The opening night of the convention shows that the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to bash the president for going to war in Iraq, and omit the fact that their nominee voted to authorize that war. This week's convention is already full of war hypocrisy from the Democrats.

Dennis Kucinich remarked on MSNBC, "This is George W. Bush's war, not John Kerry's war." Jimmy Carter condemned "wars of choice," clearly implying Iraq. Howard Dean characterized Iraq as "a war based on apparently nothing." Did Dean, Carter, and Kucinich miss the fact that the man they want to be president supported the war?

During the primary season, John Kerry clumsily fostered this war ambiguity by remarking, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." The bill in question involved funding for existing war operations in Iraq.

Democratic delegates believe the U.S. should have stayed out of the war by a twelve to one ratio. But the platform that they drafted benignly states, "People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq."

George W. Bush is wrong about Iraq. But at least he has the courage of his convictions. You know where he stands. John Kerry and the Democrats don't want you to know where they stand. What does it say about a political party when it seeks to muddle rather than proclaim its position on the most important question a nation faces?

Kerry's position on the war is more subtle than Bush's position, and is not easily expressed in the sound bytes you so obviously have come to crave, in Pavlovian-ish fashion, from the hand of FOX News. As Clinton noted in tonight's address, wisdom and strength are not opposed--translation: you do not have to be a bone-head who can't admit his mistakes in order to be strong on foreign policy.

And why do you persist in this mis-representation of Kerry as supportive of the war? He voted to give the President authority in 2002 to convince the UN but, failing that, he did not think we should go to war.

Yes, I think e.g., that Sen. Byrd's vote was the better (and more concientious) vote, but I don't think you can say that "Kerry supported the war."

As David Brooks (front-runner for The Nicest Neocon in History), said in his commentary, the Dems have deliberated long and hard and chosen the candidate whom they think can win, not necessarily the candidate of their heart. They're willing to unite behind him, for the sake of defeating George W. Bush.

Now, honestly, I think they're mistaken: so far as I can tell right now, their program for the country as it's currently being stated (on most issues) is, "Yes to everything the Republican Party is saying, but we must be more moderate about it." E.g., Yes to Iraq, but we need to bring in the UN. Yes to the Patriot Act, but it needs some revising. Yes to the tax cuts, but they need to be tweaked a bit so that the middle class can benefit.

If they can't break out of this "Yes but not so much" flight-pattern, they're doomed.

--G.

Dear Gadfly: Kerry voted to support the war because whatever courage he may have shown on the battlefield has not translated into courage in his political career.

Long story short: the Constitution rests the responsibility for war decisions with Congress. Congress doesn't want this responsibility, especially before an election. They are trying to pin responsibility solely on Bush, but the Constitution says otherwise. Really, there is more than enough blame to go around.

Kerry's vote was for war. Period.

Regarding Congress and Constitional powers, notice that they don't want to do the job that the constitution gives them to declare war or not, so they don't have to take responsibility for the tough stuff. At the same time, they act as though the constitution gave them the power it gives to the president to nominate judges.

Gadfly: what is the definition of justice in the Republic?

Short Answer: doing your job and not meddling with others' jobs. And injustice is negecting your job while meddling with others'.

Don't be such a shill for Kerry. It is unbecoming of a gadfly.

Well, as I said, I thought that Senator Byrd made the right choice, and voted against the resolution. But, the fact that Kerry voted for the resolution does not mean that he voted for war, although I will admit (since I am not a shill for Kerry), that even someone who just fell off the truck yesterday should have been able to tell that the Bushies would have war with Iraq, come hell or high water. The Democratic strategy of getting this issue "off the table" ASAP was a disastrous one.

The posts above, however, fail to recognize that there was a strong contingent of people in Congress, even some Republicans, who wanted the President to do more: more diplomacy, more investigation, more more more. They were clearly disappointed with the President's half-hearted diplomatic efforts, and the half-hearted inspections.

The resolution should have required Bush to, at least, return to the Congress for a final re-confirmation, once he had assembled a respectable coalition (which he did not), or to return for re-confirmation if he did not get U.N. approval for war. That it did not was folly on the part of this significant contingent.

As Karl Rove said in early 2002, "This (war with Iraq) is something we can ride through the elections to victory." This was entirely a war of choice, a war waged 'convenienter', by the Bushies, for the sake of Bush's political fortunes. So, the fact remains: this was primarily the White House's war, and it is the White House who will reap the benefits or non-benefits of this war, and you all know that.

That the Senate failed to stand athwart this war-train crying "Stop!" (except for Sen. Byrd and a few others), is to their shame. But their vote was not a vote for the war that was prosecuted (in the way it was prosecuted) by Bush. It was primarily a way of exerting pressure on the UN and on Saddam to fulfill his cease-fire agreement. Who would think that he would be so foolish as to have few or no WMDs and draw down a war on his head anyway?

At most the Dems can be accused of tactical mis-steps and a certain disregard of the President's fixed motives. Byrd tried to warn them, but they didn't listen.

But as I said in late 2002, if the President goes to Iraq without a second U.N. resolution, he will lose in November 2004.

He has, and so he will.

He's betrayed the trust of many Senators like Byrd, who believed he could be reasoned with, and now he's in the process of losing the trust of the American people.

He will most certainly lose this race and (unfortunately), Saddam will be laughing about it all the way to the hangman's noose, wondering how Bush could have been so stupid.