If Kerry had said "No"...

[kentuck]

to the controversial question, think of what the Bush Cheney response would have been?

First of all, he would be a "flip-flopper" again. But, worse than that, he would be considered too weak to defend this nation against tyrants like Saddam Hussein. That was the set-up.

Bush had planned on getting Kerry to say "No, he would not have voted for the war." Then he would have said he was weak on the war on terrorism. He wanted to claim the title of "defender of America" as his own. This was what Bush and Rove were betting on. But Kerry did not say what they thought he would say.

There was no "right" answer to the question. Kerry simply said he would vote again to give the president "authority". The president did not keep his end of the bargain. Kerry did not vote for a unilateral invasion without our allies on board. He did not vote to send our troops into harms way unprotected and unprepared, as Bush did.

Bush had hoped that from now to election day, he could say that he was the only person strong enough to be commander in chief. When the truth comes out, you will see that this is what happened. Bush wanted to paint Kerry into a corner and say he was weak on the fight against terrorism.

[unfrigginreal]

1. It was stupid to answer the question with "I'd do it again"

There's no defending that. He should have answered it the way one of his advisors suggested - "I wish he had simply said no president in his right mind would ask the Senate to go to war against a country that didn't have weapons that pose an imminent threat."

[johntao]

2. Bingo

If Kerry had said no, Bush would use a sound bite like this: "Kerry would rather have Saddam still in power." As much as many of us on the left hate the fact that Kerry said "yes", it seems that in the long run it was the better strategic maneuver. Kerry cannot give any ground in combating terrorism. Bush's only strategy for this election is to scare people into believing he is the only one who can protect them. Bush certainly cannot run on anything else. This is his only issue and all the polls show it.

Kerry needs to talk like a hawk. If he can bridge the gap between him and Bush on the question of terrorism, Kerry wins hands-down. All the polls show Kerry is in the lead on all domestic issues.

[kentuck]

3. I think you got a handle on it, johntao...

Welcome ! :)

[JI7]

4. he was called a flip flop on here

during the primary when he would criticize bush. some would respond back with "so why did he vote for the war then".

[kentuck]

5. Because he knew a peace candidate cannot win during a time of "war"

It was a political decision, right or wrong.

[sampsonblk]

8. Because he THOUGHT a peace candidate could not win

He was wrong. And now that's the main drag on his candidacy.

Side point: Opposing the the IWR would not make him a peace candidate. It would make him more thoughtful and prudent than Shrub. Just my 2 cents.

[kentuck]

10. Maybe..?

Maybe not? Kerry made the decision that people would only vote for a strong military supporter in these times. ANd judging from the primaries, he seems to have been right.

[sampsonblk]

12. Maybe...not?

Or maybe. Judging from the exit polls, Kerry's success had nothing to do with the war - which nearly 80% of Dems opposed at the time.

*Note: I was never a Dean supporter. I was for Clark because he is a vet like myself.

Maybe the media collapsed on Dean just as they did on the anti-war reporting prior to us going in. Today, the Washington Post fesses up that it, like the NYT, really screwed up on the pre-war reporting. A year from now, maybe they will say the same about the Dem primaries. Who knows?

[Old and In the Way]

13. Not really.

The "peace candidates" didn't win in the Democratic primaries, so I doubt they'd have had a chance in the general election.

I think the real problem we have here is that people assume that the "Iraq War Resolution" was a declaration of war on Iraq. It wasn't.

[sampsonblk]

15. I don't see your reasoning

If campaigns were only about issues and not about a whole lot of other things, then candidates could just mail in their records and resumes and we'd all pick. ?

Just because a pro-ar guy won, and the anti-war guys lost, doesn't mean that one or the other couldn't have won. Who knows what could have happened if other candidates were better organized or had other advantages? I don't see Kerry's nomination as showing support in our party for the invasion of Iraq. All the polls show Dems were strongly against almost from day one.

Am I looking at this wrong?

[Old and In the Way]

18. Yes, I think the Democrats were very united against the war.

And I also think Democrats were content with UN inspectors doing the job in Iraq, too. I think that's what Kerry voted for.

If the IWR had been: "Do you support an invasion and occupation of Iraq?", then a "yes" vote by Kerry would have DQ'd him as my choice.

[sampsonblk]

20. I DQ'd him the day he voted for the IWR

That is the main argument that we keep having on this site. Did Kerry vote for - and actively support - an invasion and occupation of Iraq or not? That's the real question. I suspect we will never get total agreement at DU.

In my view, he most certainly did.

[Julien Sorel]

21. He was wrong?

What peace candidate can win, then. Nader?

[sampsonblk]

22. This 'peace candidate' thing...

Being opposed to the invasion of Iraq doesn't make someone a 'peace candidate,' whatever that is.

The invasion of Iraq was stupid, and got bungled on top of that. You don't need to be a peacenik to realize that.

The majority of the public now realizes that it was a mistake. I say that a nominee who had the foresight to see this coming would be in great shape right about now.

[The White Rose]

6. Just so.

When you hand a cop a gun you don't expect them to drive over to the nearest doughnut shop and commit armed robbery. Kerry's mistake, and I think he should say this, is that he trusted the President of the United States to act responsibly.

[kentuck]

7. I agree.

But knowing now that George W Bush is irresponsible and cannot be trusted with the keys to the Pentagon, would you still vote to give him authority to go to war?? Even though he knew it was the "authority" that everyone said was needed for Saddam to take it seriously?

[Old and In the Way]

14. If Kerry (or any President) comes before Congress, asking for

support on a clear and pressing danger, they will be hamstrung because Bush has created a precedent in that he used the office and the resolution to further his political/economic agenda which was not in the best interests of this country. This is the longterm damage that he's done...lying on whar should be a bi-partisan issue of national security.

That's what Kerry ought to be pounding on.

[The White Rose]

16. Yes, tricky isn't it?

Right now, for the political reasons you describe, Kerry is going for the less-damaging option. What else can he do? Throwing out a question like this is a win-win situation for the Bushies.

Of course, we should bear in mind that the whole "authority" thing was little more than a show for Saddam and the American people anyway. Geopolitically it served to put the fire to Saddam's toes in order to ensure that he'd comply with inspections (which was Kerry's aim and which worked by the way), domestically it helped to foster the continuing illusion that Congress has any practical control over presidential war powers (a pragmatic aim of those who benefit from the status quo, of which, in the final analysis, Kerry is a member). Since it was clear that Bush intended to invade Iraq come hell or high water, by voting to "give" him the authority to go to war there was, perhaps, a chance that the disasterous balls-up we're now involved in could have been averted with a quick diplomatic solution.

But maybe that's a bit too nuanced a position ;-)

[johntao]

9. yes...

He can still do that. I don't see how his "yes" response could prevent him from saying that the President acted irresponsibly with the authority that he was given. I have a premonition that he will do this very thing in the future, perhaps during the debates.

[kentuck]

11. Furthermore, how can Bush use this response against Kerry???

Like he said, Kerry agreed with him on the war. Although we know that Kerry did not agree with him. Bush can say, I must be right, even Kerry agrees with me. So Bush and the Repubs cannot use this response against Kerry. They are in "agreement"...supposedly.

But, the purpose was to weaken Kerry with his base and the left-wing of his Party, the ones that did not agree with the war in the first place. Tha tis how they are using this against Kerry. It is of no political use to the Repubs except as a divisive tool to divide the Democratic base.

[JohnKleeb]

17. it clearly is being used to divide kentuck

Now I believe in analyizing a man's full record, thats why despite my full scale opposition to the war, I was ok with Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards, would have a problem with Lieb though, hes a censorer, etc.

[depakid]

19. Why would he have been a flip flopper?

that makes ZERO sense. The question was prefaced "knowing what we know now."

I'll tell you what will make him vulnerable to charges of being a flip flopper- if he goes after the Bush Administration's lies and distortions about the reasons for going to war- because now, as a result of this blunder- those are irrelevant (at least, in terms of the widely circulated "popular" version of his response).

[newdealer]

23. The complete answer he gave

"I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Of course sound-bite snippet media outlets didn't include this. Surprise! Suprise!

[IndianaGreen]

24. The real question is next year: Will Kerry end the war NOW?

If a President Kerry decides to "stay the course" in Iraq, he will quickly see himself cast in the role of Richard Nixon in 1969. Kerry will get nothing but grief if he decides to support Allawi and the continued occupation of Iraq.

Remember, ABB is only a TEMPORARY coalition!