How to explain the IWR vote to both Dems & Repigs

[prodigal_green]

John Kerry voted to give the chimp the option to use force with several conditions attached. Here's an analogy that can explain what that means and help remind people of chimpy's past:

When your teenage child asks to borrow the car, you first make him promise to stay sober, follow the speed limit, fill the tank, and be home by a specific time. He swears up and down that he will do these things and you trust him to keep his word. When he downs a fifth of vodka, drives at 100mph on the wrong side of the road and spins off road into a tree killing his passenger, your having given him the keys does NOT mean that you authorized him to manslaughter.

[liveoaktx]

1. That is a terrific analogy!

[Jacobin]

2. It's the best we can do with a sorry situation

Unfortunately, EVERYONE knew that Smirk was going to invade Iraq REGARDLESS of what the inspectors did or did not do, regardless of what Saddam said or did, and regardless of the consequences.

EVERYONE knew that that "teenager" was drunk, incompetent, delusional and had an itchy trigger finger, and giving him the keys was tantamount to putting a hand grenade in a crib with an 18 month old.

The sob gets no pass from me. I'm holding my nose to vote for Kerry because there is NO OTHER CHOICE, but he'll need to do a lot better with extricating us from IraqNam

[liveoaktx]

5. I think you're missing the point- this doesn't give him a pass

it explains to people who cannot understand *nuance* why you might authorize someone to do something but still not expect them to do the wrong thing.

It isn't *everyone* that thinks Bush was always going to war. *We* think that, but there's a significant chunk of the population that only listens to propaganda or doesn't pay enough attention because they're watching people eat worms. I think Prodigal's analogy puts this issue in everyday terms.

[Jacobin]

7. That's why I said its the best we can do with a sorry situation

It might work for the undecideds not paying attention. For the rest of us its a depressing tack to have to take.

[Cheswick2.0]

12. oh no, I think everyone knew he was going to go to war

It's just all the other people were perfectly happy with that outcome.

[liveoaktx]

22. I don't remember the world as being happy we were going to war

but I do recall thinking that Bush was boxing himself in a corner and had a necessity to trump up the *evidence* to justify going. There was an air of inevitability, because Bush didn't seem the type to know how to back down without looking like a wuss. People I spoke to still had an expectation that it had to be justified and were unhappy that he went to war without world approval and help (except for some of the racist Texas rednecks that live in my town).

[LoZoccolo]

25. Uh, I didn't know that.

Not back in October 2002 I didn't. It started becoming obvious early the next year, but not back then.

[liveoaktx]

3. Can I just add to that....

You're not sure that the car is road safe, your son thinks it is, but your offer of the car is conditional on his taking it to the auto garage first to either confirm or deny its safety. You tell him, I'm letting you drive this ONLY if you get it checked out first and you're sure it's safe, otherwise, you can't drive it. He tells you, of course, I will make sure, but ignores your instructions.

Should you have authorized him to drive? You thought he was mature enough to handle this, you were wrong. He refuses to say it was his fault or that he made a mistake, so you don't believe he is mature enough to drive any of the family cars anymore.

[Bleacher Creature]

4. Good analogy, BUT

we all know that the irresponsible media covering the election doesn't have the patience for that kind of explanation. It's too long and it forces people to think (BAD!!!)

And in terms of soundbites, Kerry said it pefectly once before. Everyone remember his Rolling Stone interview??

"I voted to give President Bush the authority. Then President Bush f***ed it up."

It's still the best explanation out there. Is it appropriate for a debate or campaign ad?? Unfortunately, probably not.

[liveoaktx]

6. Prodigal wasn't offering it as a campaign ad or debate...

There's no *but* to this. You talk to people everyday, at your workplace, in email, etc. This is an everyday, bread and butter analogy for the REAL politics.. ie, LOCAL.

[Bleacher Creature]

9. Agree on the LOCAL part

Maybe I'm just not talking to the same people as you, but the average "undecided" --whatever the hell that means -- vote isn't going around trying to juxtapose John Kerry's various votes and statements in a way so as to mislead the people into thinking that he's inconsistent. It's Bush's goons that are doing that.

If you have time to talk to people in a thoughtful way, of course you should do it with more than talking points and one-liners. And in that case, analogies are perfect. But we absolutely cannot forget to keep fighting back against the Holts, Mehlmans, etc of the world as well.

[Mick Knox]

8. I knew it was a vote for war

Everyone on this board knew it was a vote for war.

I guess only Kerry couldnt figure out that "I.W.R." was a vote for war.

But I guess we can use any meme we can get with this sorry ass vote. so we'll pretend Kerry was the only guy on the planet who didnt know it was a vote for war.

I.W.R. is such a confusing term.

[CTLawGuy]

10. a more complete analogy would be this

You are going to be entering into a contest among the town's children for "coolest parent" of the year. You want to win this contest more than anything. Your child, who has a history of drinking problems, lying to you, and who has a flippant attitude about drunk driving, asks to borrow your car.

Your spouse tells you that your teen has not demonstrated that he is responsible enough to take out the car. The spouse points out the teen's lying behavior and past arrests for underage drinking. The spouse recommends that you force your teen to shape up his act and his life first before giving away the car. For the record, your spouse has no interest in the coolest parent contest.

You think to yourself, "if I don't give the car keys to my teen, he will tell the townspeople that I am 'way uncool'. I can't bear for that to happen."

Therefore, over the objection of your spouse, you give the car keys to your teen, but tell him not to drink and drive.

An hour later, you catch your teen downing a fifth of vodka. You say "must win the contest, must win the contest." Your spouse, before going to work, yells at the teen not to drive. The teen shoots back "HE (pointing to you) told me I could. I don't have to listen to you!"

15 minutes later you catch your obviously drunk teen getting into the car with an innocent young teenage girl he had brought over. You think "if I try to stop him, he will tell everyone I'm uncool. Must win the contest. I need to be a parent who is 'electable'."

Your son crashes the car and kills the girl in a tragic one car accident. Your spouse is devestated and pissed off. The spouse tearfully asks you:

"if you knew then what you knew now about what would happen, would you still have given him the keys?"

"Yes." You say, somehow with a straight face.

[Larkspur]

13. And in this case the "coolest" parent candidate would be guilty of

accessory to murder/manslaughter by giving his/her son the keys to a weapon -- the car. If bar owners can be charged with accessory to drunk drivers' crimes, then parents who know their children are irresponsible should also be guilty of the same thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

14. There ya go

Perfect analogy

[mememe]

11. good explanation, only one problem

The explanation you give is a very good one. The only real problem I see with using it is that it doesn't really have much basis in truth. At the time of the IWR vote everyone who was actually thinking realized that it was, for all intents and purposes a declaration of war tied to an ultimatum. For Kerry now to claim that he voted to authorize war without thinking that Bush would really go to war would be to show him to be simultaneously craven and stupid.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. Just for fun...what if Kerry had voted against IWR?

Had that happened, the Republicans would have creamed in their pants as he announced his intent to run for president. Kerry wouldn't have a prayer in putting forth a message he's strong on defense. They already have the 'Massachusettes Liberal' 'most Liberal Senator' meme out there.

So at this point I'd say, stick with Kerry's "I voted for the authorization for the President to use force as a last resort" and let it go at that.

[CTLawGuy]

16. If Kerry had voted against IWR

he could say, "I opposed this useless mess of a war from the beginning. If it were me, I'd be concentrating my resources on Al-Qaeda, people who are actually trying to kill us, rather than on Bush's wild goose chase to nowhere."

[displacedtexan]

19. Could a future "President Kerry" ever ask for such authority...

from the US Congress if he had ever voted against such authority for a previous president?

Americans need to distinguish between the office and the person.

[DCCyclone]

17. I'm afraid, prodigal_green, that argument is silly on its face......

The vote on war with Iraq was a vote to go to war, not some nuanced authorization for an "option" to use force. Every last man and woman, and even many children, knew at the time of that vote that it was, in fact, a vote for war itself. Trying to say now that it was something more nuanced based on the literal text of the resolution is absurd. The vote was what everyone knew it to be, not some lawyerly interpretation of the language to give a Senator an "out." Kerry's argument that his vote wasn't really "for war" is justifiably laughed at. I'm a government lawyer myself, I get paid for wordsmithing, and I know as much as anyone that every word matters in any legal document. But that vote was first and foremost a political vote and only secondarily a legal one--and the political reality is, correctly, what controls in most voters' minds.

Kerry should have just said what retiring Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-NE) said, that in hindsight the war was wrong, that there was a massive intelligence failure, and that he would not have voted for war if he knew then what we all know now. Instead, Kerry has been dancing around, looking like a confused idiot.

I'm very puzzled that his campaign is bungling yet again after seemingly having overcome its bungling ways with its comeback win in the Iowa caucuses. We need to win this election at least as desperately as we needed to win 2000, and yet we once again have a nominee whose campaign can't put together a consistently strong and competent performance. I know it's far from over, but we should be sitting on a small lead or at least a draw at this stage, instead of slightly behind Dubya.

[prodigal_green]

18. I agree. I knew it was a vote for war but

can Republicans actually argue that George Bush LIED when he made those promises? How can they spin it to their advantage in this case?

It kind of backs them into a corner.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said it is a good way to explain it to Dems.

BTW, I'm not trying to defend Kerry's vote. I thought then and think now that it was a mistake.

[CTLawGuy]

20. then Bush can turn around and say

the intelligence agencies "lied" to him. Its a no win situation.

[liveoaktx]

21. I don't agree.. In Worse the Watergate, John Dean makes the case

that Bush deceived Congress and in fact, what they offered to him, was not a blank check. (pp 140-156)

Sept 2002- He told them he was going to get a resolution to authorized military action and wanted them to act quickly.
Oct 3.2002- Bush started trotting out the justifications for war, but his *facts* were scanty.
Oct 10, 2002 "Congress overwhelmingly approved a resolution authorizing war with Iraq. But there was a kicker in the authorization: Congress conditioned its grant of authority on a formal determination by the president of the United States that there continued to be a threat that could not be dealt with through diplomacy and that his actions be consistent with the war against those involved with 911.
Jan 28, 2003-Since there were still doubters, Bush rolled out the SOTU address with the bogus evidence.
Bush had received authority to launch a war without further advance notice to Congress, but it was contingent on Bush supplying a document showing the above about diplomatic effort, etc. The document supplied was lacking (read pages 150-153).

In fact, this is one of Dean's compelling reasons why Bush should have been impeached and had we a Democratic Congress, it would already have been done.

Was it a wimpy Congress that was handing over the reins to a dope? Perhaps. But they DID put in conditions to be met and Bush was deceptive about these. I believe that's why Kerry can say that it was the WRONG WAY for Bush to go to war.

[Larkspur]

23. The Biden-Lugar Amendment would have definitely made the case

for Bush's impeachement, but IWR was very tepid and a good lawyer could get Bush off the impeachment hook. Bush did go through the motions to solicit international help, and when he didn't get it, he waved the flag, derided our allies, and beat the war drums louder which he knew would intimidate Congress, and it did. Also remember, Democrats like Joe Lieberman had been arguing FOR war against Iraq since Clinton's Admin because Israel wanted it, so the Lieberman Dems were on Bush's side!

The problem with IWR was that it gave the President 48 hours AFTER initiating hostilities to prove to Congress his case for war against Iraq. Who in Congress is going to vote to impeach Bush or stop the war when troops are fighting in Iraq? B-L would have required Bush to come before Congress 30 days BEFORE launching hostilities to prove his case and this is why Bush strongly opposed it.

[no name no slogan]

24. Good, but WHO CARES how it started-- how will K/E end it?

I agree that Kerry really screwed up with his IWR vote, but it was not unexpected given his record.

By the time we have this little election, there will be 1,000 dead US troops, tens of thousands of US wounded, and several thousand dead and wounded Iraqi civilians-- in a country that is worse off now than it was on March 19, 2003.

What is Kerry going to do to end it? What is his PLAN? Right now, most people don't give a flying fig who started what. They just want our troops OUT of the mess BushCo has created.

Unfortunately, Kerry has been quite slow to spell out exactly what he plans on doing. He has made vague promises of reducing our forces substantially within the next four years, but he has NOT put forth a plausable exit strategy from Iraq. And that could cost him the election this time.

Kerry needs to ARTICULATE a plan that will get us out of Iraq sooner, rather than "eventually". Several workable plans are on the table right now.

If he does just this one thing, he gets Nader's 3-5%-- which will be just enough to win with this year.