Terry M. Neal: Talking Points The Contortions of the Pro-War Democrats
By Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Wednesday, July 16, 2003; 6:54 PM
Are some of the Democratic presidential candidates trying to have it both ways on Iraq?
In recent days, Democrats have escalated their criticism of the Bush administration's pre-war claims about the threat posed by Iraq. Four of the major candidates who voted for the war resolution last year are now raising serious questions about the administration's handling of the Iraq situation, while maintaining that they did the right thing by supporting the march to war.
Sens. John Kerry (Mass.), Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), and John Edwards (N.C.) and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) have all stepped up their rhetoric about either Bush's pre-war claims or his post-war planning or both.
Kerry, for instance, has been very forceful in criticizing the way the administration has handled its post-war planning, saying that essentially the administration had no plan for securing the peace after the war ended.
"I hope they [the administration] have a strategy," Kerry told Washington Post reporters and editors in a luncheon meeting last week. "It seems to me that having been as intent as they obviously were on taking down Saddam Hussein, they would have had a more extensive plan for winning the peace and yeah, I'm actually, I'm really shocked and I am angry about the sort of arrogant absence of any major international effort to do what's really needed here to protect our troops and to guarantee a victory."
Asked if he was still comfortable with his vote authorizing the president to use force, Kerry did not hesitate.
"I have no question about the decision I made," he said. "Even Hans Blix said they weren't in compliance."
Then there was Kerry again on CNN this morning, criticizing not only the administration's post-war planning, but also raising questions about the administration's handling of intelligence, particularly the claim that Hussein was seeking the material for nuclear weapons in Africa.
When asked by Soledad O'Brien if he were "backtracking to some degree" now, Kerry responded: "It's not just the 16 words, it's all of our intelligence. I mean, we were told they had weapons that could be deployed within 45 minutes. We were told they had unmanned vehicles that had the ability to deliver. I mean, there are a series of things here. Colin Powell came to the Foreign Relations Committee and told us, in answer to one of my questions, the only reason to go to war were weapons of mass destruction. So I voted to give the president the power to go to the U.N. in order -- and to have the threat of force -- in order to hold Saddam Hussein accountable."
So now Kerry is saying his vote was based on faulty intelligence from the administration while still maintaining that he has absolutely no question about the validity of his vote. But if the intelligence was faulty, doesn't that call into question a vote based on it? Not in Kerry's view.
full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1273-2003Jul16.html
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
