[Mb-civic] Kerry Made a Bush League Error on Iraq

[Michael Butler]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer17aug17,1,3420618.column?col
l=la-util-op-ed 

ROBERT SCHEER

Kerry Made a Bush League Error on Iraq

Refusal to recant war vote plays into president's hands.
 Robert Scheer

 August 17, 2004

 It was a sucker pitch, and John Kerry fell for it like a rookie. I'm
talking about President Bush's latest cheap gambit ‹ turning his own
unjustifiable and costly invasion of Iraq into his opponent's problem. Bush
mocked Kerry's Iraq position for its "nuance" ‹ a word that manages to sound
both French and less than fully masculine.

 At Bush's prompting, reporters asked Kerry if he, knowing what we all know
now about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction, would still have
voted, as he did in October 2002, to authorize the president to use force
against Iraq. Instead of smacking that hanging curveball out of the park by
denouncing the Bush administration for deceiving Congress and the nation
into a war, Kerry inexplicably said yes.

 Of course Kerry went on to make an important critique of Bush's conduct of
the war, but he got slammed by the Bush team as well as the media for losing
in the "gotcha" derby.

 The irony is almost too much to bear. After all, for two years Bush has
flip-flopped relentlessly on just exactly why it was a good idea to occupy a
troubled Muslim country that posed no military threat to the United States.
Now Bush is getting political mileage out of exploiting Kerry's stubborn
refusal to admit he was had by All the President's Con Men.

 The fact is, Kerry has been consistently saying the same thing for two
years: Based on the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein was linked to
Al Qaeda and possessed WMD, the president needed the stick of the
use-of-force authorization to compel Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions.

 That explains the "yes" vote, but unfortunately, then and now, it is the
wrong answer to the wrong question. Kerry should have known by the fall of
2002 that Bush was hellbent on invading Iraq and that to do so would
severely undermine the war on terror. Everything emanating from the White
House at that point made it clear that the president was highly unlikely to
be satisfied by simply securing a new U.N. inspections regime.

 At a minimum, Congress had a responsibility to hold hearings to examine
intelligence on Iraq, which even then was causing enormous tension between
intelligence analysts and spinners in the White House and Pentagon. After
all, the Constitution is as clear as the framers could be on the primacy of
Congress in declaring war. Kerry and the rest of the Congress should have
considered the facts, even if the White House refused to do so.

 This was doubly true after the U.N. inspectors were allowed back into the
country and given unprecedented access. And here is where Bush and Kerry's
positions on Iraq diverge.

 "I thought we ought to reach out to other countries, we ought to build an
international coalition, we ought to exhaust the remedies available to us,"
Kerry pointed out last week.

 Bush uses the word "nuance," but the difference is huge because the most
bizarre aspect of Bush's march to war and occupation was his argument that
we couldn't wait a few weeks for U.N. inspectors to finish their search for
those nonexistent doomsday weapons. Didn't we owe it to the teenagers we
were about to send into battle in a foreign land to "exhaust the remedies
available to us"? 

 Some justify Kerry's refusal to recant on that "yes" vote ‹ a vote he must
now know was unwise ‹ on the grounds that if he speaks the truth he will
lose swing voters who value a strong America. But this is malarkey: Half the
country now thinks invading Iraq was a bad idea, and nobody can be
comfortable with the way it's turned out. The American people want to know
how we got into this mess, how we can get out and how we will avoid making
such stupid mistakes in the future.

 To win the debates and the election, Kerry needs to establish himself as
the clear alternative to a president who has lied us into a quagmire. His
forthright speech at the Democratic convention shows he is capable of this:
"Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye
and truthfully say: 'We tried everything possible to avoid sending your son
or daughter into harm's way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the
American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and
imminent.' "

 Kerry's got it right then. But it won't matter if he continues to whiff on
Bush's curveballs.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at
latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




 Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times