Why doesn't Kerry take apart Bush's war rationale? SOMEBODY has to!

[Brotherjohn]

Everyone is now left with the Big Lie they keep spouting, that "we all thought" Iraq had WMDs. That is demonstrably false, but they keep getting away with it!

Maureen Dowd pointed this out this morning:
"They linked Saddam with terrorism and cowed the Democrats (including Mr. Kerry, who has never been able to make the case against the Bush administration's trompe l'oeil casus belli)"
(http://nytimes.com/2004/09/09/opinion/09dowd.html?hp)

Now, I know this runs the risk of people saying "well if you knew this now why didn't you say it then?"

But didn't he, in perhaps more measured tones than one uses in the heat of a campaign? Didn't he express reservations and doubts about Bush's actions right up until the war, expressing concern that Mr. Bush wasn't letting the inspections and diplomatic process play out? Doesn't the record show this? (anyone?)

The key distinction here is what "we all thought" BEFORE the U.N. Weapons Inspectors went back in (which is allegedly what the IWR was geared to pressure) and what "we all thought" AFTER they had done much of their job, by March 2003.

Kerry could say:
"Sure, when we voted on the IWR to pressure Saddam and the U.N. into getting the inspectors back in, to assess the risk... to FIND OUT whether he had WMDs. At THAT point, we DID all think at the least that Saddam was too much of a risk to ignore. But by threatening the use of force, we were able to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. And they were fast finding out that Iraq did NOT indeed pose the threat that the Bush administration was alleging. That was a GOOD thing. That's why I voted for the IWR. Problem was, Mr. Bush wasn't willing to wait for diplomacy and inspections and broke his promise to use war as a last resort."

He's coming close to saying these things now. But by going further, and directly challenging the casus belli (as I said, SOMEBODY has to!), it would allow him to then pick apart the reasons Bush claimed Iraq had WMDs. He could easily show that everybody DID NOT think that Iraq had WMDs, and that the intelligence DID NOT all show this, ESPECIALLY after the U.N. went in.

Maybe it's because Kerry made luke-warm statements of "support" for the war upon its launching. I don't remember. Can anyone post his statements on the eve of the war showing what he said?

If he did, by the time of the invasion, say we still needed to invade, then I know it also runs the risk of Bush further accusing Kerry of flip-flopping (which may be why he's stopped short of this and just said "he didn't give inspections enough time, didn't conduct the war right, etc...). But Bush will accuse Kerry of flip-flopping no matter what he says.

I don't know, maybe a new 527: Iraq War Veterans for Truth? I'm sure there are plenty returning wounded soldiers who are mad as hell that they were misled into a meaningless war. Any way you cut it, the reasons Bush gave us for this war are now known to be bogus. That is an incontrovertible fact that needs to be pushed. Maybe these are the right people to push it.

[TheFarseer]

1. I think you answered your own question

when Kerry said he would have invaded whether Saddam had WMD's or not, he has almost completely taken away everything that he could attack about the president's war. Now all his arguments sound something like, "The timing was bad, we didn't get the French involved" If he wouldn't have said that, he could tear bush limb from limb over this issue, but no, Kerry has painted himself in a corner once again.

[Brotherjohn]

2. I don't believe he said that at all. He said he'd have voted for the IWR.

... knowing what we know now. That's a very different thing (although many hear will argue it is not). People more up on Kerry's statements can back me up on this.

My opinion is that Saddam was a more unknown risk (although I don't think a big one) before the Weapons Inspectors went back in. The point is though, that this was conjecture. We all knew we had little to no intel on the ground at the time. And after 9-11 happened, I can buy the argument that we needed better information... if only to shut the Bush admin up and prove that Saddam wasn't a threat. Remember, Bush was keen on invading anyway. This was the best moderates could do to stave him off in a country where people werre still reeling from 9-11 and still, after Afghanistan, wanted "revenge".

The threat of the use of force DID in fact pressure Saddam AND the U.N. to vote to let inspectors back in. Problem was, they were finding out what Bush did not want them to find out.

Voting for the IWR IS NOT the same thing as saying you would have invaded.

The closest I can remember as far as the statement you claim Kerry made is when a campaign spokesman said something like "yes, he probably would have gone into Iraq at some point...".

[dennis4868]

3. Here is a thread I started yesterday on this topic.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=770493&mesg_id=770493

[Brotherjohn]

4. I see two good points in that thread.

1) It already is. People aren't stupid. Even though it's not on the news every day, they know there are no WMDs. This has influenced many votes, and hopefully will continue to do so.

2) Maybe he's saving it as a dagger for late in the campaign. I see the wisdom in not harping too much about this, b/c the Bush campiagn is ruthless and will use it to tar Kerry with flip-flopping further on the war, and will keep repeating the big lie. Give them enough time, and they and the media will let the Bushies define the CV on this (they already have, really). But lay low and not talk about it much, and with little time for them to respond, raise the doubts again. The Senate Committe is supposed to address the question of how bush (mis-) used the intel leading up to the war, AFTER the election. This is still an open issue. Kerry could bring it up as such late in the campaign, re-planting that seed of doubt that seems to have been covered lately.