Why Kerry did not say "I was wrong"

[Mass]

(he did not - IMHO, he said something equivalent, but he did not use these words).

I have been trying to find an explanation (beyond bias) of why Edwards's statement was repeated everywhere while Kerry's was basically ignored.

I think the main reason is simple. Media people are lazy: Edwards said " was wrong" at the very beginning of his editorial. No need to go thru lines of text to see it. It is simple, does not need any explanation, ... This is great for them. Many probably did not even go farther. They had their sound bite. (and let's be clear, there is nothing new in the rest of the statement. Clark and Kerry have been saying the same thing for a while now. Nothing new as what Kerry proposed with the notion of a timetable based on results or the immediate withdrawal of troops or the renunciation to bases).

Kerry, on the contrary, put his statement in the middle of a long speech, very well written, about a solution for Iraq. He did not say "I was wrong", but "I accept my share of responsibility". While anybody responsible would say that this admission is great, particularly with a plan to repair what is wrong, let's be honest: our media are not responsible. If they have to read thru the speech to find this, they will ignore it.

Sad description of our media, but true.

This said, I think there is a reason why Edwards and a few others said "I was wrong", while Kerry did not. Kerry is too honest to say something that he does not believe, and if you reread all he has said and written from the beginning, he has been extremely consistent: He did not vote for Bush to go to war but to allow him to go thru a process. For somebody as responsible as Kerry, the idea that the president would abuse his power was probably something he did not want to imagine. So his only error, terrible as it may be, was to believe that Bush would do what he said.

So, the issue is probably to know if Kerry should stay honest to himself, which is one of the reasons I like him, or whether he should make a sound byte that the media could repeat?

Here is the beginning of the WaPo editorial. Edwards states clearly he supported the invasion. Kerry did not.

The Right Way in Iraq

By John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America.

What do you think?

[jenndar]

1. I'm torn.

For the same reasons you are.

As someone in another DU thread said, the WH is trying to make this into a game of "We lied, and you believed us, so it's your fault." So "I accept my share of responsibility" is a good response to that idea.

What's unfortunate in this specific situation is that John Edwards can say things like "I was wrong" because in a year or so, he'll have been out of the Senate long enough to distance himself from his rather short voting record. It seems to me - and I could be wrong, but I can see him spinning his IWR vote as something he did WAY BACK in his "crazy Senate days."

As long as Senator Kerry is in the Senate (so, specifically, until at least 2008) he can't divorce himself from his voting record. His IWR vote is going to be a big part of his political biography, and I think people like John Edwards are going to use that to their advantage.

Does this make sense to anyone?

[Mass]

3. It does make a lot of sense.

We see somebody who sponsored the IWR, voted against everything that could force Bush to come back to the Congress, and wrote part of the Patriot Act, spinned as the anti-war candidate.

(disclaimer: I cant find the rollcall for Biden-Lugar - Kerry did not vote for all the amendments that would have reduced Bush's power, but he voted for some).

However, Kerry can divorce himself of his voting record. There is nothing wrong in saying a vote was wrong. Kerry said so for Scalia.

The fact that he is trying to do something to get out of his mess is a good way to start.

[karynnj]

10. I don't think it was called to a vote because Bush said he wouldn't accept

it. So, they attempted to limit the language Bush wanted. Earlier this week, I re-read Kerry's statement. In it he went through the history of the resolution. What's interesting is that the original language THAT WAS THROWN OUT included Bush's current reason and didn't specify just Iraq. (first paragraph included) Can we argue that the Senate DID reject war for the reason they went?

From Kerry's speech:

want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[jenndar]

21. Kerry can

divorce himself from specific things he with his voting record, fron specific votes, but the point I was making is that, as a current Senator, he doesn't have some of the luxuries a former Senator might in saying his record doesn't matter because now he does other things.

I think the reason "I was wrong is" is a better statement for some people is because you can write all kinds of strong ideas like, "The war is wrong," "Everybody who voted for the war was wrong but my candidate less so," etc. So, there's that. Personally, I love Kerry's statement because I'm a Senate wonk who would love to see these legislators who voted themselves into a political problem vote themselves out of it :) But that's just me.

[karynnj]

12. As the Senate days are his ONLY experience

he can't belittle them. Being a Senator is a very high position and an honor, saying this would NOT make me want to give him power - as he this would imply that he didn't take seriously the sacred trust the people of NC placed in him to represent them to the best of his abilities.

[jenndar]

22. I agree with you

but a lot of voters just aren't that impressed with the Senate. (They are clearly insane :))

[YvonneCa]

2. I think it's time...

...to speak the truth, and start educating the public not to rely on "sound byte politics" anymore. We're in the place we are now because many people voted without enough knowledge of real issues. They didn't do their "homework" as citizens. There will be time enough for the sound byte later. Now, the focus should be on education.*

*Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about politics...I speak as a person who agrees with Kerry's statement at Georgetown: "There's no more important word (other than love) ..than 'Citizen'."

:patriot:

[jillan]

4. I like what Kerry said.

He takes responsibility for ....
where we're at in Iraq
For believing bushco.

He has repeatedly said that he voted to give the Prez the authority he needs post 9-11, and would do that again because it is important.
So he should not say that he was wrong.

As a leader, he is saying that he takes responsibility...and then follows that statement with saying if this administration isn't going to provide an exit plan, he will have to do it.

That's what a leader does, imho.

And if Kerry said he was wrong - you know what we'd be hearing! The f word again.

[Mass]

5. Actually, he said two weeks ago he would not vote that again

knowing what he knows now, which is a good thing because now, there is no point trusting Bush.
Actually I was asking the question because we have been seeing parsing of the statement to say he did not do what was needed and that Edwards's statement was sooooooooooo much better...

[jillan]

16. I haven't been paying too much attention to what's been going on

"out there". Just kinda skimming over the Greatest page, and picking and choosing what I want to read. And Edwards speech is not one I spent too much time on. I dunno, I liked Edwards more before he became Kerry's running mate. Now Elizabeth - she is awesome. Wonder how she is?

[karynnj]

6. I think he should stick with honesty - he's a very sincere person

who really is a failure when saying things he doesn't mean. As you said, Kerry has been very very consistent with what he has said. It's also clear from that very long IWR speech that he clearly thought the only chance to avoid war was to push Bush onto an alternative path. At least for Kerry, it was not a vote for war under any circumstances Bush wanted. (and I bet intellectually, he believes war would have happened even without the IWR vote.)

In a way, it is possible that a strategic decision was made last year to defend the vote as a means to start a process that would disarm Saddam that Bush then abused. An alternative, was that Kerry could have focused on his March 03 statements to let the inspecters have more time. There was 6 months more information then and inspections were working to a very real degree (they were destroying weapons. At this point war should have been averted. THe IWR vote didn't cause the war, Bush did. Kerry would not have gone to war. Either of these statements were true.

I suspect the reason he did this was that he knew that with the level of support for the war, that the former - though very nuanced - was more likely to let him win.

Edwards, on the other hand, was a sponsor of the IWR AND he was NOT against the war in March 2003. He can easily say he was wrong because he was. With Kerry, as always, it is more complicated.

[Mass]

7. Will Pitt makes the case here, in an editorial concerning *'s speech

(except for the error concerning the date of the IWR).

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00204.htm

Speaking of dumb jokes, George also attempted in this speech to stifle the criticism coming his way from Democrats who have been smelling blood for weeks now. Accusing them of "rewriting history," Bush went so far as to quote John Kerry's comments from the Iraq War Resolution vote in 2003, claiming his former opponent and 100 other Democrats supported his invasion of Iraq. Too bad for George that people tend to write important things down. "I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force," said Kerry at the time," if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral US war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

You broke that promise, George, when you attacked and finally evicted Hans Blix and his weapons inspectors for not finding the weapons you promised were there. You broke that promise, George, when you scared the living cheese out of the American public with dire yet wildly unsubstantiated reports of imminent doom to get the war you wanted. You broke that promise when you used September 11 against the American people for this purpose.

[karynnj]

8. Nice response

Mass, thanks for posting this and for asking this interesting question.

[Mass]

11. I like Will Pitt - He is always very fair.

[karynnj]

15. I think so too - he seems to have very high standards and doesn't

seem to hesitate to comment when he thinks anyone is doing something wrong - but he does it fairly.

[Island Blue]

9. Since we know * isn't much of a reader,

maybe he should go back and watch Kerry's IWR speech on the Senate floor which has been archived by Cspan. It's a beautiful speech, and it's very clear from watching it EXACTLY what Kerry was giving * the authority to do.

[jillan]

14. Do you have that link?

That would be interesting to watch now.

[Island Blue]

24. Here it is.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/rwh/rwh041104.rm

The first part is * giving a speech on the subject, so you might want to fast forward through that part.

[MH1]

19. Thanks for posting

your original post and the link to Will Pitt's editorial.

I agree with your points in the op and I think it's important to note the context that Kerry (and Democrats generally) did not vote for the war, they voted for a bill which gave Bush authority to go to war after certain other actions were taken, which Bush never took.

Pitt gets it. Now if only Howard Dean would get it, and the rest of the Democrats who didn't vote for IWR (especially since most of them were not in a position to vote for or against it). And pound on it over and over again in the media.

(Also, that editorial by Pitt is great! Too bad about the date. I'm going to email it around anyway).

[k j]

13. Yep

I think your sum-up pretty much nailed it, Mass. Kerry continues to put his action into the context of the vote, and Edwards simply offered a general, short, upfront mea culpa. Edwards is an excellent communicator, he uses short, blunt simple words that accent and connect that time to now. His style is simple, but not necessarily better, in my opinion. (Although I go for simple in a big way.)

Edited for too much rambling. Sorry. ;-)

[TayTay]

17. I think you raise some good points here.

Sen. Kerry has nothing to really apologize for, but he has the perception of needing to apologize. (Sigh!) Based on what the Senate saw, e votd on the tumbling succession of steps which would have had as an end result, war. That Bush and his creepy neocon band of idiots did not follow those steps.

I think Kerry needs to pen an article for the NYTimes and explain this out. He can reference his recent floor speeches and such and go further than a mere, "I was wrong." He can reiterate the Democratic demand that the Intel Committee do a thorough investigation of the pre-war intel, including the DSM, and then make this a future oriented debate. We are in Iraq. Sen. KErry has proposed things that will help us going forward, not just looking back. (I think he is a pretty forward looking person.)

[JI7]

18. what Kerry is doing is similar to what he did with policy in Vietnam

i agree with you that the reason Kerry doesn't say "i was wrong" is because the position he took was not wrong. he was always clear during the vote and before and after the invasion that it was wrong. that he voted to get the inspectors in and BUsh did not allow them to do their jobs. this is the same position as Hans Blix who said the iwr and un resolution were needed to get inspectors in and get Saddam to cooperate. but was Bush who did not follow through.

the comparison to Vietnam is that Kerry always focused on changing the policy. it wasn't about demands for apology and other things.his protest wasn't about demanding McGovern apologize for gulf of Tonkin , it was about getting them to support a change in policy no matter what they did before. this is how he is with most issues and one of the reasons i like him so much.

it's more important to Kerry that Bush do the right thing rather than apologize for the mess he created before.

[Firespirit]

20. I don't see that there is much of an alternative to bias.

Unless you mean anti-Kerry bias in particular rather than general anti-Dem bias. I have witnessed a lot of the latter lately and this seems a very clear example of it, but the culpability is on the side of the media, not Edwards.

Russert, for instance, who is a pig, made a special point of citing some poll a day or two after the elections that "proved" that "people didn't think the Dems had a vision," for I suspect the express purpose of minimizing the Democratic victories. You would never have seen such a thing after a big Republican day. The analysis after a good election for Republicans is "how did they do it." It's not anything that disparages them.

My local newspaper, which has heretofore been very balanced, has been reprinting AP articles about Bush's low poll numbers, but only those that take the view that "he can recover because other presidents have recovered."

It just stands to reason that the media would select a statement in which a Democrat says "I was wrong." That takes the focus off the White House's lies.

I like Edwards and don't think he's trying to make a political point against Kerry; not to mention it serves no purpose to attribute sinister motives to him. I don't think he was cynically manipulating the system by deliberately offering sound bites, and we have moved past the times when the Dems were afraid of Bush and afraid of coming out too strongly against him. Edwards is, after all, on our side, even though he is not in the same position that Kerry is to influence things. I don't read that much into those three words; it simply means that he has a different style of communicating.

[Mass]

23. I never said it was Edwards's fault.!

That was not the goal of my question.

I was saying that one of the reason why Kerry did not use these words is that he may not think that "he was wrong", but that Bush was wrong.

[fedupinBushcountry]

25. I found this audio clip on NPR

It is from Aug. '03. You can read the transcript and listen to the interview here:

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/democrats2004/transcripts/kerry_trans.html