This should put an end to Kos attacks on Kerry and the War

[Dr Ron]

Here's the ultimate evidence that Kos was full of shit in his attacks on Kerry over Iraq, using Kos's own words:

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=733

Even Kos had it right at first, before he was on Dean's payroll.

[whometense]

1. Nice sleuthing!

And terrific post.

I'd love to read Kos's reaction - if he gave one.

[wisteria]

2. Great find.

i wasn't around in 2002 or 2003, was Kerry really the media darling Kos claims? And, what is with the hair comment.

[karynnj]

3. That is fascinating

I wonder how many people completely bought the distortion in 2004. In a way, it might have not hurt then because it kept the rabidly anti-war people from being too associated with Kerry. I seriously doubt anyone who was anti-war voted for Bush over Kerry - so if there were any people in the middle who accepted Kerry (while being turned off by the lefty freepers) - it could have been a gain.

[Dr Ron]

5. Might have hurt

For the most part it didn't hurt in the general election as it helped Kerry with groups such as people who first supported the war but were then opposed to Bush's handling of the war.

It might have hurt with the nomination, but that turned out fine in the end.

The other way it might have hurt was in contributing to the flip flop charges. Some saw it as flip flopping whenever Kerry attacked the war if they believed the claims he voted for the war.

[cadmium]

6. good find Dr Ron. People make two assumptions that are

that are questionable. One is that a vote for the IWR was a vote FOR war. That is a hard one to rebut, not becaue it is true, but because it is so simple and easy to digest.

The second is that a vote for the IWR was politically expedient. I assert that it was the opposite of a politically expedient vote. The politically expedient vote for a Democrat would have been No.

[ProSense]

7. Exactly! Just

ask Silvestre Reyes.

[Dr Ron]

9. Post 9/11 viewed differently

Remember this was a vote after 9/11 when they were talkling about Saddam being able to launch an attack in 45 minutes with his WMD. It might have seemed more politically expedient to vote yes, especially since this was not directly a vote to go to war. The real problems were that 1) Bush was lying about the WMD, 2) Bush was lying about being willing to seek a diplomatic settlement and reseve going to war as a last resort, and 3) the way the resolution was worded either a yes or a no vote could lead to misunderstandings about the views of any Senator.

It makes far more sense to evaluate the views based upon things like the floor statements and, in Kerry's case, numerous public statements (including articles in the NY Times and Foreign Affairs at the time) which more clearly demonstrate his views. As long as people were evaluating Kerry's views in this manner, he was considered an "anti-war" candidate in the media. Suddenly they made the IWR vote a litmus test and Kerry went from being called "anti-war" to being called "pro-war."

Kerry's actual views were quite simple. Pro-war if war was found to be necessary (and only as a last resort), but anit-war under the circumstances actually present considering that the threat from WMD was never established.

[karynnj]

10. This is the simplest best explation I have ever seen

and it explains the media shift. Stating Kerry's view in this simple manner also is consistent with what he said at Pepperdine on "just war" and in the debates where he spoke of a "global test".

[ProSense]

4. Awesome! Thanks! n/t

[kerrygoddess]

8. Kos admitted to being wrong on Kerry

in the post.