This is a pretty obvious strawman attack. Kerry did not say that he voted for the authorization under the presumption that it would not happen. The resolution was designed to give the president the authority to use military force if necessary. Has Kerry anywhere stated that he would have objected to the use of such force had it actually been necessary? I haven't seen any such statement. What I have seen is Kerry state that he disagrees with Bush's assessment that the military force was necessary.We're sure Kerry is right in claiming that the White House, played down the possibility that the vote would lead to actual conflict. That does not mean the public will be satisified with an explanation that he authorized an invasion under the presumption it would not happen. After nearly two years of working with the Bush administration, Congress had a very good idea ofhow Bush viewed the world, what advisers he listened to, and what he was likely to do with U.S. troops if Congress gave him a broad authorization to go to war. It was for precisely that reason that some senators, led by Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar, struggled unsuccessfully to narrow down the resolution.
Again, Kerry is not saying that Bush should not have been given the power the resolution gave him. He is disagreeing with the way that Bush used that power, and the decisions he made as president.
Also, none of the quotes you have posted from Kerry in your last post in any way contradict what he is saying now, either.