Kerry Iraq comments recorded on the web

[TayTay]

I am constructing a thread of actual things that Sen. Kerry said on the subject of Iraq. I am going back to 2002 and then going forward with significant speeches for which there are full written transcripts publicly available on the web. I want to put up some of the actual stuff, where it came from, if there is an audio or video link to the source material and the significance of it.

This thread is intended to provide pure research materials to be used in forming content for other posts or for the edification of the readers. Obviously, this is a work in progress and I'll add to it as I have time.

2002 comments on Iraq

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5596/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.html

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
Author: John F. Kerry

September 6, 2002
Foreign Affairs

Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.
New York Times
September 6, 2002

WASHINGTON -- It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.


http://www.cfr.org/publication/5438/remarks_on_nbcs_meet_the_press.html

Remarks on NBC's 'Meet the Press'
Author: John F. Kerry

December 1, 2002
NBS News

GUEST: Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.
MODERATOR: Tim Russert - NBC News
Sunday, December 1, 2002


MR. RUSSERT: America’s role in the world: one week from today, Saddam Hussein must provide to the United Nations a list of his weapons of mass destruction. If, in fact, he provides a list that President Bush deems to be in material breach, and the president decides to engage in military action against Iraq, even without the United Nations, would you support the president?

SEN. KERRY: Well, I don’t think that it’s that simple, and I hope it won’t be that simple. It shouldn’t be that simple. We see today on the front pages of our newspapers a prediction of a cost of a war conducted unilaterally by the United States of maybe $100 billion to $200 billion. That is, without even measuring the damage that could be caused to our relationship all across the globe with countries that we need. That’s if we proceeded hastily and unilaterally. I believe that would be an enormous mistake, Tim. We have a process in place. That process has to be legitimate.

I said last summer, early on, that this country, our country, the United States of America, should not go to war because it wants to go to war. We should go to war because we have to go to war. And we need the consent of the American people and we need legitimacy in order to do that. That’s why I and others argued so strongly that the president should go to the United Nations. And Secretary Powell and others ultimately won that position. We need to exhaust that possibility of those inspections working in a legitimate way so that we bring other countries with us. I went to New York to meet with the Security Council, and they assured me that if we go through that process, and, in the end, Saddam Hussein does not live up to his responsibilities, they are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with us, and they will bear some of the costs. On the other hand, if we go by ourselves, we are truly by ourselves. And I think that’s dangerous.

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, Saddam Hussein promised in 1991, under the truce for the Persian Gulf War, that he would not have weapons of mass destruction and he would provide evidence of that. If he provides evidence the president finds lacking, finds him in material breach, if the French, Russians, Chinese say, “Well, you know what? It’s not a big breach. Let’s give him another chance,” but the president of the United States says, “No, he’s breaking his word; we’re going.”

SEN. KERRY: Well, that’s different from what you said to me at first. If you do that Tim, if you have a breach that, by everybody’s standard, at least in the United States, those of us in the House and Senate, and the president, join together and make a judgment, this is indeed a material breach, and then others— some of them can’t be persuaded— that’s a different decision. But I don’t believe that it should be that difficult. In my judgment, if we have evidence, sufficient to show the materiality of the breach, we should be able to do what Adlai Stevenson did on behalf of the administration, Kennedy administration, and sit in front of the Security Council and say, “Here is the evidence. It’s time for all of you to put up. We need to all do this together.” And that’s what I think the resolution that was passed suggests.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would be willing to support the president without U.N. support?

SEN. KERRY: I would be willing to support the president providing there is an imminent threat that has been shown and that the breach reaches the standard that we all agree on. I will not support the president to proceed unilaterally if it is simply the president’s effort to try to do regime change without regard to the legitimacy of the inspection process or the legitimacy of the United Nations process itself. And I believe, Tim, very deeply, that that will cost our country in the long term in the war on terror and in many other ways that are going to be extraordinarily complex to undo for years to come. We need to proceed with legitimacy here. I congratulate the president up until now. I think in the last month he has been doing that. He is showing a patience with the inspection process. I think we need to let that run its course and this country will be stronger if we do./span>

[wisteria]

1. Thanks Tay Tay ! n/t

[Dr Ron]

2. Lots of material already accumulated

Many articles are here:

http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=2

Other parts of the site also have info on Iraq. Interviews with Kerry are at:
http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=17

The interviews deal with many topics, but the first one is the Will Pitt interview.

[TayTay]

3. Yup.

I want original source stuff in one thread on this group.

Just for shits and giggles. Or because I am nearly anal-retentive about original sources and making sure as many people as possible have access to them. It's a thing with me, I want to make sure everyone has what they want at their fingertips whenever they want it.

Sigh! I't s a thing with me.

[whometense]

4. For the record, I think it's a great idea.

So often lately I've found I have to scramble around to find just this kind of info.

What are the chances we could have it pinned? Not too great, probably? I don't really know the process here.

[karynnj]

5. Same here - it is great to have all of them together

to fight the distortions.

[Dr Ron]

8. I'll have to look for summaries

From time to time I have put out posts with summaries of some of Kerry's key statements on Iraq--I'll see if any can be found easily.

Sure, put the statements here if you want. Having them on the Kerry Reference Library should make it easy for you to find many of these without having to search. It might also help in case of articles which are no longer available for free (and in some cases, no longer on line at all).

Make sure you include his Georgetown speech, and comments calling for regime change in the United States at the start of the war.

There's hopefully little need to bring this up now, but in case of any Deanies attacking Kerry on Iraq I also do have a number of articles showing how Dean was no more anti-war than Kerry. I don't believe I posted those on the library, but I did keep many of these.

One problem with the library is that with over 3000 articles it can sometimes be difficult to find exactly what is needed. When/if we actually get into campaign mode in for 2008 I would separate out key articles on topics which are still relevant--such as a section on his early opposition to the Iraq war should that still be an issue.

[TayTay]

10. The Georgetown speeches

areavailable to see on C-Span. Council on Foreign Relations will have the transcripts on major speeches and will have audio links permamently up for a great many major speeches.

But I am also looking for local interviews with people in Iowa in and NH in '03. This shows how the early ideas were proposed and defended. I love that stuff. It's more interactive and more subject to direct challenge from actual voters. That can be the most riveting insights into what went on, how opinions were formed and how they mesh or don't mesh with what is being said today.

[Dr Ron]

14. All useful

The usual attacks on Kerry were that he flip flopped and supported the war.

A look at the record shows that Kerry opposed Bush in going to war and was consistent in his views. This is seen by any method of going back over Kerry's old statements. This includes his major statements and interviews in the national media which I concentrated on in the Reference Library, and I'm sure will be true as you find more local stuff.

Initially I had a lot more local stuff on Kerry in NH and Iowa in the original library at the official forum. After Mike went wacko and my library separated in the summer of 2004 I restored some of the early stuff but by then concentrated more on general election material than stuff for the primaries. In retrospect it worked out well that I separated from the official forum, as now I still have the library up after the official forum is closed and all that material is lost.

I likley do have copies of some older stuff still buried on my hard drive at home which I'll have to sort thru some day.

If it would help with some of the local papers, I do have a paid sub to:

http://www.highbeam.com/

I might be able to dig up more of the Iowa and New Hampsire articles that way if the local papers don't still have the articles available.

[Dr Ron]

11. Check this post

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1156

It is specifically on the infamous Grand Canyon statement but summarizes some of Kerry's early opposition to the war.

[TayTay]

6. 4/30/04 Video and Transcript: Fulton College speech

and a pretty good Winston Churchill impression. (Gee, Sen. Kerry also does a pretty good impression of Bill Clinton as well. Polymaths: go figure.)

This moment in Iraq is a moment of truth. Not just for this administration, the country, the Iraqi people, but for the world. This may be our last chance to get this right. We need to put pride aside to build a stable Iraq.

We must reclaim our country’s standing in the world by doing what has kept America safe and made it more secure before—leading in a way that brings others to us so that we are respected, not simply feared, around the globe.

This will not be easy, a hard truth that sometimes fails to get through the news papers and daily reports. But we can accomplish the mission. And we must. Because I can tell you from personal experience, we owe it to the brave men and women who stand in harm’s way at this moment.

In America, we’re blessed. When you stop and think about what it takes for those individuals who risk their lives, say good-bye to their families, and go so far away to serve their country— it is a profound gesture of honor.

It symbolizes the spirit of America—that there are men and women who are ready to do what it takes to live and lead by our values. I met so many of them when I fought in Vietnam and I have met them since from Desert Storm, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraqi Freedom. Their love of country and sense of duty, is special. You carry it with you always. And it is because of them and those who carry on today, that together we have got to do what it takes to get this done right.

We have got to come together as never before to build a stable Iraq. Not just to finish the mission, but to remind the world that a shared endeavor can bring the world closer toward peace.

As complicated as Iraq seems, there are really only three basic options: One, we can continue to do this largely by ourselves and hope more of the same works; Two, we can conclude it’s not doable, pull out and hope against hope that the worst doesn’t happen in Iraq; Or three, we can get the Iraqi people and the world’s major powers invested with us in building Iraq’s future.

Mistakes have complicated our mission and jeopardized our objective of a stable free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders. We may have differences about how we went into Iraq, but we do not have the choice just to pick up and leave—and leave behind a failed state and a new haven for terrorists.

I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true that failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

Here is how we must proceed.

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them.

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in.

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. To do so, the President must lead. He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States.

Geez, it's a shame he didn't have a plan. Or maybe it's just that the media didn't bother to report this plan. It's not a big leap of the imagination to extrapolate this plan of April '04 to the one in April '06.

MORE AT: (Geez, read the whole thing. It's very consistent)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2004/04/iraq-040430-kerry01.htm

Video (with changes to the prepared remarks, including the Churchill anecdote) at:
C-Span http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?BasicQueryText=Kerry+Iraq&SortBy=date

Go to Video Library Search

Enter terms: Kerry Iraq

Select: Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Speech on Iraq Policy
At Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) discusses his proposed Iraq policy.
4/30/2004: FULTON, MO: 40 min.

[TayTay]

7. Awesome readio interview that has a lot about Iraq on NH NPR

http://www.nhpr.org/node/5564

Oh, this is an awesome interview. Lovely voice too!

Ahm, lots of stuff that directly answered question about the war and the stands the Sen. took. No transcript available.

[Dr Ron]

9. I might be able to get transcripts

I don't have time to look now, but I do have transcripts to many NPR shows and can get others. If in a hurry you might check the Kerry Reference Library in case I already posted there. Otherwise I'll try to hunt this down later.

[Dr Ron]

12. SF Gate article

Here's an interesting analysis of Kerry's views (defending him from the flip flop charges) I had forgotten I had:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/09/23/MNGQK8TI8O1.DTL

[Dr Ron]

13. And another from Knight Ridder

Unfortunately my link to this article no longer works--most likely is no longer on line:

Despite accusations, Kerry still consistent

By Thomas Fitzgerald
Knight Ridder Newspapers

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. – Sen. John Kerry set his jaw, and even sighed at one point, as he confronted anew the confusion over his stand on the Iraq war, a fog that has enveloped his candidacy for months.

“I have one position on Iraq,” Kerry insisted this week during a rare news conference. “One position.”

In fact, he's right, his image as a “flip-flopper” notwithstanding.

Kerry voted in October 2002 for the congressional resolution that authorized President Bush to go to war in Iraq. He now says that the invasion was not justified and has made the United States less secure.

These positions are not contradictory, but his attempts to explain the distinction between them are often complicated, and they have given President Bush an opening to caricature Kerry as a flip-flopper. However, beneath the torrent of campaign verbiage, Kerry’s position on Iraq for the past two years has been consistent and defensible – just difficult to sell in a sound-bite world.

Kerry always called for a broad international coalition to confront Saddam Hussein, and going to war only as a last resort. Like most senators, he thought Bush needed the authority – it passed the Senate 77-23, and Kerry was one of 29 Democrats who supported it.

But once Bush got the authority, Kerry believes, he misused it.

In his Tuesday news conference, where 10 out of 11 questions probed his position on Iraq, Kerry said that he voted to authorize Bush to go to war if necessary in order to present a united U.S. front to the world and thus strengthen Bush's hand.

It was only one year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The president was challenging the United Nations to support him in confronting Saddam, whom Bush painted as a clear and present danger to the world. He told Congress that the best hope of avoiding war was to stand strong and united, first at home, then together with the United Nations in backing Saddam down.

“The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war,” Kerry said Tuesday. “But if you read it, and if you think about what it gave the president, it gave the president what he said: America will speak with one voice ... It was not a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through the process of going to the U.N., building the allies and then making a judgment of whether we had to go.”

It is clear from Kerry's remarks during the 2002 Senate debate that he did not consider the resolution a declaration of war.

“Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm (Saddam) by force, if we ever exhaust ... other options,” Kerry said in debate.

Then as now, he urged Bush to work with the United Nations.

“If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community,” Kerry said.

In fact, Bush promised at the time to build a broad coalition and go slow.

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati, just four days before the Senate vote, the president pledged to exhaust other options and said that war was “not inevitable.” He urged Congress to pass the resolution to give him leverage.

Republicans scoff at Kerry’s distinction. They say Kerry surely knew that Saddam was unlikely to yield.

“He voted for it,” said Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie. “Look at the coverage at the time. It was pretty clear what was going on.”

Kerry drew groans from Democrats on Aug. 9 when he remained consistent to his stand in offhand remarks to reporters at the Grand Canyon. Responding to a mocking question from Bush, Kerry said that even if he had known in October 2002 that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, he still would have voted to authorize Bush to go to war.

“Yes I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have,” Kerry said.

The president then hammered Kerry for more than a week, portraying the Democratic presidential nominee as endorsing his own approach.

But Kerry’s position had not changed. He also emphasized in the Aug. 9 exchange that he would have used the war authority differently than Bush did.

The distinction was lost in the din.

Perhaps harder for Kerry to explain has been his October 2003 vote against $87 billion for operations in Iraq.

“I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” Kerry said once, a line that the Bush campaign used in commercials to mock Kerry for inconsistency.

However, Kerry's line was but a clumsy way of saying that he had voted for a Democratic version of the bill that would have raised the $87 billion by repealing Bush's income tax cuts for people making over $300,000 a year.

When that measure failed, Kerry voted against the $87 billion on final passage. He said his vote was a protest against adding $87 billion to the burgeoning federal budget deficit. He also said he was protesting what he saw as sloppy planning for securing the peace. That position, at least, is consistent with a belief that Bush mishandled the authority that Congress gave him.

“Because I saw what was happening, I voted against it,” Kerry said Monday night on the “Late Show with David Letterman.”

However, other analysts have also noted that Kerry’s vote against the $87 billion came at a time when his presidential campaign was stalled and Democratic voters were flocking to the candidacy of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean – whose entire campaign was based upon condemning the war in Iraq. Kerry’s vote looked like an opportunistic effort to curry favor with anti-war Democratic primary voters.

By concentrating fire on Kerry’s votes, Bush turned the campaign debate over the war in Iraq, which remains unpopular, into a referendum on the challenger’s consistency rather than his own judgment in going to war and managing its aftermath.

Now Kerry is shifting from defense to offense.

Beginning Monday with a forceful speech at New York University blasting Bush’s conduct of the war, Kerry has begun to reframe the Iraq debate toward what needs to be done now, and away from his two Senate votes.

“If we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight,” he said. “At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.”

The next day Kerry explained his shift in emphasis: “The president wants to shift the topic, and I'm not going to let him shift the topic. This is about President Bush and his decisions and his choices and his unwillingness ... to live in a world of reality.”

[beachmom]

15. Thanks for doing this, Tay Tay! n/t

[TayTay]

16. That NYU speech again

So much that was in the 0/20/04 NYU speech on Iraq is true today. That speech, in large part, is still the basis for what Sen. Kerry is saying today. It is sort of chilling to read it or see it again because it was all so true and continues to be, sadly, true now.

Transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

Video at www.cspan.org
Video search key terms: Kerry Iraq
Description: Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Iraq & Foreign Policy Address
Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) explains his views on the role of the U.S. military, combating terrorism and the war in Iraq as he delivers a speech outlining his vision for a comprehensive foreign policy.
9/20/2004: NEW YORK CITY, NY: 1 hr. 10 min.

The president now admits to miscalculations in Iraq. Miscalculations: This is one of the greatest underestimates in recent American history.

His miscalculations were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment, and judgment is what we look for a president.

And this is all the more stunning, because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight, we're not talking about Monday morning quarterbacking. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bipartisan congressional hearings, major outside studies and even some in his own administration, predicted virtually every problem that we face in Iraq today.

The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible and real consequences.

The administration told us we would be greeted as liberators; they were wrong. They told us not to worry about the looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure; they were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots; they were tragically wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy; they were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country, and a police force and an army to secure it; they were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently overpromised and underperformed. And this policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, by an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence.

And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.