Kerry Defends Votes On Military Action

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47468-2004Jan25.html

Kerry Defends Votes On Military Action
By Ceci Connolly Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 26, 2004; Page A01

NASHUA, N.H., Jan. 25 -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), under attack from Howard Dean for questionable judgment on the issue of war, said Sunday that his 1991 vote opposing the Persian Gulf Warwas "entirely consistent" with his vote in 2002 supporting military action in Iraq.
Kerry has defended his 2002 vote as one in which he was authorizing the threat of force, not unilateral action, and he has explained his 1991 vote as one in which he was not voting against the use of force to eject Iraq from Kuwait.<snip>

Speaking after an exuberant campaign rally before 2,500 people here, Kerry rejected criticism that he had muddled the message of both votes by his explanations. "I completely disagree with that assessment," he said.

He said: "George Bush knows Congress was engaged with him in a clear duel over what the parameters were by which he might or might not go to war. . . . The president bum-rushed the thing."<snip>


"The vote I cast was not a vote to go to war immediately," he said.
Kerry said Bush "violated every single" premise laid out by Congress. "He went to war without building a legitimate coalition, without exhausting the remedies of the United Nations and not as a last resort. And that's why I was upset about it."<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47283-2004Jan25.html

[Snivi Yllom]

1. Dean has a point

OK Kerry supporters, let's hear this explanation.

So it's not bad when Saddam invaded another country that sells a large portion of oil to the US but it is bad when the same Iraq has done nothing aggressive at all.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[sangh0]

2. You want an explanation?

After Kerry gave his explanation, you say "let's hear this explanation"?

It's obvious an explanation is the last thing you want

[agingdem]

4. Do you know what I find amusing?...

Howard Dean and his supposed "no" war vote. He was in no position to vote for anything.

[Toucano]

5. I'm satisfied with his explanation

of the 2002 vote (I may not completely agree with him, but I understand him).

The 1991 vote does leave me puzzled, though.

Bush I had built a real coalition and Saddam was really being agressive. I can accept that war as being a "last resort".

[WiseMen]

11. In 1991 Kerry, and others, warned of Dangers of Getting involved in region

Kerry was right. Non-military action in 1991 would have prevented
the rise of great anti-american sentiment and terrorism throughout
the region.

The movement of large American forces into Saudi Arabia has been
a major disaster for the U.S. in the Islamic world.

[emulatorloo]

6. Gulf war I war for oil, Gulf war II Saddam has nukes and will hurt us

Clark believed it too. Top Secret Briefings you or I or Dean never saw told them so.

That is the simplest way I can put it.

Dean frames it as war anti-war but that is the wrong frame


Clarify

[T Wolf]

3. this issue continues to cause problems

for all the Democratic candidates (except DK and HD).

For those in congress who did vote for the war, I am waiting for a simple, straight-forward statement like, "Yes, I voted for the resolution because I did not imagine that Bush would lie to us. It is clear that he did, and I now regret my vote."

The next one to say that will be the first.

Dems have to learn from the pukes that simple, clear statements are the mosr effective. Anything more detailed makes it easy to paint the words as attempting to weasel ones way out of something.

[emulatorloo]

7. Kerry won't say he regrets the vote because

in principle the vote was the right thing to do. He is consistently against weapons proliferation.

If Saddam truly did have WMDs it was right to:

Get inspectors back in
work with the UN work with our allies to disarm him
and then if all else failed, use invasion as the ***last resort to disarm him***, and never a unilateral war without our allies on board.

So he was lied to, but the principle of being against arms proliferation is still right.

I think most reasonable people in the US would hold that position, which I'll summarize as

WMDs bad
War as last resort
Those things are right for America
Bush lied to us about Saddam having WMDs and really screwed us

I think it will resonate with a lot of people, because that's where a lot of people were on this issue.

ON Edit - clarify

[cthrumatrix]

8. that I will agree upon....I do like Dr Deans position on Iraq...

[sangh0]

10. Which one?

.

[isbister]

13. One thing the weasel in office should have taught America with his words

is that they matter and we need a President that has the ability to think things through.

There was not vote for war, read the IWR:

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/text/1010res.htm

Edwards and Lieberman have been quick and clear on their positions haven't they? They were for it but would have liked to seen more nations involved... if I'm not mistaken.

[Ramsey]

9. This is a difficult issue

I am trying really really hard to like Kerry, because he may be the nominee. I'm not a Kerry basher at all.

But I have to say his explanations for the IWR vote just do not resonate. They sound like after-the-fact excuse making. You don't vote for a resolution fully authorizing the president to do whatever he wants, and then turn around later and say, "well, he told us he would do it differently" or "I thought my vote meant something different than what the resolution actually said".

He can try to explain it away all he wants, but it is hard for me to accept that it wasn't a politically expedient vote at a time when the fear of being called unpatriotic trumped doing what one believed in. Or maybe Kerry really did agree that we should oust Saddam, and is now saying he didn't because Dean has made it clear that the majority of Democrats opposed the war.

I don't know the answer, but I do know the explanations ring hollow.

[emulatorloo]

12. Read his speech at the time - very consistent

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html

snip

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out.   If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community.  The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain.  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 and 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 as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options.  But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible. 

[Althion]

14. Do you happen to have a link for

when he spoke out afterwards?

I'm reading the line where he says, " If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out." I'd love to read that, where he spoke out "first" or even early. Do you have it? I think it would help his case.

A.