Is this what we can expect from Kerry on Thursday?

[Blue Rectangle]

An excerpt from Diane Sawyer's interview of Kerry on Good Morning America today.  If Kerry has this much trouble with Sawyer and GMA (neither is known for tough political coverage), what will he do in the debates?  I added my own commentary:

DIANE SAWYER: Was the war in Iraq worth it?

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

Blue Rectangle: Ask one question, get the answer to another...

DS: So it was not worth it.

JK: We should not - it depends on the outcome ultimately - and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully, but I would not have gone to war knowing that there was no imminent threat - there were no weapons of mass destruction - there was no connection of Al Qaeda - to Saddam Hussein! The president misled the American people - plain and simple. Bottom line.

BR: Whether it was worth it depends on the outcome he says...

DS: So if it turns out okay, it was worth it?

JK: No.

BR: ...or on the other hand, maybe it doesn't.

DS: But right now it wasn't [ - ? - ]--

JK: It was a mistake to do what he did, but we have to succeed now that we've done what he's - I mean look - we have to succeed. But was it worth - as you asked the question - $200 billion and taking the focus off of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? That's the question. The test of the presidency was whether or not you should have gone to war to get rid of him. I think, had the inspectors continued, had we done other things - there were plenty of ways to keep the pressure on Saddam Hussein.

BR: DS re-asks the question "was it worth it" and the answer seems to be no.

DS: But no way to get rid of him.

JK: Oh, sure there were. Oh, yes there were. Absolutely.

BR: There were ways to get rid of Saddam short of invasion?  That's a rather odd claim.

DS: So you're saying that today, even if Saddam Hussein were in power today it would be a better thing - you would prefer that . . .

JK: No, I would not prefer that. And Diane - don't twist here.

BR: In other words, DS doesn't buy it: Kerry would not have invaded and he would not have been able to remove Saddam from power without an invasion.  Hence, Kerry must prefer that Saddam remain in power.  But Kerry disputes this logic (without providing an explanation of how DS's reasoning is wrong) and decides to make an appeal to not "twist" his words.

Pathetic

The question is, since we all know Kerry will face a very similar question on Thursday, how will he handle it?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I really don't see that Kerry has been inconsistant in his stance on Iraq...he's just been unwilling to frame the issue in the way the media wants him to frame it....and hasn't been very articulate about reframing it.

As I see it, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, but George W. Bush was the wrong man to do it.  In the words of Dukakis , "It's not about ideology, it's about competence."  Even if this war was entirely morally correct, Bush is simply not competent enough to carry it out in a successful way.  The fact that the Iraq looks so botched right now is a sign of this incompetence....and what Kerry is getting at when he say that the was was right "depending on the outcome".  This suggests that if he were fighting the same war, the outcome would have been different.  Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but I don't see how this is flip-flopping.

[nomorelies]

Republicans spin it thats what Kerry has to do. Show Bush isnt credible.

[Democratic Hawk]

Good point Nick.

It seems to me that Republicans are determined to portray Kerry is a flip-flopper even if only to reassure themselves.

Kerry would have pursued things differently from Bush and that's all there is to it. Either way you look it, the situation in Iraq is not good on the ground.

Dave

[DarthKosh]

Good point Nick.

It seems to me that Republicans are determined to portray Kerry is a flip-flopper even if only to reassure themselves.

Kerry would have pursued things differently from Bush and that's all there is to it. Either way you look it, the situation in Iraq is not good on the ground.

Dave

Wow you are jus as delusional as bandit and nomorelies.

[Democratic Hawk]

Good point Nick.

It seems to me that Republicans are determined to portray Kerry is a flip-flopper even if only to reassure themselves.

Kerry would have pursued things differently from Bush and that's all there is to it. Either way you look it, the situation in Iraq is not good on the ground.

Dave

Wow you are jus as delusional as bandit and nomorelies.

No, I just shout it as I see it!

Dave

[Blue Rectangle]

I really don't see that Kerry has been inconsistant in his stance on Iraq...he's just been unwilling to frame the issue in the way the media wants him to frame it....and hasn't been very articulate about reframing it.

As I see it, getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, but George W. Bush was the wrong man to do it.  In the words of Dukakis , "It's not about ideology, it's about competence."  Even if this war was entirely morally correct, Bush is simply not competent enough to carry it out in a successful way.  The fact that the Iraq looks so botched right now is a sign of this incompetence....and what Kerry is getting at when he say that the was was right "depending on the outcome".  This suggests that if he were fighting the same war, the outcome would have been different.  Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't, but I don't see how this is flip-flopping.

This is not about flip-flops, although Kerry does waffle and try to have it both ways on the "was it worth it?" issue.

The core issue is how Kerry can answer this question:
"Was the Iraq War, which has so far cost $200 billion and 1000 US lives and which has turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, been worth removing Saddam from power?"

I certainly do not agree with the phrasing of this question, but I wrote it in this order to show a best-case scenario for Kerry.  I think most of the Democrats on this board would answer "NO!" to this question.  The problem for Kerry is that he cannot afford to answer no, even if the question is as soft as the one above.  To do so would be seen as defeatist and a failure to support the troops.  Kerry would get hammered in states like OH, FL and WI (and many others) if he says no.

If Kerry says yes, then he essentially concedes that Bush has succeeded in Iraq.  Once again, Kerry get crushed at the polls.

My prediction is that this question will come up in the debates and Kerry will use up two minutes emphasizing the costs of the war while downplaying successes.  He will not say yes or no.  Bush will call him on dodging the question and Kerry will once again lose support on the "decisive leader" issue, but the alternative for Kerry is far worse.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The core issue is how Kerry can answer this question:
"Was the Iraq War, which has so far cost $200 billion and 1000 US lives and which has turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, been worth removing Saddam from power?"

This is where I think "it depends on the outcome" comes into play.  If the Iraq war costs $200 billion and 1,000 US lives and ended with us building a stable democracy in the region, then I would say, YES, it was worth it.

But that doesn't look like what's happening right now.  It was NOT worth the cost if we removed Saddam and then left the country in civil war.  I fully supported this at the time it was waged, but I didn't think even Bush could screw it up this badly.

I'm obviously not speaking for Kerry at this point...but you can certainly make the argument that if someone else had been planning this war, the costs would have been the same but the outcome would have been different.

[Blue Rectangle]

The core issue is how Kerry can answer this question:
"Was the Iraq War, which has so far cost $200 billion and 1000 US lives and which has turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, been worth removing Saddam from power?"

This is where I think "it depends on the outcome" comes into play.  If the Iraq war costs $200 billion and 1,000 US lives and ended with us building a stable democracy in the region, then I would say, YES, it was worth it.

Wow!  Does this make you a neocon?
Your answer is well nuanced, but you put a future condition on success when the question was on events to-date.  Kerry could use this strategy to answer the question, but I think it leaves him open to appearing too close to Bush in their future Iraq policies.  If their visions of the future of US foreign policy are so similar, then why change presidents?  Because Kerry would be a better leader?  The large majority of voters disagree.

But that doesn't look like what's happening right now.  It was NOT worth the cost if we removed Saddam and then left the country in civil war.  I fully supported this at the time it was waged, but I didn't think even Bush could screw it up this badly.

I'm obviously not speaking for Kerry at this point...but you can certainly make the argument that if someone else had been planning this war, the costs would have been the same but the outcome would have been different.

Yes you can make that argument, but it is not an easy one to make.  The voters simply do not believe the situation is as bad as Kerry and others portray it.  I am sure that it is not as good as Bush tells it, but the fact remains that Bush continues to get high marks on Iraq.  When Bush has a 20 point lead over Kerry on "who do you trust more to handle Iraq" and then Kerry decides to make Iraq the issue of 2004, you have to wonder what Kerry is thinking.

[Bogart]

JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.

This line says it all about Kerry.