-
But Kerry's critics -- on both the right and the left -- say, well, fine but it was clear in late 2002 that President Bush was going to war no matter what. And those critics have a very good point. I don't think it quite obviates the first argument. And I wrestle with this myself. But it's a very good point.
The problem is that this is an argument the president and really his partisans really just can't make. Because what it amounts to is saying is that Kerry's position doesn't hold up because the president is a liar.
Right? Isn't that the idea?
The president's argument at the time was that he needed to be empowered by the congress to go to the UN with a credible threat of force and a united congress behind him. That was the best way to assure that Iraq would be disarmed and in fact the best way to avoid war.
The resolution was intended to give the president full authority to go to war if the our vital security needs -- namely, resolving the weapons issue -- could not be solved by means short of war.
Kerry's argument is only the president's argument read back to him.
This is all true, though less of a "zinger" than one might think. Everyone on Team Couchpotato Warrior knew that we were going to Iraq no matter what. Everyone knew that Saddam could've sent his severed head in the mail to the White House and we still would have gone to war. This was a lie they endorsed and embraced, unlike ones about blowjobs which threaten civilization as we know it.