What is Kerry's stance on Iran?

[Marleyb]

Another poster on another post said when asked by blitzer..."Kerry says not to take anything off the table, but military action is an option of 'last resort'"

This sounds strangely and horribly like something that has been said before...something exactly like Bush said before Iraq and then went anyway even though it was not a "last resort".

Can't the Dems, AT LEAST, at this point in time stand up to the Bush Administration on Iran!!?? They are actually going to enable him again!!!!!
:wtf: It is incredibly obvious that this whole 'problem' in Iran is staged by the US to further PNAC. Tell me the democrats can't see this??

[Brundle_Fly]

1. the thing that Kerry doesn't make clear....

at least until after the fact on Iraq, and even then it was hard to grasp...

is that he would use the military as a last resort, and would use diplomatic ends all the way.

I don't think he is promoting pre-emptive war, he just struggles making sense sometime, not that Lesley and his super hypothetical questions help.

[MH1]

21. You need to re-read

Kerry's floor statement on the eve of the IWR vote, if you truly believe that he didn't make it absolutely clear that military force should only be an absolute last resort in Iraq "after the fact." Then please revisit your statement.

Of course, too often people try to discuss what Kerry (and others) said or didn't say without even listening to or reading what was actually said.

You can look up Kerry's pre-IWR statement in the Congressional Record on thomas.loc.gov.

[Brundle_Fly]

31. nono, I get it...

and I under stand all his points and speculative conclusions, I don't think the american public did though, and I only fault him for being perhaps a little too intellectual for the masses.


I would also fault the media for not showing the debate before the war other than brief snippets, that basically made the case for the average american

[TayTay]

2. This is what he said

From the Democratic Daily: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=1680#more-1680

BLITZER: You’re in a country right now, Israel, that a neighbor, Iran, under its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would like to see wiped off the face of the Earth, “wiped off the map,” in his words. And they’re now, according to U.S. and European authorities, moving toward developing a nuclear bomb even though they deny that.

Senator John McCain, your colleague, said on television over the weekend here — he said this: “There’s only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option against Iran, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran. Now, military option is the last option, but cannot be taken off the table.”

What is your thought on a potential military option against Iran?

KERRY: Well, first of all, you never take a military option off the table anywhere under any circumstances. So it’s on the table, but I think anybody who’s studied the situation understands, as I think John McCain said in the comment that he’s making, it is an option that requires an extraordinary level of commitment with long-term
repercussions, and it is truly an option of last resort, and I think people understand that.

Look, the more important thing is that Ahmadinejad’s comments are absolutely stunning in the 21st century. And almost equally as stunning, in my mind, was the lack of universal condemnation across the globe. There were people who commented but it is really shocking to have a leader of any country under any circumstances in the 21st century, after all that we’ve been through and learned, to have them talking about wiping an entire people off the face of the Earth.

So through those statements and through their own actions, Iran has taken its own steps to make itself a significant renegade outlaw nation at this particular moment in time. The question for all of us is how to diffuse and deal with a situation that you don’t want to have to get to the last resort about. I think there are a number of options available to us.

In each country that I’ve visited, the leaders, from Prime Minister Singh in India to President Musharraf in Pakistan, President Karzai in Afghanistan, the acting prime minister here, all of them have said how unacceptable it is for Iran to behave the way it is and to move in the direction it is.

But I do think that Russia, at this point, could play a critical role, and my hope is that before we get to the United Nations, before we reach the point of sanctions — which they must understand that we are going to be united on and they are going to be serious sanctions with real consequences, to have the kind of effect that we had on South Africa if that is what it comes to.

But before that, I think there are still possibilities that Russia might be able to play a very important role here, and my hope is that President Putin and Russia will step up and do that.

[Marleyb]

6. thanks for the transcript

but it seems like he is helping to catapult the propaganda...

"Iran has taken its own steps to make itself a significant renegade outlaw nation at this particular moment in time"

Who is making Iran a renegade outlaw? They wouldn't even be in the news if the Bushies weren't pushing for bombing them. Time to call a spade a spade.

[karynnj]

11. He specifically said that it was the comments

which were well out of bounds. He called for wiping another country off the face of the earth and he made other very nasty comments.

Read the transcript - Kerry is pushing for diplomacy, then if neccessary, UN sanctions (like those placed on South Africa).

[MH1]

20. So, the Iranian PM saying that "Israel should be wiped off the map"

wouldn't make the news???? Regardless of US response???? And exactly what response should the US give to that?

It looks to me like the Iranian government is making Iran the renegade outlaw.

[fujiyama]

14. I think I understand what Kerry is getting at

but using Musharraf as an example of condemnation of Iran is absolutely ludicrous, considering Pakistan is known to have exported nuclear technology and know how to several nations - including Iran itself! AQ Khan was running a virtual nuclear bazaar and Mushy basically gave him a slap on the wrist.

So Kerry is being mealy mouthed as usual. I like Kerry and believe he would have made a fine president, but these statements really don't get anywhere....and of course Wolf Blitzer literally sounds like a Bush bot (his monotonous tone drives me nuts).

[rsmith6621]

3. I Dont Kare What Kerry Thinks Anymore

He lost my confidence when he conceded Ohio before he even put up a fight.........


Kerry dont Kount in my book....

[karynnj]

12. If you really didn't care, you wouldn't even open this thread.

So, now think really hard why with all the threads here, you not only chose to read but to post. Seems you care.

[blm]

45. Evidently you don't write history books for a living.

Just think of all you would leave out of the last 35 yrs. just because you never handed Kerry the evidence he needed to go beyond the 2 Ohio court cases he is in.

[stillcool]

4. Now, this is the kind of thing I have...

such a hard time with. People want yes or no answers. And politicians are loathe to give them....which I understand. If you don't know the whole picture...how can you make a black or white decision? Especially, if you're in a foreign country, being interviewed by Pat Robertsons' stooge?

[karynnj]

26. Life is not a true/false question

The question on Iran is not "war" or "no war". Even Bush isn't yet at one of these extremes. Kerry is answering questions of what should be done - on each of these topics. Kerry is addressing these questions as a statesman. (If he wanted to act as a politician, he didn't have to go to some of the most dangerous places on earth.)

[Tom Joad]

5. Barack Obama has long ago endorsed military force, "if necessary".

No mention from him, or Kerry, about challenging the nation that introduced Nuclear weapons to the middle east. Israel's arsenal is the third or fourth largest in the world.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. War Dems

are talking the same shit they talked before Iraq. They still don't get it. Or worse, they do get it and they support it.

[Marleyb]

8. "they do get it and they support it."

that's what I am afraid of...

It is just so absurd, an absolute insult to our collective intelligence that bush would even try this again...'no really you can trust us this time'

but an even bigger insult that the Dems would go along with it!!!!
Just how stupid do they think we are??

[ginnyinWI]

9. Kerry is being a diplomat, that's all

I don't think he's anywhere near *'s position--it * even has a position!
Commander Clueless is still just "reacting" to events as they come up.

But Kerry has to talk like that to avoid weakening diplomatic efforts. Don't worry.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. With Kerry it is generally impossible to exactly determine where

he is on any issue. However he continues to support some sort of 'victory in Iraq' and he is catapulting the propaganda that there is a 'crisis in Iran' that needs to be resolved either through diplomacy or through force.

[karynnj]

27. Read his Georgetown speech

Kerry is not speaking "victory in Iraq".

As to Iran, it is marching towards a crisis. The sad thing is, Iran in 2001 was moving in the opposite direction. Their move towards belligerency was likely a reaction to our actions in the area, which hurt the people we should have supported while giving more popularity to those who are more militant. (The parallel to the US, where fear of terror led to more people accepting the more belicose candidate exists.)

Kerry's CNN comments show he is hoping that diplomacy will pull the world back from war in this case. If that doesn't work, he recommends sanctions, not war.

[MH1]

29. How the hell do you get, from Kerry's statement,

that he is willing to go along with, and even support, military action against Iran?

He just said the military option isn't off the table because it never is. That's the way of the real world, my friend.

Meanwhile he CLEARLY says that there are things that can be done to avoid even economic sanctions.

He has also said that if the IWR vote was held today, of course he would vote no, knowing what he knows now about Bush's duplicity - but he points out that if the true facts had been given to Congress in 2002, IWR never would have even come to a vote.

So what would make you think that Kerry would support a similar course of action with Iran?

It looks to me that you are trying to put words in Kerry's mouth that he just didn't say. Now, why would someone want to do that?

[cindyw]

10. Military action is the last resort for all situations. What is wrong with

that. Stating fact should not be a problem. I don't think you can infer from that comment that somehow he will be supporter of possible war with Iran.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. It assumes that there is a situation that requires a military

response as a 'last resort'. I reject that assumption.

[TayTay]

18. The difference between this and the Iraq War is that

other nations across the globe acknowledge that Iran is a problem. Russia, China, the EU and other countries acknowledge that Iran has resumed unranium enrichment work. This is a threat.

In the buildup to the Iraq War our allies tried to tell us that we were headed down the wrong path and that the assumptions we were making about Iraq and the WMDs were wrong. We didn't listen. The UN did not back the use of massive force to go into Iraq because they did not find the evidence of imminent threat credible. These same countries find a threat in Iran and want to deal with it with existing world bodies. I think Kerry agrees with that.

What part of that reasonable approach to ensuring that we allow diplomacy to advance is a 'call for war?' Are you also accusing China, Russia and the EU of calling for war, because they are saying what Kerry is saying.

[enough already]

24. Who says military action has to be a "resort" at all?

This is my problem with Kerry, Hillary and anyone else in this party that supports war. Cindy Sheehan is right. There is no reason whatsoever to ever go to war.

[TayTay]

25. There are last resort reasons to go to war

WWII would not have ended if we had sent roses over to the bad guys. There are evil people in the world and sometimes they only respond to military action. However, this is an last resort action. We are not near, nor does Kerry or any other reasonable person, endorse using this last resort.

Ah, he said this. He never said that he wanted to engage Iran militarily. People are making things up in this thread based on nothing but a feeling they have that some people want to go to war. There is no proof being cited, just vague notions of uneasiness.

[karynnj]

28. Do you also want the police in your town to be unarmed

because they should never shot anyone?

[Adelante]

13. Nonsense

Military force as a last option is always, as Kerry said, on the table. It's leverage in diplomacy. Kennedy used it very effectively, for example, and so did Clinton.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. And again - a last option against what?

Iran is not harming anyone other than the Iranians who have to live under their stupid theocracy. A fictional crisis has been invented by the neocons as they move on to the next task in their stupid plan to conquer the world, and lots of us right here are playing right along with them. There is no crisis that needs a military option as a last resort.

[ProSense]

19. Do you think there is ever a last resort (not with Iran, ever)? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Within what context?

Within the context of Iranian nuclear programs, no I do not think that there is any justification for using our military to invade Iran. Iran, like all nations, has a right to self defense. That, given the situation in the region, includes enough defensive capability to fend off the powers in the region, which would primarily mean having the capability to defend themselves against our military aggression. That means that they need a credible nuclear deterrent. The NPT became inoperative the day we invaded Iraq.

[MH1]

22. So...you don't think we should care about nuclear proliferation? n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Care about it?

It is a little late for that. We sat and did less than nothing as Israel built a huge nuclear force. We winked and nodded as Pakistan and India nuked up. We turned a blind eye to what the South African regime was up to back before they unilaterally disbanded their program. We demanded that Iraq disarm and promptly turned around and invaded and occupied their defenseless country. It is our government that has restated their policy on first use, leaving open the possiblity that we will use our weapons on a first strike basis. It is the USA who walked out of our treaty obligations with Russia over missile defense systems and restarted an arms race. It is the US who is off building new generations of nukes. It is a little late to persuade me or the Iranians or most everyone else on this planet outside of our little bubble of nationalis surreality that we hold the high ground here and have some right to enforce our arbitrary views on who should be allowed to have nukes and who shouldn't.

Care yes - and we ought to be even handed in our caring. Care yes - and we ought to set an example for others to follow rather than set an example of total hypocrisy. Care yes, but we have no right to attack other nations that are not harming us.

Have you all learned nothing from the last two years?

[Adelante]

23. In whatever you're negotiating in geopolitics

That's what Kerry was saying. It's in the toolkit, but it doesn't mean you have to use it.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Why is it 'in the toolkit'?

This is complete bullshit. Attacking nations who don't comply with your demands is nonsense.

[ProSense]

38. The only person drawing lines in the sand for war is Bush.

If the country is attacked and has no military, what would it do?

[ginnyinWI]

30. Suppose for a minute, what you would do,

if you were the president, and Iran started launching airstrikes against Israel? They are an ally of ours, and we would have an obligation to do something.

That's why there is a big need for diplomacy NOW--to prevent a scenario like that. There are reasons to use force; up until the current cabal took power, it has mainly been as a way to keep the peace by having a threat of war in the background. It has been what has given muscle to all our diplomatic and peacekeeping efforts in the past.

But * has taken our military power and used it to force things directly, diplomacy be damned! That is exactly the wrong way to do it, obviously--but the only way they seem to know how to use the concept of "force".

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Israel is quite capable of defending itself from Iran.

What a nonsense scenario. However, if Iran goes out and starts a war, then of course defense is an option. That is not what is being considered here. The 'military option' being discussed is the 'last resort' if Iran refuses to submit to our demands.

Iran finds itself with a huge hostile military force on two of its borders. Who exactly is threatening whom?

[ProSense]

36. That's not correct.

In that case sanctions would be applied. Non compliance leads to sanctions not war. The scenario you laid out is Bush's preemptive strike policy.

The last resort is if Iran present an imminent threat (Kerry explicit stated in his speeches what constitutes an imminent threat, a real military threat) and diplomacy fails to diffuse it. Since Iran is not within striking distance of the U.S., it more likely they'd have to demonstrate action before action is taken.

[doc03]

37. This week he is for military action but depending

on the polls it's subject to change.

[ProSense]

39. He was never for military action.

Get the facts straight. Check every speech Kerry has made since before the first Iraq war and he has said the exact same thing all along, no mincing words, the exact same thing.

[doc03]

40. He did vote for the IWR that Bush interpreted to be his

authorization for using military action in Iraq didn't he? Sorry, even though I voted for Kerry I was never a great supporter. It just seemed to me he tried to play boths sides of every issue

[ProSense]

41. Interpreted? Violated. That's what Gore meant by Bush broke the law. n/t

[leesa]

42. Invade, steal the oil, pretend you were against it?

[sandnsea]

43. Military action is never off the table anywhere

That's just SOP of any military strategy. I am completely anti-death penalty, but that doesn't mean any mealy mouthed lying POS freeper should EVER make the mistake of thinking I wouldn't stick a pitchfork right through their little beady eyes, if there is absolutely no other option. That's what is meant by never taking anything off the table.

[Selatius]

44. I will put it in terms EVERYBODY understands:

Nevermind going through and quoting several paragraphs worth of rhetorical exercise. Just cut that out. It's basically this:

"We're going to use peace first as the means for dealing with Iran. We won't use military force unless Iran leaves us no choice, and no, we're not going to go through and cook evidence to justify a hit on Iran just because we don't like the regime sitting in Tehran."

That's not an actual quote, but I figure it's what Kerry is roughly thinking. There, does that make it clear?

[blm]

46. War should ALWAYS BE A LAST RESORT, and anyone who doesn't say so doesn't

belong in a position of responsibility.