The trap that Kerry got into was based on semantics. He voted to authorize the US to go to war with Iraq if we could not otherwise use diplomacy and the use of sanctions to make Saddam Hussein allow inspectors back in Iraq.
When it came to voting for the $87 billion to fund the war initially he voted against one form of the bill and for another form of the bill. He was explaining a complex process in a short sound byte that was taken out of context by his opponents. He was in no way wishy washy about his vote. Both his vote for the authorization to go to war and his vote against the first bill to authorize $87 billion dollars were clear.
The intelligence and assumptions he was working with for his first vote for the war was not only flawed but totally baseless. The President didn't try to verify the sources and instead hyped up whatever would persuade the American people and Congress to allow him to go to war.
There are two ways to make an argument:
- Get the facts and support your case with them.
- Make a case and get the facts to support your case, which is what a college debater does. But a college debater is not dealing in life and death issues that will cause 32,000 Iraqi and American deaths.
The next time a President asks us to send our men and women to war for his policies will be very difficult because the American people have lost trust in their Commander-In-Chief and do not want to volunteer their sons and daughters to die for something that is not founded on strong evidence.
We will probably need to go back to the draft in the future to supply the troop levels we will need to fight Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria.
That is unless we get back into the world community and use diplomacy to isolate these countries. We were doing fine in Iraq using sanctions until Mr. Bush and the Neocons decided to upset the apple cart and create a phony war.