http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/opinion/29thu1.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=On the one hand, this editorial infuriates me because it promotes the Bush campaign's idea that Kerry has waffled on the war, and specifically using what they call the "infamous explanation, 'I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'"
In actuality, anyone paying attention knows that he voted FOR the bill that would have paid for the $87B by repealing some of the tax cuts to upper income brackets, and against the one pushed by Bush, that borrowed all $87B. Bush, and the Republicans, did the exact same thing in reverse (voted AGAINST the former, and FOR the latter), so they were guilty of the exact same thing (but in reality, there was no "waffle" at all; they were two separate bills).
The Times also implies that Kerry was trying to "parse his votes both ways... when Howard Dean's antiwar candidacy was breathing down his neck." They suggest that his campaign wishes he had just said ""I voted to spend the money - I just opposed increasing the deficit."
Now, wouldn't it be great if they were in charge of Kerry's campaign? But they are completely giving the Bush campaign a pass on misrepresenting the entire issue. And to say Kerry was somehow trying to get the anti-war and pro-war vote by saying "I'm anti-war and I'm pro-war" is sheer nonsense. Such a statement would never accomplish that if that were the statement's goal and context. Someone asked him about voting against the $87B, and he was simply stating a fact about which version of the bill he voted for.
Where the Times is forgiven, however, is when they suggest Kerry take a stronger stand on whether he would have voted for the IWR knowing what we know now. I DO think there is a risk of appearing to "waffle" here, too. But if handled right, it could greatly strengthen Kerry's argument that we were misled and Bush broke his word to use war as a last resort. The risk if he does not is that people will think he is no different from Bush on Iraq. I personally don't believe that is true, but I think a large percentage of voters do.
Kerry is already implicitly stating that he might have voted differently by saying Bush broke his word and didn't use war as a last resort. He needs to more clearly define himself from Bush on this issue. Here, the Times is right in saying that, knowing what we know now, since "Mr. Bush still insists that he was right to invade... Voters need to know whether Mr. Kerry agrees."
I realize this course is fraught with peril either way, and I myself am very unsure of the consequences of what would basically amount to saying that an ongoing war we are in was a mistake. But the direct question IS going to eventually come up (during the dabates if not before). And if Kerry doesn't take it on now, he won't be able to control it.