# Posted 11:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KERRY'S EXTREMELY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD POSITION ON THE WAR: Kevin Drum has had enough of everyone who pretends that Kerry hasn't taken a clear and consistent position on the war in Iraq. Kevin cites Will Saletan's lengthy explication of Kerry's position on the war and concludes that

You can decide for yourself whether you like this position, but it's
not hard to grasp.

Actually, Saletan says something else: that John Kerry has had a consistent position on the war, but that it is extremely hard to grasp because Kerry constantly spins his position to fit the demands of the moment:

This is classic Kerry: emphasizing the right half of his position when it's convenient, then the left half when that's more convenient. But it isn't a change of position.

I'm not sure I'm even willing to be that generous. What Saletan describes as Kerry's actual position on the war is actually quite vague. Its four principal elements are "compliance, inspections, skepticism, [and] process."

Yet at the same time, Kerry ackonwledges that Saddam may not comply, inspections may not work, and the UN process may hit a dead end. In February 2002, when Chris Matthews asked John Kerry if diplomacy was enough to disarm Iraq, Kerry said:

"Outside chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. [Saddam] would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. [But] do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes."

Thus, the real question is when to conclude that the "four elements" aren't working and that force is required. On May 3, 2003, when George Stephanopoulos asked if George Bush made the right decision to invade on March 19, Kerry reponded that

I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity. But I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam].

Saletan notes that

This appears to be the first time Kerry endorses the war as Bush conducted it.

I agree. Despite his vague aveat about preferring more diplomacy, Kerry is endorsing the war. In contrast, Howard Dean told Stephanopolous that I think "This was the wrong war at the wrong time." Anyhow, five months later, Kerry told ABC that

[The Bush administration] did not give legitimacy to the inspections. We could have still been doing inspections even today.

Saletan argues that this is Kerry's real position and that if he had been President, there would have been no invasion. Perhaps, but you can't infer that from what Kerry said on ABC. If anything, his response to Stephanopoulous in May carries greater weight because it was closer to the actual date of the war.

But leaving aside the question of which is the 'real' John Kerry, I think it's important to point out that Kerry's contradictory statements from May and October call into question Saletan's argument that Kerry had a consistent position on the war.

But if even you ignore everything that Kerry said before last month's convention, it's still hard to figure out what his position on the war is. In the same interview where Kerry defended his vote to give the President war powers in October 2002, Kerry accused the President of rushing to war without enough allies. Incensed by the press coverage of this statement, Bob Somersby asks:

What is Kerry’s stand on Iraq? Readers, get ready for some real brain-work! Here goes: Kerry says Bush should have had the authority to go to war, but then went to war prematurely. Wow! Have you finished scratching your heads about all the nuance involved in that statement? It’s hard to believe that any grown person could pretend that this is complex or confusing.

Well, then let me pretend. Until Kerry defines "prematurely", we will have no idea what his position on the war actually is. If Bush let the inspections go on for another six months, would an invasion still have been premature? If he had spent another six months recruiting European allies, would the war still have been premature?

But what if another six months of inspections failed to turn up additional evidence? And what if the Europeans still held out after another six months of courtship? These are just some of the questions that Kerry avoids answering by hiding behind the word 'premature'.
(0) opinions -- Add your opinion