Two bloggers for whom I have great respect – Josh Marshall and Kevin Drum believe that John Kerry’s views on the Iraq War have been consistent and even admirable. Today, Fareed Zakaria and E.J. Dionne defend the Democratic nominee.
Though I’m firmly in the Anybody-But-Bush camp and will support Kerry’s election, I disagree. I can see how they may argue that his votes and statements are consistent. And I could, if I were Kerry’s advisor, provide a plausible defense of his vote. But I can’t forgive him his vote to give Bush the authority to go to war. And it’s incumbent upon those who plan to vote for Kerry to let it be known that we expect a little more accountability when he takes office.
I’m trying to catch up on a week’s worth of stories while I was on vacation. (I had access to only USA Today in print and a painfully slow and limited dial-up Internet access. Plus, it was a vacation remember. This blogging is work.) One article I need to read is Howard Kurtz’s story that looks at The Washington Post’s coverage of WMDs before the war. But I think Kerry supporters need to somehow make him see what news people refused to recognized during the build-up to the war: There was a sizable anti-war movement before the invasion. It was largely ignored by the press. The Post ran the article about the 100,000-strong demonstration in Oct. 2002 in the Metro section. NPR so undercovered the demonstration that it later apologized to its listeners.
Like the media, Kerry should have recognized and acknowledged that opposition and he should have voted accordingly against the war.
Without convincing evidence that there were WMDs and other rationales the Bush administration presented, Kerry should have voted no. Perhaps most importantly, if he felt there was significant evidence, Kerry should have demanded a declaration of war from Congress.
In my lifetime, Congress has never declared war. The last declared one was WWII. These resolutions giving presidents the power to go to war have supplanted Congressional declarations of war. Kerry now argues that all he was giving the president was the authority to go to war once all other avenues were explored and proven untenable. But now he tries to hide behind the lies of Bush administration. That’s a copout. Without proof, he should have voted no, and if he felt there was significant evidence, he should have demanded a declaration of war. Barring that, he should have voted No.
Congress is relinquishing its powers because members want to have it both ways: able to say they supported the war when it’s successful and when it’s not, to say it’s not our fault that the prez misled us.
I repeat from earlier posts: Iraq was the right war at the wrong time. It is morally right to come to the aid of oppressed people. But we can’t do it without considering the implications. In this case, tying the Iraq war to the “war on terror” was such a loose knot that Muslims worldwide were suspicious. Maybe the war was a “crusade,” as Bush first described the Afghan invasion, against Islam.
Removing our troops from Saudi Arabia, brokering a just peace between Israel and the Palestinians and pressing and obtaining democratic reform in at least a few Arab states before attacking Iraq would have been a better strategy.
Rather than being “nuanced,” when John Kerry voted yes to the war resolution, he recognized none of complexities of the situation and ceded his authority to declare war to a president who clearly has been incapable of waging it.