I like John Kerry. I really do. I've always thought he was a smart guy. But I'm stunned at how easily he fell into Bush's trap by saying he still would have voted for war in Iraq -- even if he knew then what we know now.
It's a stunning admission. Almost two years after the vote, all the justifications given for the war have turned to ashes. No WMDs. No ties to Al Qaeda. No involvement in 9/11.
Yet here's Kerry feeling a Republican need to demonstrate his manliness by displaying belligerence, when even Republican congressmen have conceded that the authorization for war would not have passed in light of what we've learned since.
Bush challenged Kerry last Friday to give a straight yes or no on whether he would have voted for the war "knowing what we know now." Kerry could have flung the bait in Bush's face by giving the only logical answer: No. Our intelligence was flawed, the justifications for war imagined. The war in Iraq was a way to strengthen Israel, or protect the flow of oil, or force a shake-up of our military, or feel better after 9/11 by at least killing lots of Arabs. It was a way for W to make his father look like less of a failure, and for manhood-challenged Republican draft-dodgers to build some measure of sexual confidence.
Instead, Kerry avoided the question for as long as he could, then took the bait -- and said he'd vote the same way. Allowing Bush to crow: "Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance. After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."
Way to go, John. A clear majority of the country thinks the war was a mistake, and not worth the costs in blood and treasure, and you decide it's time for a macho moment.
Ralph Nader owes you a heartfelt thanks.
Comments