Kerry Stump-Mate Kennedy Blasts Bush on Iraq. Kerry Real Anti-War Dem!

[WiseMen]

On C-Span today, Kennedy carried on his campaign against Bush regime and in support of John Kerry with a comprehensive and blistering attack on the Administration’s use of “misguided ideology and distortions of the truth� to take the nation to way.

Kennedy praised Paul O’Neill’s courage and slammed the White House’s “vindictive and mean-spirited� attack against Joe Wilson’s wife, and against secretary O’Neill.

This is the same Kennedy who is stumping in the frigid climes of IOWA and New Hampshire for John F. Kerry. Kennedy, like the most of us anti-war democrats, was disappointed at Kerry’s IWR vote. But he accepted his decision based on Kerry’s long record as the “Tough Dove� – fiercely opposing the corrupt use of American military force, but unflinching when he though force was absolutely necessary. Kennedy has said he view Kerry’s vote as not a vote for war, but a vote to avoid war, a vote for U.N. enforcement. And it was intended to reach the same goal as his – a peaceful resolution of the Iraqi tragedy.

John Kerry could have voted “no� held to his leadership of the anti-war base among Party activist. But, for reasons of presidential politics, national policy, as well as concerns for precedent, a “yes� vote on the Iraq War Resolution could be seen the RIGHT VOTE for Kerry, presidential candidate and Senior Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The following is my take on why John Kerry, the man of peace, took a fateful vote that allowed his opponents to label him a man of war. It is time for anti-war democrats to give Kerry another look.

Presidential Politics

Since Jimmy Carter lost to Reagan over the Iran Hostages, Dovishness has spelled doom in national political campaigns. Clinton chose Gore over Kerry as his 1992 running mate, reportedly because Kerry had opposed the first Gulf War while Gore had joined the Republicans to support it. Clinton had to compensate for his weak-on-defense image.

Curiously enough, Kerry opposed the Gulf war because he saw U.S. militarization of the region as a potential long-term disaster. Kerry had led the investigation of the Reagan/Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld duplicitous involvement in the Iran-Iraq War during the 80's and saw that the Gulf conflict was not just avoidable, but a war that should be avoided.

Al Gore, supported by a few conservative democrats such as Governor Dean, voted for that War: a war that desecrated the Muslim Holy Lands, turned the formerly pro-U.S. Islamic radicals into Anti-American Jihadist and led more than a decade of death and tragedy for people in the region. But that vote for war qualified him to be Vice President of the United States.

Kerry, the Senator, could have voted NO to register his distrust of Bush regime intentions. Kerry, the Presidential Candidate, had to give deference to the word of the sitting President and consider Democratic vulnerabilities in ’04. He had to vote “YES.�

Policy

For more than a decade Kerry had broken with liberal non-interventionism and argued for a proactive U.S. foreign policy to address world humanitarian crises, WMD proliferation, and global terrorism. In his book, “The New War,� (1997), Kerry pulls together insights from 3 terms on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a decade as Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations. He argued forcefully for a realignment of U.S. military and intelligence posture to defend against new threats to U.S. global interests and national infrastructure and called for urgent preemptive executive action, warning: "It will take only one mega-terrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day."

On the campaign trail Kerry stated the policy position that led to his difficult IWR vote:


"Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force.
We need to take the third path in foreign policy – not a hard unilateralism or a soft isolationism – but a bold, progressive internationalism – backed by undoubted military might – that commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity.
If Democrats do not stand for making America safer, stronger, and more secure, we won't win back the White House – and we won't deserve to."

-- John Kerry, December 16, 2003


Precedent

John Kerry led the anti-Vietnam war movement not as a pacifist, but as a war hero who, after 6 years in combat, came to question the morality of U.S. military tactics and the justice of American policy for the region. Since Vietnam, Kerry has supported the principled use of force and has backed U.S. military ventures, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, Somalia and Haiti. In Bosnia, Kerry supported covert action to oppose “ethnic cleansing.� In Kosovo, he went further than the Clinton administration, arguing (on the side of NATO Supreme Commander, Wesley Clark, incidentally) that ground troops should remain as an option for stopping former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's violent crackdown on the Serbian province's ethnic Albanian majority.
Precedent regarding Saddam Hussein could not be clearer. While, Kerry opposed the main resolution authorizing force in the Persian Gulf in 1991, he has since criticized both former President Clinton and his successor, President Bush, for missed opportunities to return inspectors to Iraq to end the risk of Iraqi WMD proliferation.
In 1998 Kerry joined John McCain to argue for forceful and effective action, covert or otherwise, to enforce U.N. inspections or remove the Saddam regime. In a Feb. 23, 1998 press release on the Iraq dilemma Kerry stated:

“This is the first issue of proliferation in the post Cold War period. It is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the Western world to make it clear that we cannot allow by any nation to possess and use those kinds of weapons.�
Given this precedent, a vote against Bush’s September, 2002, Iraq War Resolution, in this post-9/11 national security environment, would have exposed Kerry to a charge of enormous hypocrisy and partisan demagoguery.

In voting “yes� on the IWR Kerry said he had to trust the President of the United States when he said that war would be “a last resort�. He may have been very wrong to do that, but the time of the vote, in a substantial, thoughtful speech on the Senate floor, Kerry said he would strongly opposed any unilateral movement to war and that he did not believe that Saddam’s threat was yet imminent. He kept is word and faithfully led opposition to unilateral action during the U.N. debates, Bush’s “rush to war,� and the administration’s duplicitous and inept foreign policy.

Conclusion

Given his record of fighting for peace, I find it truly infuriating that so many democrats are willing to make vicious remarks regarding Kerry’s IWR vote. Infuriating because these remarks show so little consciousness of the U.S. role in the region, so little guilt regarding complicity in the Iraqi tragedy, the millions dead, the abominable poisons that fell on the enemies of Saddam with U.S. acquiescence -- and for U.S. geopolitical goals. It is infuriating that these newly minted minions of a newly reborn peace-marcher can see only black or white. They cannot understand that, as much as it was atrociously criminal to do what the Bush did in 2003, it may have been just as evil to do nothing, but maintain people-punishing sanctions while the multi-decade reign of atrocities of “our man in Bagdad� continued. There was a better way, different from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld way, and that is what John Kerry voted for.

John Kerry has been handed the lot of a fighter for most of his adult life. With his vote for the IWR Kerry risked his presumptive right to lead a campaign for which he as prepared for a lifetime -- a campaign to overthrow the Bush regime.

At the same time, John Kerry knows that that same vote, in which he gave a republican President the benefit of the doubt, could be part of a necessary armor against the republican onslaught, should he, against all odds, end up as the standard-bearer for the Party in the ’04 election.

[pasadenaboy]

1. Your explanation

sounds like his vote was made based on political calculation.

How can you send 500 american soldiers to die in order to gain "necessary armor against the republican onslaught"? There is no political courage in that. At the time of the war vote, all the conventional wisdom was that voting against it was political suicide. Hence, Kerry took the easy way out, thinking if he ran for president, he would have to agree on the IRW to win the general election.

How could Kerry vote against the first Iraq war and for this one? The only reasoning I can think is because he caught so much heat from the first vote against, he decided to vote for this one to innoculate himself against softness charges.

The whole thing is shameful, in my opinion.

[sandnsea]

2. Weapons proliferation

I don't know how in the world you get political expedience from that post. For four years Democrats and Republicans alike fought to get inspectors back into Iraq. Every single person running in this primary said Saddam was dangerous, most believed he had chemical and biological weapons and even a nuclear program. His vote was right. It's like Gephardt said today. This is a democracy and George Bush happens to be the President and he's the only one we've got. When something has to be dealt with, we have to deal with it, whether we like the President or not. Many Democrats chose to take the politically risky step of going ahead with forcing the UN to stand up and get inspectors back in Iraq.

Bush abusing his power is what Bush did. Nobody authorized him to do that. A vote does not mean the President has authority to go to war if circumstances change. Hold George Bush accountable. Maybe if Howard Dean had chosen to do that all along, instead of using the war vote for his own political gain, George Bush wouldn't be soaring in the polls.

[pasadenaboy]

4. Why did Saddam have to be "dealt with"?

what was different in late 2002 that didn't exist in 2001, or 2000? What had changed that made Kerry give the president the authority to chose a unilateral preemptive invasion?

If any of these guys would admit they were wrong to vote for the resolution, I wouldn't hold it against them. But as long as they keep defending the horrible vote, and shifting blame on to Bush, how can I trust their judgement in the future if they won't own up to what I think are mistakes?

[sandnsea]

5. When would you suggest?

Any ideas how long you want to let tyrants like Saddam keep WMD? Is there another leader in the world who has come close to Saddam in making bio/chem and nuclear weapons and using them? How long did you want to leave him alone to do what he pleased? Just a ballpark would be okay. 5 years, 7, 10, how long?

[pasadenaboy]

7. So, Kerry was in favor of the invasion?

What WMDs did Saddam have? Where are they? He clearly didn't have nuclear weapons and was nowhere near having them.

He clearly did not have an active biological or chemical weapons programs. he may have been holding on to some chemical or biological weapons left over from the 1980s, but he had no delivery methodology, and we don't even know if he had any of those left. There is a great likelihood he didn't even have chemical of biological weapons.

If you want to tell me what he had, I'll be happy to assess the threat.

[sandnsea]

10. One thing at a time

You asked why Saddam had to be dealth with. I told you what EVERY presidential candidate thought in 2002. EVERY ONE. They all said we had to get inspectors into Iraq.

So when would you propose to deal with that, by forcing inspections? How long do we give a dictator who the entire world suspects has WMD?

[quaker bill]

16. He did not have any!

Have you been reading the news? There were no WMD. So the answer would have been 0 years regardless of the policy implemented.

Actually the real answer would have been closer to minus 6 or 7 years as he had not had any WMD or programs to make them for at least this long.

[sandnsea]

31. How do you know that???

You know that because we had weapons inspectors in the country, that's how you know it. Geesh.

[9119495]

20. So based on this logic, they would also have supported a

resolution for war against North Korea? Same conditions. Same intelligence. Same refusal to allow inspectors. Even more dagerous to the U.S. Yes, Bush lied. But he had done that before and these guys should not have been taken in. Why can't they step forward and instead of saying, "Saddam had to go...," say "that vote, along with my one for No Child Left Behind was the biggest mistake of my political career. I wish I had not put so much trust in the president. I fully repudiate that vote and I hope the party faithful can forgive me. This has been a learning experience and next time will be different--and with President Bush, there will be a next time."

Where was the Kerry amendment requiring the president to come back to congress on the eve of war?

This stuff matters to people like me. Don't just dismiss me as some "dumbass, hippie Dean supporter."

[sandnsea]

32. Something should be done about NKorea

Kerry would be doing something about it. It isn't to say a threat of force is equally necessary in every case. With Iraq, it works.

And please show me ONE authorization or declaration of war that required the President to come back on the eve of war. ONE.

Bush is the liar here. The country supported him in Afghanistan. Based on your logic of not supporting Bush just because he's lied, we shouldn't have done that either.

[loyalsister]

34. The IWR was PR and everyone knows it.

Bush was going to war regardless. He was pushed into going to congress. Now, these guys say that they thought the resolution they came up with was going to keep him in check? The IWR was a Bush ploy to go hunting for enablers. He was facing opposition from the public and needed support from congress to make the thing happen. Gep stepped dutifully up to the plate. I think Gep did it because he's a nationalistic freak. I recently heard a story about him lecturing dissenters about the evils of opposing your government in the early 70s. At the end of the day, I think Kerry did it because of political expedience.

[WiseMen]

3. If you Hire, You should also Fire! Kerry Argued that Clinton Should Have

found a way to force the U.N. monitoring regime on Saddam and if necessary remove him. Most of Saddam atrocities were committed with the support or complicity of the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush(1) regime. The blood of many hundred of thousands is on our hands and there were no easy answers to the issue of what to do about the Iraqi tragedy.

[isbister]

6. Confused?

Read what he said during, before, after, while, over, under... all consistent. Not political or shameful.

[pasadenaboy]

8. I just read the first paragraph

many of the assumptions he made were flat out wrong regarding Iraq's capabilities and potential for weapons development.

[WiseMen]

9. So were the assumptions of Clinton, the French, the Russians .. etc. who

along with Kerry opposed Bush's rush to war.

[sandnsea]

11. That's why he supported inspections

To find out.

And the entire world thought Saddam had WMD, including Howard Dean and Wes Clark. Even Dennis said inspectors needed to go into Iraq.

There's nothing to be angry about on that vote, nothing at all.

Bush started an illegal war, all by his little self.

[WiseMen]

12. Kerry is hoarse from Explaining that He Opposed War. IWR more like UN1441

Kerry opposed war, before the Vote, during the Vote, and after the vote. For many in congress the IWR vote brought Bush back from the brink of war into a U.N. process. John’s position was no different than that of the French, German, Syrian …. Ambassadors who voted for resolution 1441, but opposed Bush’s rush to war.

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the IWR vote
TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
…..

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.

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

After the IWR vote, During U.N. Inspections
Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University
Thursday 23 January 2003
"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"

………

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.truthout.org/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htm


After the war started:

April 4, 2003
''What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States,'' Kerry said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library.

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/04/04.html

April 7, 2003
(AP) Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President Bush even with the nation at war.

The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change. Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/04/politics/main547730.shtml

Bush sidestepped process on war in Iraq, Kerry says


By Amy Fagan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES (July, 22, 2003)


Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry yesterday said President Bush "circumvented" the process laid out in the congressional resolution authorizing action against Iraq, which Mr. Kerry supported in the Senate last year.



http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030721-103628-1890r.htm

[sandnsea]

33. Iraq for $1,000 Alex

Wanna go on Jeopardy? We could clean up on Iraq. Never thought I'd know so much about Iraq in all my life. How 'bout you?

[WiseMen]

29. I Thought Kerry was a Politician in a Political Party --The Democratic One

[Sensitivity]

13. Best Discussion of IWR so far. You admit there was some "Politics" there

[isbister]

14. Re: Best Discussion of IWR so far. You admit there was some "Politics"

I don't. And the reason is that Kerry was making similar statements before the was such a thing as an IWR.

[quaker bill]

15. Monarchs have "presumptive rights" Senators do not.

This is the most curious spin placed on IWR yet. Somehow, voting to authorize an illegal pre-emptive war based on lies that resulted in the killing of 10's of thousands of innocent people in order to preserve his standing in the 2004 election is seen as an act of courage and valor.

It is theater of the absurd time at DU again.

[molly]

17. Thankyou for a very intelligent analysis

I especially liked this part

"It is infuriating that these newly minted minions of a newly reborn peace-marcher can see only black or white. They cannot understand that, as much as it was atrociously criminal to do what the Bush did in 2003, it may have been just as evil to do nothing, but maintain people-punishing sanctions while the multi-decade reign of atrocities of “our man in Bagdad� continued. There was a better way, different from the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld way, and that is what John Kerry voted for."

[mouse7]

18. Spin. Kerry lives on both sides of issues. Kerry voted for IWR

Kerry is against IWR THIS WEEK. He was for the invasion the week we capture Saddam. He was against the invasion the week before we captured Saddam. He was for the invasion the month the troops were rolling toward Baghdad.

Kerry has missed half his votes this Congress. Kerry runs from controversial votes like a vegan runs from Philly Cheesesteaks.

Kerry is a FRAUD.

[Sensitivity]

21. SHAME ON US to demean a Man who risk life for his friends over and over.

We should not let our political sentiment to ignore Kerry's straight-arrow commitment to service from his youth. Few politicians have such
a record. From everthing I have read, every man who served under
Kerry has testified to his self-sacrificial and humble style.

We think he was wrong with his vote, but he has put out a lot more than most to deserve some respect.

[mouse7]

23. Vietnam service not a pass for sins 3 decades in future.

Kerry served in Nam. Great. Thanks.

Now that that done, let's move forward 30 years, shall we?

NOW, Kerry didn't show up for half his votes in the last Congress. He brags about supporting IWR when things are going good, and claims he was against the IWR when body bags show up. He's run from about 1/4 of his voting record in the 80's claiming he was stupid. He runs any controversial issue, but does take brave stands like supporting mothers on Mother's Day.

Kerry's formula to government. Support the obvious, and either run from or support both sides of anything more controversial.

oh yes... the leather jacket. It's fine if he just wore leather jackets, however, they are leather jackets with flight squadron patches on them. Kerry WAS NOT an aviator. He served on harbor patrol boats in the Mekong Delta.

[zulchzulu]

25. You continue to refuse to understand the issues of the IWR vote

It's been explained many times about the IWR vote made by Kerry (which was identical in opinion with Dean at the time btw) was to work with the UN and allow inspections to continue and only build a multinational force to only disarm Saddam as a last resort. What Bush ended up doing was completely the opposite from what was voted on by Kerry.

You simply refuse to see the truth about the vote. Perhaps one day you'll see that not all issues are just black-and-white.

[mouse7]

26. No, I refuse to accept the spin for Kerry playing both sides of IWR

You type and retype your Kerry spin. We see through the spin. Try as you might, we do not accept that voting yes to an invasion of Iraq was an anti-war position. We're used to DC spin. We know better.

Go ahead an re-type again if you like... and again... and again. Voting yes to the Invasion of Iraq WAS NOT an anti-war position.

[molly]

27. Who is "we"?

[blm]

36. Neither was Biden-Lugar but some sanctimonious types refuse

to acknowledge that.

Truth is BOTH are proresolution and NOT prowar.

[stickdog]

19. Vote Judas! The most beloved apostle of all! (nt)

[Raya]

28. Guess in New Hampshire you will be calling Clark Judas. Love that Dean!

I am thinking the Dean supports will soon be saying Clark is Judas -- to the republicans. Clarks is a Republican. Right!

These campaign tactics are sick.

[Hep]

22. Anti-War? Certainly not anti-letting Bush decide or anti-conceding

the premise.

What a load of POOP.

Dean:

"Today, Senator Kennedy performed an important national service, standing up to George Bush and telling the truth about a war -- marketed for political gain -- that has put the state of our nation at risk.

"If only my opponents from Washington had demonstrated the foresight and courage that Senator Kennedy has in consistently standing up to say this was the wrong war at the wrong time--in his words, 'one of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American foreign policy.'

[WiseMen]

30. Dean, unfortunately, has no history of leadership of progressive causes

[Sensitivity]

40. Made the right choice on Iraq.

[blm]

37. Biden-Lugar let Bush decide.

Dean supported Biden-Lugar

[poskonig]

24. Hussein let the inspectors in *after* the IWR.

This fact is important to remember.

[LuminousX]

35. Kerry Real Anti-War Dem

Decide for yourself what his position actually is. I'm sure it is 'nuanced.'

"Dean Supported War Resolution. … Until recently, Dean has been able to pull the wool over the eyes of voters in New Hampshire, Iowa and across the nation on his position on the war. The facts are now clear: Dean supported giving the President the authority to go to war. Only when he determined it to be politically advantageous, did he take an anti-war stance."—John Kerry campaign "media alert," Dec. 12, the day before Saddam Hussein was captured

"Governor Dean and some other people didn't even think it was great. They didn't even know that it was good to get rid of Saddam Hussein. … I personally have said all along that saying 'no' is not a policy. And Howard Dean has only basically been saying 'no' and been angry about the war."—John Kerry, Fox News Sunday, Dec. 14, the day after Saddam Hussein was captured

[blm]

38. In one he's referring to Dean's actual stance on Biden-Lugar.

In the other he's referring to what Dean SAYS now about Saddam.

But, you knew that, and you also know Kerry's right.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. No.

Kennedy Real Anti-War Dem.

[Martin Eden]

41. Kerry's vote against the first gulf war is inconsistent with...

...his 1998 press release on weapons proliferation. The Saddam regime of 1990 was known to possess huge stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and to be persuing nukes. Kerry voted to let the naked aggression of a fully-armed Saddam go unchallenged. Eight years later he stressed the danger of the very weapons that were ultimately destroyed as a result of the first gulf war (that he voted against).

The first gulf war was supported by the UN and a broad coalition which included Islamic countries. The war that Kerry enabled when he voted for the IWR was a violation of the UN Charter, and was widely opposed by most of the world.

Sure, Kerry didn't want Bush to act unilaterally in 2003; he found out the hard way that giving Bush the benefit of the doubt would have disastrous results. He thought moderates like Scowcroft and Powell would hold sway over the ubiquitous neocons in the Bush administration.

He was wrong, and in my opinion showed extremely poor judgement. Just a few weeks earlier, Bush released the new National Security Strategy, which included the policy of "preemptive" war which largely drawn from the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, drafted by Wolfowitz and other neocons. Combine this with the rhetoric coming from Bush and others in his administration, which clearly signaled (at least to me) that they were intent on having the invasion of Iraq they had been advocating for a decade.

The IWR was a flawed empowerment of the executive branch, which didn't include the constraints or guidlines that Kerry says he was voting for (or that he trusted Bush to follow).

In case anyone is interested, here's a link to the full text of the IWR:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2319045.stm