OT: Kerry explained

September 13, 2004

John Kerry, explained

Rich Lowry

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20040913.shtml

John Kerry's defenders complain that the Massachusetts senator has always
had a consistent, even if "nuanced," position on the Iraq War. All it takes,
they say, is a little attention, and what he believes becomes clear. They
are right. Kerry's position can be easily distilled in a few hundred words,
as follows:

If Saddam Hussein invades a neighboring country, as he did in 1990, and a
massive international coalition is mustered against him, as it was, the
president of the United States should not be authorized to take military
action. But if the president launches military action and it is successful,
he's all for it.

If in 2002 Saddam continues to defy the United Nations, but in much murkier
circumstances than 1991 -- there's no invasion of a neighbor, for
instance -- the president should be authorized to take military action. If
the president takes such action and topples Saddam, he's for it. But if
Howard Dean gains in the Democratic primaries in early 2004, he's against
it.

In that event, if the war that he authorized needs funding, he's against it.
If American troops need more body armor, he criticizes President Bush for
not providing it. But if funding for such armor is in the $87 billion bill
to fund the war, which he authorized and once supported but no longer
supports even though he authorized it, he's against it.

If -- prior to readjusting fully to the Dean surge -- he is asked about the
$87 billion, he believes voting against it would be "irresponsible."
Later -- after vanquishing Dean, and as he tries to move to the center -- if
he is criticized for actually voting against the $87 billion, he explains
that he voted for it, before voting against it. He voted for it because it
would be wrong to abandon our troops, but he voted against it because it
would be wrong to support the war the troops are fighting in, which he once
supported, but now opposes, even though he supports the troops as long as
they can fight it without new funding.

If Kerry is welcoming another Democrat who voted against the $87 billion
onto his ticket, John Edwards, he is "proud" of the vote he called
"irresponsible," even if he didn't cast that vote as commonly understood,
since he voted for it, before he voted against it, and even if he did vote
against it, it was the right thing to do because he was against the war
after he was for it, which is plenty reason to be proud.

If Kerry needs criticisms to hurl at Bush, it is unacceptable that Bush
didn't muster the international coalition of the first Gulf War, which he
opposed (before he was for it). If there are no WMDs in Iraq, Bush misled us
into war, even though Kerry himself said the same thing about WMDs,
misleading the public into supporting a war that he would support only for
as long as he didn't oppose it.

If pressed to say whether he would have voted to authorize the war despite
not finding WMDs, he supports voting the same way, authorizing a war that he
eventually opposed, even though it deserved his authorization vote and still
does today, despite his opposition to it. If criticizing Bush's postwar
management, he supports more troops in Iraq. If criticizing Bush's postwar
management, he supports pulling troops out of Iraq in six months.

If desperate to gain post-August traction against Bush, he thinks Iraq is
"the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Although he would
vote again to authorize the wrong war, so long as he wouldn't be committed
to voting to fund it, at least not committed to voting to fund it in a
circumstance where he couldn't immediately also vote against funding it to
demonstrate how he opposed the wrong war he supported and would authorize
again.

See? It's simple.