here are some of the answers:
1)It's a 'are you still beating your wife' thing
It pre-supposes the argument. The facts are contained in the speech that Kerry gave before his vote. That is how he felt. There was, in the Clinton years, various resolutions that passed the Congress that called for regime change in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was an international pariah and a perpetrator of genocide. Americans did think there was the possibility that he had WMDs. He had had them before and had blind-sided America during Gulf War I when it was discovered that Iraq was further along in it's development of deadly weapons and nukes than America thought.
Clinton did bomb Iraq during his tenure as President. It was the official policy of the US to contain Saddam, not because we didn't like his cookie recipes, but because he was a very dangerous player in the Middle East. There was an argument on that side. Kerry had voted for those earlier resolutions in the Senate that condemned Saddam and that backed up Clinton.
It is a serious stretch to say that he voted the way he did because of Karl Rove. The vote itself on the IWR was a Rove creation that was designed to separate Democrats from their base. I think there is truth in that. But that did not dictate all actions. Go read the floor speech. Kerry clearly spells out why he voted the way he did in that.
2)On its face I don't remember Kerry ever saying that
This site is full of statements by Kerry about Iraq, including his Senate floor speech voting for the IWR:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kvh/kerryoniraqwar /
It was more to counteract the flip flop charges, but it contains a lot of his words.
3)Considering he did attack Bush on the war
and on terrorism, I'd say the writer is an idiot who hasn't read a thing Senator Kerry said.
4)he does spell out why he voted as he did.
Kerry was one of the strongest voices in the summer and early fall arguing that Bush should go to Congress and to the UN. At that point, Bush was claiming that he could attack because of the resolution given that led to attacking Afghanistan. He moved a huge number of troops to the Persian Gulf.
Reading Kerry's IWR floor statement, one thing I notice is where he listed all the changes they got Bush to make in the resolution from the original language. These changes resticted it to Iraq and took out as reasons many subsequently used. From Kerry's post 2004 comments, he took these negotiations seriously. He said that if Bush went back on his word, he would be the first to protest - and he was one of the few who did before Bush invaded and after the invasion (approved by nearly 70% of the people).
Speaking out when he did counters the cynical political motive. How do you get political points for the war when you are LOUDLY on record and called anti-war (which he was labelled in early 2003)? Rather than cynical, the opposite was more likely true - Kerry was more willing to trust that a President would not lie on a matter as serious as war and peace. Kerry himself is said to be true to his word. He wasn't naive - the fact that he added the comment about speaking out implies he realized Bush could lie, but gave him the benefit of the doubt. He likely thought this was the best chance at derailing the march to war.
The importamnce of the promises - that he would exhaust the diplomacy and that it would be a last resort go to deeply held beliefs. In the Pepperdine College speech Kerry explains his understanding of St Augustine's concept of a just war - the first thing Kerry said is that war pretty much has to be a last resort to be just. That is why he refers to it as immoral.
Putting the Pepperdine College speech together with the IWR speech and memories of phrases of 2004 and Kerry's history, it is very unlikey that his vote was made for political reasons. The closest thing I have heard - not from Kerry - but from others was that this vote - either way - was a Rove trap. (There was a comment - I think from a Kerry friend or staffer, that this was a case of choosing between a Yes, but or a No, but vote.
5) My Dad takes it a step further, and says all the Democrats
are wimps and didn't stand up to Bush. Thing is, politicasista, it pays to throw some arguments out there. Like the fact that the IWR has a signing statement attached to it that says Bush doesn't even NEED authorization from Congress. That he would have gone in with or without the IWR. That he lost the second U.N. vote (he knew he didn't have the votes, so just didn't ask for one), yet he went to war anyway. That weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998, and that had Bush used the authority the way Kerry said to, it would have been a real coup for him -- you know, "speak softly, and carry a big stick". The threat of force WORKED. Saddam allowed the inspectors into his country, and they were DOING THEIR JOB. It was Bush who broke his word, and suddenly pulled the inspectors out so he could make war. Also, don't forget the IWR was Oct. 2002, the invasion March 2003. For me, the U.N. resolutions were more important than the IWR, and the last one, Bush didn't get. He should have known right then and there to wait, but he didn't and that's why everything is a big, big mess.
To be honest, I think the "no" votes to the IWR are problematic, too. Are they saying that the possibility of Saddam having WMD is no big deal? Do they really want to protect national security, when they don't even want U.N. weapons inspectors back in Iraq? In 1991, the intelligence community was flabbergasted how far along Saddam's WMD program was -- they had UNDERestimated Saddam's capabilities. It was proper to get the U.N. back in there, and I can tell you, that Saddam would NOT have allowed them in had there not been a threat of force authorized by Congress and backed up by troops on the ground in Kuwait. That's the flip side of all these arguments. But Bush was stupid enough to think he could democratize and keep united a fractured country. Had his administration been competent, he maybe had a 30% chance. With the flagrant incompetence, he's had 0% chance.
Another line of argument I made with my Dad had to do with now. He continued to rail against the Democrats, how they need to cut off funding NOW. So I asked him, "have you called your senator?" I told him to stop complaining about it and start being an active citizen by engaging as a constituent with his elected officials. They DO listen to their constituents. I received no answer from him on that, and then I noticed he didn't bring up that subject again.