Kerry position on IWR

[MurikanDemocrat]

This post is in response to the position taken yet again last night that Kerry is a PRO-war candidate. One can only come to such a conclusion by mischaracterizing Kerry’s consistent position and statements on the IWR..

**disclaimer – this post is not intended to change anyone’s mind who is firmly determined nothing Senator Kerry can say or do will change their pure and principled position that the IWR vote alone should be a litmus test for deciding whether he is a war monger or deserving of their vote as the Democratic nominee. This post is intended to provide an actual statement from Kerry and an explanation of the IWR itself for those who seek the non-BS version for their own edification.

Kerry statement on IWR in WI debate Feb 15, 2004

KERRY: The president had the authority to do what he was going to do without the vote of the United States Congress. President Clinton went to Kosovo without the Congress. President Clinton went to Haiti without the Congress.

That's why we have a War Powers Act. What we did was vote with one voice of the United States Congress for a process. And remember, until the Congress asserted itself, this president wasn't intending to go to the United Nations. In fact, it was Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft and others and the Congress who got him to agree to a specific process. The process was to build a legitimate international coalition, go through the inspections process and go to war as a last resort.

He didn't do it. My regret is not the vote. It was appropriate to stand up to Saddam Hussein. There was a right way to do it, a wrong way to do it.

My regret is this president chose the wrong way, rushed to war, is now spending billions of American taxpayers' dollars that we didn't need to spend this way had he built a legitimate coalition, and has put our troops at greater risk.

http://www.wisconsindebate.com/transcript.asp

The IWR was a vote that demanded a PROCESS from Bush, a PROCESS that didn’t exist before the IWR . That PROCESS included using the UN and the inspection process and building a coalition of allies to stand together against Saddam. The IWR provided that war was the absolute last resort.

It was Bush who ran roughshod over the inspections process. It was Bush who ran roughshod over the UN. It was Bush who ran roughshod over our allies, figuratively thumbed his nose at them, and pissed the rest of the world. It was Bush who LIED about intelligence and manufactured evidence. It was Bush who rushed to war. It was Bush who never had any intention of doing anything BUT rushing straight to war.

The responsibility for the Iraq war rests squarely with Bush and his merry band of neocon’s, whose singular purpose was to enrich themselves and their ilk by exploiting Iraqi oil, and not out of regard for the people of Iraq as they would have people believe.

None of the Democrats who voted for the IWR started this war. Bush did. Senator Kerry did not start this war. Bush did. the Dem Senators would NOT have started this war. But Bush did.

It’s time to quit letting Bush off the hook for this and assigning it to the Dem Senators. The buck stops with the bastard sitting in the White House. Not with those who gave Bush an outline to follow that Bush refused to consider, or those who had no real control over what Bush had already decided to do, with or without the IWR anyway.

[diamondsoul]

1. The fact remains that

John Kerry, with all his good intent, trusted George W. Bush to do the right thing.

That in and of itself calls me to question his judgement as to what is or is not safe for this country. It's not the vote itself that does it, it's WHO he was willing to hand off that power to.

Let me say also I've defended his vote in the past and continue to do so. I'm still frightened by the fact that he ever believed Bush could be trusted.

I've liked Kerry as an individual and as a Senator. He's done some wonderful things there, and he's done some not so wonderful things, too. Some of the statements he's made in this race have turned me off him and disappointed me completely. Is he a good guy? Unquestionably! Is he the best man to be the next President? Not in my opinion. I'll stand by that unless and until he gets the nomination, then I'll firmly and decisively support and defend him.

[Hav]

4. .

First, it is sad that Kerry's position has to be repeated again and again against attacks here that prefer to see things in black and white.

And Diamondsoul, I too would have felt better with Kerry voting against it.But then again we don't share the same responsibility like the Senator.Maybe you wouldn't have put any trust in Bush but despite your own feelings, there have to be positions were all sides work together with honesty and mutual trust otherwise it won't work. I can't really hold it against Kerry that he trusted Bush on such an important issue like lying about the security of the nation or that Kerry didn't believe that Bush could "fuck it up" like that. I think it speaks for the Bush Admin that they mislead the public on such crucial issues like national security and war.

Kerry said he learned his lesson and I hope that this is true.

[arwalden]

30. Excellent Post...

I fear that your wise words will be wasted on those who choose not to listen and who cling to the belief that the war could have been prevented with the vote.

This was the criminal Bush's* war and noone else's. It was planned from the first week after his installation.

-- Allen

[diamondsoul]

38. I hope so too,

however when it comes to choosing a replacement for Bush, I can't count on it. It pains me, believe me. I respect Senator Kerry for the things he's done, but this one leaves me doubting his ability to judge the right course and that's something a President needs to have a good grasp on from the beginning.

[demnan]

2. Of course we know Kerry wouldn't have started the war

and that Kerry isn't Bush, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that Kerry (and others in Congress) abdicated his responsibility by giving power to Bush to instigate the war. I don't believe Saddam needed to be taken out, it seems that Kerry does. I think Clinton did a fine job controlling Saddam without excessive loss of life.

I do believe that Kerry shows his (lack of?) character in his Senate vote and I disagree with him, Edwards and Gephardt on that point.

If he couldn't stand up to the President when he was in Congress, I have to ask, will he stand up to Congress when (if) he is President?

[Forkboy]

3. I agree that pro war is a stretch

but I honestly do believe his vote was for his own political future and disregarded the lack of a future for the victims of Bush's insanity.

[RichM]

5. Another contorted apologia for the unjustifiable. The examples of Byrd,

Kennedy, Barbara Lee and Kucinich demonstrate what a principled and brave position would look like. The example of Kerry demonstrates cowardice and political opportunism. It can't be justified, no matter how hard the apologist strains.

True, it wouldn't be accurate to characterize Kerry as "PRO-war." Rather, he was simply not opposed to it - and was quite willing to go along with it, particularly if it seemed advantageous for his career prospects.

"It’s time to quit letting Bush off the hook for this and assigning it to the Dem Senators..."
- Nope. It's time to squarely recognize the collaborationist nature of a party in which 29 out of 50 Senators vote for a historic war crime.

[Carolina]

14. "Another contorted apologia for the unjustifiable ..."

True and rich words, RichM. I could agree with you more.

[DuctapeFatwa]

6. Kerry's support for the crusade and his commitment to the status quo

is one of the things that makes him a front runner.

Voters can depend on Kerry to do what it takes to get the job done and bring home the bacon. In this case, the oil.

Kerry is not without any knowledge of how business works, and he knows that the revenue potential here has ample room for the US to be a little more generous with her allies.

Once French and other Western European troops join the US in bringing the rogue natives to heel, critical voices will lapse into shamed silence, and as a student of history, Kerry is well aware of the potential of the traditional Sunni-Shia animosity and the key role it can play in engaging other Arab nations to assist the US in achieving its objectives.

This particular strategy has been employed before in the region, and to very good effect.

Kerry will also find this particular aspect of native beliefs helpful in expediting regional cooperation in the liberation of Iran.

And his strong ties and long history as a friend of Israel will go a long way to containing any concerns if he should decide to utilize America's Israeli resources for the liberation of Syria, while the new American conscriptees train for Iran, which is a much larger country with a large population, and a veritable hotbed of anti-liberation sentiment.

The American voters can take comfort in the knowledge that Kerry will do a good job of stamping that out and putting down native insurgencies in a timely manner.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Give Us A Small Break (Again)

If Kerry was drooling over oil-revenues, why would he make several detailed policy speeches about how to free ourselves from Middle East oil? This is not a new issue for him.

As for Israel ties, you are probably thinking of Dean's trip to visit Sharon. Kerry and Sharon's worldviews are miles apart, especially when it comes to parallel vs. unilateral concessions.

This is getting tedious watching you tell the same BS over and over.

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. I hope you are not suggesting that Kerry does not support sharon?

You are not doing him any favors by casting such a blatantly false aspersion.

His signature is on the letter sent by members of both houses of congress reprimanding bush for suggesting that sharon should show restraint when firing US-taxpayer supplied helicopter gunships into residential areas.

And I don't know what he is or isn't drooling over, besides the presidency, but he is not alone in feeling that the US has been very stingy and small-minded when it comes to sharing its Iraq oil with allies, and that a little more generosity in that department will go a long way in empowering the Iraqi people to be murdered by people of many more nationalities.

[Kimber Scott]

7. Bush didn't need IWR

he always had the power to rush to war. The IWR tried to direct that power in a positive direction. He also lied to get the vote. I didn't want anyone to vote for that resolution, but the blame for war lies with Bush.

It seems some people just can't stand a winner. I wonder what would suddenly be wrong with Kucinich if he were to jump to front-runner status. According to logic I've seen in places here on this board, if anyone is winning, or enjoys positive public opinion, it's a conspiracy.

[diamondsoul]

13. "he always had the power to rush to war. "

Uhhh, I beg to differ! The President has NEVER had the authority to declare war, period. That's the duty of Congress. Launch attacks, yes, engage the US in an all out prolonged "war" no.

This is where I'm in full agreement with my candidate- Congress abdicated its responsibility to the people with the passing of the IWR. The President should NEVER have been given the authority to use HIS judgement in declaring war and that's most especially true with THIS pResident! Kucinich saw it with less intelligence info than Kerry had access to if I understand things correctly, so you tell me why I should support a man who couldn't see through the crap when there's one in the race who DID see through the crap?

**On edit- to respond to your "poor little front-runner" whine, we'll be sure to let you know when Kucinich actually GETS some coverage. FEH!

[bigtree]

15. The Relative Ineffectiveness of the War Powers Resolution

The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. Congress would be loath to remove forces after they are committed.

The only imput that Congress had to the president's rush to war was a 'no' vote, which would not restrain the president, and to attempt to place restrictions on the president's behavior through a resolution. Sen. Kerry and other Democrats chose the latter. They didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote.

Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did.

Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.


"It has long been recognized that, even absent a formal declaration of war, the President may, on his own authority, use military force to carry out the Congressionally delegated power to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Thus, for example, in The Prize Cases the Supreme Court upheld President Lincoln's Civil War blockade of southern ports. And no one doubts that in the event of an actual attack on the United States, the President can and should use military force even if there is insufficient time to seek Congressional approval.

In 1973, Congress adopted the War Powers Resolution in an effort to strengthen its hand vis-a-vis the President. The Resolution was enacted in response to the perception that U.S. military involvement in Vietnam escalated without proper Congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution authorizes Presidential use of force only in a narrow range of circumstances. Moreover, it obliges the President to report to Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops, and to obtain specific Congressional approval for continued deployment within sixty days.

After troops are in the field--whether formally authorized by Congress or not--it can appear unpatriotic to call for the abandonment of their mission. Thus, the formal need for Congressional approval is superseded by the political impossibility of Congress's withholding that approval once the President has unilaterally committed troops. Thus, in practice, despite the Framers' best efforts, the dice are loaded against a substantial Congressional role in supervising the conduct of war."

http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dorf/20020306.html

[diamondsoul]

37. If this is totally accurate-

we were all essentially f*cked no matter what, and I do believe it is accurate. Even so, it speaks more to the wussiness of Congress to not fight this Presidential liberty than it speaks of a President we all knew was a thief and liar just by how he secured the Office.

[zoeyfong]

42. Irrelevant. Kerry/edwards are responsible for what *they* did, not for

what bush may or may not have done anyway. Fact is that they put their signatures on the congressional stamp of approval for war. Let the record show...they did it Bush's way. Btw, I would love to vote for kucinich, even though dean was my first choice. I would also vote for clark, sharpton, braun, nader, just NOT kerry, edwards, lieberman, or gephart. The fact that you think this is about people being mad that their candidate didn't win shows exactly how clueless a lot of dems and their establishment candidates are.

[regnaD kciN]

8. When it comes to "explaining" the IWR...

...The Everything Candidate For Everybody(tm) has already had more positions than the Kama Sutra.

:eyes:

[revcarol]

39. WOOHOO.

"The Twist-Myself-Into-A-Pretzel" candidate!!

I prefer "The Eyes That See Through The Lies" candidate.

Truth over political expediency every time.

[milkyway]

10. So bush* must have been against the IWR. Kerry says that

the IWR was meant to restrain bush* rather than give him the authority to do what he felt was necessary. So one would have to assume that bush* would be opposed to this. But he wasn't, so obviously what Kerry now says was the purpose of the IWR was not how bush* (or most other people) saw it at the time.

[bigtree]

16. Bush never intended to come before Congress

Washington -- Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say that permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.

At the same time, some administration officials are arguing internally that the president should seek lawmakers' backing anyway to build public support and to avoid souring congressional relations. If Bush took that course, he still would be likely to assert that congressional consent was not legally necessary, the officials said.

Whatever the White House decides about its obligations under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, some House and Senate leaders appear determined to push resolutions of support for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when Congress returns after Labor Day because they consider the issue too grave for Congress to be sidestepped. Administration officials say privately that military strikes against Hussein's regime are virtually inevitable, although all the specifics have not been decided and action is not imminent.

"We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," said a senior administration official. "We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/08/26/MN210715.DTL

[corporatewhore]

12. he is too stupid to be pres since he trusted GW w/the lives of our troops

or to spineless take your pick

[bigtree]

17. ''breach of trust''

PETERBOROUGH, N.H. - Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that President Bush committed a ''breach of trust'' in the eyes of many United Nations members by going to war with Iraq, creating a diplomatic chasm that will not be bridged as long as Bush remains in office.

''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.

Kerry said that he had spoken with foreign diplomats and several world leaders as recently as Monday while fund-raising in New York and that they told him they felt betrayed when Bush resorted to war in Iraq before they believed diplomacy had run its course. He said the leaders, whom he did not identify, believed that Bush wanted to ''end-run around the UN.''

''I don't think they're going to trust this president, no matter what,'' Kerry said. ''I believe it deeply, that it will take a new president of the United States, declaring a new day for our relationship with the world, to clear the air and turn a new page on American history.''

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

[MadHound]

18. Sorry MD, but this explanation, like Kerry's vote, doesn't pass muster

Kerry had the same information that others had access to, Bushco's record, CIA intelligence, foreign intelligence etc. Intelligence like the '98 CIA report that said there were no WMD in Iraq. Reports from international agencies like the IAEA and UNSCOM pretty much stating the same thing. Yet he voted for the war anyway, disregarding said information. And quite frankly he should have realized and anticipated Bush's stampede to war. Millions of ordinary people around the world realized this, why couldn't he? Whether or not he was "pro war" is a moot point. At best his vote was made out of stupidity, at worst, political expediancy. Are these qualities you want in a President?

Another matter regarding his vote. My voteing for the IWR he abdicated his responsiblity to his consituents, thus breaking his sworn oath. Messages to Congress before the vote were running 280 to 1 against the resolution. Public opinion was running in the high sixties-low seventies against a unilateral pre-emptive war, with the same margins also favoring letting the inspectors finish their work before we made any decision. A person who abdicates such responsiblities for either personal or political gain is not a person we want or need as president. We've already had too many like types in the WH already, and that is partly how we got into the mess we find ourselves in today.

So I really can't buy these excuses that Kerry comes up with. They sound like after the fact, self serving spin, trying to control the damage that has already been done. I think his best move would be to come clean with the American people and admit that he made a mistake. Somehow I doubt that will happen though.

As far as his IWR vote being a deal breaker, it isn't. It is simply one of a long list of reasons that I can't vote for him.

[bigtree]

20. With respect to this, Kerry said, nobody voted precisely for a war.

They voted for a process. They voted to go to the U.N. They voted to build an international coalition that was legitimate, voted to have inspections exhausted, and voted to go to war as a last resort, which is what the president promised us. The president broke every single one of those promises, not to mention misled America with respect to the intelligence, which we now all know.

I stood up for the security and the common sense with respect to the soldiers who fight wars. I've been one of those soldiers. I know what it means when you lose the consent and legitimacy of the American people in a war. And as a president, I think there is a special test as to when you send young American men and women off to fight and die. I know that test, and as president, I will live up to the highest standard with respect to that.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027573&keywo...

[MadHound]

22. Oh puhleeze, insult your own intelligence if you must

But don't insult mine and the millions of other people who were against this war. Process or no process, Kerry and the rest of Congress, along with millions of Americans and people around the world knew that the IWR was a "Go to War Now" ticket for Bush. All of this "voting for a process" crap is simply spin meant to confuse and obfuscate the real point, ie that Kerry voted to go to war. Now if Kerry truly believed this at the time, then quite frankly he is too stupid to be president. And if he did like the vast majority of Congressmen and voted Yes out of political expediancy, then quite frankly we can't trust the highest office in the land to such an oppurtunistic person either.

So it boils down to a simple question: Is Kerry stupid, or does he simply ignore the will of the people(in a democracy no less)?

[bigtree]

24. "spin meant to confuse and obfuscate the real point"

That's what I feel about these hits on Kerry.

The Democratic minority never had a chance of stopping Bush with a 'no' vote in my opinion. Political expeiency would suggest that one could tell that far off from the campaign what the political effect of the vote would be. No one knew what the political landscape would be at the time. You are reduced to standing back and calling Kerry a liar because you can't establish what you believe he stood for with any of his statements before and after the vote and subsequent invasion. You would substitute his statements with your own cynical view of his rationale.

As for the insult to your intelligence:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."- F Scott Fitzgerald

[MadHound]

25. Well the Dems certainly didn't have a chance if they didn't try

So your opting for the third option then, that Kerry saw he couldn't win, hence why try. Sorry, but the lack of a spine isn't a presidential quality either. Gee, the Dems had the will of the people behind them, they had several procedural manuvears they could have done to either delay or kill the IWR, and yet they chose(with a few exceptions) to go along with Bushco instead. Hence we get back to the arguement of political expediancy again. Kerry certainly had a good idea of whether or not he was going to throw his hat into the ring at the time of the vote. So rather than risk his possible run at the WH, he chose to not represent his constituents, opting instead to go along to get along.

Face it, there is no excuse for Kerry regarding the IWR. The question still is the same. Is Kerry stupid, or did he simply vote yes out of political expediancy? You don't have to answer me in this forum. But I hope you will answer it for yourself.

[bigtree]

27. Well, he has his reasons. He stated them clearly and I accept them

You just disregard them and assert that he was craven, dishonest, or stupid. That's nothing more than a nanny, nanny, boo boo argument.

[MadHound]

29. No, it is a reason not to vote for him

One of many.

I find a lot of the Kerry supporters on this board amusing. After the votes on IWR were in, many were making the very arguements I'm making. But since their boy is now the frontrunner, and people are bringing up honest questions about his actions, it is nothing but spin spin spin. Sorry, but I stick to my principles a lot tighter than a corporate whore of a politician does. If more people would do the same, then perhaps we could force our candidates to actually represent us, instead of just settling for the kinder, gentler screwing we're going to get with ABB.

[bigtree]

31. Don't you lump me in with anyone

You are in no position to judge my motives. Your responses are incredibly rude. I've never seen the name-calling nor the character assassination from my candidate that you display here in opposition to him. Your strident criticisms amplify the hollowness and banality of your protestations.

If you want another candidate then you will have to get him or her elected. I suggest that you spend more time representing their views. I'll listen.

[diamondsoul]

40. bigtree, I'm sorry you feel so badly treated.

I'd like to point out that a number of Kerry supporters have been as rude if not more-so in some of their posts across this board. Have a poke around a while and you might see why many of us are loath to even consider being kind to them. (You personally are not included in that for my part).

I will tell you something, I respect Senator Kerry's record over the 30 years he's been working within this system. He's done wonderful things many, many times over. Over the past 4 years, he hasn't been as strong as he once was. That's what I see in all this- John Kerry lost something that used to be a part of his character. When, where or why are outside my understanding and it all makes me sad. Now is not the time for me to close my eyes to facts, though so I accept my own logical evaluation of a Senator I generally think highly of. I don't hate him and I don't love him to the point of blindness to his weaknesses and flaws. There are moments when reading Kerry supporters posts I think they must love him to the point of blindness and denial.

I adore Kucinich as a man, a Congressman and a Candidate BUT he's no more perfect than the next guy. His advantage is that he had the guts to go against what appeared to be a winning resolution in spite of the odds because he believed it was wrong. His intelligence information was identical (or possibly less than) to that of John Kerry, so why did he see fit to oppose and Kerry see fit to support the resolution? I can't figure it out so I go with the guy who saw through the BS.

[bigtree]

44. I argue that Kerry saw the writing on the wall

and knew that Congress would not restrain Bush. He sought to influence his behavior by directing Bush back to the U.N. Bush had the will and power to go around Congress at any time. If the resolution had failed then I don't believe Bush would have come back to Congress before he committed forces. Kerry sought to influence the president's behavior through the resolution and it almost worked. Hans Blix was well on the way to resolving the standoff short of war.

Whatever happened with the IWR, Bush was not going to let Saddam alone. 1441 was still in effect and the U.N. would have taken that inituitive to its end which promised military action if Saddam did not comply. There was no way for those opposed to say definitively that no weaponry existed. We could guess, but Hans Blix could verify, allowed back in because of the threat of force implied in the resolution. Bush pushed around him when it looked like Blix was succeeding and proceeded with his preconcieved invasion.

If Saddam had not complied then Congress would have likely opted for some action by the U.N. backed up by force. After 1441, military action was always contingent on Saddam's compliance with the resolution. His obstinance made that more than likely. I don't understand the reasoning that a resolution that was designed to direct Bush and at the same time hold Saddam accountable, is viewed as pro-war, and by extention, anyone who sought to restrain Bush's rush to invade through it.

edit: direct Bush

[diamondsoul]

46. See you may have hit on the difference-

I don't think the UN would have backed up the resolution with force. There's no incentive for them to do so just like they don't enforce resolutions on Israel. Whether I agree or not isn't the discussion it's whether the UN backs up resolutions with force.. No, they dont which is why so many Americans seem to think the UN is useless.

Thank you SO much for stating your case without getting angry. I deeply appreciate it.

I can understand and accept your reasoning and I think that alone will make it easier for me to vote for Kerry if he is the nominee. Thanks also for that. Senator Kerry can be very proud of supporters like you.

[bigtree]

47. BTW, I love Dennis Kucinich

I cheer him on at every opportunity. I respect and appreciate his principled stand against the IWR and Bush's ambitions. Best wishes! :)

[tobius]

19. "bush misled me" doesn't wash

does he mean bush mislead him about the intel or his intentions? As a senator for 19 yrs he had access to the classified intelligence all thru the 90's including when clinton and gore were in office and bush was clear that he would disarm by force.


once the troops were there he voted against the funding, is he saying we need to cut and run?

In January 1991 Kerry opposed responding with force rather than economic sanctions , said that going to war was abandoning "the theory of deterrence." saddam was already in kuwait.


the idea that the media or bush are making up the impression that Kerry waffles a bit is wishful thinking, his own words and actions leave that image.




edited- kant spel

[bigtree]

21. Well, I believe it will 'wash' with most voters. Most understand Bush lied

Kerry: . . . there is a very direct answer to both of those questions. I said we had to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I said his invasion would not stand. I knew we had to use force ultimately, or might have to use force ultimately. I simply thought, given my experience in Vietnam and given Colin Powell, who was joint chiefs of staffs, reservations and other people, we ought to take another month or two to build the support in our country. And I though it was worth building that support, because when you go to war, you want to make sure the American people are really supportive if things go badly.
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000027573&keywo...


"I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. But I also believe that a heavy-handed approach will leave us to carry the burden almost alone. That's why I was one of the first Democrats to speak up and urge President Bush to go to the United Nations - because even a country as great as the United States needs some friends in this world.

The President says that war should be a last resort. He says it; I mean it -- because I know the cost of war. I have seen it with my own eyes. If I am commander in chief, I won't just have the perspective that comes from sitting in the Situation Room. I'll have the perspective that comes from serving on the front lines. And I tell you this: the United States should never go to war because it wants to; it should go to war only because it has to."

03/14/2003 http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003617&keywo ...

"I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any President, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats - threats both immediate and longer term - against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for twelve years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush." Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq 03/18/2003
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keywo ...

[tobius]

23. so bush didn't lie about wmd?

and kerry only wanted another 30 days before he would have gone in? is he saying that russia and france would have supported military action? or is he saying that he would have kept all our troops on the border in heightened alert for the past year plus while they tried to inspect? and why not support the troops once they are there with funding?


' My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. '

[bigtree]

26. He believed that the reintroduction of inspectors would likely

have resolved the standoff short of war. Blix was well on his way when Bush balked and did an end run around everyone. The point is that if Bush had followed the restraint implied in the resolution and actually engaged the Security Council there would have been no invasion. That's why he scrapped the process that he had been reluctantly forced into and invaded, as he had the power to, with or without the resolution.

[tobius]

48. Does he still believe it would have been resolved that way?

was he willing to keep our troops poised at the border indefinately?

[bigtree]

49. Not many did believe Saddam would comply. Even some who voted 'no' didn't

Bush never intended to get tied down with the U.N. past 1441. The IWR and the subsequent foray by Blix were mere bumps in Bush's road to war. 1441 was still relevant. Many who voted against the resolution also believed that Saddam should be held to account through the U.N. backed by the threat of U.S. force.

I don't believe that anything that the Democratic minority in Congress could manage would have long diverted Bush from his ambition to deploy forces without substantial changes in the War Power's Act,which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for up to 60 days without congressional approval. The resolution was seen by some as a shot at stifling his manufactured mandate by putting inspectors on the ground. Bush pushed past that.

[Guaranteed]

28. Your statements show that he is pro-war.

He said war was a "last resort." Yet, it was still a resort, and necessary in his mind. That's being for the war.

The only thing he seems to have a problem with is that Bush didn't wait long enough to go to war, which is actually inconsistent with his contention that Iraq had WMD in the first place. If Iraq truly WAS a threat to us, as it would had to have been in order to be even to support war as a "last resort," then Saddam clearly WASN'T cooperating with the UN, as the inspectors had been there for months and found nothing. If that was the case, then Bush actually did the right thing.

Kerry can't win here. He's in the worst possible position. Bush is going to portray him as a weak and indecisive leader.

[bigtree]

32. Wellstone was for force as a last resort although he voted no on the IWR

"Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein is a brutal, ruthless dictator who has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and he remains an international outlaw. The world would be a much better place if he were gone and the regime in Iraq were changed. That is why the United States should unite the world against Saddam and not allow him to unite forces against us.

. . . weapons inspections should be enforceable. If efforts by the U.N. weapons inspectors are tried and fail, a range of potential U.N. sanctions means, including proportionate military force, should be considered. I have no doubt that this Congress would act swiftly to authorize force in such circumstances. This does not mean giving the United Nations a veto over U.S. actions. Nobody wants to do that. It simply means, as Chairman Levin has observed, that Saddam Hussein is a world problem and should be addressed in the world arena."

http://www.rac.org/social/wellstone.html

[Guaranteed]

33. So? Especially "So?" since he voted against the IWR.

You can be for regime change (and understand that the world would be better off with Saddam gone) without being pro-war....or is that too nuanced?

Your point seems to prove that Kerry was pro-war, since Wellstone, while saying the same things as Kerry, voted against the IWR.

[bigtree]

34. Yeah, but you just said that last resort meant war, no nuance

You tripped over your own argument.

Kerry voted for the IWR to get inspectors in.

[Guaranteed]

35. No, war as a last resort PLUS voting FOR the IWR

is pro-war.

You can't be pro-war if you voted against it.

You're comparing two totally different people and positions.

[bigtree]

36. Wellstone was friends with Kerry. He didn't think Kerry was too pro-war

to campaign for him. He apparently understood the rationale behind Kerry's vote, even though he disagreed with it. Why else would he be comfortable with have Kerry representing him around the country?

New England News
10/26/2002
Kerry Says Loss is 'Absolutely Crushing"

BOSTON -- Senator John Kerry is devastated over the
untimely death of Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife and a
daughter in a plane crash.

Kerry was campaigning Tuesday in Minnesota with Wellstone's
wife, Sheila. The Massachusetts Democrat was in Boston yesterday
and was clearly choked up on the telephone when he learned that
Wellstone's small plane had crashed, killing Wellstone and seven
others.

Kerry says it's a devastating loss to all Minnesotans, to his
Senate family and "to every single one of those young kids
who believed in the politics that Paul was able to bring alive for
them."

Kerry honored Sheila Wellstone for her role in helping to pass
the Violence Against Women Act. (AP)
http://www.whdh.com/news/articles_p/local/D1516

[zoeyfong]

41. Save it. And no one is letting bush off the hook, we're just not letting

kerry/edwards or anybody else who supported it off the hook. No amount of revisionist history or semantic hair splitting is going to change the fact that that vote was about giving bush the congressional stamp of approval for his war.

[bigtree]

45. Facts are stupid things.

-Ronald Reagan

[JHBowden]

43. People forget Hussein was not allowing inspections in October 2002.

I don't know how anyone in their right mind can believe that a Kerry Presidency will loot nations for their oil supplies. But go ahead and encourage Bush with another term -- the blood will be on *your* hands, not mine.

[DuctapeFatwa]

50. Don't think of it like that. Think of it as "Progressive intervention"

Liberation. Bringing the gift of Democracy.

Why be so negative? Kerry's not.

[quaker bill]

51. People also tend fo forget, there were no weapons to inspect

The inspections were never going to be considered successful and complete until we found the "hidden program" that unfortunately did not exist. Since you can never find something that does not exist, we would have concluded that Saddam was still hiding it and gone to war anyway.

Remember, we had been failing for years to find something that did not exist running up to "desert fox" 1998. Our mistaken conclusion then was that Saddam was just too good at hiding things. Our failure to find the non-existent weapons justified that attack.

Of course, anyone can be quite good at hiding things that do not exist.

There was no hard evidence of weapons or continuing programs prior to the 1998 bombing. There was no valid and concrete evidence of a reinitiated weapons program prior to the IWR vote in 2002. None the less, a certain Senator on the Foriegn Relations committee continued to press for a "get tough on Saddam" policy.

He eventually got what he was looking for.

[bigtree]

52. Inspectors had been out of the country for four years

after Ritter was forced to leave by Saddam.

[nomatrix]

54. What was your source ?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/16/iraq.un.letter/


UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- In a letter handed over to the United Nations on Monday, Iraq said it would allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors "without conditions" to "remove any doubts Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."

The White House was dismissive of Iraq's pledge: "We do not take what Saddam says at face value," said a Bush administration official, referring to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. Main point where this statement gets Kerry accused of a political vote is

this:

It was Bush who never had any intention of doing anything BUT rushing straight to war.


Even though I support him in his quest for the presidency, more than any contribution, more than any other rhetoric, more than ANYTHING, he GIVES people reason to be SUSPECT of his own motives with his vote when he says that.

David Zephyr made the point last week that Dianne Feinstein made a valuable statement concerning her own vote in the matter recently.
For some, no matter what Kerry does it will never matter, but there ARE some that would come around if he were a bit more consoling to their point of view that he GAVE credibility to a incredible war with his vote.

That said...credibility or NO credibility..the vote would NOT have altered the outcome.

[MurikanDemocrat]

55. Point taken and understood. That was my own editorial comment

and not Kerry's, although I would agree that that is the essence of Kerry's statement that Bush chose the wrong way and rushed to war instead.

And there certainly was a degree of politics involved in the IWR vote IMO. I have said before that I believe the political and media climate and environment at the time made it tactically unfeasible for the Dems to vote against the IWR at the time. It was a trap to be used as a weapon by the Bush junta and the Republicans for the Dems to commit political suicide as a Party and turn the IWR down. Doing so would have had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the outcome, and what the Dems did instead was to take this tactical weapon away from the Republicans that would have been used against them.

Republicans would have crucified Democrats with this in the public eye, and we know damn well they could and would nurse it for every drop of blood they could squeeze out of it. Democrats would be portrayed as soft on Defense and rendered impotent. Kerry and Edwards, and the Democratic Party itself all have much better standing with the public now because of their votes, not in spite of them. That is not a popular reality here, but it is a reality.

My own feeling is that to DEMAND a position of purity and principle for the sake of altruism alone and thereby commit political suicide in the process when doing so would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the outcome is unrealistic, unreasonable, naive, and shows a complete lack of understanding of the political process.

I have largely stayed out of this thread as it was not intended to sway anyone's opinion on the matter but to stand alone as Kerry's position on the matter and supported by his most recent comments taken from debate transcripts and my own editorial comments. Disclaimer aside, is seems to have attracted more attention from detractors whose minds are firmly set that Kerry (but not always Edwards) is as bad or worse than Bush who pre-conspired, planned, promoted, and executed the war. I do not wish to confront such a mindset.

Appreciate your comments.

[oasis]

56. Kerry doesn't want the vote of anyone who believes he would have taken the

same actions as Bush.

More than likely, JK is fed up with constantly explaining his IWR position to numbskulls who refuse to listen.

So am I.