John Kerry vs. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (February, 2003)

[David Krout]

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)

In a separate thread, we are told that Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) of former intelligence & military officers claim Assad of Syria is not responsible for the chemical weapons attack that we hear in the news every day.

Who is this group?

On Febrary 7th, 2002, Common Dreams published a statement by the same group one month before the Iraq War.

"No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is irrefutable or undeniable. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond violations of Resolution 1441, and beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic. "

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0207-04.htm

The next day, February 8, 2003, an article quotes John Kerry on his thoughts about the same war

"It’s about doing what’s right for the country. I’m worried about the national security of our nation and doing what’s correct."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/02/dems-f08.html

Kerry went on to vote for the Iraq War.

Today, these two are on opposites sides again, while some still treat Kerry as the Very Serious one of the two.

[frylock]

1. knr

[ProSense]

2. "Kerry went on to vote for the Iraq War. "

Not only is your chronology wrong, your source doesn't provide any context or date for the quote.

Kerry claimed his decision to support a war was based on the facts, not politics. “It’s about doing what’s right for the country. I’m worried about the national security of our nation and doing what’s correct. I want the president to continue to work through the multilateral structure, and I’d like to see us get the support of other countries, but I’ve always recognized that you need to face up to the threat of weapons of mass destruction.”

Here is a Kerry op-ed before the vote, which was in 2002, not 2003.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

By John F. Kerry
Published: September 06, 2002

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

Kerry, January 2003

<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

<...>

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

[David Krout]

4. Awww man, I have Kerry voting for a bloody war on the wrong month

I guess he didn't vote.

[ProSense]

6. Wrong year, and

Kerry was not the President. He didn't support the war. Bush didn't just lie before the vote. He lied during and after the vote.

The IWR was not a vote to attack Iraq. There were no UN inspectors in Iraq when Congress voted on the IWR, but they returned shortly after.

July 5, 2002

Iraq once again rejects new UN weapons inspection proposals.

<...>

November 13, 2002

Iraq accepts U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 and informs the UN that it will abide by the resolution.

Weapons inspectors arrive in Baghdad again after a four-year absence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_2001-2003

Following the mandate of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein allowed UN inspectors to return to Iraq in November 2002. UNMOVIC led inspections of alleged chemical and biological facilities in Iraq until shortly before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, but did not find any weapons of mass destruction. Based on its inspections and examinations during this time, UNMOVIC inspectors determined that UNSCOM had successfully dismantled Iraq’s unconventional weapons program during the 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission

Bush removed the inspectors before launching the invasion. He had it all planned. He had a Senate that was in complete agreement that Saddam possesed WMD based on the bogus intelligence fed them. The Senate was voting on several versions of the resolution to authorize force, including the Byrd Amendment with an expiration date one year from passage.

Here is the Durbin Amendment, which only got 30 votes, including Feingold and Kennedy.

To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00236

The Byrd Amendment got 31 votes, Kennedy voted for, Feingold voted against.

To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00232

Bush only needed a few months to launch the war. Setting a date for the termination of the authorization would still have given Bush enough time to lie and launch a war. And as anyone could see, once the Iraq war was launched, none of these Senators committed to forcing a withdrawal. In 2006, Kerry-Feingold, setting a date for withdrawal, got 13 votes.

After the IWR vote, Bush lied, first in his state of the union:

Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War - Monday 2/18 at 9 p.m. ET

By Will Femia

Last night Rachel pointed out that this year marks the tenth anniversary of President George W. Bush's State of the Union address containing the now infamous 16 words that turned out to be a very consequential lie:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

Included in a collection of web materials associated with Rachel's upcoming documentary "Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War," is a longer cut of that 2003 State of the Union address. It's a powerful reminder of how thick the Bush administration laid it on to rally the nation to war in Iraq:

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/14/16966287-hubris-the-selling-of-the-iraq-war-monday-218-at-9-pm-et

How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-09.htm

...and then in the bullshit letter and report he sent to Congress claiming a link to the 9/11 attacks.

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President: )

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022394769

Bush's signing statement spelled out his intent to ignore the conditional aspects of the IWR. He acknowledged that while Congress agreed that a threat existed, they didn't give him the full support to launch a war unconditionally.

Statement on Signing the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
October 16th, 2002

<...>


The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the executive branch on either the President's constitutional authority to use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution. On the important question of the threat posed by Iraq, however, the views and goals of the Congress, as expressed in H.J. Res. 114 and previous congressional resolutions and enactments, and those of the President are the same.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=64386

[David Krout]

7. Wait...so Bush lied, and somehow VIPS didn't swallow his lie, but Kerry did

so you still justify Kerry's idiocy?

What do you think of the Democrats who didn't believe Bush's lie? Are they morons for not doing the Sane thing? (i.e. voting for war)

[ProSense]

8. You clearly,

"What do you think of the Democrats who didn't believe Bush's lie? Are they morons for not doing the Sane thing? (i.e. voting for war)"

...have no idea when or what the IWR vote was about. Also, every Senator believed that Saddam had WMD, which was the lie.

Bush lied.

[Thinkingabout]

12. Thanks for the information, I remember some of the details but not always the date. I do

Remember there should have been a delay waiting on information determining WMD's but they jumped the gun and invaded before this determination occurred. Joe Wilson went on a fact finding mission and when he realized false information was delivered he wrote an editorial with the facts, the appreciation he received was to out his wife.

[NuclearDem]

5. Spin all you want, but when it comes down to it,

Kerry was in the Yea column. Everything else is bullshit.

[JackRiddler]

20. Kerry voted to authorize aggressive war on Iraq.

He was a senator. I don't care what bullshit he may have written in an ass-covering opinion column. Fuck his opinions. They are worthless. I knew the facts. I knew what Baradei, Blix and Scott Ritter knew, because they told me and the rest of the world. The facts. Like the MAJORITY OF THE WORLD, like anyone who cared to know the truth rather than to rally around the U.S. war faction, I knew the truth, not some CIA-Cheney bullshit.

Furthermore, these facts didn't even matter. By which I mean, even if Iraq had the WMDs that it so obviously did not have, that was not in any way a justification for an invasion by the U.S. regime.

I repeat:

Kerry was a senator. Senators had a vote in this. How he voted is all that matters. Fuck his opinions. Opinion columnists were not among those who could have, simply by casting their vote, directly prevented the announced unprovoked war of aggression -- the highest and worst of all war crimes -- on a distant country that posed no threat.

23 senators voted against the war. They did not authorize a war of aggression. They did not write bullshit columns pretending they didn't really want a war, and then vote for war. A choice was possible. Kerry chose to enable a criminal plan for mass murder in Iraq. Kerry, and Clinton before him: among the guilty. Key players in fact, because they are the ones who provided Democratic and "liberal" legitimacy to the Bush war crimes.

[blm]

3. David Krout, you edit just like O'Keefe.

Yellowjackets for Rand2016.

[geek tragedy]

9. Larry Johnson is a nut and a liar.

Only an idiot would trust him.

[Sand Wind]

10. These group did not make any recent statement....nt

[truedelphi]

11. Kerry broke a serious promise he made to every Dem voter in 2004.

During the Presidential campaign of 2004, he continually assured the voters that should any vote fraud occur, he would not take it lying down. Instead, he told us how he had an army of lawyers who would come into what ever area where voting was compromised, and make sure that the vote count was right.

Ohio that year turned out to be a voting disaster. We had an illegal shut down of an Ohio voting district, and its polling place, (this was a district that traditionally went Democratic), because of "Homeland Security worries and concerns."

We had the "classic" switch of "D" votes into George Dubya votes. Many traditional Democratic voting districts had to rely on far too few voting machines. Lines of people waiting to vote stretched out around the block from the voting precinct. People waited hours to vote, in the rain, and some did not vote until after 1 Am.

However, within less than twelve hours of those final votes, Kerry surrendered. What deal gets made to people like that, I don't know. But for me it was an egregious wrong.

The fact that David Cobb and Ralph Nader offered up huge sums of money so that a vote recount could proceed shows us how and why our system is flawed. Where was the leadership from the Democratic National Committee?

Black Box Voting org, Andy Stephenson and Susan Truitt became heroes of mine for their lengthy investigation into the matter.

Senator Barbara Boxer stood with the Black caucus to oppose the certifying of the "re-elected"
President. She, too, received my adulation for her action.

In private, my local Congresswoman admitted she knew that the whole thing was fishy. However, with Feinstein ruling the political roost that is Calif., I never stated that in print before - now that this Congress woman has retired, I guess I can do so.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Why is Kerry being kicked around, he is a war veteran, dont believe the Swiftboat crap.

My goodness, this is a Democrat site, this hate needs to stop about the SOS.

[David Krout]

14. Swiftboat? What year are we in?

The Swiftboat smear campaign against Kerry is a separate issue. Are you ok?

[liberal_at_heart]

16. I will criticize anybody trying to rush to war whether they are republican or democrat.

[Thinkingabout]

17. Perhaps you have not been in combat yourself but most people who have been tends to try

everything to avoid going the same route again. I don't know if you knew the swiftboat gang ran many untrue ads against Kerry when he ran for president. Have you heard Kerry beating the war drums or have you heard Kerry presenting a call for a strike but this does not call for the type of criticism I have heard.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. I have not been in combat but my brother was. I was 13 when he was deployed. I was scared

shitless I would never see him again. The legitimate criticism coming Kerry's way now is not coming from Swiftboat ads. It is coming from citizens, fellow democrats who do not want to get into a regional civil war.

[Logical]

15. Some fool alerted this.....

At Sun Sep 8, 2013, 06:00 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

John Kerry vs. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (February, 2003)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023618224

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Looks like HannahBell is back under another name again

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 8, 2013, 06:14 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: WTF? The alerter is a detective? Stupid alert. Waste of time.
Alerter, whine to Skinner. Stop wasting people's time.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I can't make heads or tails of this post, I don't see it as hide worthy. I thought it was CT at first, and was going to vote to hide. I'd love to hide it for being obtuse, but that's not avoid enough reason
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If there is something that violates community standards in this post the alerter failed to note what that might be. Instead the alerter used psychic powers to discern that the poster is "Hannahbell". My psychic powers are limited. LEAVE.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. He's a "good soldier". On the payroll. Just followin' orders.