Kerry’s claim that he opposed Bush’s invasion of Iraq

[n2doc]

Posted by Glenn Kessler

“You know, Senator Chuck Hagel, when he was senator, Senator Chuck Hagel, now secretary of defense, and when I was a senator, we opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq, but we know full well how that evidence was used to persuade all of us that authority ought to be given.”
— Secretary of State John F. Kerry, in an interview with MSNBC, Sept. 5, 2013


This is at least the second time since becoming secretary that Kerry has asserted that he opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq while serving as a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. The first time the Kerry made this claim, during a student forum in Ethiopia, his statement mysteriously disappeared from the official State Department transcript.

But then he said it again, on television, also dragging Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel into the mix. So let’s take a trip back in time and see what Kerry actually said in 2003.

...

For Kerry, the uncomfortable fact remains that he voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq, he believed the intelligence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and he said there was little choice but to launch an invasion to disarm him. Kerry may have been highly critical of Bush’s diplomatic efforts in advance of the invasion, but that is not the same thing as opposing the war when it started.

It’s time for the secretary to stop making this claim. In trying to make a distinction between his vote to authorize the war and his later dismay at how it turned out, Kerry earns Four Pinocchios.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/kerrys-claim-that-he-opposed-bushs-invasion-of-iraq/2013/09/10/12ef9fe6-1a00-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_blog.html

[Bluenorthwest]

1. I could not believe my ears. This level of bullshit is symptomatic of Kerry's self indulgent

mind set. The idea that he'd lie about himself and Hagel while trying to win the trust of the American people is utterly disgusting. Kerry needs to publically apologize and correct his duplicity or step down in favor of someone the people can trust to speak an honest word.

[ProSense]

2. Kerry did oppose Bush's illegal invasion

and I'm a better fact checker than Glenn Kessler.

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

Here is a Kerry op-ed before the vote:

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

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Kerry and Hagel both voted YES on IWR which 23 Senator correctly voted NO on. 21 Democrats

One Republican, Chafee, and one Independent, Jeffers. The claim that voting YES to authorize war really meant 'NO' would surprise the Senators who actually voted NO.
Kerry is a stone cold liar, this is not a matter for spin, the article provides many arm waving quotes from Kerry and there are many more to post, he believed there were WMDS, that Saddam was a threat to our security, he said so clearly while voting Yes in the Iraq War Resolution.

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

[ProSense]

5. Like I said before, I posted the other resolutions, and the quote doesn't contradict my point:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Kerry and Hagel both voted YES on IWR which 23 Senator correctly voted NO on. 21 Democrats

One Republican, Chafee, and one Independent, Jeffers. The claim that voting YES to authorize war really meant 'NO' would surprise the Senators who actually voted NO.
Kerry is a stone cold liar, this is not a matter for spin, the article provides many arm waving quotes from Kerry and there are many more to post, he believed there were WMDS, that Saddam was a threat to our security, he said so clearly while voting Yes in the Iraq War Resolution.

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

[joeybee12]

8. Yup...+1

[bobduca]

12. C'mon, Get with the Revisionist History!

Pro remembers this carefully pruned set of facts better than you!

[cali]

7. He's a liar and anyone claiming that his ridiculous byzantine

claim that he was against it is lying as well.

embarrassing to see such duplicity.

[ProSense]

11. You should

know about "ridiculous byzantine" claims. I mean if anyone points out that Senator Leahy believe that Saddam had WMD (Bush's lie), you're right there to point he "vehemently opposed to the IWR" even though he voted for other resolutions.

Patrick Leahy:

<...>

But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf, preparing for the order to enter Iraq, and we hear that a decision to launch an attack must be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so many troops deployed overseas.

In other words, now that we have spent billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to use them "because we cannot back down now," as I have heard some people say. Mr. President, it would be hard to think of a worse reason to rush to war than that.

We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing nothing, and I agree with the President about this, would mean that the United Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps the most serious threat the world faces today - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The UN Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq has not done so.

And I agree with those who say that the only reason Saddam Hussein is even grudgingly cooperating with the UN inspectors and destroying Iraqi missiles is because of the build up of U.S. troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also recognize that the time may come when the use of force to enforce the UN Security Council resolution is the only option.

But are proposals to give the UN inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?

http://votesmart.org/public-statement/8232/statement-of-senator-patrick-leahy-on-the-senate-floor-concerning-iraq-the-countdown-to-war

The "embarrassing" thing to see is constantly accusing Kerry of being a "liar."

[cali]

13. lol. lamer and lamer

Senator Leahy was vehemently against the IWR and voted that way, pro.

Not all the dissembling in the world can change the facts, pro.'




but you're awfully cute when you're slinging it.

[ProSense]

15. Did Leahy believe Saddam had WMD? n/t

[Mass]

6. Goes to show that Kessler is unable to analyze a multistep issue and it is not the first time

(See his analysis of Warren here):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/elizabeth-warrens-claim-that-the-us-earns-51-billion-in-profits-on-student-loans/2013/07/10/7769a3c2-e9b8-11e2-aa9f-c03a72e2d342_blog.html

First, WTF does 1991 and the fact that Kerry did a bad political more then by objecting to the war has to do with anything?

On Iraq, though, I understand that many people have a hard time dealing with complex issue, but may be they should avoid having a column at the WaPo. So here are the two steps and I suspect you know them already:

-A) Did Kerry vote to give Bush the authority to go to War with Iraq if needed? Only a fool would state he did not and obviously, Kerry did not state that.

-B) Slightly more complex, did he approve of the war when Bush decided to go to War (6 months later). I suspect this is what Kerry was referring to, but obviously, that does not make as good a copy for Kessler. I remember some statements where Kerry in March 2003 said he opposed the invasion but I would not discount the fact that he said otherwise in some other interview.

So, I think Kerry should have avoided this statement because it simply muddies the water on other issues, but I do not think that Kessler made the case that he was lying.

[jsr]

9. Incompetent, lying jerk

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. Kerry's position is apparently too nuanced for some people

He, along with a lot of other Democrats, gave Bush the AUTHORIZATION to use military force to disarm SH as a last resort, which was IMHO essentially the real mistake that they made (i.e. trusting Bush to use our military responsibly), but that's not exactly saying that he or the rest of the Democrats in Congress were gung-ho about invading Iraq. I'm sure that some were but I don't honestly think that Kerry was. It was really Bush, Cheney, et. al whom were jonesing for war and ultimately made it happen. Had they allowed the UN inspectors to do their jobs and supported their results instead of simply denigrating them at every turn, we might have avoided invading at all and I think that Kerry (and most IWR-voting Democrats) would've been satisfied with that conclusion.

[cali]

14. nuance my ass. He should have listened to his betters.

over 20 of them voted against the IWR.

He's so full of shit. and he's been for every stupid military action you can think of- from Grenada to Syria.

He's a real piece of work.

[Raksha]

18. Last I heard, Obama is still going to ask Congress for that same AUTHORIZATION

to use force in Syria. Whatever their excuses for the IWR vote--which I don't believe for a minute--they better learn from experience and history and not give it to him. I don't give a damn whether they're gung-ho or reluctant, they just damn well better not do it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. Is his vote like "burning down the village to save it"? Or, "The dog ate my homework"?

Or, merely, a laughable CYA statement?

[Raksha]

17. K & R, bookmarking to read later.

Although it's going to be painful to read old lies that have since been thoroughly debunked.

[frylock]

19. kerry is an honorable and courageous man..

with 4 pinocchios.