But he did directly say that invading Iraq was a mistake. He said “The president made a mistake in invading Iraq.” That’s a direct quote. Did you miss it?
Not just Guiliani-does anyone else think that it must really stick in John McCain’s craw to have to support Bush in this election?
Bush’s nervousness doesn’t speak well of his ability to perform well under pressure. Kerry seemed relaxed and confident.
I’m really looking forward to the next debate, as it’s on domestic issues-and we all know Bush’s record here is dismal.
From the transcript:
Is that direct enough for you?
I think we’re pretty much saying the same thing, if you read my post above this one directed at DtC.
Fox has reported polling results regardless of which they go. They routinely post all the major polls in their newscasts. I think they would have reported that the polls showed Kerry “lost in some polls and tied in others”, if I udnerstand your question correctly. If this was reported in a show like Hannity and Colms, the former would emphasize the polls favoring Bush and the latter would emphasize those favoring Kerry.
Diogenes already provided a direct quote. Don’t be so petulant about it.
braintree, nice answer, covers the ground.
jsc1953, there may be more to it. Abu Ghraib wasn’t (still isn’t) just a command issue. The troops there contributed to it. For Kerry to bring it up would involve the thorny problem of criticizing troops in a combat zone, not deskbound suits in Washington.
Resumption of a stable, secure oil supply, perhaps? Reduction in the flow of economic refugees into Europe, perhaps? Same interests they have now, except with a chance of doing something about it.
Sure. His support has seemed pretty pro forma to me, and laced with lots of nice words about Kerry - YMMV.
What interest do allies ever have in wars? Are you saying no country has ever formed an alliance unless they got paid?
Exactly right - it doesn’t mean they don’t have an interest, but it does mean that they are never going to work with Bush. Why should they? He in effect thumbed his nose at them. Why would they have any reason to believe that Bush is all of a sudden going to be different? Even if you think Kerry has little chance of succeeding, I still don’t get the reasoning. If Kerry has little chance, but Bush has NO chance, that’s still not a reason to vote for Bush.
That’s pretty direct, but it’s still not quite the same as saying the invasion **was **a mistake, and I absolutely don’t think you will ever hear Kerry say that. Kerry is talking about the methodology-- that Bush made a mistake by not getting international cooperation. Otherwise, we must conclude that the troops are, in fact, dying for a mistake.
So, if you are going to claim that Kerry says the war was a mistake, then you will also have to claim that he thinks the US troops are dying for a mistake. No?
Hmmm…
“The President made a mistake in invading Iraq.”
“Invading Iraq was a mistake.”
If there is a difference between those two statements it is utterly too subtle for me.
Yes, it is subtle, and for a reason. Kerry needs plausible deniability if someone asks him if the invasion was a mistake, as Leher did immendiately after he made the statement you quoted. So when pressed on that specific point he said, in effect: “No, the invasion [itself] was not a mistake, but Bush made mistakes in the way he went about it, and we can correct those mistakes by changing tactics and winning this war”.
That’s not even close to what he said. He said the invasion was a mistake but the loss of life can still be meaningful if something of value can be salvaged from the wreckage.
I’m totally with you on that. When I heard Bush’s response, my immediate thought was, “How obtuse can you get?” I guess that’s a pet peeve of mine - when someone makes a perfectly cogent point and gets a response of, “What do you mean?” Sadly, though, Bush’s simplistic and disingenuous answer may very well hit home with the more simple-minded voters.
And I’m surprised to find myself agreeing with John Mace. 
I got the distinct impression from what Kerry repeatedly said, that he does not oppose the Iraq war in principle, but believes that Bush went about it the wrong way.
Stranger things have happened… 
Yes, Kerry is essentially saying that the invasion lacked the authority of the UN. But even if the UN had backed the invasion, that would not have changed one single fact on the ground about the reasons for invasion.
From the transcript of the debate:
Maybe we are quibbling about semantics, but I cannot believe that if asked point blank “Mr Kerry, was the Iraq war a mistake?” that he would answer “Yes”.
He did say yes. I don’t see how you can read it any other way.
He did not vote to invade Iraq. He voted to give the POTUS that authority as a last resort only.
Because, when he was asked to clarify, he said “No”. I don’t see how you can read “no” to mean “yes”.
So what?
So that criterion wasn’t met.
Kerry said point blank that the war was a mistake. Your “no” quote was only a qualified answer about whether the loss of life can be made meaningful. It’s not the same thing.
Well, first off, I don’t know of any polls favoring Bush. Secondly, I suppose what you’re saying is true but it does nothing to upset my confidence that if Fox says something favorable about the Democrats it must be abundantly true because the whole point of the Fox News is to support the Republicans and undermine the Democrats.
The way I see it, it’s all a matter of common street smarts. If someone admits that something you know they’d hate to be true happens to be true, the overwhelming odds are that it must be true because why would admit to something like that if they didn’t have to?
Remember Al Gore? In 2000 the early results were that he had won the debate. Yet a month later we all “knew” that he had “lost” it by his sighing (never mind that Bush said a whole lot of shit that wasn’t true). Why? Intensive Republican spinmeistering. But Gore only won by a little. Kerry, by comparison, royally kicked butt thereby making such spinmeistering an impossibility. My God, even Mort Kondrake, the biggest baddest whore of them all, was acknowleding Bush’s weak performance. And he was king of the “Ha ha. Al Gore says he invented the Internet” jive.
When Emporer Hirohito acknoweldge that Japan had lost the war that was absolutely the end of any reasonable discussion. Way I see it, essentially the same principle applies here — albiet on a much smaller scale.
It’s a trivial point but business is slow.
“Last resort” is always going to be a judgement call. Bush made that judgement diffently than Kerry would have, but any number of politicians would have made it diffently than Kerry.
No. Kerry wants to have it both ways. He wants to be able to IMPLY that the war was a mistake (“Bush made a mistake…”) without actually saying that it was, for exactly the reason that Leher asked the clarifying question-- to avoid being trapped into saying the soldiers are dying for a mistake. It’s left up to the audience to decide, since he offers two possible interpretations.
He’s actually closer to saying so in his campaign speeches (Wrong war at the wrong time…) than he was in the debates. But then he aslo says he would have voted to authorize the use of force even if he knew everything he knows now. Which leaves us to wonder when he would NOT vote to authorize force-- other than when he didn’t vote to authorize the first Iraq War.
That is a rather big qualifier to the mass in the middle. A large percentage of who had no love for Saddam, and were willing to accept an eventual invasion of Iraq if inspectors were impeded and other avenues exhausted. The lack of diplomacy has always stuck out as a failing.
That mass in the middle will be the ones deciding this election.
I was referring to polls about who happens to be in the lead at any given time during the campaign season-- ie, those made to determine “if the election were held today…”
The “whole point” of Fox News is to make money.
To make money by pandering to a specific demographic of low IQ conservative sheep with credit cards.