Contemplating Kerry's rationale for his Iraq statements

[George_Bonanza]

I'm very disappointed by Kerry's statements, but I am willing to overlook it as election campaign follies that every candidate goes through. Even St. Ralph does it, like when he says he will pull more Repugs than Dems. Or when he contradicts himself when he says that his support is non-threatening to the Dems, yet says demands the Democrats woo that miniscule support and potentially alienate the independents. Let's not even get started on Bush!

Kerry's latest statements contradict his long-standing policy of "Yes I voted for the IWR, BASED ON EVIDENCE AT THAT TIME". That clearly states that he would, at the least, seriously reconsider his vote had he had different evidence. Kerry has also strongly come out in favour of withdrawing many U.S. troops and putting international coalitions like NATO and UN in, which doesn't sound like the words of a Bushesque neocon imperialist. Kerry has strongly advocated gaining independence from ME oil, so he's not in Iraq for oil. Kerry's always been anti-Saddam, but he wasn't fixated on it. In fact, that's one of the reasons why he was passed over as a potential VP by both Clinton and Gore, both who were more hawkish than him on Iraq. When Kerry made his speech following his YES vote, he clearly stated that the only reason why he approved it was because he believed Saddam might've possessed strength to launch an imminent attack on the U.S.

"Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution." - John Kerry

"As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter." - John Kerry

"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."

He clearly states that regime change is good but is absolutely unacceptable as the sole basis for war. His rationale for giving Bush the right to use force as a last resort had to do with potential WMDs and programs related to it.

Yet with his latest statement, if what the media is reporting is true, he is strongly insinuating that even without WMDs, his IWR vote was right. This makes no sense because previously he said that his only rationale for voting YES was BECAUSE of potential WMDs.

This is obviously a political move by John Kerry. Not that there's anything wrong with *gasp* politicking in a general election. I'm more interesting in why Kerry made such a dumb move. And that's what I want to discuss here, to speculate on what the campaign was thinking.

Possible schools of thought:

1) Saying he would've voted NO would open the door for more accusations of flip-flopping, possibly the biggest one yet. Most people would not read Kerry's speech following the vote and most people would see it as spineless pandering to the worsening situation in Iraq, especially after he continually defended his vote during the primaries.

2) Pandering to the moderate crowd in Nevada, where he made the statement.

3) Not wanting to be seen as uncommitted to Iraq. More and more Americans are growing pessimistic, but the majority still want to try and fix the problem, as a moral obligation to the wrongdoings of the Bush administration. Kerry has already pushed hard for withdrawal of American troops within his first year of presidency. Saying his IWR was a mistake would lead to talk about him saying the war was a mistake. Swing voters may be duped into thinking Kerry's going to do a half-assed job in Iraq before cutting loose.

4) Trying to force Bush into attacking his own positions. If Kerry's Iraq stance is similar to Bush, the faux president can't attack Kerry's without sounding like saying, "You're stupid enough to follow me, the King of Stupids?"

5) Trying not to place a fracture between himself and John Edwards, who has continually reiterated support for the war.

Any more thoughts?

[emulatorloo]

1. For non-proliferation of WMD's, Against Bush Rush to War

For Authority for President to Protect US, Against Bush Idiocy.

I dunno it seems simple.

It kinda puts the whole thing back on Bush -- now Bush must explain and defend his idiocy.

[coloradodem2005]

2. Well, we got to keep our eye on the ball.

Win the election. I personally disagree with Kerry's vote but as a politician, he needs to say what he has said.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. I agree

I personally think he could have said no and been more consistent and said it in a way that would have reassured swing voters, but even so, I understand what he's going through right now and I'm not someone who worships politicians - for better or worse, the definition of "politician" is someone who practices "politics" and some of our greatest leaders - FDR and JFK - would be called flip-floppers or shameful opportunists today.

Kerry is far more consistent than people give him credit for. He would not have taken us to Iraq and it's abundantly clear what he would have done regarding Iraq. He would not have taken us to war. He would have threatened force and used that as leverage to get Saddam to open the country to weapons inspectors. The argument is over the justifications for the VOTE not the action.

Frankly, I disagree with both his IWR vote and the $87 bil vote, but I'm willing to accept it and it doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for a Kerry presidency. He'll be a good president. And if you honestly think he would have taken us to war in Iraq, don't vote for him.

[MichiganVote]

4. Yes. We've all become sensitized to dumbness in others

because of George Bush. He had made us suspect dumb stuff on the part of everybody.

John Kerry is doing what he can, when he can, to get elected. If he is, there is no way he will satisfy everyone in regard to Iraq. It is now such a horrendous mess over there that anything done by anyone is dicey.

I think John Kerry is telling the truth. George Bush has not told the truth. George Bush tells lies in repetitive once sentence pieces. Kerry tries to explain himself as though everyone follows international events as closely as he or other members of the Senate. Needless to say, they didn't get it right either and some of them either say too little or have said too much.

I don't think that John Kerry is playing coy with the American public. I just think he is trying too hard to explain himself in the face of many other Senators who should be asked the same questions he is being asked and are not. Nor are others in this Congress and Administration coughing anything up. They all are happy that either George Bush or John Kerry are habitually on the hot seat. Not to mention that the fact that the media seldom gets Kerry's quotes right.

[Nightjock]

5. I am quite upset with Kerry

I see George Bush campaigning today basically saying, "After saying I misled the country into war I'm glad Mr Kerry and I are on the same page."
UGH!

If you believe that Bush misled us (which he did) why do you say you would have voted the same!? The question was KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW, would you have voted the same way?

This can only hurt Kerry's chances to win back our country.

[emulatorloo]

6. But Bush is Spinning. . . .and he ain't telling the truth about JK

it is pretty much like this:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17443

[meow2u3]

7. I can sum up Kerry's Iraq statements in five words

The Bush Regime conned him!