Wonderful article by den beste

[dude1394]

Den Beste is a software programmer who writes about politics, science and all manner of things. If you have not read his website you are missing a treat. Here is an excellent article analyzing kerry's latest interview. A snippet:

USS Clueless

Kerry claims that the entire justification presented for the war was to eliminate Saddam's WMDs, and since none have been found, the war was illegitimate. He claims that's what he was told before the Senate vote, and that he believed it, and now feels he was misled, inspiring righteous anger towards those who misled him (e.g. the Republicans in the White House) and a firm determination to replace them there. His current rhetoric contradicts the way he voted because at the time of the vote he had been deceived.

His explanation doesn't wash. That claim is so ludicrous it inspired ridicule even from San Francisco.

I myself had figured out the most important reason we had to invade Iraq long before the Senate vote, and I don't have access to the kind of information that Kerry would have been able to see as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I also don't have a staff.

I put in the effort to figure it out because I'm a citizen, and in service of my hobby. For Kerry, it's his job to figure out those kinds of things. If he really was misled in October of 2002, it proves that he's either gullible, stupid, or was derelict in carrying out his duties as a US Senator. Regardless of which it was, it would demonstrate that he was not qualified to be President.

But I don't think that's what really happened. I think he probably understood in 200210 the real reason why we had to invade Iraq. I don't think he had been gulled when he made the decision to vote for the authorization for war, and I don't think he was derelict in his duty. Rather, I think he is prevaricating about that decision today.

Kerry is trying to have it all ways. He says he might have gone to war, but not the way Bush did. He wants to pander to the anti-war crowd without simultaneously alienating those who supported the war. He's trying to be all things to all men. (Yesterday I described this as as tofu candidacy.)

Last year before the invasion began, you occasionally saw reports from Europe and elsewhere to the effect that if you pinned many of the most vocal critics down, they would ruefully admit that they were in favor of having Saddam disposed of, but only if it wasn't the US which did the disposing. One interpretation of Kerry's comments is that he supports the war, but only if Bush isn't the Commander in Chief which is leading it. Other potential interpretations abound, however.

I honestly don't know what Kerry truly believes. Some of my readers have already concluded that deep down he truly does oppose the war, or that he sees it in the far more restricted terms of taking out the specific terrorist groups which were responsible for the attack against us, rather than reforming the region so that support for terrorism evaporates and abates the larger threat against us in the long run which is how Bush sees it.

Certainly much of his political rhetoric recently supports that evaluation, but my problem is that I can't bring myself to credit anything he says on this subject. It's entirely possible that some of what he's said has been true. If so, I can't shake the feeling that's only the result of coincidence. What I see is equivocation and pandering: Kerry seems to say whatever he thinks has the best chance of avoiding alienating voters. If that happens to be what he really thinks, so much the better.

There is really only one thing which comes through clearly, unambiguously, unnuanced, and uncontradicted: Senator Kerry would really like to be the next President of the United States. (Well, actually two: And he really wishes he could make it all the way to November without hearing the word "Iraq" a single time in a question.)

That isn't enough. Based on everything I know about him now, I cannot in good conscience consider voting for him. I would rather vote for a candidate with known policies with which I disagree than for a candidate whose true policies – if any – are kept hidden under a bushel basket, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard". If I were somehow forced to choose, I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Kerry. At least I know what Nader stands for.

Update: Stephen Green has also written about those Time interviews.

Update 20040308: The interim constitution was signed today.

Update: Nick comments.

Update: Roger L. Simon comments.

Update 20040309: Galen and Paul Smith both comment.

Update: Ian Tyger comments.

USS Clueless