Why would he still vote for war?
ANN YUREK says that John Kerry wanted to trust the president so that is why he voted to give George Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq ("Kerry wanted to trust president," letter, Aug. 17). But it really was not a question of trust; it was a vote designed to give the president leverage in calling Iraq to account before the United Nations. It exemplified realpolitik at its best.
Where we went wrong was the failure to recognize the importance of the UN inspectors' reports in mid-February 2003 that there was no evidence of imminent danger from Iraq. That should have led to a reevaluation of the war power resolution and its potential repeal based on the changed situation. We failed to do so, and we are reaping the tragic consequences today. So unlike Yurek, I cannot understand Kerry's statement that, even with the evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction, he would still have voted to allow the president to go to war. There is no realpolitik rationale, there is no national security rationale, there is no counterterrorism rationale. So why would he say that he would still vote for war? His saying that today makes no sense, except as a cheap ploy to garner votes in the election.
MARTIN G. EVANS
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.