claims his vote for the Iraq War Resolution was based on the fact that Bush would get his way regardless and his belief that the President needed negotiating authority. The first argument is true, but can as easily be used as a reason to vote against the IWR. What we are describing in a so-called leader who craves power and will not be restrained by any law is a tyrant; tyrants cannot be placated and the best and really only course of action that one can take is to oppose them. The IWR should not have been approved; it should have been thrown into Boston Harbor.

The argument that Bush, acting as President by virtue of having stolen the office, needed the authority to negotiate is a better one. By giving Mr. Bush this authority and directing him to use it to garner international support for the invasion, the administration was able to get the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 1441, in response to which Saddam re-opened Iraq to weapons inspections. Beyond that, the Bushies demonstrated in every way that their goal was war and conquest. They undermined the inspections effort in every way they could and denied the obvious when it proved effective. This goes back to point one: Bush would have his war regardless. At least by forcing him to take his pack of lies to UN, the weakness of his case for war was underscored. He made a mockery of the mandate of the IWR by going to war without either proper UN authority (Resolution 1441 was an insufficient basis for use of force and an enabling resolution introduced to the Security Council by Britain was withdrawn when it faced certain defeat) or any immediate causus bellum (as it turns out, not only was Iraq not an immediate threat, Iraq had no biochemical or nuclear arsenal at all, in spite of repeated claims by Mr. Bush and his aides to the contrary).

However, by passing the IWR and directing Mr. Bush to garner international support for the effort, a mandate which he did not appear to take seriously and failed to carry out, Congress merely passed the buck to another spineless organization, the United Nations. Instead of daring Congress to impeach him after a successful invasion, even after the reasons that justified the act have been exposed as deliberate lies, Mr. Bush is in effect daring the UN to sanction him and making threats against anyone who would do anything about it.

The invasion of Iraq, unjustified as either a pre-emptive strike to prevent an immediate threat from a foreign power from materializing or an act to enforce any UN resolution, is a war crime on its face. I do not expect Senator Kerry to state the obvious and say so. Nevertheless, as an American citizen, I believe that Mr. Bush and his aides should be charged and prosecuted under the 1996 war crimes act; if the federal government is unable or unwilling to indict or prosecute, then an international tribunal should be established for that purpose. As a citizen of the world, I am resolved not to defend the alleged war criminals in any fight against apprehension and I am further resolved to assist in their apprehension by international authorities if necessary.

Mr. Scheer makes a good point about the difference between Bush and Kerry. Bush shows his usual contempt for any complex intellectual understanding by mocking the word "nuance". As usual, Mr. Bush failure to use his brain has manifested itself in a black-or-white fallacy. If Mr. Kerry agrees with any part of what Mr. Bush did, as he must have when he voted for the Iraq War Resolution, then he must have agreed with everything Mr. Bush did in his war against Iraq. This simply doesn't hold water. The IWR is a more complex document than either Mr. Bush or many on the Left make it out to be. It was not a straight up-or-down vote to go to war. It was a multifaceted plan to give Mr. Bush to go ahead to go to war if certain conditions were met. It is just as wrong for supporters of the war to accuse Kerry of flip-flopping on the issue because he expresses reservations about a complex measure for which he voted as it is for opponents of the war to accuse Kerry of hypocrisy for voting for a complex measure about which he expressed reservations.

In this, Senator Kerry's nuances carry the day over Mr. Bush's fallacious oversimplifications. Kerry may be wrong in the end, but he demonstrates a greater ability to consider the various facets of a complex issue. That alone makes him preferable to Mr. Bush, who not only has no ability or willingness to patiently and thoroughly examine a complex problem, but contempt for those who do.

Even if there were absolutely no difference between the policies adumbrated by Senator Kerry and Mr. Bush, that alone makes Senator Kerry far more fit to lead.

[90-percent]

11. the run up to war

I too went to a War Protest, the one in February 2003 in DC. I brought along a cheep disposable instamatic because I thought my digital would get destroyed in the riots!

Anyway, if an average citizen like myself can use the INTERNET and determine that the basis of this war was TOTALLY BOGUS, why couldn't all the Congress and Senate figure out the same thing?

It was such a no brainer and these guys all voted for it as if voting against would mean you support raping dead babies or something?

I remember trying to debate people about the war and getting my patriotism and intelligence questioned so much, i became silent on the whole issue.

And now this guy is running for re-election! He used the tragedy of 9-11 to start a useless war to get oil for American corporations. Why he has an approval rating above single digits is beyond me.

And instead of the war, wouldn't it have been a better investment to just give the oil and defense corporations 500 billion cash outright? No questions asked. Couldn't this money have been better used to make business deals that get all these companies all the Iraqi oil they could handle? Isn't the war the most expensive and damaging way to procure all this oil?

The entire Senate is complicit in this war, no doubt about it. But now, Kerry is like Churchill and Boosh is like Hitler. The choice is obvious to America, I can only hope.

-85% jimmy

[KoKo]

12. Well said...that's the choice....n/t

[Larkspur]

13. Kerry is no Churchill, Chamberlain is more like it

Two thirds of the House Democrats voted AGAINST IWR in 2002, yet Kerry and Edwards vote FOR it. Pelosi led the mutiny over Gephardt's support of IWR, but Kerry and Edwards vote for IWR and lip sync'd some words to try to appease the anti-war groups.

[stevebreeze]

16. Ya GOTTA look at it this way

Had Bush stopped once he got inspectors back in Iraq, he would have looked very good. Bush would have never gotten the inspectors back in Iraq without the IWR. Where Bush blew it is by going forth as if "Saddam would not let the inspector in so we had to invade"(in Bush's own words.)The problem was not the IWR it is what Bush did with it.