Editorial
Kerry's right to slam the president on Iraq

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

That John Kerry voted to authorize war in October 2002 but says he would not have gone to war is not a "flip-flop." It is sensible and consistent.

An authorization vote is what a labor union does. There it is called a strike authorization. It says to the negotiators, "We grant you the power to send us on strike. We do this to strengthen your hand." In October 2002, that is what Congress did. It granted George Bush the power to send America to war, so as to strengthen the president's hand against Saddam Hussein. Having approved that power, Kerry has every right to criticize how the president used it. He says Bush rushed to war — and he is right.

The Bush camp responds by asking, "Isn't the world safer without Saddam Hussein?" In his speech Monday at New York University, Kerry gave the right answer: No. The world is not safer, nor is the United States.

Militarily, we already had Saddam in a box. The price of putting him in an actual jail was the wreckage of our alliances, the alienation of our Muslim friends and the spread of anti-American terrorism and hate. This is what Bush has wrought. He has worsened the problem he set out to fix. His mistakes "were not the equivalent of accounting errors," Kerry said. "They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for in a president."

In hindsight, should we have gone to war? Incredibly, Bush says yes.

"How can he possibly be serious?" Kerry said in his Monday speech. "Is he really saying to America that if we knew there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer: resoundingly, no, because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Kerry's answers on what to do in Iraq are not as clear and ringing as his criticisms. By going to war, Bush has limited the options of any president. Kerry says he would work harder to recruit allies. He says he would work harder to train Iraqi soldiers and police. He says he would work harder to ensure the January 2005 election is a success. And he says he would hope to start withdrawing troops in mid-2005 and to withdraw the last of them in four years.

Kerry needs to work harder on his exit plan. As president, he will also have to restore the focus on al-Qaida. Let's not forget that while Iraq never attacked the territory of the United States, al-Qaida did. In that fight, Kerry has shown just as much resolve as Bush.

On Monday, Kerry said, "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."

With the Iraq commitment winding down, the focus can shift back to al-Qaida, where it should have been all along.