A principled explanation for Kerry's defense of his IWR vote

Now it is quite possible that politics are at play when Kerry steadfastly defends his IWR vote, and says he would have voted the same way even if he knew there were no WMD's. Perhaps Kerry's advisers are afraid he'll come off as weak if he says anything which suggests his original vote was a mistake. Perhaps they are afraid of offending the sizable portion of the electorate that still believes it was right to go to war.

But there is another explanation. Let's bear in mind that Kerry is, after all, running for president. And that there is an excellent chance that, if elected, he'll still have to deal with a Republican controlled Congress. I'm sure that he will want to retain as much flexibility in foreign affairs as possible, and he certainly doesn't want to hand the Republicans any arguments that could be turned against him and used to constrain his executive power. I'm sure that Kerry understands that there is a very good chance that he will want to deploy U.S. troops at some point during his term(s), and he wants to be able to make as broad a claim of executive authority as possible. So Kerry has chosen to make the argument that Congress was right to give Bush broad authority to take military action in Iraq (knowing full well that he may need to take military action himself), while focusing his attacks on what Bush chose to do with the authority given to him.

just as it was at play when he voted for the resolution. I believe it was at play when he voted for the resolution. I believe JK's true position is closer to his Ma. collegue Sen. Kennedy who voted nay. But Kerry was running for president and he didn't want to risk voting against something which could be used against him in the fall campaign.

I know he was conflicted too.

the botched execution of GWB in the specific case of Iraq.

You have however explained it well. . .Thanks for posting this.

Thanks for posting!

The vote came after the State of the Union address in which B* intimated that Iraq could nuke us within 45 minutes. Forty-five minutes is not enough time to get a consensus from Congress, so to be on the safe side (and being assured that barring an all out attack, our government would work with the UN before acting) most members voted to give the power to act/react to the President. I am against the war, but understand how our reps voted because everyone who grew up in the 'duck and cover' era is GOING TO REACT when the President says "nukes in 45 minutes." John Kerry would want to have the same power if he were in charge. Thankfully, he will be after November 2.

the president did not need authorization to invade Iraq due to the War Powers Act. The IWR was meant to put some kind of process in place where none existed. There were provisions in the IWR that required the administration to keep congress informed and to use all diplomatic means available before resorting to military action. It was hoped that this resolution would slow the march to war. The president however took it to be a blank check.

saying that even if had known how Bush would abuse his authority, he would still have voted to give it to him.

had he been President is indefensible. It's not only wrong but it's stupid politically.

Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president, Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48708-2004Aug7.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004

.... it's a "what if" conjecture from a campaign aide, not Kerry, and it's a three word quote ("in all probability") that could likely not even be in complete context.

But even if Kerry himself wanted to send that message, I can forgive him for playing the game of politics. He is trying to win back the White House. If he doesn't win the WH, it's all pointless. We may as well invade Iran and Syria now.

And we're talking about what-if conjecture of something that cannot be changed now. Is it REALLY that important? Do you really think it means Kerry would approach scenarios like Iraq the same as Bush? It's like I post below, Kerry is using "nuance". That's why we like him, isn't it?

Personally, I think he should just defend his vote as it was then, and (answering Bush) say "I'm not gonna play 'what-if' games. That would be irresponsible as a potential future president. What it boils down to is that I can defend my record as it stands, and Mr. Bush cannot."

Whether most people here agree or not, because of his vote, Kerry is perceived as having supported the war. So, the hawk voters don't see him as weak and the anti-war vote is already sewn up for him because he's not as hawkish as Bush. He needs to keep the focus on Bush's actions, not his own.

Kerry did not give the president the go ahead to start a war. He voted to give Bush the tools to go to war if need be. A smarter, more ethical and moral president would have used the shadow of the most powerful military on earth to force Saddam in to compliance and submission. Unknown to Kerry (or anyone else) Bush was intent on going to war with or without Congress. Kerry did the right thing- Bush did the wrong, immoral and cowardly thing.

Bush was going to war- The Senate vote only saved us a contrived "Gulf of Tonkin" Event which he would have used to go to war anyway. After Bush's contrived event to go to war, Kerry and anyone else who would have voted against the IWR would be presented as responsible for any and all war deaths (by Rove and his coven).

... on this.

I mean, we LIKE that he's "nuanced", don't we? I think he has explained it very well countless times, and done everything short of revoking his vote and saying he would NOT have gone in and would have changed his vote had he known what we know now. Bush is trying to get him to take that bait.

Politically, it would be suicide to say now that he would have changed his vote (even if he believes it). It would instantly label him with the ultimate "flip-flop". This is just what Bush wants.

More importantly, perhaps, is that in the real world of war and peace, of international relations and domestic politics, what good does it do to play the hypothetical game of "would he have done it knowing what we know now?" The fact is, HE DID vote for IWR, and all he has to do is defend THAT vote at THAT time. He doesn't need to play "what if". Doing so is arguably very irresponsible as a potential incoming president. That is the kind of thing left to memoirs after his second term.

Kerry's position is too complex for any comment to work
politically.

... he made. It does appear (to the un-educated Joe Sixpack) to be contrary to his criticism of Bush now. But he can, and has, clearly answered these alleged contraditions.

You're right, though. He should steadfastly REFUSE to answer the hypothetical question of "what would he have done had he known what he knows now". Especially "Would he have, as president, invaded Iraq?" His campaign aide seemed to float a "yes" on this yesterday. But he should avoid it like the plague.

All he has to say is (are you listening, Kerry campaign?): "It is IRRESPONSIBLE for a potential incoming president to answer 'what-if' questions about an ongoing war."

But an indication that he's going to abandon us as soon as the political wind blows in favor of invading another country (ie, Iran)? If we'd stuck with Dean, we wouldn't be in this position.

It sure as hell isn't me.

the "war" was wrong whether prosecuted unilaterally, as Bush did, or multilaterally, as Kerry would have preferred.