John Kerry and his "nuances" on the Iraq War

We're seeing another classic example of mainstream-media dysfunction.  This time, people who are particularly concerned about the Iraq War seem to have forgotten how badly the press reported on the phony WMD claims in the lead-up to war in 2002-3.  Now they're swallowing the GOP spin, faithfully and gullibly parroted by our lazy excuse for a press corps, that John Kerry's position on Iraq is hopelessly muddled.

Here an example from Bob Dreyfuss: Kerry Iraq Policy in Chaos 08/13/04.

By saying, earlier this week, that he would have voted for the war in Iraq even knowing that there were no WMD and that Iraq didn’t pose a threat to the United States may have been the death blow to Kerry’s presidential campaign. The Bush campaign, and the frat-boy president himself, are merrily mocking Kerry’s bungled Iraq position, throwing the Kerry camp into utter chaos. Going into the campaign, we knew that Kerry lacked passion, but we assumed that he had brains. It now appears that the second assumption may have been wrong.

I suppose as a pitch to vote for Ralph the Republican Nader, that's about as good as anyone could come up with.

Let's focus here, people.  First of all, look up the 1952 and 1968 presidential campaigns.  Ike's solution to the Korean War was, "I will go to Korea."   Richard Nixon's solution to the Vietnam War was a secret plan to end the war, a plan that historians have yet to uncover.  John Kerry is not going to publish a book-length treatise before the election on what might be done in every conceivable contingency in Iraq.  So let's get real.

Dreyfuss swallows whole the press spin that Kerry said he would have gone to war even if he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was no threat to the US.  And that the Kerry camp is in chaos.

Is either item true?  Did Kerry say he would have invaded Iraq even if he knew there were no WMD there?  Is the Kerry campaign in "utter chaos"?

Bob Somerby (the Daily Howler) provided a good reality-check, as he so often does, in his post of Thursday:  Outspinning Hume!  08/12/04.  What he explains is, at least as of the time he prepared that post, there was no quotation of Kerry saying any such thing.  How badly did our sad excuse for a press corps swallow the Bush campaign's spin points on this?  This badly: even Brit Hume, Fox News' überhack star reporter, was doing more responsible reporting on it than the so-called "liberal media."  That badly.  Somerby quotes Hume, adding emphasis on the relevant passages:

BUSH (shown on videotape): [Kerry] now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. Knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up.

HUME (8/11/04): Well that line got a big cheer, as you saw yesterday when the president said it. But what Senator Kerry has said is not quite as the president has characterized it...Basically what Kerry has said, correct me if I'm wrong, is, Look, I would have wanted the authority if I'd been president. That's why I voted to grant this authority to go to war to the president...But he said he would have used it differently. He would have used it to as more of a lever for diplomacy. He would have used it to bring more allies aboard. He would have used it to as a threat behind inspections, to leave them going longer.

But the question is, the Bush camp knows what it's doing here. They know that they're stretching what the senator has said in trying to keep this the subject for the day. What about all this?

How are we ever going to stop a war when the people who oppose it are gulping down GOP talking points that are too much for even Brit Hume to swallow?  The country may be in more trouble than I thought.

Read Somerby's piece for details on how this ridiculous talking point grew like a seed wart.  But here's a quote from his piece of a recent repetition of Kerry's position on Bush's handling of the Iraq War, the one that Republicans are having so very much trouble understanding:

KERRY (8/9/04): Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to go to war]. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.

And my question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve and relieve a pressure from the American people?

And since nobody summarizes these things better than the Howler, I'll quote his characterization of it:

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. But that’s the official RNC line—Kerry is simply filled with nuance—and obliging scribes are typing it up, pretending this claim makes good sense. ...

Readers, there it is again, that deeply “nuanced explanation!” Bush deserved to have the authority, but he used it unwisely! Readers, are you scratching your heads, burdened and baffled by all the complexity? If so, you just may have a future writing for the great New York Times.