Bush: Now, there are some questions that a commander in chief needs to answer with a clear yes or no," Bush said. "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq. That's an important question and the American people deserve a clear yes or no answer."
Kerry: Senator John Kerry said Monday that he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.
"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," said Mr. Kerry, who has faced criticism throughout his presidential campaign for that October 2002 vote.
Legal Fiction uses this back and forth to suggest the political skill of President Bush along with his basic mendacity. I'm inclined to agree on both ends -- LF spells out in more detail how Bush is trying to simplify a complex issue and put Kerry on the spot and doing a decent job of it.
A particularly crafty way our fearless leader is doing this is combining Kerry's vote to give authority with a vote for war. I heard a newsbreak today (on Air America, of all places) without comment a quote from the President using Kerry's statement to show that they both still supported the vote for war in Iraq. Of course, Kerry supporters might tell you that he DIDN'T SAY THAT. Kerry, you see, didn't want to go to war. He in fact responded: "My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?"
But wait. Kerry national security adviser Jamie Rubin said in an interview Saturday that "in all probability" the candidate would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president. As recently as Friday, the Massachusetts senator had said he only "might" have still gone to war. This sort of thing makes even gung ho anti-Bush blogs like Daily Kos nervous.
It is all well and good to look for targets here, but some of the blame has to be clearly in Kerry's hands. This is an obvious area of concern and Kerry's talking points should be firm, even if they are more cute than some (like myself) would like. So, the confusion is not good. Second, I thought it was understood that Kerry could defend his October, 2002 vote, while saying that he was misled when he made it. But, no! Apparently, he STILL WOULD VOTE THAT WAY! WTF? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ...
And, finally, since the resolution vote was understood by most adults (except those who wanted to be fooled) as akin to a war vote, Bush isn't too wrong in equating the two. I myself thought, given who we were dealing with, the differentiating of the two was a bit of a joke. I would add that I thought the evidence too weak to risk it, and this before all that followed. And, the moron still says he would vote that way? What a f-ing weenie. You have a clear out, a clear way to show that things have changed. How about at least saying you'd put a better safeguard in before the President brought us to war via the blank check method used? But, nooooo. Sigh.
This is the sort of thing that makes people from Queens, Chicago, and Boston nervous. It makes others, especially those against the war, just a bit pissed. Is this just Kerry's way to make sure that when (knock on wood) he becomes President that he would have such power, Art. I notwithstanding? Did I say, "sigh?"