|
If Bush were not lying through his teeth when he said thatit was not a vote for war, it could actually have had good results. In fall 2002, Saddam was pushed into granting far more invasive, complete inspections than ever before and he destroyed his missiles, as they were borderline out of compliance. Bush promised publicly that he would use diplomacy and work with the international community and go to war only as a last resort.
In the summer of 2002, Kerry was one of the voices pushing Bush to go to the UN and to Congress. When Bush appeared to be doing just that, Kerry gave Bush that vote for the reasons he stated and he has since said he regrets it and that it was the wrong vote. He has also worked as hard as anyone to create a path out. That leadership - over the last 3 years should carry some weight in assessing whether he should be a leader on this. The vote, though wrong, was not a blank check - if it were Bush would not have written a signing statement that said that by signing it, he gave up no constitutionally given power to attack when he thought the country in danger.
In 2002, the status quo was going to change. The sanctions that had caused devastation in Iraq were very likely going to be lifted by other countries. They should never have been kept in place for 12 years. In December 2002, Bush could have announced that the destruction of the missles and the inspections was compliance of a type we had never seen before and if it continued war could be avoided and sanctions could be lifted. If Saddam was willing to destroy his only high tech weapons to avoid war, it is likely that he would have agreed to some form of long term monitoring. (If we were smart, we would have in parallel offer to help in rehabilitating te damage from the bombings and sanctions.) This would have given Bush a success in this area greater than his father's or Clinton's. The ironic thing is that had Bush done what he publicly said he would, 2004 would have been an easy victory.
In 2003, when it was clear that Bush was going to war Kerry did speak out as he said he would. Kerry was ON RECORD as against the war before it started. Looking at all he said and wrote in 2002 and 2003, Kerry was consistently against war. Kerry is also not running for President, he is working to end the war.
It was Kerry and Feingold, more than any other people, who insured there would be a debate in the Senate in 2006 on Iraq and that there would be a real binding Democratic proposal. Kerry was the one who took the most grief from the "party leaders" for this. Yet a variant of that plan was voted for by all but one of Democratic caucus earlier this year. Kerry has clearly been one of the strongest voices saying the Democrats do have a better policy - calmly listing the elements of his plan. Note that even Hillary Clinton is now saying that only deadlines will move the Iraqis to resolve their differences. Contrast that to her sarcastic adament opposition to Kerry/Feingold.
Here, you did not say that you wouldn't support Kerry as President or that you don't like him, you said that because of a vote 5 years ago, he shouldn't lead on this effort now. As, he is chair of the SFRC subcommittee that oversees Iraq, that would mean he isn't doing his job. The fact though is that he has been the leader on this issue for 2 years - even as party leaders worked against him.
Do we have so many strong voices that you can reject a leader who has been right far more often than wrong?
|