Before the debate, I should probably get off my chest my main crankiness about this campaign season, which is the extent to which Our Only President and his cronies have gotten away with pretending that John Kerry has changed his position on Iraq several times. As far as I can tell, Senator Kerry hasn’t changed his position at all, although that position requires a good deal of explanation, and he has explained it differently to different audiences, as well he should, and he has often explained it badly, as he shouldn’t.
Before the invasion, his position was that the Ba’athist regime in Iraq posed a threat to the US, and that therefore it was OK to invade them. However, to set the US up for the best chance at the best situation afterwards, it would be wise to (a) negotiate the timing with allies, and (b) pay for the thing up front. I should qualify even that, of course: when it came to the infamous Senate Resolution, he clearly felt that the administration could use it to diplomatic advantage, and that a vote for it was only indirectly a vote to invade. In other words, John Kerry supported keeping open the option to invade, while continuing to negotiate. The negotiations failed, due either to incompetence or indifference on the part of the US, which can’t be blamed on John Kerry.
The infamous $87 billion isn’t even as complicated as that: having stated his preference for paying for the thing up front, he supported that version and opposed the deficit version. I don’t believe he was involved in any of the negotiation on either bill. He simply voted for one version and against the other. There is no change of heart, here, only a Senatorial procedure that isn’t very far from play-acting, particularly as it was clear which version would win long before the vote.
As for the other stuff, Senator Kerry has for some time been clearly supporting a diminished US troop presence in Iraq, UN and EU involvement in security, more rebuilding, and a sharper focus on other theaters in the so-called War on Terror. The specifics, none of which I have bothered to familiarize myself with, may well have changed. He has been making statements on the topic, as Senator and Candidate, for more a year now, during which time the situation hasn’t been exactly stable. Further, I have no idea what of his plans he has any chance of implementing as president, as the situation will not be exactly stable for the next year, and it’s hard for me to believe that France, Germany, Brazil or China will happily replace a hundred thousand of our troops. But still, I haven’t seen any convincing examples of Senator Kerry changing his position.
Look, I think it’s a bad position. It’s not a persuasive one, that’s for sure. I think that the Senate not only was wrong to pass that resolution, but fell down in its Constitutional duty to decide whether the country should go to war or not. But on the main questions: whether, when and under what circumstances the invasion was justified, how it would be supported, what the reconstruction should look like and how that would be paid for, and the basic priorities of force, negotiation, persuasion, rebuilding, alliances, and budget, he has had the same position for two years, now. To pretend otherwise is, well, a lie.
Oh, some Gentle Readers of long standing may well remember that my own position at the time the Senate was discussing the resolution was very close to the one Senator Kerry held: invasion was justified if negotiations failed, and the threat of invasion had to be left open to Our Only President as a tool of those negotiations. Yes, that was my position. It was wrong. Our Only President was not able to (or willing to) carry on good-faith negotiations, either with the Ba’athists or with our putative allies, and we should have recognized that before giving him the tool (or the big desk). Were I currently a candidate for President, I would, I hope, admit to having been wrong, and having changed my position since then: flip-flopped, in fact. But here’s the thing—I ain’t qualified for the job. My error on this matter is nothing compared to the mistakes I would make if it were my teacup on the big desk.
,
-Vardibidian.
But here’s the thing—I ain’t qualified for the job.
Neither is Our Only President, but being qualified doesn’t seem to be a qualification anymore.
Do you think that, in a debate context, Kerry could point out that changing your views to fit the facts is better than either ignoring the facts and/or lying about them, which is how Our Only President maintains his much cherished consistency?
One might say, for instance:
“The Bush Administration lied to Congress about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein when Congress voted to authorize the use of military force. Naturally, when I learned the truth, I changed my position on Iraq. I hoped that, when the Bush Administration charged our armed forces to defeat Saddam Hussein, they would develop a competent plan for rebuilding Iraq after the war. As it turned out, they didn’t, and so we lost the first, best opportunity to build a democracy in Iraq. In consequence of the Bush Administration’s failures and refusal to correct those failures, I have had to change my assessment of how best the United States can turn failure into success.
The Bush administration’s policy in Iraq is a failure, and they don’t have any other ideas. They have only a rigid ideology, so instead they’re pretending that their policy is working. The American people deserve real solutions to problems, not pretend solutions.
The problem we face right now in Iraq is x. As President, here’s what I would do to address that problem (y). Nation-building is one of the greatest foreign policy challenges our nation faces; it’s crucial to keeping America safe.
To find real solutions to real problems of nation-building or to real problems here at home, I may change my Administration’s policies when I am President. But I won’t change my principles, and I won’t offer pretend solutions.”
Is a statement like that outside the realm of possibility? Would it be a rhetorical error?
Rephrase the following to avoid pronoun confusion:
when the Bush Administration charged our armed forces to defeat Saddam Hussein, they [the administration] would develop a competent plan for rebuilding Iraq after the war.
I like your speech, but it would require him to actually change his mind, which he has not yet admitted to. That is, he would have to say that knowing what he knows now, he thinks his earlier position was wrong (or based on misinformation). The trouble there, of course, is that doing so is also politically risky.
Honestly, I think his best bet for the debate is to say, several times, that this is just a debate about whether President Bush deserves to be re-elected. Something like ‘this isn’t about whether I’ve changed my position in the past, or whether President Bush changed his position on nation-building or on prescription drugs or on any particular policy. This is about whether the leader of our government has done a good enough job to hand him the keys to the White House for another four years. If all we can put on his progress report after four years with a friendly congress is that he thinks I’m a flip-flopper, I think that’s sad. So let’s talk about the real world for a minute.’
But then, he has lots of very smart people with lots of experience giving him good advice, and I’m sure it’s all contradictory enough without my help.
,
-V.
I’ve seen a lot of representation in the media of citizens being frustrated, not with the idea of Kerry as wishy-washy, but with their sense that Kerry hasn’t given them a clear sense of what he will do.
If that’s true, then I think he needs to do more in the debates than point out Bush’s abject failures to do anything good for the country. (To point that out in a clear and unsparing way is of course crucial). But bad as Bush has been, when people are scared they are unlikely to choose uncertainty over certainty. They know what Bush is like, what he will do. They may not actually agree with it, but they know what to expect, so they think they know what the worst will be. Unless Kerry can give those people something more to hold onto, he’ll lose votes that he should win.
Myself, I think we have to accept uncertainty and make the choices that lead towards hope rather than towards resignation. (Actually, come to think of it, that’s what my book manuscript is about . . . )
And I don’t think it should be _that_ difficult to do both of these things in the debate.
The hardest thing will be to be clear and truthful and reassuring about Iraq, because the situation is confused and bad and the truth is painful. But if he’s going to be President, that’s what he has to do. Well, Bush may be voted out of office on his own merits, regardless of whether Kerry steps up in a great way or not during the debates. But if Kerry is to _win_ the election, rather than have Bush lose it, that’s what he has to do.
Chris: in a debate context, Kerry could point out that changing your views to fit the facts is better than either ignoring the facts and/or lying about them
How does this fly with V’s earlier post about American affection for fact over theory? (And in contrast with the underlying habits that fuel the idea “my country, right or wrong”?)
V:
he would have to say that knowing what he knows now, he thinks his earlier position was wrong (or based on misinformation).
Hm. I thought I heard him say that, perhaps during the convention. Not sure.