|
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 01:16 AM by JDWalley
...really make me distrust the man.
It started almost immediately after the vote, when he insisted that voting for a blank-check resolution wasn't really giving Bush a blank check. It continued with his vow to ask "tough questions" should Bush use the vote as the basis for a unilateral, pre-emptive war, followed (when such a war looked certain) by a promise to, instead, "keep silence" out of regard for Our Troops.
Of course, the last word most of us read came from Will Pitt's "The Trial of John Kerry." In front of a group of leading liberals, Kerry portrayed himself as someone whose only intent was to make sure weapons inspectors were allowed in to do their job, and was taken advantage of by a White House that had falsely assured him that war was a last resort:
“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”
“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”
Kerry completed his answer by leaning in close to Alterman, eyes blazing, and said, “Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”
The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”
Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.” And then he was gone.
Thought that this was a credible "final explanation"...? Well, oops, he did it again. In the Time magazine cover story (only available on-line to subscribers), Kerry has changed his tune significantly. For whatever reason (possibly because he was campaigning in more conservative states this week?) Kerry has now dropped his "I only voted to bring in the inspectors" line. Instead, he is now claiming that it had been our policy ever since 1998 to bring about "regime change" in Iraq, and his vote for the IWR was simply in line with that (supposed) policy. Instead of being "misled" by Bush, he now merely says he faults the President for his failure to succeed in putting together a larger coalition. In other words, it's not that we should have abandoned plans to invade if we didn't get the U.N.'s backing -- it's simply that we should have made sure that the U.N. was on-board by last March, period. Bush's transgressions have been reduced from lying and warmongering to mere diplomatic incompetence.
What is there to say about a candidate who can hardly keep his own story straight? Time would have it that it is a sign of strength that Kerry's positions are constantly "evolving." I, on the other hand, would take it as the sign of a politician frighteningly without principles whatsoever, who would change his position on a moment's notice based on the polls or the "conventional wisdom" (in other words, what the mainstream media like Time is saying).
Of course, I will still vote for Kerry (or any other Democratic candidate), should he get the nomination. But, while most warnings about Kerry have centered on whether or not he will lose in November, the more I read about him, the more I worry about what may come should he win. I would submit that his constant "explanations" foretell a Presidency which, although certainly better than the current one, will be an exercise in triangulation enough to make Clinton look like a liberal "true believer" -- and one that (since the Republicans will of course label his views as "extreme liberal" no matter how compromised they turn out to be) will mark the death knell for progressives in the Democratic Party or American politics as a whole.
|