Yes... yes... I KNOW it's Mickey Kaus. Yes, I know he's often a shill for the corporate media. But, other than TNR, the guy's about the closest thing to a pipeline into the DLC mindset that we have. And, interestingly enough, it seems like a lot of DLC'ers are about as entusiastic about Kerry as we are (see exhibit B: TNR).
Kaus on Kerry
Why Didn't Kerry Speak Out? John C. Bonifaz, author of a just-published anti-Bush book, emails with what seems to be a sophisticated and potentially highly-damaging criticism of Kerry's finally-settled "But He Promised!" stump rationalization for his pro-war vote.
In case you have missed it, Kerry explains his vote this way:
I voted to give the authority to the president to use force under a set of promises by the president as to how he would do it: build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises.
And that's why I'm the best candidate to run against him and beat him, because I knew we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but I knew how to do it the right way. President Bush did it the wrong way.
Never mind what it says about Kerry's judgment that he trusted the vague promises made by a president he now claims is so unfit for office. (You'd think before such a momentous decision Kerry would have met with Bush in private, to obtain the assurances Bonesman-to-Bonesman--or maybe even gotten them in writing.) It turns out that in his Senate floor speech before the Iraq vote, Kerry noted the "promises" and anticipated their possible breaking. But, Bonifaz argues, in Kerry's "but he promised" rationalization he
did not reveal what he himself promised on the floor of the United States Senate when he announced his support for that October Resolution. "In giving the President this authority," the senator said, "I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."
"If he fails to do so," Senator Kerry continued, "I will be the first to speak out."
Bonifaz goes on:
Senator Kerry broke that promise ... In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent. The president had, indeed, failed to build an international coalition, and yet the senator did not speak out.
Maybe I'm missing something but this seems to me a devastating criticism of Kerry's rationalization, if you are an anti-war voter. If the "promises" were so important... . P.S.: Why didn't Kerry speak up? The obvious answer: Because the "promises" theory all along was tactical--the creation of a possible a__-covering excuse for Kerry's pro-war vote should the war go wrong. When Bush was breaking these "promises" popular support for the war was strong, and it looked as if it might cost Kerry votes to speak out. Duh! ... If you stop taking the rationalizations seriously and look at Kerry's behavior as that of a pol trying to play it safe and have it both ways, it all falls into place. Occam's Razor! ... P.P.S.: Bonifaz's book is Warrior King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks--NY, January 2004) ... P.P.P.S: Emphasis added throughout. ... 1:05 P.M.
Occam's Razor indeed. So what's the best choice for the Democratic party... ass-covering, or principled opposition?