Getting to "Yes" - Kerry Hammered From Both Sides

Last week, President Bush goaded Man Who Would Be President with a seemingly simple question:

My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

After some amusing tap-dancing, Kerry finally stepped up and firmly straddled, restating his long-held position that he would have voted for diplomacy in October 2002. Oh, let him say it:

"I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

A position Boldly Taken!

Now the Bush team is chewing on him, and the anti-war Toronto Star is chewing on him. First, let's Blame Canada:

Kerry fails Iraq test

..."I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Kerry now says. Only he would have used that power more "effectively."

This amounts to a sweeping claim by Kerry that America has carte blanche to make war on even bogus grounds, and in defiance of the United Nations and world opinion, so long as the war is waged effectively.

...Kerry comes off looking like "Bush lite" on Iraq, rather than as a candidate with better values and a sounder program. He seems weak. Muddled.

They are unhappy.

From the other flank, we have the LA Times - Bush Mocks Kerry's 'Nuance' on Iraq

And from somewhere in the middle, USA Today - Kerry's been consistent about his nuances, at least .

Comments

[capt joe]

Ah Yes, the Toronto Star who has Antonia Zerbisias, a columnist who had writtn a number of columns about BUSH KNEW! She has taken Barry Zwicker's moonbat conspiracies and given them the exposure of the main stream

[Appalled Moderate]

The President having fun with Kerry's statements indicates that his political instincts are pretty good. This is something Kerry would do well to remember. Bush isn't an idiot -- he only plays one on TV.

The Toronto Star's foaming-at-the-mouth columnist's fulminations indicates that Kerry's policy instincts are better than our proprietor would have us believe. Kerry is not a flaming leftist appeaser. Michael Moore is going to be disappointed.

[capt joe]

Yes, the Toronto star sit in exactly the same demographic that supported Dean. If these people decided in a fit of pique to support nader....

[The Kid]

Today’s (8/11/2004) Kerry Spot on NRO appears at first serious piece that attempts to analyze how a potential president [Kerry] would handle the life-and-death issues of war and peace.
(Go here and scroll to
NUANCED? OR JUST PLAN NONSENSE? [08/11 08:52 AM])

The apparent gravity starts to fade after six paragraphs:

You see, Kerry has always approached the issue of handling Saddam Hussein with a nimble-minded flexibility, an ability to adapt to changing conditions. Way back on January 22, 1991, he wrote to a constituent, Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Mass.:

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.

But Kerry is no blind peacenik, as demonstrated by his January 31, 1991 letter, also to Wallace Carter, stating:

Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.

"Strong and unequivocal" is exactly the term that comes to mind when considering Kerry and the issue of Iraq, and the broader war on terror.

Highly recommended.Highly recommended. It concludes with this:

Kerry's incoherent, sort-of-for, sort-of-against, shapeless gray blobs of linguistic ooze make debating his views impossible, because there's nothing to support or to dispute. Kerry never comes out and clearly and consistently advocates one position that the voters can either endorse or reject. As the public mood shifts, so does he. And he always leaves the wiggle room, the subordinate clause with caveats that nullifies the original statement.

It's enough to make a guy miss Howard Dean.

[Captain America]

I agree with Kerry about 50% of the time, then he changes.