Media Should Stop Pretending Kerry's Position Is Incomprehensible

[DrFunkenstein]

The media should stop pretending they don't understand Senator Kerry's nuanced position on the Iraq resolution and subsequent invasion. They do. What's more, so do the vast majority if Americans, including the more "impressionable" segment Kerry detractors hope to convince he's a "waffler."

The voting public will understand Senator Kerry's explanation because their view has evolved in precisely the same way. There was a surge of public support for the invasion when the invasion became an inevitability, followed by increasingly expressed doubts and criticisms. When Senator Kerry says he believed the resolution was necessary for the US to negotiate from a position of strength, people will get it. Despite the willful obtuseness of his critics, context matters, and any voter can easily discern the difference between actions such as voting for a resolution out of "statesmanship" and strategy (or voicing support to pollsters during the invasion) - and "flip flopping."

What's more, Kerry is on record as voicing conditions for an invasion similar to those voiced by the public.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Kerry's vote in favor of the Iraq resolution would not a liability in a Kerry-Bush matchup, except for tiny minorities who opposed any invasion under any circumstance and will not vote for either as a result, or who believe affording a liar a degree of trust for defensible reasons is worse than being a liar.

In fact, each time Senator Kerry is asked about it he is granted another opportunity to relay to the vast majority of the American people that he, not the unelected fraud, better represents their favored approach to international relations - the one they have repeatedly told pollsters is their preference.

--

Sorry, I can't seem to find the original link to Media Whores (where this comes from originally). I read this at the Atrios blog for September 9th.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/

<>

[w4rma]

1. No offense to Sen. Kerry, but I think this situation is a good example of

why the last Senator elected to the Presidency was nearly 50 years ago (JFK). All other Senators didn't make a direct transition to the Presidency, but instead were Vice Presidents as their previous elected office.

All those votes makes for alot of targets.

[renie408]

2. You know,

I never looked at it that way, but you are right. I feel kind of stupid. In any vote, if you go one way, you have to deny the other way. Somebody, somewhere is going to be pissed.

[blm]

3. Exactly...Kerry is right in step with the greater public...

you want to support the process for the office of the presidency, you want UN involvement, and you want the president to be accountable for his missteps.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

4. BTW...Tom Oliphant already said he was wrong for mistaking Kerry's

statements. Now he has said Kerry was prescient and meticulous in his assessment of what needed to be done before and AFTER the vote.

[helleborient]

6. I think it is hard to explain...

And a very emotional issue for many of us here. I think I understand his reasons for this particular vote, but then I go back to not understanding why he voted against the first Gulf War - seemingly, to me, a situation where a yes vote was very defensible.

I do think this is an issue the Kerry campaign needs to spend a lot of time on, because I think the general electorate can easily find this confusing...on the surface it does seem like political opportunism or hedging on an extremely important issue.

I look forward to seeing how the campaign and John Kerry himself continue to explain.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. 2+3=5

Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to hold a proverbial/literal gun to Saddam's head and say that we will not take you screwing around with UNMOVIC like you did with UNSCOM. We are going to put inspectors on the ground, and give them every chance they need to show that you are in compliance with the resolutions you, yourself, had signed.

Kerry said that Saddam did not pose an imminent threat, but that he posed a long-term threat, given 3 things: 1) his history of major WMD use on urban populations, 2) his proven desire to acquire nuclear weapons, 3) his record of great miscalculation. Saddam had a history as a loose cannon, and after 9/11 we weren't going to tolerate any more loose cannons.

Kerry said that talk of invasion, regime change, and even human rights abuses confused the issue and gave Saddam, amazingly, the moral high ground.

What Kerry did not sign up for was Bush's mind-numbing incompetence at every stage of the game. Bush rushed to war when it was clearly unnecessary, and he had not taken the time to build proper alliances and plan for victory. In fact, the Pentagon was given charge of the endeavor, and they systematically ignored the project the State Department had spent millions on to plan for winning the peace. That's the before.

The during. Rumsfeld incompetently built a doctrine around the "blitzkrieg" theory of warfare - small and fast. This thinned supply lines and provided inadequate artillery support for ground forces. More importantly, it left forces unable to contend with the inevitable chaos of a power vacuum and failed to secure the suspected WMD sites, including a nuclear facility. It was over a month before a significant US inspection team was assembled, which probably explains why o WMDs were found - they were probably taken in that period.

The after. Bush tried to play Scrooge with the Iraqis. Enormous pressure would have been taken off if Bush paid upfront to restore basic infrastructure, maintain hospitals, and fed the Iraqis copious amounts of food - thus making us the "good guys." Secondly, Bush refused to allow the UN to come in and take his war booty. This would have given the occupation legitimacy, just as ceding some power over to the interim government would have.

Kerry was right to forcibly demand Iraq's compliance. But although Bush clearly had a thing for Saddam, there was no way of knowing that he could have screwed things up so desperately. This was an avoidable war, a poorly-run war, and a catastrophic post-war scenario.

Although the vote was ultimately a no-win proposition, I have every confidence that Kerry would have done the right thing every step of the way. I also believe he has the most comprehensive and forward-thinking plan for fighting terrorism and generally making the world a better place to live.

[helleborient]

8. What about the first Gulf War?

I think I had read most all of this reasoning on the most recent vote, but I still don't understand then his vote on the first Gulf War.

And I do wish that John Kerry and John Edwards would have been saying all of these things VERY LOUDLY at that time, but they didn't, unfortunately.

[blm]

10. Kerry was all over the cabla shows BEFORE and AFTER the vote.

And he was consistently making the same points which the corporate media chose to describe as waffling. That Daily Howler even went after the media about their lies, and so did MWO. If you weren't paying attention then, what can he do about it now?

[helleborient]

13. Neither you nor Dr. F have answered my main question...

What about the first Gulf War???

Is it unimportant?

Too far in the past?

It's a primary source of my wariness about his truthfulness in his hindsight statments about the vote on this Iraq War.

[blm]

14. I've answered you before with the truth.

Kerry said that Bush Sr. had not prepared the public properly at the time of the vote. He said a president needs to have the American people with him if he is going to commit troops to war. It was difficult for the troops in Vietnam to be there knowing the public was turning against the war at home.

People forget that the polls were NOT in favor of war at the time because of that very reason Kerry gave. Bush had NOT explained exactly what happened and what was needed and WHY.

Now, do you care to explain why YOU think Kerry did not speakout enough back then? Were you really even paying attention or are you just accusing Kerry of being silent because it validates what you believe?

[sandnsea]

16. That war was about the oil

And as far as I can tell, he knew it. In the 1998 testimony of Scott Ritter to the Senate, Kerry makes remarks along those lines. In my estimation, and this is mine alone, he knew the first war was rather a load of bullshit. But as the weapons were discovered, particularly the nuclear program, his view on the danger of Iraq shifted. The idea of leaving Saddam Hussein in power with no sanctions, inspections or no-fly zones wasn't acceptable to him. The Iraq situation had to be addressed. That's how I see his view developing on Iraq, leading to the vote in 2002. Not ever imagining the shrub would so totally mangle the process.

[helleborient]

22. Why doesn't John Kerry say this himself?

This is one of the most succinct statements about his approach that I've read.

I hope he starts being this direct about it.

[sandnsea]

23. It's my opinion

From reading what he's said, I said that in there to make that clear. He'll have to answer for himself and I sincerely hope he does and makes it clear.

[helleborient]

17. So...if the public agrees...it's ok to go to war?

That would make things more consistent in his second vote...since the public was supporting Bush.

Polls were split at the time, you are right, but a sovereign nation had been invaded. Kerry says he voted with Bush this time because he recognized how dangerous Saddam Hussein was...he didn't think he was dangerous back then?

It is so unfortunate, I believe, that one cannot ask you a simple question about your candidate without having accusations slung back. I made no accusations...I asked questions and commented that I was confused. You don't need to capitalize letters to indicate shouting at me. I can read.

You never provide links either.

When I ask questions of Kucinich supporters or Edwards supporters, I tend to get much more measured replies.

[blm]

21. Don't twist it.

He said if the president does not bring the people along to support the war, then he isn't doing his job.

Kerry said he needed to do that FIRST before we went to war.

Dems back then always thought Saddam was dangerous BEFORE he invaded Kuwait. That is why they stopped giving Iraq any aid, and why Bush had to covertly give Saddam money and weapons (Iraqgate).

I lost all my handy links in two different lightning strikes here. With a two year old it is difficult to do searches at whim. I capitalize to emphasize not shout.

BTW.., Why don't YOU know these facts about the first Gulf War and Kerry's consistent appaearances on news shows before and after the vote urging Bush to take specific steps? It seems if you are going to go around criticizing him for something you would have the full story before you felt comfortable in your critiques.

[helleborient]

24. I'm asking questions...

Not giving a full critique, because I don't have all of the information...do you really know all the nuances of all of the stances and votes of all 9 candidates?

I read many posts about these 2 votes, and I've read a lot of material on the latest Iraq vote, and had not read about the first one. I looked in the Congressional Quarterly's "Politics In America"...a great resource, but it did not discuss the first Iraq vote. That's why I asked...I assumed there are DU supporters of Kerry who know more of the details than I do. I think I know more about Dean than some DU'ers do, and particularly more about Illinois politics...so I would be happy to respond to questions there.

I am wary about John Kerry - mainly because war is a very sensitive issue for me. But...I'm trying to keep an open mind which is why I'm continuing to ask questions.

Accusations that I'm uninformed and smearing John Kerry only goad me into defensiveness...as I would assume it would anyone.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. Sorry It Took So Long To Respond

Kerry had said that Bush Sr. should have taken more time to clarify his reasons for invasion, and worked to get the coalition together. Kerry said he was happy that the coalition did, in fact, come together, but he still stands by his votes.

Although the US was aware that Saddam had chemical weapons because 1) Saddam ended the Iran-Iraq war by threatening to use them, 2) Saddam became the first person to use chemical weapons on a large scale, laying waste to entire Kurdish cities within hours, and 3) the US helped Saddam develop the weapons (although the Europeans provided most of the actual material).

On the other hand, the US was completely shocked by the fact that Saddam had a nuclear program in the advanced stages. If Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait (believing that we gave the green light), we would not have discovered this out until it was fully functioning.

After losing the war, Saddam hastily signed a peace resolution granting unfettered access. UNSCOM was formed, but throughout the 90's Saddam jerked them around more and more. Soon "Presidential" sites and "sensitive" sites were developed that UNSCOM could not inspect. UNSCOM was even held at gunpoint in one tense instance, and were forced to withdraw. During this period, new weaponized chemicals were discovered - but the information was downplayed by Russians eager to end sanctions and collect their $7 million in back payments.

In late 1998, UNSCOM evacuated before the bombings of Operation Desert Fox. No inspectors returned until after the IWR vote. Most intelligence suggeted that the chemical and biological programs had continued, and that Saddam was putting in place the building blocks for a renewed nuclear program.

[sandnsea]

9. Dammit Dr Funk, it's not nuanced!!!

It's about as g.d. clear as it can be!!! (I hate that word, nuanced!)

Authorize the President to confront the Iraq issue with the threat of force and use force as a last resort. When did America NOT use military force as a Last Resort? What is nuanced about that?

It's so simple and I agree, it's being manipulated for political purposes. Because the one person the Bush campaign really DOES NOT want to go up against in 2004 is John F. Kerry.

[dfitzsim]

11. He is being "Gore[d]" by the media

It's obvious what's going on. Many people in the press (mostly the talking heads), for whatever irrational reason, have decided that they just-don't-like-something-about-this-guy, so rather than deal with facts, they'll say he's a waffler. That he looks French. That he must have hid his possibly, maybe Jewish heritage for some unknown reason. It is all bullshit. It's just easier than dealing with issues and doing your research.

Just as Gore never said he invented the Internet (it was Gingrich who said it about Gore), and he didn't lie about doing farm chores in Tennessee, and he was (by the author's admission) the bases for the character in "Love Story" -- the truth mattered not. The T.V. press just didn't like Gore so rather than talk about facts and issues, they talked about "earth tones" and gave Bush a pass.

They are doing the EXACT same thing to Kerry. On the plus side, I believe Kerry is aware of this, and will be better prepared to tackle it than Gore's team was at this stage in the election.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Kerry Always Re-Directs The Interviewers Back To Policy

He does this very effectively. And of course, on policy he is awesome.

[disgruntella]

15. right on

It seems for some people, comprehension of Kerry's position got derailed when Bush said 'You are either with us or against us.'

And I guess it's too tough for detractors to refer to Kerry's policy statements; that would require actual THOUGHT! ;)

[helleborient]

18. Unfortunately, to win elections

You have to be able to explain these issues relatively briefly in addition to using policy statements.

Bill Clinton was brilliant at both being a policy wonk and being able to communicate in brief statements.

I would love for John Kerry to come up with a way to soothe concerns on these issues...but I don't think shouting at those who feel emotional about war is really the way to do it.

If he does come up with a strong statement that makes sense to the general public, that really is great and in my opinion makes him a much stronger candidate...but judging by the vehemence of comments of those on here who feel emotional about the Iraq War...he's not made that connection yet. It is his responsibility as a candidate to make it.

[disgruntella]

19. when has kerry shouted at people who feel emotional about the war?

Edit: I'm not saying this in knee-jerk defensiveness; I have not seen the debates so I honestly do not know.

[helleborient]

20. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough...look back up in the thread

I was referring to his supporters shouting at those of us who ask questions.

No, I do not know of John Kerry shouting at anyone, and I am very sorry it was misinterpreted.

[disgruntella]

25. OK, I am also sorry for the confusion

I'm sorry I don't have answers to your questions about Gulf War One.

I don't have any problems with people asking questions about Kerry; I can also understand people being against his positions on the war. But when certain people *shout* accusations about him being the absolute equivalent to Bush & Co., based on weak evidence, I do tend to shout back.

(Edit: added a clause)

[polpilot]

27. Easy to understand. Kerry voted 'for the war' but actually opposed

the war. Kerry voted 'For' the 'Iraqi Bombing Resolution' but actually opposed bombing sheperds and stealing the Iraqis' oil but now would 'take' but not 'stel' their oil in order to pay Hallibuton for their efforts in 'freeing the Iraqi people'.

Kerry's position seems quite clear!!!

DeaN '04...

[sandnsea]

28. What was Dean's solution?

In September 2002.

[polpilot]

29. Simple cost effective containment/opposition to the insanity of bombing/

realization that a step towards an Iraqi occupation was juvenile and CRAZY.

Nothing spectacular, just prudence.

Dean '04...

[sandnsea]

31. Containment?

Continuing the sanctions? Continuing the no-fly zones? Even at the expense of the Iraqi people who weren't getting enough food and medicine? Even with the rest of the ME becoming increasingly angry? Exactly what kind of containment do you mean and what was Dean's policy on dealing with the consequences of the containment?

[polpilot]

36. Dean response to Iraq would be as brilliant as his campaign and as

successful as his campaign with as stunning results as his campaign.

Dean '04...

[blm]

37. and he'd probably crib it from Kerry's work.

heh.

[w4rma]

30. Dean, Sunday, October 6, 2002

…
Dean, whose advocacy of liberal domestic policies has struck a chord among grass-roots activists here, offered the sharpest dissent. He contended that Bush has yet to make a compelling case to justify going to war.

"The greatest fear I have about Iraq is not just that we will engage in unwise conduct and send our children to die without having an adequate explanation from the president of the United States," he said. "The greater fear I have is the president has never said what the truth is, which is if we go into Iraq we will be there for 10 years to build that democracy and the president must tell us that before we go."
…
http://www.dre-mfa.gov.ir/eng/iraq/iraqanalysis_27.html

[sandnsea]

32. His solution?

I didn't see his solution.

But I'd never seen this quote before, thanks.

"Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran, said the United States should be willing to hold Hussein accountable and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but only if there is clear international support."

[Egnever]

33. They should?

This is pretty friggin incomprehensible if you ask me.


(Videotape, October 9, 2002):
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.
In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.
According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.
In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?
(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Unmanned aerial vehicles...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. RUSSERT: ...a nuclear threat. Those are exactly the things that you suggested in New Hampshire President Bush had lied to you about.
SEN. KERRY: That’s precisely the point. That is exactly the point I’m making. We were given this information by our intelligence community. Now, either it was stretched politically in the many visits of Dick Cheney to the CIA and the way in which they created a client relationship, but the information we were given, built on top of the seven and a half years of what we knew he was doing, completely justified the notion that you had to respond to give the president the right to put inspectors in. The president said
when he put them in “War is not inevitable.” Colin Powell said to us, “The only rationale for going to war was weapons of mass destruction,” and it was legitimate to hold Saddam Hussein accountable to get the inspectors in. I’m saying to you that I don’t believe this president did the job of exhausting the remedies available to make us as strong as we should have been in doing that and certainly didn’t do the planning to be able to win the peace in the way that we need to. And I still think we can do it, Tim, but we’ve got to
get about the business of doing it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you had access to the intelligence. You had access to the national intelligence estimate...
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: ...which said the CIA had a low confidence in Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction or transferring the terrorists. And the State Department, which is included in the national intelligence estimate, said there was not a compelling case, that he reconstituted his nuclear program.
SEN. KERRY: I didn’t base it on the nuclear, but the most important and compelling rationale were the lack of inspections and the non-compliance of Saddam Hussein. Even Hans Blix at the United Nations said he is not in compliance.
MR. RUSSERT: Were you misled by the intelligence agencies? Were you duped?
SEN. KERRY: No, we weren’t

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

34. LOL

That's exactly what I was thinking, but was too lazy to look up any transcripts. If Kerry made his points clearly, there wouldn't have to be discussions with him on explaining what he had 'explained' before. He needs to work on being concise and direct (which he did much better at during the last debate).

[blm]

35. Bump

for the Professor.