Senator Kerry on October 9, 2002:

[ProSense]

So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

Snip…

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq . None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Snip…

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

Snip…

America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm.

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement.

I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

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.

Snip…

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.

Snip...

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.

Snip...

That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

Page: S10173
Page: S10174

And look at at how the votes played out on this list of amendments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

[Mass]

1. Your point being? Kerry has recognized his vote was wrong.

This speech is a good speech, and makes his position clear concerning the war. However, his vote was in contradiction with his speech. I am sorry. I like Kerry, but I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here?

If it is that Kerry did not want to go to war with Iraq, I agree, but I think that most of us agree.
If it is that his vote was the right vote, we have to disagree.

[ProSense]

3. What's your point?

Kerry has acknowledge he was wrong to trust Bush. There is no need to rewrite history over it!

[Mass]

4. I am just trying to understand if your post has a point.

I am not sure what your goal was?

[ProSense]

5. Maybe I wanted to share Kerry's statement before the war

in case someone hasn't read it!

[Clarkie1]

11. This vote was not about the President, it was about Kerry.

He was wrong and spineless to give such power to the executive branch the face of no imminent threat. It has nothing to do with trust. It's the job a senator to provide the checks and balances envisioned in the Constitution as a co-equal branch of government. The Congress has become the weakest branch of government because of senators such as Kerry.

He failed in his duty as a senator on the most important vote of his life.

[ProSense]

13. Don't be upset because you've been

unsuccessfully tap dancing around Clark's opposition to a timetable!

[Clarkie1]

18. Clark is against announcing a fixed timetable.

He does not believe that announcing a timetable in advance is wise because it handicaps the diplomacy. Both we and Iraq want our troops to leave sooner, not later. A timetable should emerge from negotion and diplomacy to achieve a regional solution.

What part of that do you not understand?

Oh, and nice job changing the subject...isn't this a thread about Kerry's spineless IWR vote? Or have you given up on that angle?

[ProSense]

20. There are two plans realistically being negotiated now:

stay in Iraq with no defined end or set a deadline for withdrawal (Kerry's).

[Pithy Cherub]

2. After all that he still voted Aye

negating the words.

[Clarkie1]

9. Pathetic. At least he's admitted he was stupid to do it.

Personally I think it was less stupidity and more spinelessness...he knew what he was doing.

[mtnsnake]

22. Yeah, too bad it took him so long. I guess he wanted to wait until public sentiment

of the war leaned strongly toward the negative. Whatever way those prevailing winds blow....

[SaveElmer]

6. Thank you...

Most Demoacrats who voted for the IWR had similar reasoning. At the time Kerry's was a resonable position to take...and in my mind he has no reason to apologize!

Kerry, along with most Democrats who voted for the IWR have since acknowledged had they known then what later became obvious they never would have voted for the IWR. And I believe them...

And it also underscores the point that IWR or not, as later became clear, Bush was going to invade Iraq.

[Clarkie1]

10. Has your gal admitted her own spineless stupidity on this yet? nt

[mtnsnake]

23. At least she's not an obvious flip flopper. "I was for the war before I was against it"

Seriously, though, it just doesn't matter if one of them admitted (after it was politically safe to do so, BTW) what a dumb thing it was to vote for the IWR.

Kerry and Clinton both voted for it, and they both knew Bush was lying through his ass the entire time. Kerry and Clinton were both afraid to go against the grain of public sentiment that was draped in the blood of 9/11 at the time.

Do I hold it against both of them? Yes, I do. Do I rule out either one of them just because of that? Hell no.

[skids]

7. I see Kerry is making the news rounds...

...he struck me as seeming a bit more assured and to-the-point than usual -- less hedging of his answers. Probably feeling encouraged by the midterms.

[Clarkie1]

8. Sheer tapdancing, spineless stupidity. It pained me to read this again.

My God, he ADMITS the threat is not imminent and STILL votes for the resolution! It's not rocket science to figure out you don't authorize force unless the threat IS imminent!

"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."

UNBELIEVEABLE!

[ProSense]

12. Stupidity? Wow

No imminent means not urgent, not non-existing. The WMD is why the inspections were being authorized!

Read the resolutions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1017359&mesg_id=1017359

Do you think that if everyone held the belief that WMD existed, it would have been responsible to vote against inspections?

Clark 'Probably' Would Have Backed War

On First Campaign Stop, Democrat Lacks Specifics but Rallies Crowd

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 19, 2003; Page A05

HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.

Clark said his views on the war resemble those of Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.), both of whom voted for the war but now question President Bush's stewardship of the Iraqi occupation. "That having been said, I was against the war as it emerged because there was no reason to start it when we did. We could have waited," Clark said during a 75-minute session with four reporters.

Stupidity?

[Clarkie1]

14. We've been through this bullshit before.

Clark never would have voted for that version of the resolution. If you don't admit that after looking up all the facts, including Clark's congressional testimony where says explicity that any resolution need not authorize force, you're as good a spin-doctor as your favorite spineless senator...kudos I guess for that.

I'm disgusted with Kerry's vote and always will be, and frankly Kerry supporters who continue to promote this crap.

[ProSense]

15. You've been spinning around here like crazy.

Now you're resorting to name-calling. That's disgusting!

[Clarkie1]

16. If you knew these facts and still dared to post that accusation about Clark...

it is YOU who are spinning.

Here's what Clark said on 9/16/02 (one month before the vote)...
September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"


WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/060...


and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.lev...

working links to documents here....

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/26

[ProSense]

17. Here you go:

STATEMENT OF
GENERAL (RETIRED) WESLEY K. CLARK
U.S. ARMY

BEFORE THE
HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 2002

Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, Distinguished Members of this Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This is a Committee that has been strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the assistance and support that you gave me, and have given so many others.

In October 1994, Saddam Hussein moved several Republican Guards divisions back into the attack positions just north of the Kuwaiti border, the same attack positions that had been occupied just prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. It was a foolish and to our minds unexpected and threatening move. We quickly deployed additional military forces to the region, preparing to enter a full-fledged battle against Iraq to defend Kuwait, and we also went to the United Nations. After a few tense days Saddam backed off, the divisions were removed, and we acted through the United Nations to further tighten the no-fly zone and regulate Iraqi troop movements.

But it was a signal warning about Saddam Hussein: he is not only malevolent and violent, but also unpredictable. He retains his chemical and biological warfare capabilities and is actively pursuing nuclear capabilities. Were he to acquire such capabilities, we and our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks. Saddam might use such weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his neighbors, he might threaten American forces in the region, he might strike directly against Israel, or Israel, weighing the possibilities of nuclear blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years. According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required. But what makes the situation relatively more dangerous today is that the UN weapons inspectors, who provided some assistance in impeding his development programs, have been absent from Iraq for over four years. And the sanctions regime, designed to restrict his access to weapons materials and the resources needed to procure them, has continuously eroded. At some point, it may become possible for Saddam to acquire the fissionable materials or uranium ore that he needs. And therefore, Iraq is not a problem that can be indefinitely postponed.

In addition, Saddam Hussein's current retention of chemical and biological weapons and their respective delivery systems violates the UN resolutions themselves, which carry the weight of international law.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And in taking this to the United Nations, the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage undergirding further diplomatic efforts.

But the problem of Iraq is only an element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished, world-wide war against Al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately be won by persuasion as much as by force, when we turn off the Al Qaeda recruiting machine. Some three thousand deaths on September 11th testify to the real danger from Al Qaeda, and as all acknowledge, Al Qaeda has not yet been defeated. Thus far, substantial evidence has not been made available to link Saddam's regime to the Al Qaeda network. And while such linkages may emerge, winning the war against Al Qaeda may well require different actions than ending the weapons programs in Iraq.

The critical issue facing the Unites States now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaeda or efforts to deal with other immediate, mid and long-term security problems. In this regard, I would offer the following considerations:

- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

- The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or even the development of a more intrusive inspection program, if necessary backed by force. This is foremost an effort to gain world-wide legitimacy for US concerns and possible later action, but it may also impede Saddam's weapons programs and further constrain his freedom of action. Yes, there is a risk that inspections would fail to provide the evidence of his weapons programs, but the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by opportunity to gain allies and support in the campaign against Saddam.

If efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, the US should form the broadest possible coalition, including its NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if possible, to bring force to bear.

Force should not be used until the personnel and organizations to be involved in post-conflict Iraq are identified and readied to assume their responsibilities. This includes requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance, and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps including a new constitution. Ideally, international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations, including the UN, NATO, and other regional and Islamic organizations.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted, unless information indicates that further delay would present an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. This action should not be categorized as "preemptive."

Once initiated, any military operation should aim for the most rapid accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

If we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against Al Qaeda, reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region, and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism. But there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

I look forward to answering questions and helping the Committee assess the costs and risks of the alternatives before us.

[Clarkie1]

19. Thanks for posting this!

"The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations."

I'm done with this thread. Let the readers decide.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Come on Prosense, do you really think that people are only gonna read

the highlighted parts of the text that you are presenting as to what Clark said during one of his two testimonies in front of congress, when you provide the rest (you are not cutting and pasting, so for that I am grateful) that belies your point?

You highlighted this part...
Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons for over twenty years.

but didn't highlight the very next sentences which can be read right after the one you highlighted right there on your post... :shrug:
According to all estimates made available he does not now have these weapons. The best public assessment is that if he were to acquire fissionable material he might field some type of weapon within two years. If he has to enrich the uranium ore itself, then a period of perhaps five years might be required.

And so Clark was saying that Saddam DID NOT have Nuclear WMDs, even if he might have some chemical weapons....which at that time 100% of the world did think that as being a strong possibility, just not an imminent threat justifying an invasion or a war.

and then there is also this.....

The President and his national security team must deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in crafting UN engagement. In the near term, time is on our side, and we should endeavor to use the UN if at all possible.

Force should be used as the last resort; after all diplomatic means have been exhausted.

war is unpredictable and could be difficult and costly. And what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.

[ProSense]

30. Come on FrenchieCat, no! n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

21. Kerry voted correctly to support the President/defense of America

and he later admits that the mistake was supporting G.W. Bush specifically. But as a matter of principle his original vote was correct. It's not Kerry's fault that Bush lied about everything in the IWR and did nothing required in it.

[mtnsnake]

24. BS. They all voted for it to save their own political post-9/11 careers.

They were either dumber than dumb (which I highly doubt) for voting for something they knew was wrong, or they were all gutless self-serving pukes.

Funny how a few of them admitted they made a mistake...once the polls showed that the majority of Americans had turned against the war.

[ProSense]

25. BS!

So Kerry spoke out against the war and then voted for the IWR because he wanted to impress Americans? Silly logic!

[mtnsnake]

26. LOL, you post contains a clear flip flop. Must be some sort of trickle down effect

Kerry spoke out against the war and then voted for the IWR

No wonder he got the flip flop label he deserves. lmao

[ProSense]

27. LOL!

Blows your theory that:

They all voted for it to save their own political post-9/11 careers.

That could only be true if the two were consistent! Point: Kerry spoke out against the war and then voted for the IWR (not a vote for war)!

[mtnsnake]

28. I agree, it's very funny...how all you're doing is reinforcing Kerry's flip-flop label

So far, all we've got is:

Kerry was against the war.

Kerry voted to give permission to start the war. Yes, we all know the IWR = Iraq War Resolutions and do not quite equal "the war" by itself, but for all intents and purposes voted for war. When Kerry voted for the IWR, he did just what all the other ones who voted for it did: He voted to "authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" at a time when Bush made it clear what his intentions were.

Kerry said he was wrong to vote for the IWR but only after years of agony and deaths in Iraq and not until the polls showed public dissent for the war had become the popular sentiment at the time Kerry chose to re-nig.

Heck, I remember the theme of his candidacy was a war theme. "If elected I promise to seek out and KILL those terrorists". I'll never forget how strongly he enunciated the word "KILL". He tried to project himself as a better killer than Bush. What an embarrassment of a candidate.

The best thing that happened to Kerry is when they pulled the microphone away from his mouth in the last few days of the 2006 campaign after he botched that stupid "joke" or whatever the hell it was he was trying to say. Putting the muzzle on him probably saved us the elections.