Return to P.S. FAQs or to FAQ Home

Pre-U.S. 2004 Election:  How did U.S. Democratic Presidential candidates and Congress react to Iraq in 2003 and 2004?  John Kerry? The President's statements, Congress, and  public opinion polls?  
Also see US Politics Post-11/04, and US Politics '06, and US Politics Since 11/06
Also see "Congress"  FAQ section for pre-war views  and see "Op-Ed Views" FAQ section 

Of course, Iraq was not only the front page story nearly every day in 2003, but also the subject of scores of commentaries and editorials.  Tending to support the President's policy in the period of March-June were Edwards, Gephardt, and Lieberman. Lieberman spoke out in late July.  Frequent critics include Dean, Kucinich, and Graham. 

Kerry seemed more in the middle of the road, as he voted for the war in October 2002 but criticized the President later.. Also see WMD issues above.

In early September, the nine Democratic debates began.  Kucinich is the only one who wanted U.S. troops withdrawn; Lieberman wanted more U.S. troops. After the President asked Congress for $87 billion and after bombing attacks continued from August into September, the Democratic candidates become more critical of President Bush. More attacks in October and beyond led to greater criticism.  

On September 17, General Wesley Clark, after weeks of speculation, announced that he would be the 10th Democrat in the race.  The Washington Post editorial analyzes Clark's entrance.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22452-2003Sep17?language=printer The former NATO General was the first candidate to urge that Paul Bremer be fired. In early November Clark suggested that Bremer be replaced by a non-American. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9797-2003Nov6.html

Commented Clark bluntly in mid-November, "It's a very hard thing to change people's minds when you are killing them."  His stump speech of mid-January, before the New Hampshire primary, included these thoughts, "After 9/11 [President Bush] took us into a war that we didn't have to fight in Iraq."

In late September, Dean and Kerry called on Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to resign. 

October highlights included continued or increased criticism of the $87 billion request to Congress, especially in the face of tax cuts for the wealthy and other economic needs at home.  Candidates seemed even more bold and critical of the President as polls showed his approval rating on Iraq continuing the slowly decline.

Democrats and others were upset with Lt. General William B. Boykin, who in June became a deputy Secretary of Defense, while in uniform.  He told evangelical gatherings that Muslims worship an "idol" and not "a real God", leading some to see his comments as adding fuel to the fire that the U.S. war on terrorism is also a war on Islam. Boykin labeled the enemy of the devil and said his God was bigger than the Muslim God. The defense department promised an investigation.  Boykin apologized in October and said his comments were taken out of context. (NYTimes, 10/18/03).  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43507-2003Oct17?language=printer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9995-2003Dec17?language=printer
but Dean responded to the criticism.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13369-2003Dec18.html

In late December  Dean labeled Bush as having a "reckless habit of placing "ideology over facts" which has resulted in "the most dangerous administration in my lifetime.. If we are safer [with Saddam Hussein captured] how come we lost 10 more troops and raised the safety alert" to orange?"

We also received news of Attorney General Ashcroft's excusing himself from the Joseph Wilson spy-leak investigation. Dean and other Democrats still sought the appointment of an outside consul.

Further criticism of Dean came from George Will's Sunday column, "Tough Pill for the Democrats." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A33330-2003Dec26?language=printer

Safety and fear are the two topics of Ellen Goodman's "What is Safe Enough?" She surmises that Dean may have been correct.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50823-2004Jan2?language=printer

Harsh criticism on the war came from Senator Edward Kennedy in a speech and Washington Post op-ed of mid-January 2004.  Calling the war "a war of choice", he added that President Bush "broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people...We are reaping the poison fruit our our misguided and arrogant foreign policy...The administration capitalized on the fear created by 9/11 and put a spin on the intelligence and a spin on the truth to justify a war that could well become one of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American foreign policy."

Kennedy labeled Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz as the "axis of war...No president of the U.S. should employ misguided ideology and distortion of truth to take the nation to war.  If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war."

Responded the White House press secretary, "The president worked to exhaust all diplomatic means possible before taking the action that we took." 

Kennedy, who worked hard on the Kerry primary campaign, continued his harsh criticism into early March, claiming that the President deliberately exaggerating the threat of Hussein and resorting to "pure, unadulterated fear-mongering, based on a devious strategy to convince the America people that Saddam's ability to provide nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda justified immediate war."

Kennedy asked, "Why wasn't CIA director Tenet correcting the president and the vice president and the secretary of defense a year ago, when it could have made a difference, when it could have prevented a needles war, when it could have saved so many lives?" (NY Times, "Kennedy Gives Bush Stinging Rebuke on War", 3/6/04). A Washington Post article provide further detail.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34879-2004Mar5.html

Before the Iowa Caucus of January, won by Kerry (Edward was #2, Dean #3), polls showed that 57% of American say they are more likely to support a candidate who supported going to war in Iraq. (NYTimes, David Brooks, 1/13).  On the eve of the January 27 New Hampshire primary, Kerry, ahead in the polls, said that the President "misled" Congress on going to war,(WMD). http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47283-2004Jan25?language=printer

In Congress, Rep. Henry Waxman's staff has developed a web site detailing 237 specific misstatements by leaders of the administration.  The site can be searched by topic (WMD, uranium, 9/11, etc.) or by speaker (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice).
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Former Senator and 9/11 Commissioner member Bob Kerrey (D-Neb) contributed an op-ed piece to the Times during the mid-April increase in death and violence.(4/11/04).  "Rather than sending in more American forces or extending the stay of those already there, we need an international occupation that includes Muslim and Arab forces.  Time is not on our side in Iraq.  We do not need a little more of the same thing.  We need a lot more of something completely different." 

Then came the dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein in mid -December.  (For many more details, see PS FAQ on Hussein's capture and trial)  The press was overwhelmingly favorable toward the capture, of course.  Some though it wouldn't make a large difference, long-term.  For example Ron Kramer felt the capture "is not a vindication of the Bush administration's war policy.  The ends do not justify the means for six main reasons:
1.  The war was not fought to bring democracy but to further American power;
2.  Iraq is occupied not liberated, with rampant violence and unemployment;
3.  False claims were made on WMD and alQaeda to justify the war;
4.  "Congress and the American people supported a war...on the basis of a pack of lies.  Had the war been presented solely as an effort to liberate Iraq, it would have been reject4ed by the American people"; 
5.  Bush continues to insist that Iraq is a war on terrorism; and
6.  The U.S. supported Hussein for years before 1990.
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1215-05.htm

A frequent pre-war critic, Ret. Marine General Anthony Zinni (also see "Should We Have Gone to War?/Experts" FAQs), spoke up again in late December.  Zinni feels, like Vietnam, this Iraq war is on "shaky territory."   http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22922-2003Dec22?language=printer

Zinni further warned of "staying the course." In late May 2004, on the eve of the President's first major speeches on Iraq, Zinni appeared on 60 Minutes.  The four star general  has co-authored a new book with Tom Clancy, Battle Ready.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50730-2004May23?language=printer

In mid-January another military expert produced a "scathing" report published by the Army War College.  The lengthy report criticized an "unnecessary" entry into the war.  Professor Jeffrey Record, early critical of the Clinton administration, does not represent the views of the Army, Pentagon or U.S. government.  The 56-page essay urged the U.S. to focus on Al Qaeda. (Chicago Tribune, 1/13/04). 

Public opinion polls in February 2004 turned increasingly against the war and the pretext of WMD.  A front page story in the Chicago Tribune, for example (2/33/04) showed that 44% of  Illinois voters believed the Bush administration "purposely misled the public about the WMD in Iraq..."  while a margin of 50-40% disapprove of "how George Bush is handling the situation in Iraq."  As to who should take responsibility for WMD not being found, 43% felt the administration vs. 39% the intelligence community.

Milbank analyzes experts feel that Bush has convinced American to support the war for three main reasons:
1.  The U.S. will prevail in Iraq;
2.  The fighting in Iraq is related to the war against al Qaeda; and
3.  Most Iraqis and many foreign countries support US actions in Iraq.

Kerry spokesman replied that he is deceiving the public.  "He has not leveled with the American people about the true cost of the war, how long we'll be there, or the number of troops that will be needed."  Sen. Kennedy believes that the administration "misled Congress and the American people, because the administration knew that it could not obtain the consent of Congress for the war if all the facts were knows.  A Bush spokesman points to the "resolve" the American people like to see in their leader. Says one analyst, "The rhetoric has to match the reality in Iraq, and if the situation on the ground deteriorates, then the administration will face an increasingly Herculean task keeping public support strong."

The details of the polls are interesting,.  51% say the war was worth fighting, down from 70% one year ago. The public appears to accept Bush's view at his April press conference that WMD "could still be there."  Americas are deceived, other April polls show.  60% still thought Iraq had WMD just before the war or thought it had a major weapons program.  57% thought Iraq gave "substantial support" to al Qaeda or thought Iraq was directly involved in 9/11! Not surprisingly 70% of those who believe Iraq was helping al Qaeda were supportive of the war, and 87% who thought Iraq had WMD backed the war.

Polls in May, a few weeks after the prison torture scandal broke, show declining popularity for the war and for the President's handling of it. (Read many details on Abu Ghraib scandal).  For example, a Time/CNN poll from late May shows that only 37% of Americans feel the toll is lives and other costs is worth it, while 56% say no.  A Post/ABC poll concludes that 58% still want to keep U.S. troops "until order is restored, even at the risk of more US casualties." 40% want forces withdrawn. Yet neither Bush nor Kerry are suggesting that U.S. troops begin pulling out in the next year or two. Late May polls showed growing "worry and anger"  for the war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61585-2004May27?language=printer

By August 2004 polls showed that those who felt the administration had not told the truth before the war had increased to 56%. A Pew poll concluded that only 43% approve of the President's handling of Iraq. AP polling compared December when Hussein was captured, to August.  8 months previously the public supported going to war by a 2-1 margin; now Americans were evenly divided.  Those who are increasingly skeptical tend to be Democrats (9/10), older, minorities, those with lower incomes, from the Northeast, and Catholic.  6 in 10 think the President "lacks a clear plan" for a successful solution, according to Pew Research polling.  Those who support the policy are Republican (9/10), Southerners, those who earn over $50,000, and young adults. There was no corresponding change over the 8 months in terms of the number (just over half) who think the U.S. should "say until the job is done."

In June, American protestors against the war were back in the news.  This was reported on the 60th Anniversary of the allied D-Day invasion of northern France.

Spring 2004 polls in many foreign countries should a lack of support or trust in the American leadership, especially in places like Jordan and Indonesia.  After the Madrid train bombings of March, the new Spanish leader threatened to withdraw troops from Iraq.  Increased kidnappings and hostage taking in mid-April might lead other nations to consider withdrawing troops or personnel. In April, Tony Blair of the UK continued to support his ally, President Bush. Blair seemed to provide Bush with advise to open his April 13 prime time press conference:  "We are locked in a historic struggle ..On its outcome hinges more than the fate of the Iraqi people.  were we to fail, which we shall not, it is more than 'the power of America' that would be defeated.  The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out.  Dictators would rejoice; fanatics and terrorists would be triumphant"  Warned Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, "Unless we deal with those threats to peace, freedom and the prospects for democracy, then Iraq will descend into civil war." 

Richard Clarke's mid-March 2004 accusations also raised controversial issues. The former anti-terrorism official had worked under the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations.  He resigned in 2003.  Clarke's new book and his March 21 60 Minutes appearance criticized the President for fighting the wrong war, not taking seriously his warnings of al Qaeda prior to 9/11, and fixating on Iraq after 9/11.  He quoted Rumsfeld on 9/12/01 as pushing for war against Iraq rather than Afghanistan because "there are not enough good targets in Afghanistan."

The administration claims that Clarke is paying politics, is upset over not being made leader of Homeland Security, and being friends with a leading John Kerry supporter. White House spokesman replies that the President does not recall the conversations of September 12 focusing on Iraq. In the Weekly Standard, one response to Clarke came from Stephen Hayes (3/22/04), who felt that he should answer this among other questions in front of the 9/11 commission:  "Is...Tenet wrong about Iraqi support for al Qaeda?"

As Kerry won Super Tuesday primaries in early March and then officially wrapped up the nomination in mid-March with a win in Illinois, his views overwhelmed those of Dean, Clark, and Edwards.

That day Maureen Dowd  used "The Iraqi Inversion" to criticize Wolfowitz' prediction of a "cakewalk" as one example of administration miscalculations.  "Every single thing the administration calculated would happen in Iraq has turned out the opposite.  The WMD that supposedly threatened us did not exist.  The dangerous dictator was deluded and writing romance novels.  The terrorism that would be thwarted has mushroomed in Iraq and is feeding Arab nationalism."

That same day on the op-ed page Brandeis professor of Islamic and Middle East Studies, Yitzhak Nakash wrote of "giving peace a chance."  He suggests that we negotiate with Sistani and urge him to talk with Sadr.  Sistani alone "has the authority to reign in Mr. Sadr and steer Iraqi Shiites away from revolt." 

Veteran Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack was released in mid-April 2004.  Woodward's first book was All The President's Men.(1974). Following the O'Neill and Clarke books, the administration was again put on the defensive.  Experts of the book were released by the Post. One excerpt emphasized how Cheney had an "unwavering desire" to go to war.  "On the long walk up to war in Iraq, Dick Cheney was a powerful, steamrolling force obsessed with Saddam and taking him out," wrote Woodward

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20860-2004Apr17.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25550-2004Apr19?language=printer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A25622-2004Apr19?language=printer

Powell, responding to the Woodward book, took to the airwaves to reinforce the idea that he was behind the wholeheartedly and was closely involved in the planning.

When the President told Powell in January that he had decided to go to war, Powell said "somewhat in a chilly way, 'Are you aware of the consequences?...You know, you're going to be owning this place.'"

Jim Hoagland writes of Powell and Woodward by opening his April 25 piece with a Watergatese question:  "What did the secretary of state know about the decision to go to war in Iraq and when did he know it?"  A senior official felt that "What is truly dramatic about the long run-up to the war is that you had Powell and Straw [UK]--the top diplomats in each government--working together tying to undermine the clear determination of their bosses to go to war."  Hoagland criticizes a New York Times editorial for "tut-tutting" and "scolding Powell post facto for not resigning to manifest his opposition to the president who appointed him."

Rumsfeld felt the premise of many of Woodward's questions was faulty.  The transcript read, "Almost everything you asked me was premised with an assertion that was either incomplete or wrong, and it changed the whole nature of it."

In his 60 Minutes interview, Mike Wallace and Woodward had this exchange:
Woodward: ...he has the duty to free people, to liberate people, and this was him moment.
Wallace:  Who gave George Bush the duty to free people around the world?
Woodward:  That's a really good question.  The Constitution doesn't say that's part of the commander-in-chief's duties.
Wallace:  The president of the United States, without a great deal of background in foreign policy, makes up his mind and believes he was sent by somebody to free the people, not just in Iraq, but around the world?
Woodward:  That's his stated purpose.
Wallace:  Right
Woodward:  It is far-reaching and ambitious, and I think will cause many people to tremble.

Also in April 2004, former special assistant to President Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger, lent his perspective to the war of choice and the goals of the war. He saw an American year of "miscalculations and misjudgments [which] seems to have led Iraq into a chaos bordering on anarchy...'Failure is not an option'" is responded to be isolationist Pat Buchanan with, "'what Fallujah and the Shia attacks tell us is that failure is now an option.'" 

Looking at the election only seven months away, the veteran political insider wondered if the war will be the decisive issue.  "It is, after all, President Bush's war.  There was no popular Clamor for a war against Iraq.  If we had not gone to war, few Americans would have cared.  Few would even have noticed.  Why was President Bush, as both Richard Clarke and...O'Neil have testified, so obsessed with Iraq?  I do not think it is for petty reason.  Mr. Bush very likely buys in to the neoconservative fantasy that the victory of democracy in Iraq will democratize the entire Islamic world and establish his own place in history.  'A free Iraq...will stand as an example to reformers across the Middle East.'  Other reasons--oil, Israel, the search for military bases, in place of Saudi Arabia, liberation of Iraq from a monstrous tyranny--are secondary compared to the historic mission for whom the Almighty has chosen him."  Schlesinger concludes with a quote from John Kerry from April 1971, to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:  "How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?"

From the Brookings Institute, Michael O'Hanlon and James Steinberg's "Set a Date and Pull Out" suggested that American policy faces a crisis.  "Mainstream US political leaders, including President Bush and Sen. John. F. Kerry, have continued to insist that we must 'stay the course.' and that 'failure is not an option.'  But these slogans are not enough to rescue a failing policy.  The success of our mission has depended from the outset on the perception by the Iraqi people that our presence is necessary to secure their own future.  Today that premise is increasingly in doubt.  Unless we restore the Iraqi people's confidence in our role, failure is not only an option but a likelihood."  The two think-tank authors recall that May polls show that a majority of Iraqis think their country was better off under Hussein. The problem is compounded "by our own ambivalence about the political transition in Iraq.  Although we defined our mission as liberation, we have been deeply reluctant to trust the Iraqi people to set their own course...the message is that we will not permit self-determination...until Iraqis choose a government that meets our goal: a Western-style democracy  broadly supportive of U.S. interest in the region."  The "as long as it takes" talk seems like we are "imposing our vision" and lending further alienation.  "The danger is not that we will cut and run but that the Iraqis will insist that we get out, leaving behind a security vacuum that could ignite civil war and wider regional strife."  

O'Hanlon and Stenberg suggest three step to avoiding such a disaster.  First, plan to end the deployment after elections.  Second, be clear on our real security interest and convene "a major international summit" on Iraq, in June in Istanbul. Third, "accelerate the training and equipping of new security forces" because less than 10% of the need is being met.  The conclude, "Some will see this as cut-and-run...The lesson of our history is that our best partners are those who freely choose to be.  W must give the Iraqis the opportunity o seize that possibility for themselves." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34785-2004May17?language=printer

In May, the Tribune wrote their longest editorial in months.  Entitled, "Why is the U.S. in Iraq?" 

Following the Woodward book and the Fallujah siege, the Times/CBS poll released in late April showed that support for the war had substantially eroded over the past few months. Had the US done the right thing in "taking military action against Iraq".  

After the capture of Saddam in December, 63% responded yes, by March it was 58% and in April only 47%.  Should the US have stayed out of Iraq showed the percent increase from 31% to 46%.  Polls in mid-June compared Kerry and Bush on fighting terrorism.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58293-2004Jun21?language=printer

Polls in August 2004 showed that foreign policy and national security are more important that any time since  the Vietnam War.  Did President Bush have a "clear plan" for bringing Iraq to a "successful conclusion"?  58% said no., especially swing voters. Andrew Kohut of the PEW surveys feels Iraq "could be the tipping point....But even though things are bad in Iraq...Kerry hasn't mad the sale on Iraq either." Has the war helped the war on terrorism?  45% said yes, down from 62% in February,. Yet 54% said they favored saying "until the situation has stabilized" which might explain why Kerry is not suggested we begin pulling out troops in the next few months.

December polls had 47% answer that in the past year in Iraq, things had gotten worse.  This was before the Mosul mess tent attacks which hit the headlines on December 22.

Following the O'Neill and Woodward books came surprise criticism from the right.  Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan released Where the Right Went Wrong where he called the invasion "the greatest strategic blunder in 40 years."  Buchanan's book come out in August, just days before the Republican National Convention.  He had given a "divisive" speech at the 1992 convention

About two weeks after the Abu Ghraib prison photos were released, in April 2004, a CBS poll showed that 64% of Americans believe the war is not worth it and that 35% say Bush is handling Iraq well.  Learn much more on Abu Ghraib.

Al Gore gave a rousing and/or controversial speech at the end of May, citing a "shamed America" and calling for the resignation of Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, and others.  He got his wish on Tenet about one week later. The former Vice-President accused President Bush of "utter incompetence" on Iraq, saying that the President "has made the world a far more dangerous place and dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against the U.S...The president convinced a majority of the county that Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacking us on Sept. 11, when in truth he had nothing whatsoever to do with it...The president convinced the country with a mixture of documents that turned out to be forged and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda." 

Faulting Rumsfeld for lack of competence and poor planning, Gore continued: "The nation is at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as secretary of defense.  We need someone with good judgment and common sense."  For Gore's comments on the prison torture scandal, see Abu Ghraib FAQ section. 

In mid-June dozens are foreign policy experts from the '80s and '90s published a letter strongly criticizing the Bush foreign policy.  20 were former Ambassadors, many appointed by Bush 41 and Reagan.  They urge Bush not be re-elected. This letter was termed "Revolt of the Professionals." Some of those who signed the letter have endorsed Kerry.  These followed a similar letter from former British officials.  Australian military leaders and diplomats published their letter in early August. They criticized their Prime Minister and government for "misleading and deception", especially concerning WMD and the al Qaeda link.

Of course, throughout the summer Bush and Kerry traded charge and counter charge about a variety of issues, including Kerry's October 2002 vote to authorize the President to go to war.  When the President ask Kerry if he regretted his vote, given all we know now, he said no, and explained why. 

The lead New York Times editorial of August 15 responded: "Kerry's Iraq vote is going to haunt him through the presidential campaign, no matter how he explains it.  That does not keep us from wishing that Mr. Kerry would do a better job with the issue...He--and many other Democrats--say that the White House asked for the vote as a way of strengthening Mr. Bush's hand in negotiations with the UN, but threat they were betrayed when the president went ahead and launched an invasion without broad international support...Congress had a very good ideas of how Mr. Bush viewed the world, what advisers he listen to, and what he was likely to do with American troops if Congress gave him a broad authorization to go to war...The Republicans have made much of the record; the Kerry campaign is haunted by replays of the theme song from the old TV show 'Flipper.'  Mr. Bush, however, has a far more dangerous pattern of behavior...The President tends to stick stubbornly to his original course even when changing events cry out for adaptation.  His explanations seem to evolve every day, but his thinking never does."  

The editorial concludes, "There are undoubtedly circumstances that call for military action, but we would like to know whether, as president, John Kerry would insist on a higher threshold than he settled for as an opportunistic senator in 2002." 

One of Kerry's Congressional colleagues and occasional adviser [Senator Kennedy or Biden, I surmise], said, "I wish he had simply said no president in his right mind would ask the Senate to got o war against a country that didn't have weapons that pose an imminent threat."

Another response to Kerry's vote, from Helen Thomas, emphasizes that Kerry and Bush give the voters "little choice" when it comes to what she labels "the disastrous war..."  Defending his vote is "a colossal mistake...Bush has sarcastically told cheering Republican rallies, 'After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me.  We did the right thing.  And the world is better off for it."  Thomas adds, "Kerry has a weak fallback position--that he would have planned things differently before going to war and would have lined u more European allies...So Kerry has blown it big time, rising to Bush's bait and throwing away his ace in the hole-Bush's shaky credibility on the profound question of war and peace.  Bush has yet to apologize for misleading that nation or to explain why he needed a war when Saddam's regime was tightly contained with sanctions, weapons inspections and US patrolling of the 'no-fly' zone[s]."
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0818-03.htm

Steve Chapman echoed some of the same criticism of Bush and Kerry as did Helen Thomas.  "Kerry on Iraq:  An echo, not a choice" (8/12/04, Tribune).  Chapman, a pre-war critic of going to war, sees Kerry's latest statement as proof that his "backbone is made of goose down" and unwilling to take political risks.  He recalls Goldwater's 1964 campaign slogan, "'A choice, not an echo.'"  Mr. Kerry is all echo and no choice."  Kerry, like Bush, refuses to admit he was wrong.

Chapman adds, "The Iraq war is shaping up to be the greatest American foreign policy debacle since Vietnam.  It has killed nearly 1000 American soldiers and wounded more than 6000, while tying down 140,000 troops whose numbers are inadequate for the challenge.  Its price tag has reached $150 billion, with more costs to come.  The war and occupation have alienated our friends, inflamed anti-Americanism in the Arab world and diverted us from the war on Al Qaeda.  If those facts don't convince Kerry that his vote was a mistake, it's hard to imagine what would."  
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0813-05.htm

Frequent war critic Robert Scheer, contributor to the LA Times, added to the fury of responses to Kerry's statement.  Kerry "should have known" by the fall of 2002 that Bush was "hellbent on invading Iraq and that to do so would severely undermine the war on terror.  Everything emanating from the White House at that point made it clear that the president was highly unlikely to be satisfied by simply securing a new UN inspections regime."  The examine Sheer's views of recent history, see "Was the War Inevitable" FAQ section.

Scheer continues, "At a minimum, Congress had a responsibility to hold hearings to examine intelligence on Iraq, which event hen was causing enormous tension between intelligence analyst and spinner in the White House and Pentagon...This was doubly true after the UN inspectors were allowed back into the country and given unprecedented access...To win the debates and the election, Kerry needs to establish himself as the clear alterative to a president who has lied us into a quagmire."

One unique perspective on the August op-ed pages came from "Time To Quit Iraq (Sort of)" by Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow Edward Luttwak.  Writing in the New York Times, he does not assume the popular view that U.S. withdrawal will lead to civil war or an invasion by Iran and/or Turkey.  "Thus the likely consequences of an American abandonment are so bad that few Americans are even willing to contemplate it.  This is a mistake:  it is precisely because unpredictable mayhem is so predictable that the U.S. might be able to disengage from Iraq at little cost, or even perhaps advantageously...For now, with the U.S. viewed as determined to stay the course, the hard-liners in Iran can pursue their anti-American vendetta...But an American withdrawal would mean the end of any hopes for a unified, Shiite-led Iraq."

Luttwak believes that the "threat of disengagement" would change the facts on the ground.  "The situation in Iraq is not improving, the US will assuredly leave on  day in any case, and it is usually wise to abandon failed ventures sooner rather than later.  Yes, withdrawal would be a blow to American credibility, but less so if it were deliberate and abrupt rather than a retreat under fire imposed by surging antiwar sentiments at home (See Vietnam)."

A second op-ed piece from the summer of 2003 came from Fareed Zakaria.  "Why Kerry Is Right About Iraq" both criticizes and complements the Democratic candidate.  Bush had challenged Kerry to answer "yes or no" if he supported going to war knowing what we now know.  Kerry's answer was, Yes, but continued to criticize how the President went to war.

Writes Zakaria, "Kerry isn't being entirely honest about his views on Iraq.  But neither is President Bush...We know there were no WMD in Iraq. Is Bush suggesting that despite this knowledge he would still have concluded that Iraq constituted a 'grave and gathering threat' that required an immediate, preventive war?  Please.  Even if Bush had come to this strange conclusion, no one would d have listened to him. Without the threat of those weapons, there would have been no case to make to the Am3ricxan people or to world nations.  There were good reasons to topple [the] regime, but it was the threat of those weapons that created the international legal, strategic and urgent rationale for a war."

Zakaria continued, "The more intelligent question is (given what we knew at the time):  Was toppling Hussein's regime a worthwhile objective?  Bush's answer is yes; Howard Dean's is no.  Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed....Bush's position is that if Kerry agrees with him that Hussein was a problem, then Kerry agrees with his Iraq policy.  Doing something about Iraq meant doing what Bush did. but is that true?"

Another change of heart from a pre-war supporter, of Author's Take Sides--Iraq and the Gulf War.  David Williamson opens his Sydney-Morning Herald piece, "I wish I could claim that I always knew the adventurism of Iraq was going to end badly, but I'd by lying.  What I knew led me to believe it was a deeply distasteful dictatorship. If it was harboring WMD then, in my mind, there was a possible case for intervention."  Williamson continued, "Of course, in hindsight, as the death toll mounts I realize I was sucked into the Rambo myth.  That simplistic solutions involving massive force might work.  I was sucked in by the television excitement of smart bombs and embedded reporters.  In hindsight, in such a complex and volatile society as Iraq, the chances of the invasion not turning into a disaster were always going to be remote.  Any society, no matter how severe its internal divisions, is going to unity against a hated alien invading power...But my hunger for action against an odious tyrant overrode my better judgment.  Perhaps part of me was subliminally sucked in to believing that despite Bush and his cronies, there was something inherently moral about a democratic America."  The piece concludes, "It's still possible that the Iraqi people will suffer less in the long term than they would have without intervention, but that possibility is growing smaller by the minute...I should have realized that the doctrine of pre-emption, with its promise of immediate and easy change was an illusion.  Mea culpa.  
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0819-14.htm

As September 2004 opened with the Republican National Convention in New York, The New York Times lead editorial spoke to Iraq and terrorism.  "Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror" 9/2/04) anticipated the President's speech accepting his party's nomination.  The paper rightly predicted that he would spend most of the speech looking at foreign policy and the War on Terror/Iraq connection.  In a succinct and critical comment they suggested that "We do not need to hear further justification of his invasion of Iraq.  It seems clear to us that the whole war is a mistake, a detour from hunting down terrorists that was undertaken on the basis of wrong information and is likely in the end to do far more harm than good when it comes to ending fanaticism in the Middle East."

The first Presidential debates were on foreign policy, and Iraq dominated the discussions on the Thursday night (September 30).  The complete transcript includes all the questions from PBS host Jim Lehrer.  Most pundits agreed that Kerry "won" the debates.

President Bush focused Kerry's "mixed messages" to our allies, troops, and enemies, and reminded us that "It's hard work" (15 times) and we are working for "freedom" and a "free Iraq/Afghanistan" (33 times).  He felt Kerry was not consistent in his views and shouldn't be criticizing the war effort.  Bush repeatedly criticized Kerry for once labeling Iraq "the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place."

Kerry labeled the Iraq War "a colossal error in judgment"  in which the President did not exhaust diplomacy, bring allies along, use force "as a last resort" or have a plan to "win the peace."  Kerry's response can be summarized by Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune when he wrote (Oct. 3), "To say a candidate shouldn't criticize the decision made in this war is like saying a football coach shouldn't make adjustments in strategy during the course of a game, lest his team be reduced to sobbing despair.  If a team is getting outplayed, it does no good to tell the players to ignore the scoreboard and keep doing the same thing." 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html

How do we know when the candidates are simplifying or exaggerating?  One site, which was recommended by Cheney, is factcheck.org

Both candidates agree that "we need to stay until we win."  Will January elections be a sign of winning?  How else will we know?  Also see "Options for the Future" FAQ.

Did Bush defeat Kerry due to the Iraq War?  Pew Research did polling a few days after the sometimes inaccurate or misleading exit polls.  The biggest issue was Iraq, over 25%.  The second issue, the economy and jobs, rated most important to only 14%.  "Moral values" came in third.  The poll did not show if "Iraq voters" voted for Bush or Kerry. Part of the reasons Bush won re-election is that Kerry's Iraq message seem muddled to some and that the President had strong poll numbers on fighting the war on terrorism. 

Also see US Politics Post-11/04, and US Politics '06, and US Politics Since 11/06
Also see "Congress"  FAQ section for pre-war views  and see "Op-Ed Views" FAQ section