I just read
this article over on the NYT online. And while its another example from our not-actually-but-sclm. It weighs down pretty hard on Kerry, but it is pointing out one of the largest issues that Kerry is going to face in this election; his war vote.
Now i would have posted this on my blog but since i don't get nearly any traffic at all, and i'm interested in responses, im posting this here...
Anyways, my question is how should Kerry deal with this problem. As the article notes, it's a dammed-if-you-do, dammed-if-you-dont issue. If he says he wouldn't invade on what we know today, then he's 'objectively pro-saddam' and he alienates a portion of the middle and the left. If he says he would still invade, then he risks alienating a large portion of his base. And if he says nothing, he looks like a shifty politician.
So what is the solution? Well the solution is to shift the discussion. There are three things that I think Kerry ought to do; first, his defense ought to take the position that so many Americans initially took; Kerry trusted the president to do the right thing. This will probably resonate with a significant chunk of centrist voters. Kerry ought to say that he looked at the evidence that Bush said was "solid" and under those assumptions voted for the war. Then, preferably, he should go on to explain that he now realizes his mistake was a lack of scrutiny, not of Bush but for all presidents' actions, effectively implying that he is accepting of scrutiny (something Bush is obviously not) and thus saying that he isn't going to be lying/misleading etc. This will play to a certain endemic feeling that Bush is shifty/untrustworthy, and that Kerry will be more open, playing to independents and anti-patriot-act type libertarians.
Besides, the question of what to do given what we know now is a moot one and politically devastating. Which is why....
Kerry needs to take Bush's question and turn it back against him. He ought to ask Bush whether or not HE would invade knowing what we know now, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. This would be pleasently ironic, i think, as Bush was so certain that Iraq was an immediate threat and had WMD's. Because, in reality, that Kerry should be stewing over a war that is of Bush's doing is fairly ridiculous. The buck should be stopping with Bush, not with the Senate or the House. Why was Bush misleading the other lawmakers in the first place? Ignorance? Bad intelligence? Maliscious intent? Any answer is a bad answer, and so the question needs to be asked of Bush.
Finally, when Bush & Company make fun of Kerry for being "nuanced", he needs to throw that sort of thing in his face. Iraq was NOT clear-cut, the plan was NOT a cakewalk etc. Imply that the overly simplistic way that Bush operates is at least partially responsible for the mess we are in right now; other countries are NOT either with us or against us, etc.
This election needs to be about Bush's record, not John Kerry's. Bush has been the president for the past four years, a position of significantly more power than Kerry. This question that Bush has been 'mocking' Kerry for seems to quietly imply that Kerry is the one responsible for the Iraq war, and all the other bad stuff. When the incumbent runs on a platform like that and "we're turning a corner", you know he's in trouble.
Let's just hope it's Bush that gets in trouble for it and not Kerry.