"I'm for war as a last resort."

[Guaranteed]

I'm sorry, but isn't that a pro-war position, in particular when coupled with voting for the IWR?

Doesn't that concede that the issue is worth going to war over?

[sandnsea]

1. If they found WMD in Iraq

AFTER the vote forced the UN to put inspectors back in, and Saddam still wasn't cooperating, then YES that would be worth going to war over.

[Guaranteed]

2. And, supposedly, Kerry thought that there was WMD.

That's why he voted for the IWR.

So would you say that he had a pro-war position?

[sandnsea]

4. No

That doesn't even make any sense. You send inspectors in to find out what is going on. What mental whirlwind do you put that through to twist it into pro-war?

Hurry, run, alert on me. I was mean.

[quaker bill]

8. It is simple, sorry you cannot grasp it.

First put it in context. Inspectors had been there and stopped finding weapons well before 1998. Since they stopped finding weapons, we concluded that Saddam was very good at hiding them. We chose this rather than the obvious and apparently correct conclusion that we had found all of them.

So we sent inspectors back in in 2002 - 2003. They found nothing. We concluded again, just like we did in 1998, that Saddam was still hiding them, rather than the obvious and correct conclusion that there was nothing to hide. More inspection would have yeilded the exact same results, no weapons. There is no reason to believe that regardless of any amount of inspection, that we would not have concluded that Saddam will still hiding WMD somewhere that we had not looked yet. In fact, the more we inspected, the more frustrated we would have become over Saddam's effectiveness at hiding programs we believed were there but did not exist.

Of course it is very easy to 'hide' something you do not have. It is also nearly impossible to absolutely prove that you are not hiding something you do not have.

The bottom line, properly dissected, is that to Mr. Kerry "war was acceptable" but only as a "last resort". Since avoiding the "last resort" required Saddam to admit to and surrender weapons he did not have, war became inevitable once IWR was approved.

So much for pragmatics, now let's look at semantics.

"War was acceptable only as a last resort" The "last resort" was very well defined during the debate as Saddam continuing to possess WMD.

This statement draws upon the notion that if Saddam possessed WMD and that no other means short of war was sufficient to remove them, then "war was acceptable" to accomplish this purpose. The logic assumes that possession of these weapons constituted a threat sufficient to justify war.

So let's posit for a moment that Saddam possessed the weapons that we now know he did not have.

Saddam's ambitions, to the extent he retained any beyond his own survival, had been contained within the borders of Iraq for a dozen years. He was no threat to anyone, as became quite clear when we tore through his tissue paper army in a matter of days. Even if Saddam possessed these weapons, he was still no threat, because he had no means to deliver them.

A "last resort" is properly understood as the use of military force to prevent an attack. The conditions to arrive at a "last resort" were not present at the time IWR was approved because containment and inspection had been fully successful. Apparently it was far more successful than we were ever prepared to accept. (despite the evidence)

Copious evidence existed to demonstrate that Iraq posed no threat and that it's abmitions in regard to WMD had been neutralized at the time IWR was approved. It was not deemed "credible" by Sen. Kerry. What was deemed "credible" by Sen. Kerry was the apparently false and completely fabricated testimony given by INC plants sent by Chalabi, a convicted felon.

[CWebster]

10. quaker bill:

Now what good is all that if it doesn't fit into a soundbite? Stop making sense, man.

[charlie]

12. Soundbite

"No plans on my desk."
"We don't roll out new product at the end of summer."
One month off for quality Playstation time in Crawford.

"DANGER!WOOT!WOOT!SADDAM!MISSILES INCOMING!45 MINUTES!!"

...

"Mr President, we expect you to do the right thing with the powers entrusted to you. We've got our eye on you and will speak out should you... blah, blather, woof, snooorrre...

[no name no slogan]

33. Dang, quakerbill, you knocked that one clear out of the park!

You summed up EXACTLY why some of us are/were concerned about the whole need to go to war in the first place!

The US kept claiming (both Dems and Reps) that Saddam was hiding the weapons, even though inspectors tore apart every inch of the country to find them-- they even searched a refrigerator in one of Saddam's residences for WMD evidence! Maybe he was hiding Anthrax in the orange juice?

Many of us knew darn well that those weapons DID NOT EXIST anymore, and knew that Saddam had NOTHING to turn over to inpectors. Saddam may have been insane, but he was not stupid-- he knew a US invasion would crush him like a paper tiger, and did all he could to avoid it.

We also knew Saddam was not a threat. If he were, Iran and Saudi Arabia would have been up in arms; however, neither country supported our war. Why should we be afraid of him if his next-door neighbors aren't? It made no sense.

"Bad intelligence" or no, many of us KNEW BushCo was lying. How can you trust a guy who stole an election?

[bigtree]

36. Four years, no inspectors in Iraq

All of these weapons experts here are willing to accept Saddam's word without one inspector on the ground in the four years after Ritter was expelled.

Kerry wasn't willing to risk the possibility that Saddam might have obtained dangerous weapons and felt that inspectors should be readmitted. It's not like we hadn't been pushing for that for 4 years. Partly as a result of the threat of force that was implied in the resolution, inspectors (Hans Blix) was allowed to continue inspections. We could guess, but Blix could verify. Remember, Clinton recently said that although they had bombed Iraqi sites where they thought these materials were stored and produced, they had no way of verifying the success of those bombings. They Knew without a doubt that Saddam had possessed these materials in the past. The question remains, what happened to these materials that are unaccounted for? Where is the evience of their destruction?

Inspectors on the ground could verify, we can only guess. That was the effect of the resolution. The invasion part was not sanctioned unless all diplomtic or peaceful means had been exhausted. Bush obviously pushed past the Security Council, Congress, and the American people in his push to war.

[IrateCitizen]

46. Two words: Hussein Kamel

Do a Google or Yahoo search on that name and see why it was perfectly reasonable to believe that there could be no weapons stockpiles, considering the overzealous sanctions that remained in place after Kamel's defection through the invasion.

To believe that the programs had been reconstituted is the stretch, in this instance.

[bigtree]

67. There's one opinion.

Sitll no substitute for an inspections team on the ground.

[sandnsea]

77. Ritter Sept 1998

I don't know why Scott Ritter chooses to distort his 1998 testimony and now state that Iraq had no weapons. It clearly isn't what he said in 1998 and there was no reason to believe anything different than this in 2002 at the time of the vote.

"MR. RITTER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I cannot speak on behalf of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear disarmament issues in Iraq are their purview. But what I can say is that we have clear evidence that Iraq is retaining prohibited weapons capabilities in the fields of chemical, biological and ballistic- missile delivery systems of a range of greater than 150 kilometers. And if Iraq has undertaken a concerted effort run at the highest levels inside Iraq to retain these capabilities, then I see no reason why they would not exercise the same sort of concealment efforts for their nuclear programs."

"Again, I believe that the February agreement is part of a cycle of activity which has started earlier -- much earlier -- in fact, the summer of 1996, in which Iraq provokes a confrontation with weapons inspectors, knowing that there will not be consensus for decisive action in the Security Council and as a result gets a concession from the Security Council."

"My understanding of the -- first of all, I'd need to make clear that the issue of the discovery of weaponized VX in Iraq was done by another team, a team that I was not directly associated with. I'm familiar with their work. It's a very important discovery. It's one that shows clearly that, A, Iraq has not disarmed, and they've lied across the board about not just VX, but once we get to the bottom of the VX issue, we'll find it exposes additional lies, which cause concern for a number weapons issues. When that issue became public in June of 1998, I believe that the administration was forced to endorse the findings that indeed there was weaponized VX in Iraq today, and as such, they expressed support for continued inspection operations in Iraq to disclose not only the VX but all aspects of Iraq's retained weapons capabilities."

"And in 1998, today, I stand before you to say that, A, Iraq is not disarmed"

"If Iraq had carried out its obligations to allow us immediate and unrestricted access -- which we believed they would not -- I'm -- I have to tell you that one reason why we wanted to do the inspection in August was to define the nature of the confrontation with Iraq. Iraq was choosing to divert attention away from its disarmament obligations"

"Iraq has positioned itself today that once effective inspection regimes have been terminated, Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months."

http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/ritter.htm

[aquart]

3. At which point I simply question his basic intelligence.

I KNEW. Suddenly we have to invade Iraq? Bogus. The entire thing smelled.

If I knew George was lying about everything, do I want a leader who didn't have a clue?

My guess is he did know. They all knew. They just couldn't figure a way to sell it. So they caved.

I don't call that leadership.

[sandnsea]

5. Aquart the Clairvoyant

How much do you charge for knowing what no expert in the entire world knew?

[tkmorris]

6. Oh bullshit

Pish AND tosh and furthermore horsehockey.

They were selling even harder than Snoop Doggy Whatever selling a Girls Gone Wild video at 3 AM on some obscure cable channel and every human with a gaggle of functioning neurons knew they were completely full of shit. No, we didn't know what the truth actually was but we DID know that the Bush team wasn't telling it.

Kerry has no excuse here. It was a vote made for political reasons and that's all. Are you seriously trying to tell us that prior to the war you BELIEVED Bush? If so you're a fool.

[MadHound]

7. Actually several experts knew

People like Ritter, the IAEA, hell, even the CIA in a report dating back to '98 was stating that there were no WMD. Sorry, but it was a fairly well known fact that Iraq had no WMD. Kerry would have known if he had bothered to look. Or perhaps he did know and simply voted yes out of political expediancy. Who knows. But if the man truly didn't know that Iraq didn't have WMD, then he is too stupid to be president. If he voted yes out of political expediancy, then he is just too morally bankrupt to be president. The question now is which is it? Morally bankrupt or dumb as a stump?

[quaker bill]

14. Of course Kerry's response to the CIA's 1998 finding of no WMD

Was to threaten to gut their budget. The CIA's reports became a bit more ambiguous after that.

[HFishbine]

15. Forget Aquart. How about Will Pitt and Scott Ritter?

Scott Ritter wants to be present as a witness on Monday when the Foreign Relations Committee convenes its hearing, a hearing that will decide whether or not America goes to war in Iraq. He wants to share the information he delivered in that Boston classroom with Senators who have spent too many years listening to, or propounding, rhetorical and speculative fearmongering about an Iraqi threat to America that does not exist. Instead, he wants the inspectors back in Iraq, doing their jobs. He wants to try and keep American and Iraqi blood from being spilled in a military exercise promulgated by right-wing ideologues that may serve no purpose beyond affecting the outcome of the midterm Congressional elections in November 2002.

"This is not theory," said Ritter in Boston as he closed his comments. "This is real. And the only way this war is going to be stopped is if Congress stops this war."



much more: http://www.lexingtonjpc.org/Scott_Ritter_Boston_723.html

[Forkboy]

29. Oddly enough it was Will's book

that illustrated just how wrong Kerry was for me.

Thanks Will :hi:

[quaker bill]

9. And of course if they did not find weapons

We would have concluded he was hiding them somewhere, and that apparently would have been worth going to war over as well.

Let's break the sentence down a bit (I'm for war) qualified by (as a last resort).

How anyone derives an anti-war position from the phrase "I'm for war" regardless of how qualified boggles the mind.

[bigtree]

30. Actually, Ritter was kicked out before he could complete his job

For four years no inspectors were in Iraq, but you would vouch for the whole country's safety that there was no weaponry, no chemicals, no nuclear capability, on the basis of what?

'Warmongers' who advocated for 'War as a last resort:

EU summit agrees on war against Iraq as a "last resort"
http://wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/eu-f19_prn.shtml

USATODAY.com - Poll: Most support war as a last resort
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-11-25-poll-usat_x.htm

Americans believe that war should not be pre-emptive and unilateral, but should always be seen as a last resort.
http://www.nowarblog.org/archives/000321.html

Annan says Iraq war must be last resort
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/5308445.htm

War Against Iraq Only As A Last Resort Say Presbyterians (27-02-03)
http://www.presbyterianireland.org/news/news2003/news0433.html

French Say Iraq War Should Be Last Resort
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/5421517.htm

Jimmy Carter: The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted
http://www.truthout.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=126

Catholics for a Just War are faithful Catholics who are concerned about going to war, but believe it is the last resort
http://www.catholicjustwar.org/

Senator Byrd: 'War should be a last resort'
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20030228/news/news9.html

Pope says war in Iraq should only be last resort
http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d7ohgjh00&.bail=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium.news.yahoo.com%2Frd%3Fr%3Dstem+cell

Ritter reminded the audience of the harsh realities of war, and said that it should be a last resort
http://journalism.smcvt.edu/echo/9.25.02/Ritter1.htm

[no name no slogan]

38. He wasn't "kicked out"

The US/UN WITHDREW the UNSCOM team because they were going to attack Iraq. Unfortunately, the press repeated the lie that they were "kicked out", and that's what everyone seems to remember today.

The US/UK were attacking Iraq because of Iraq's "resistance" to the UNSCOM team, and had charged that they were secretly forwarding collected data to the CIA, which was against the UN resolution (and which consequently turned out to be true).

Most people, who bothered to research the story with a tiny bit of effort, KNEW that Iraq was not a threat to ANYONE.

Unfortunately, politics trumps reason for some candidates, who were more afraid of losing face than standing up for what's right.

[bigtree]

41. Same thing man

He didn't complete his inspection. Four years passed without any inspectors on the ground. But you would rely on what to verify that weapons were all destroyed? Clinton bombed several sites during this time but still you insist that there was evidence backing up Saddam's claims of innocence. There was speculation, but no way to verify without inspectors on the ground.

You offer nothing of substance except 'everyone knew'. Some disagreed with your assessment, and they don't all deserve to be branded as pro-war.

[redqueen]

45. Not the same thing

Saying they were 'kicked out' implies Saddam made them leave, and one is left to wonder why.

Admitting the truth, that we pulled them out so we could bomb, is accurate, and damning.

[bigtree]

51. That was over the invasion of Kuwait

The fact remains that inspectors were absent from Iraq for four years, over which time we bombed suspected weapon's sites. Clinton says we had no way of knowing what we destroyed.

Memories:

At this May's meeting of the UN Security Council, the United States will demand that Iraq admit arms inspectors. Invasion proponents expect Iraq to refuse, and want to use its refusal to justify armed intervention; advocates of containment-plus want to raise the standards for inspection but also give Iraq an incentive to accept them. The original Security Council resolution, adopted after the Gulf War, declared that the council would remove economic sanctions on Iraq only when Saddam's regime had demonstrated that it had eliminated all weapons and weapon-making facilities. Under this rule, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) tried to dismantle Saddam's arsenal. In 1998, when Saddam blocked UNSCOM, the Clinton administration bombed Iraq, but Saddam defied the United States and the United Nations by expelling UNSCOM. Seeking to mollify Saddam, the United Nations, prodded by Russia, France, and China, passed a weaker arms-inspection resolution. According to this resolution, sanctions would be removed if Iraq were to admit inspectors and if the inspectors were merely to certify that Iraq is cooperating with them. A containment-plus strategy would reject this weaker resolution and insist that Iraq prove that it has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction.

Containment-plus would also entail a change in America's policy toward Iraq, which has been riven by ambiguity since the end of the Gulf War. While the United States has repeatedly voted for Security Council resolutions promising to remove sanctions if Iraq eliminates its weapons, American officials have repeatedly declared that they would not remove sanctions until, in the first George Bush's words, "Saddam Hussein is out of there." According to this view of sanctions, their purpose has not been to force Saddam to comply with arms inspections, but to weaken him and bring down his regime. Containment-plus would reject this ambiguity. It would promise that if Saddam destroyed his weapons, sanctions would be removed. And if he did not comply with inspections, the United States would undertake military action -- including, possibly, an invasion.

Patrick Clawson, the director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, sums up the underlying logic of this strategy:

Given that the United States is more concerned than ever before about disarming Iraq of WMD , the administration should consider giving Saddam more reason to cooperate. That means offering a bigger carrot if he accepts the package and threatening him with a bigger stick if he does not. The carrot would be a newly explicit offer to respond to Iraqi compliance with a move to a U.S. policy of deterrence and containment -- that is, living with Saddam's odious regime so long as he does not engage in external aggression. The stick would be to respond to Iraq's decision not to fulfill a key provision of the 1991 ceasefire with a U.S. decision that it is no longer bound by the ceasefire itself.

Containment-plus would not rule out an invasion. On the contrary, it would use the threat of an invasion, made credible by America's success in Afghanistan, to pressure the Security Council and Iraq to accept containment-plus.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/6/judis-j.html


The invasion strategy is Bush's. The containment strategy is what Kerry and others advocated with their IWR vote.

[no name no slogan]

58. Most anybody who had ANY knowledge of the WMDs Saddam had

KNEW that most of them degraded over time-- IOW, they would "go bad" if not used within five years.

Also, the previous inspections had not turned up anything, and the sanctions against Iraq during the four-year absense were not relaxed in any way. That being the case, how could Saddam import what he needed to deploy these WMDs he supposedly had?

If everybody was so damned afraid of his WMDs, then WHY wasn't Iran at the head of the line, demanding immediate invasion of Iraq? Where was Saudi Arabia? Or Syria?

What did these three neighbors of Iraq know that the US, in all its infinate intelligence gathering capacity, did not? Why did we trust the word of a corrupt Iraqi exile (Chalabi) who hadn't even set foot in the country in over 30 years over that of its immediate neighbors?

It made no sense then. It makes less sense now. Those with courage stood up to BushCo. Those without did not.

[bigtree]

69. Complete courage . . .

. . . and absolute cowardice are extremes that very few men fall into. The vast middle space contains all the intermediate kinds and degrees of courage; and these differ as much from one another as men’s faces or their humors do.

-François, Duc De La Rochefoucauld (1613–1680), French writer, moralist.

[molly]

11. I'm anti-gun - anti-NRA

I would not purchase a gun for entertainment.

BUT if anyone physically theatened my home, my children, or my pets - I would get a gun and fight!

[charlie]

13. Then grab a gun and head for Pyongyang

It's a greater menace than Baghdad ever was.

[RetroLounge]

17. Well, does your pet have WMD's?

and what the hell does this have to do with IRAQ?

[AntiCoup2K4]

25. Some dogs will bury anything.

Hell, Fido could have an entire nuclear arsenal right in Molly's back yard, and we would never know :scared:

Anybody got Hans Blix's phone number?

[emulatorloo]

16. Your Position Does not compute

Sorry your reasoning is faulty. War as a last resort means *war after all other means have been exhausted*

It can only been seen as a "pro-war* position if you believe that war is *never justified under any circumstances. I believe that may be your position, but if that is the case you need to be up front about it.

[Dhalgren]

23. No he isn't necessarily against all war, by his statement.

Kerry said that he was "for war" with Iraq, because of the threat of WMD, "as a last resort". So, Kerry voted to support Bush's determination of when we had reached that "last resort". The IWR was a cover for Bush. Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless of what anyone did or said - it was a done deal and almost everyone knew it. Read the speeches given by Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy, and Dennis Kucinich prior to the vote, they knew, hell we all knew. I am not saying that Kerry's support of Bush through the IWR will make me not vote for him this fall - but it will make me not support him and it will make me leave the Democratic party.

[Guaranteed]

73. No, what this means is that FOR IRAQ (not ALL war- nice try

at a straw man, there) the issue of WMD was dire enough that it justified going to war. That is a PRO-war position. Just saying that you don't want to go to war right away doesn't make it any less of a pro-war position.

[Monte Carlo]

18. If that's what you want to hear, then yes, it's a pro-war position.

But what you are advocating is a pacifist position, and that just will not fly in politics or anywhere else in the real world.

[charlie]

19. Pacifist position?

Not hardly. Recognizing that the whole business was a ruse to make a pinhead "look presidential" doesn't make me a pacifist.

[Monte Carlo]

20. Kerry wanted peace.

And sometimes to protect peace you must prepare yourself for war.

Bush's antics aside, there was an ongoing international concern about Saddam Hussein, someone who would have seized upon an opportunity to grab more power or weapons if given the chance. We cannot just disregard it just because Bush wants to exploit it for his own purposes.

[charlie]

21. Homilies about being prepared for war

to protect peace have nothing to do with Iraq.

As to ongoing international concern about Saddam, they had a chance to voice their concerns about him. Final tally of their vote was something like everybody against us.

War As a Final Resort affirms the legitimacy of this war at this moment -- well, if you must, you must, we're behind you, just do it right. The better response would be why Iraq, why now, when we have more pressing concerns (like where the fuck is Osama?) and other options in the so-called War on Terror.

[Monte Carlo]

22. It has plenty to do with Iraq.

And I'm confused about who had a chance to voice their concern and what tally you are talking about.

The candidates and the other Democrats did talk about more pressing concerns, like Osama, North Korea, and China. But Bush has the bully pulpit, and that gives him dominant power to set the national agenda. We don't have to like it, but we can't ignore it.

[Dhalgren]

24. He meant that the whole world had a chance

to agree with Bush and voted in the UN against Bush's Iraq war. So you can't call the rest of the world as a witness for Kerry's "doing the right thing", because as witnesses, their on the other side.

[charlie]

26. It has nothing to do with Iraq

unless you think Bush's sudden flip from complacency about Iraq to ringing the klaxons about imminent terror was a genuine concern for our welfare. Flattening Baghdad was nothing so much as Moe slapping Larry because he's closer, when he's really mad at Curley.

The tally of international support for Dealing With Saddam NOW is pretty much reflected in the laughable phrase "Coalition of the Willing." The only major backers who would stand with Bush were Aznar and Blair, both of whom suffered huges losses in domestic approval for their stances. The rest were a collection of poor minor nations who couldn't resist the allure of US pork for going along (remember the comedy with Turkey holding out for heftier gratuities?). The US, Spain, and Great Britain had to hold their war summit in the freaking Azores, so as to not have photo ops of their resolve sullied with protesters (didn't work, there were demonstrations at the tiny airport). Surely, you're not claiming you don't remember the international resistance to Dubya's folly?

Sure, other Democrats expressed pointed criticisms about Dubya's cynical drive for war. I've never claimed otherwise. I don't recall Kerry doing it, though.

[Monte Carlo]

27. I reiterate, the homily had plenty to do with Iraq.

Again, Bush and his sudden drive for war with Iraq for political gain aside, there was still this pre-existing concern about the threat Saddam posed to the world. Do not blend the two things together. You don't have to decscribe the lead up to it because I already know it. I think you are giving me a rant meant for someone else.

[charlie]

28. Well, then

If you knew it, why were you pretending to be befuddled by the assertion that international support for the invasion was miniscule?

And if you think that Saddam really was a threat who needed to be cut down immediately, say so. It could've saved me some typing.

[bigtree]

31. Excerpts from floor statements before the IWR vote

“I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now.
I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that.”

“The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.”

“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 Presidnetial Determination section was eventually added to the IWR.)

“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.“

“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.”

“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.”

“So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.”

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

[charlie]

35. I watched that speech live

and shared remarks right here at DU as it was delivered.

After his usual preamble about his Vietnam experience (which would have been a fine time to make a sidelong reference to the Gulf of Tonkin), he says this:

The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

which does indeed cut to the crux of the matter. But after that momentary acknowledgment of Bush's machinations, he segues into how he would have "preferred" Bush agreed to Biden-Lugar. Then he moves into warning Bush about how he will "speak out" if he doesn't respect the constraints of the current resolution. Finally, he goes to Saddam is a Grave Threat But the Danger Isn't Imminent.......yet, and the grand finale: We Will Not Be Blackmailed By This Dictator. There's a little something there for everybody on all sides of the matter.

Here's Robert Byrd, from your link above:

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 per cent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time.

Bush went from "no plans on my desk", to "we don't roll out new product at the end of summer", to a monthlong vacation, to Operation Bumblefuck the Democrats. It was plain to anyone what he was doing. Kerry faced down Nixon, he knows what a president who'll use war for electoral gain looks like.

Kerry has my vote, if he is the nominee. I have no choice. And I'm not one who spends much time ragging on his IWR vote. But blithe characterizations of criticism of Kerry's stance as nothing more than pacificism outside the realm of the "real world", as made above, is horseshit.

[bigtree]

37. The subject of the thread was that war as a last resort meant pro-war

I can argue the resolution, but you ignore the refuted premise of Bull Goose's query. Even the Pope advocated war only as a last resort. Bush pushed past his own admonitions and invaded anyway.

[charlie]

40. You're right

What Kerry did wasn't "pro-war", but as far as I'm concerned an unnecessary concession to the legitimacy of the war -- it was one more coat on the bipartisan sheen Bush craved. My bad, definitely. I was just bristling at the 10000th time I've seen "pacifist" and objections being outside the "real world" offered up as a retort.

BTW, I don't recall the Pope advocating war as a last resort. As I remember, he was against war, full stop.

[bigtree]

42. Pope says war in Iraq should only be last resort

January 13, 2003, Monday
By NICOLE WINFIELD
597 words

Pope John Paul II issued his strongest criticism yet of a possible war with Iraq, saying Monday that military force can only be used as ``the very last option'' - and then only under certain conditions. Amid a buildup of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, John Paul urged political leaders to step up their diplomatic efforts to avoid war, which he said would only harm ordinary Iraqis ``already sorely tried'' by 12 years of U.N. sanctions.

http://premium.news.yahoo.com/appremium?docid=d7ohgjh00&.bail=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium.news.yahoo.com%2Frd%3Fr%3Dstem+cell


I don't think Kerry went beyond that in his rationale for the IWR.

[charlie]

43. No, the Pope was speaking of war in general

not the pending Iraq war, which he condemned:

"War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations," he said.

The BBC's David Willey in Rome says The Vatican clearly does not consider that America's planned offensive to topple Saddam Hussein meets the conditions of a "just war" laid down by the Roman Catholic Church.

The 82-year-old pontiff appears to be signalling the start of a new diplomatic rift with the US - a repeat of the one which broke out over the Gulf War in 1991, analysts say.

"War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions," Pope John Paul said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm

[bigtree]

48. What's the difference? It didn't indicate that he was pro-war.

You allow his words but comdem Kerry for his rationale. This is what exasperates me about the opposition to Kerry. Everyone gets to qualify how they viewed Bush's actions and their response to it 'cept Kerry.

I quit. There is an obvious bias against Kerry here that can't be justified by parsing his rationale for his IWR vote, which may be different from the rationale of others who voted against it. Most Democrats, including Kerry advocated military action, not necessarily all out war (Haiti, Liberia) to make Saddam accountable. Even some who voted against the resolution felt that military action might be needed in the future if Saddam did not comply with 1441:

Statements by Senator Paul Wellstone to the U.S. Senate on Iraq
October 3, 2002:
http://www.rac.org/social/wellstone.html

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.

>>>>>>

We know what needs to be done. But the fact is we had that regime, and it is important now to call on the Security Council of the U.N. to insist that those inspectors be on the ground. The goal is disarmament, unfettered access. It is an international effort, and with that Saddam Hussein must comply. Otherwise, there will be consequences, including appropriate use of force. The prompt resumption of inspections and disarmament, under an expedited timetable and with unfettered access in Iraq, is imperative.

Third, 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.


Albeit folks made different decisions on the IWR, but Kerry clearly wanted U.N. inspectors readmitted effective with the threat of force in the resolution, to forestall or possibly avert war. That was the rationale that he gave for his vote. He should be taken at his word.

[charlie]

52. What?

Okay, suit yourself. I conceded that Kerry wasn't "pro-war", yet you're berating me for making that charge again. I'm sorry if I'm not clear, it's 4:33am here and I'm kinda fuzzy, so I'll try to quell your doubts -- IT CANNOT BE INFERRED FROM HIS VOTE THAT KERRY WAS PRO-WAR.

As for the rest, I told you that I don't make many posts criticizing Kerry for his IRW vote (or anything else for that matter, search my handle), so I'm not part of some forum-wide biased movement against the man.

[bigtree]

55. I'm fuzzy too Charlie.

Sorry for the criticism.

[charlie]

61. Thank you, bigtree

I hope you'll accept my apologies for my stridency.

My dismay with Kerry and the IWR is just a piece of the disappointment I've had with senior Democrats in general over the issue. It's not animosity, nor is it reserved just for Kerry. I don't hate the man.

[bigtree]

70. No apologies necessary

[dionysus]

34. yeah, and our spineless senators didn't have to vote for it , either

nt

[no name no slogan]

39. Hmm, maybe I better start fcuking for virginity then? (nt)

[tameszu]

76. Oh, please be a bit more mature than this

Do you believe that you could have any kind of freedom without someone wielding instruments of coercion?

The U.S. has recent committed almost as many grave wrongs by NOT sending in troops into "ratholes" as they did by wrongly sending them into place they shouldn't be. Places where we should have been in a lot more forcefully, or at least provided a lot more support to the UN: Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, for starters.

[bigtree]

32. Kick for response #30

Bull? Quake?

[redqueen]

44. I'll say it's fair enough if it's honest.

Obviously those that gave bush our pre-approved charge card to take the country to war, if they're saying it, are being much less than honest.

[SeekerofTruth]

47. Problem is...What is Last Resort?

All the people who stated they wanted war as a last resort, never defined what the last resort was. How many more years of inspection? How many more years of guessing? My consternation (or is that constipation? I get the 2 confused) is Saddam had 12 years to comply with the U.N. resolutions and never complied. If the U.N. is supposed to stand for something then what was the last resort?

[redqueen]

49. I think it has something to do with imminent danger.

You know, like those 'mushroom clouds' Condoleezza scared people by talking about?

It's sad, because just the year before, she and Colin Powell both had asserted that due to the bombing campaigns that they knew that Saddam had no weapons and no infrastructure to produce them.

[Dhalgren]

50. In what ways did he not comply - specifically?

.

[SeekerofTruth]

56. Supposed to produce documentation

He was supposed to produce documentation/proof that he had destroyed his WMD arsenal (that the U.N. said he had). Of course, the flip side is how can you produce documentation that you destroyed something if you don't have it?

[Dhalgren]

60. Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

I remember seeing statements where some of Saddam's tech guys and defectors had some sort of proof that he had destroyed X amount of this or that; then the US and UN said he was supposed to have had 2X or 3X of the stuff, but Saddam said, no, just X. This seems (in light of subsequent proof) to be a piss poor way to justify an unprovoked war.

[Uzybone]

53. it is a pro war position

find me a candidate who will never authorize our troops to fight and then Ill show you an anti-war candidate.

[Dhalgren]

54. So, any war = all wars to you?

Not to me. True defensive wars are justified and even required, but wars for imperialism, vain glory, revenge, or gods know what, are not. You can't lump all wars together and say, "Bush's war equals all others" - that's bullshit!

[Uzybone]

59. I didn't see anyone say anything about justified wars

all wars are justified, just make sure you win. My point is that all candidates (even Kooch) will say war is a last resort. All that matters is "what does last resort mean". Does it mean when Chalabi is licking your ears telling you of murdered Iraqi babies and foxes. Or is it when missiles are raining down on your cities? Thats why I never got caught up in this pro war or anti war bullshit. Its too black and white.

PS Id never say that the illegal invasion of Iraq is a just war.

[Dhalgren]

62. O.k., maybe I took a lot of this literaly.

When someone says "Kerry was pro-war", I assume that they mean "pro-Iraq invasion" - not necessarily "avid for war in general". Edwards, of course, has come right out and said that he was and is in favor of this war, Kerry is less clear in where he stands. and maybe 'less clear' is the place he wants to be.

[JHBowden]

57. 'Last resort 'means you only go to war if you have to.

If one has weapons inspectors on the ground (as there were NOT in October 2002 when the resolution was passed), pulling them out and starting a war is nonsense. Even if a nation already has nuclear weapons, like North Korea, one must be prepared to use force, but only as a last resort.

Kerry and others shouldn't be blamed for Bush's lack of judgment.

[Dhalgren]

66. What all of the Senators and Congresspersons should

be held accountable for is providing Bush with a document of legitimization. Bush was going to do whatever he was going to do and no one could have stopped him short of a consttutional crisis (and the Democrats had already shown in 2000 that they had no stomach for that). What this IWR did was give Bush a cover for doing the very crimes that we all lament, today.

[JHBowden]

68. Nobody believes that.

Go ask anybody on the street -- "Do you think the war in Iraq is legit, and why?" Nobody, and I mean nobody, will say -- "Feinstein and others voted for a resolution, so I think the war is good."

:dunce:

[Guaranteed]

74. Kerry thought there were WMD, which is why he voted

for the IWR. Obviously, though, Saddam wasn't coughing them up.

To be consistent Kerry should have agreed with Bush.

Man, Kerry is going to get torn up on this issue, which is a fucking SHAME.

[MAlibdem]

63. What's wrong with that?

In my opinion, liberating people living under a vicious tyrant is certainly worth going to war over. If we have the power to take action to end suffering, we have a moral imperative to do it. I believe we had such an imperative in Iraq, and we still have a moral duty to ensure the will of the Iraqi people is fufilled by establishing democracy and other institutions (public works, education, public safety).

I'm pretty tired of people posing questions which completely leave out valid points of view as irrelevant or "republican"; in fact, this particular view, part of the tradition of American "mission" finds its roots in Jeffersonian and Wilsonian foreign policy (and domestic in Jefferson's case) doctrines.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. There's a difference between "pro-war" and "pro-resolution"

Kerry and Edwards were "pro-resolution". They voted to address the threat (that didn't really exist). Joe Lieberman, on the other hand, is an example of somebody who is pro-war. He fully supported the president's decission to go to war exactly when he did and for the same reasons.

[BruinAlum]

65. No. Pro-war is war as the first resort or only option. War as last resort

is war if all other options fail. Whether the issue is "worth" going to war over is not relevant to whether a person is generally pro-war or against war in general. Each situation has to be considered on it's own merits.

[Guaranteed]

72. It's a pro-Iraq-war position.

Whether it was "worth" going to war with Iraq is the heart of the issue.

[bigtree]

75. Military action can be employed in concert with the U.N. short of war.

Liberia. Haiti.

Statements by Senator Paul Wellstone to the U.S. Senate on Iraq
October 3, 2002:
http://www.rac.org/social/wellstone.html

. . . 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.


War in Iraq should be last resort: Pope
Associated Press
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20030113/wpope/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

Vatican City — Pope John Paul issued his strongest criticism yet of a possible war with Iraq, saying Monday that military force can only be used as "the very last option" — and then only under certain conditions.


This is what Kerry had said before and after the vote and invasion.

[Scott Lee]

71. Please don't confuse John - he's busy equivocating

[Guaranteed]

78. I'm still right. nt