Kerry's position on Iraq is...

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

[RapidCreek]

1. What is Kerry's position on Iraq?

I'm curious...what do all of you think it is?

RC

[951]

2. I voted Consistent and correct.

[RapidCreek]

5. OK...It's consistent and correct...you shouldn't have any problems

explaining what exactly this position is, the one that is consistent and correct.

I'm not looking for a fight...I'm genuinely curios.

RC

[sangh0]

23. Then here it is Einstein

Kerry thinks that Saddam was a threat that had to be dealt with, but he thought that the use of force should only be used as a last resort, and that every effort should be made to gain the support of our allies. Kerry feels that bush* "rushed to war" before exhausting the diplomatic alternatives, and alienated our allies.

[RapidCreek]

30. Why did Kerry think Saddam was a threat that had to be dealt with?

After Iraq had been systematically bombed for the past twelve years and had it's airforce and army decimated and starved of supplies what exactly made it a threat?

Kerry thought the threat of force should only be used as a last resort in response to what? In what venture did he feel we needed to gain the support of our allies?

RC

[GreenArrow]

33. imperial ambitions

PNAC is one model; there are others...wrong ways and right ways.

[K-W]

34. Hogwash.

Im sure the justification is that Saddam has done horrible things, has attacked it's neighbors and has been a rogue nation run by a dictator. Therefore he was in a hypothetical sense a threat. Like if Saddam did have weapons, I dont trust him with them, therefore he is a threat.

That seems to be far more in line with what Kerry has said than him pushing some covert imperialism.

[GreenArrow]

37. "covert imperialism"

You don't consider the USA an empire? The question, sir, is not whether the USA is an empire, but rather, how is that empire to be managed. What do you suppose Kerry means when he says about Iraq that there was a "right way and a wrong way" to fight this war? What do suppose the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was all about? Was it simply a product forged from the goodness of our heart and our profoundly idealistic and altruistic concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people? What about the Carter Doctrine?

"An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

Is it still applicable today? What do you suppose those 'vital interests' might be? Do the countries that make up the Persian Gulf region not have vital interests of their own? What if they are not in accord with our own?

It was easy enough to see that Iraq was no threat prior to the war; in hindsight, the clarity is even greater. The same arguments you are using against Iraq could be made against any number of other countries. In fact, except for the dictator part, it could be made about our own. So, why Iraq?

[RapidCreek]

39. A hypothetical threat?

Starting a war with a country who poses a hypothetical threat is rational? I can think of quite a few countries that fit that bill.
Will we be enjoying a war with them all?

RC

[sangh0]

40. No, a your suggestion that the threat was "hypothetical" is dishonest

The threat was real. Saddam, if given half a chance, would try to acquire WMD's. That was the threat, though it may be hard for someone who didn't understand Kerry's simple position to understand this simple threat.

[RapidCreek]

43. Your buddy K-W said it was hypothetical, not I, Einstein.

Take your argument of dishonesty up with your ally.

If given half a chance every country in the world would acquire WMD's...with the possible exception of Holland and New Zealand.

I realize it may be hard for someone who can't state Kerry's position to come to terms with such a reality....then again contemplating all the resultant future wars of preemption probably boggles your mind.

RC

[gospelized]

3. consistent, correct, and complex.

to republicans, the world is black or white. good or evil. right or wrong. stay the course or flip flop.

that is the anti-intellectualism that has people convinced that JK doesn't have a stance on iraq. and it's incorrect.

the situation is nuanced. and it will depend heavily on where the world is when he gets in a position to do something about it.

he understands that we can not yank troops immediately out without sending the country into a chaotic spiral. we got them into that mess, it is our obligation and burden to help them out of the horrible situation we created for them.

and he also understands that we are dieing for no reason. for a mistake and a diversion. and the troops should be brought home as soon as humanly possible.

and so he wants to ease the burden on america by bringing other countries into it; something that bush has not and can not do. and thru that he will stabalize the situation, and bring our kids home.

that is his stance. it is not an issue of "for it or against it." and to say that is to admit a complete lack of understanding of the situation.

[AntiFascist]

24. I've also noticed something funny about Kerry's position....

Whenever he shows his cards and draws a solid plan for the short-term, the Bush administration will immediately jump on it then act like it was their idea to begin with and then claim that there is no difference between Kerry's position and Bush. Essentially Kerry is the acting president for an administration that is clueless about how to proceed.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

4. I think Kerry believes that

Saddam was enough of a threat to warrant a possible military action if all diplomatic avenues failed, and we had a full-scale international effort (U.N, etc.), a plan to win the peace, and the tools to fund the war. He voted for the right to use force, but not the actual war. He felt the the Iraq war was intrinsically a diversion from the larger WOT, but believing the Saddam was a big enough threat (because of WMDs) justified the effort, provided the above conditions were met. Nevertheless, Bush has screwed up on all fronts, but we can leave, and we have to finish the job.

That's my assessment of Kerry's position, in a paragraph. Complex, but consistent, and basically correct.

[RapidCreek]

6. OK that makes sense.

I still wonder though....why he believed giving a man like Bush the reigns of the most powerful military in the world was a wise move.

The same effect could have been achieved without giving Chimpy McCokespoon the power to circumvent congress thereby creating the present situation, which by the chimps historical nature was inevitable.

RC

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

10. True enough.

I think that's what pissed off a lot of people, especially Sen. Byrd. The overreach of the Executive Branch, and the circumvention of the War Powers of Congress.

[K-W]

12. Nobody gave him the powers you speak of, he had them already.

They didnt give Bush any reigns. Bush was before and after the IWR vote the commander and chief of the military. It isnt like there is some wall between the president and the military that congress raises, and if there was it would never have been raised.

The IWR did not give authorization to Bush to do whatever he wanted. It gave him authorization to fight a war if he could prove that Saddam was a threat or prove that there was no way to determine whether he was a threat without force.

These conditions were not met, therefore, Bush didnt use the IWR to go to war, he went to war without permission from anyone. He violated the IWR, the constitition, the UN charter, amongst other legally binding treaties. Nobody gave Bush the reigns or the power to circumvent congress he always had those.

And your argument that by the chimp's historical nature it was inevitable, how on earth do you support that? What little record Bush had, to the best of my knowledge included no situations analagous to the Iraq situation. Its certainly fair that you just didnt trust him, but it isnt John Kerry's fault that he didnt understand the full extent to which Bush was willing to lie and decieve to make a completely pointless war.

The IWR only seemed to support Bush because he and his people lied to the american people about the IWR and about Iraq. That is the only reason there is confusion, Bush's lies.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

38. Replying to my own message...

I just wanted to correct an error in my post. In the last line, it should say we CAN'T leave, as opposed to can.

[DustMolecule]

7. When Kerry wins the Presidency, I don't envy this mess he will inherit....

...it takes 'quite a person' to be willing to walk into such a mess and attempt to set it on a 'better path'.

He's going to need a lot of help....but, hey we DU'ers are here!, yes????

[UdoKier]

8. None of the above.

It's consistent, and logical.
The notion that there is such a thing as 'correct' is pretty ludicrous..

The correct course of action would have been to never have gone.

Kerry is stuck with a mess, and he has laid out his plan, which is somewhat different from Bush's. I understand his rationale and can accept it, even though it's apparently too complicated for Bush or the Freepers to understand "What? you voted to give the authority to use force, but you didn't want to actually invade yet? It's so confusing, my head hurts!!!"

But personally, I would prefer a full US pullout immediately, as Kucinich suggested, with US troops to be replaced by UN peacekeepers and an election as soon as possible, since I doubt most Iraqis feel they can trust Allawi.

But I do understand Kerry's plan, and I can live with it. With Kerry, I feel confident we will not be going haphazardly into new and pointless military adventures, whereas with Bush, who knows what he'll do?

[K-W]

9. Consistant, mostly correct.

He screwed up on Iraq, he thought it was more of a threat than it was, but he procceeded with due caution and acted appropriately given the set of facts he thought he had. I dont blame him for the confusion, I think it just a result of Bush campaign lies and conservative media.

[genius]

11. Consistent but not Correct

[Guaranteed]

22. Yes.

He was still wrong to vote for the IWR, giving Bush the authorization.

[Radical Activist]

13. How about: changing but improved

Could you add that option?

[GreenArrow]

14. how about 'Imperialistic but not voting for Nader?'

.

[Dangerman]

15. Good Point

[K-W]

16. How is Kerry imperialistic?

I havent heard him say anything that lends itself to that.

[951]

17. He's a flip flopper so who the hell knows

...be right back God just told me to pour hot grease on myself praise God! :crazy:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Bush Lite. Consistantly wrong.

He voted for the war. Then said, knowing what he knows now, he would do so again. He still sticks to the premise that the war can be "won". And, he offers unrealistic, if not foolish, plans for international involvement.

The big difference is that I don't think that Kerry is likely to expand the war to other nations, or prolong the occupation once the American people realize that it's a lost cause.

[K-W]

19. He didnt vote for the war.

I thought Bush was the only American left after the debate who didnt understand that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Sure he did. And, he said so.

He stated that, knowing what he knows now, he would still vote for the IWR. That means, that he now knows that Bush was going to war with the resultant loss of lives, and all that goes with it.

Must I remind you, again, that 23 senators voted against the war.

Also, he still wants to continue the occupation. "Who wants to be the last man..?"

[K-W]

21. Perhaps you should read the IWR.

Bush was in violation of the terms of the IWR when he invaded Iraq. Therefore the IWR was not a vote on the Iraq War that happened, it was a vote on whether or not the president could go to war if Iraq was proven to be a threat.

Bush never proved that Iraq was a threat.

And when he said he would vote for the IWR again, he meant that he stood by his decision, that if the president had not violated it, the IWR would have been fine.

Agree or disagree, he did not vote for the war.

As far as the coninuation of the occupation, I think Kerry has made it clear that his goal is to get out asap, but I do think there is reason to be concerned that he wont be able to as long as he insists on winning in some sense.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. I've read it..numerous times.

It gave the green light for Bush to invade Iraq. Everyone, who didn't have their heads in the sand, knew that Bush was going to invade. Kerry included. If the president had not ignored the provisions, it would have still been wrong. But, Bush did ignore it, just as almost everyone knew he would. To say that he didn't believe that Bush would do so, is mighty thin soup.

But, that is now water under the bridge. The problem now is that Kerry still wants to stay militarily involved in Iraq. I'm hoping that it's just politicking, but if it isn't, he's in for some very rough times. Not just in Iraq but here, and all over the world.

I'm voting for him, but he'll be hearing from a lot of people if he doesn't get us out of Iraq in a hot hurry.

[K-W]

36. Why do you resist reality on this issue so much?

Bush had before and after the resolution the power to invade, he did not need permission. The IWR was not a vote on the war Bush waged, it was a vote on the use of force in different circumstances.

BUSH IS A LIAR WHO USED A VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT WAR TO JUSTIFY HIS WAR

Kerry cannot vote in congress based on trying to predict how the president is going to lie and spin the vote. He is charged with voting for legislation that he agrees with, which he did. He claims he that Bush made very strong promises, presidential promises that he would follow the resolution. I dont care how much you didnt trust Bush at the time, Kerry is a US senator who was given a promise by the white house. That counts for something in washington even if it doesnt to you. Kerry learned his lesson, Kerry thinks the war was wrong. He simply wont say that his vote wasnt right because he supported the measures in the actual bill and still does. He thought the right solution was getting inspectors through Iraq by any means neccessary to make sure he didnt have weapons. He still thinks that, so he would still vote for that.

Now stop blaming Kerry for Bush's lies and spin. Kerry has clearly shown that he has learned his lesson about trusting Bush, so why are you still harping on that one mistake? Him not realizing at the time how much of a liar and warmonger Bush was, 90% of Americans probably didnt think Bush was as much of a liar and warmonger than he is, many still dont.

Kerry trusted the president, the president violated his trust, Kerry knows this and admonishes him for it. What more do you want from him?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. The "Duh" defense.

You're the one who is having trouble facing reality. Most of the world knew that Bush was going to war. What do you think those millions of people were doing in the streets? Just going for a stroll to celebrate Bush's honesty? What do you think all those troops were doing in Kuwait? Checking out the tanning opportunities?

Kerry would have had to been terminally stupid not to realize that Bush was going to war no matter what the vote was. Again, 23 senators saw through the obvious bullshit and voted against it. I find it hard to believe that Kerry was so dumb as not to.

Also, you say he learned his lesson. He STILL backs the occupation of Iraq and calls for more troops.

I'm "harping" on it, because his stance has been consistantly wrong on this issue.

He voted for the IWR for reasons of political expediency in the face of popular public support for striking back at "the terrorists", even if it meant illegally invading another country with no connection to the terrorists.

I can understand his thinking, but I sure as hell don't approve of it.

Now, I don't even care if he admits it. But, I do want to him to present a realistic plan to get the hell out of Iraq instead of the wishful thinking BS about the world joining us in the quagmire because he's going to talk nice to them.

[Redleg]

42. It's like talking to a wall with some folks here.

You may as well save your time and let these folks spread their mis-information. No- I take that back- we need to correct them on this so other readers will see it ain't all cut and dried.

[Fescue4u]

26. If I understand correctly

Its "I'll do better"

[WLKjr]

27. It's definately too complicated for mepublicans

the neo con type with simple thoughts.


I think just about anyone with a couple of working braincells and some logic/common sense would understand it and know that bush has no plan and is an idiot who deserves no more years.

[MissMarple]

28. Exactly, It's not all that complex.

The war is a mess, he'll do the best he can with what he has, and THAT will be the complex part. I trust Kerry's best way more than George's.

George thought going to war would be simple and easy, probably much like Reagan going to Grenada. He is in over his head, and he doesn't know how to swim.

[Selwynn]

29. What about the Consistent, complex and not correct choice?

[RapidCreek]

31. Amen

RC

[quaker bill]

32. Quite consistent and reasonably correct given the current situation

My argument has always been that he should never have trusted Bush with the authority. If we had a rational President at the time, a policy that is aggressive toward non-proliferation would have been solid choice. The problem has always been with the President not the policy.

[eridani]

35. The only thing anyone needs to know NOW is that--

--he has explicitly disavowed the PNAC goal of having a permanent military presence there.