Key Floor Remarks Clear Up Kerry's IWR Position

[DrFunkenstein]

There still seems to be confusion for some about Kerry's position about his vote. I hope this helps people understand that Kerry would have handled the situation very differently if he were Commander-in-Chief, and I believe that these statements make it clear that he is more than up for the job (not to mention the role of Chief Diplomat).

Key Passages To The Senator's Floor Speech

Making it clear

I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out.



Speaking prophetically

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.



Was the threat imminent?

Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent.

None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption.



Saddam sought nuclear weapons, but did not have the capability

According to the CIA's report, all US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade.

The 9/11 connection

In the wake of September 11, who among us can discount the possibility that those weapons might be used against our troops or our allies in the region? And while the administration has failed to prove any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States?



No regional war, no regime change

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force against Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use U.S. Armed Forces to defend the "national security" of the United States - a power he already has under the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief - and to enforce all "relevant" Security Council relations related to Iraq. None of these resolutions, or for that matter any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, call for regime change.

As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war...Regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.



Bush scares off allies with loose talk

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the Administration raised doubts about its bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war - that in the post-September 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return is in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public internal debate for a rationale for war, the Administration complicated its own case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. And by engaging in hasty war talk, rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Administration placed doubts in the mind of potential allies, particularly in the Mideast where managing the Arab streets is difficult at best.



We need allies to bear the burden of nation-building

If we do go to war with Iraq, we have an obligation to the Iraqi people, and to other nations in the region, to help create an Iraq that is a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long-term, costly and not without difficulties given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions in Iraq and history of domestic turbulence.

In Afghanistan, the Administration has given more lip-service than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot let that happen in Iraq. We have to be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes and to commit the necessary financial and technical resources, which could amount to billions, to succeed. The challenge is great: an Administration which made nation-building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan if it intends to meet it.

The President needs to give the American people a fuller and clearer understanding of the magnitude and the long-term financial costs of this effort. The international community's support is critical, because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq single-handedly. In the final analysis we will need the commitment of others, particularly nations in the region, to achieve this task.



What his own experiences as a soldier taught him

One of the lessons I learned fighting in a very different war at a very different time is that we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I know what it means to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That's why I believe so strongly that before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people need to know why -- they need to know we've put our country in a position of ultimate strength -- and that we had no options short of war to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.



Bush originally tried to end-run Congress

The Bush Administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed...The Administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property - last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

[goobergunch]

1. Here's what DU thought about those remarks at the time

Senate Watch 10/9 - 3:18 PM ET -- THREAD # 4
Senate Watch 10/9 - 4:18 ET PM Thread #5

[creativelcro]

2. Thanks for digging this out.

[worldgonekrazy]

6. History can be so inconvenient sometimes!

;)

[polpilot]

14. Thanks Goobergunch. Now that's perspective on Kerry. Kerry/Bush '04...

Dean '04...

[milkyway]

21. Thanks for finding this. It's good to see that most DU people at the

time could clearly see what the presidential Kerry could not. Kerry is the ultimate fence-straddler. He does not take a stand until it's easy to do so. He didn't vote on the Medicare bill so he could see which side public opinion went with--now that people are seeing it as the gift to corporate interests that it is, he's courageously criticizing it in his stump speech. If he becomes president, he will roll over like a puppy for the wingers.

[Eloriel]

26. Oh, it's painful to read

Remembering back the horror of those days, the sense of betrayal we all felt, how powerless and impotent after ALL our work calling, faxing, emailing, marching and protesting ... very, very sad days.

Stacie175 nails it on Thread #4:

Stacie175 (86 posts)
Oct-09-02, 04:30 PM (ET)
70. Kerry is simply trying
to be on both sides of the issue. As I hear him, he says I am going to support the Bush Regime but with all these reservations and demands. That is simply a double-talking campaign speech. Kerrry has lost my vote for 2004. He is not worthy. Trying to have the cake and eat it too. How stupid does he think the American people are?

[Eloriel]

29. Wow -- another REALLY good take on it

From Thread #5. JDWalley definitely has Kerry's number:

JDWalley (2553 posts)
Oct-09-02, 04:47 PM (ET)
Reply to post #3
37. Once this resolution becomes law...
...it won't matter a whit if Kerry "speaks out" later, because he will have already abdicated any control over what can be done.
Honestly, can you imagine a Reichstag member, in the 1930s, explaining that they are voting for appointing Hitler chancellor because the German economy needs it, but that they will "be the first to speak out" if Hitler actually starts rounding up the Jews?

What Kerry sounds like he wants is to be able to climb on the bandwagon if we win against Iraq, but evade blame if a fiasco ensues, because "I was only voting for my interpretation of what the resolution should mean, not what the White House decided it does mean." News flash: it won't work.

What a putz.

---------------------
And another:

Marnieworld (327 posts)
Oct-09-02, 04:26 PM (ET)
8. If he truly believed what he is saying
then he wouldn't vote yes on the resolution.
He wants multlateral action, diplomatic action, war as last resort.

That is not what the resolution is about.

He's against pre-emption and wants it used in Iraq only.

It's like he is saying one thing and acts as if the resolution agrees but it is actually the opposite, He's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
The beginning of his speech almost sounded like a republican or * himself. Then his speech sounded as if it was someone declaring why he was voting no.
Instead it seems that he is voting yes but wants all that someone who would vote no would want.

We aren't supposed to just trust the president. Theya re supposed to limit the powers.

He thinks that he won this political game by telling the people who don't want the resolution what they want to hear but giving the yes to those who want it. So clever but it's gambling that we are that stupid. I hope that he's wrong.

[DrFunkenstein]

35. My Favorite Is Comparing Kerry To The Reichstag

Classy.

[mb7588a]

3. Excellent post! Here's more..

...from a similar post I did a few months back:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1895

July 2002 - takes the lead in criticizing Bush



(This one thanks to Sandnsea) When Dean was condemning Democrats and saying we shouldn't criticize the President during a time of war. Check the July 2002 interview with Tim Russert.

"I think the administration has behaved quite clumsily and haphazardly on a lot of foreign policy fronts," Kerry said in an interview with editors and reporters.
Kerry, who has taken the lead among Democrats in breaking out of the party's post-Sept 11 reluctance to criticize Bush on foreign affairs, said he believed a power struggle in the Bush team was at least partially responsible for mixed signals sent to both Israel and the Palestinians.
"It's a most incredible display in my judgment of a kind of amateur hour, and the reason is there is no one person in charge," Kerry said. "Colin Powell is not being allowed to be secretary of state, in my judgment. They restrain him."
Kerry also questioned the tough message directed at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accused by Bush of belonging to an "axis of evil" and developing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Bush has said he will use all available tools to unseat the Iraqi leader.
"The rhetoric has been a huge mistake, the rhetoric is way ahead of the possibilities," Kerry said. "Frankly, that just makes us look silly and strengthens him to some degree."
http://www.dawn.com/2002/07/19/int3.htm




“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.mail-archive.com/[e-mail]/msg95577.html



Kerry did not back off his word/NYT editorial, ever. Here are some quotes from his statement on the Senate floor during the debate on the IWR:

“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.”

His comments start here and continue onto the next 2 pages:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:13:./temp/~r1078CymOH:e8087... :



I came across a speech he gave at Georgetown on January 23rd on foreign policy. Here's a little excerpt:

“In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.
I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.”



A couple days later (29th), the President gave his State of the Union address. Kerry’s press release said of Bush:

“He talked about keeping Americans safe, but has too often practiced a blustering unilateralism that is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. He talked about holding Saddam Hussein accountable, but has too often ignored opportunities to unify the world against this brutal dictator.”
http://kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/cfm/record.cfm?id=189997



I think Kerry’s goals were certainly not met by Bush’s report back to Congress pursuant to the IWR:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:1:./temp/~r108IEElOk ::



This lead to Kerry’s charge that it is time for “Regime change in America.” He has been very critical of the approach the administration took to diplomacy, to winning the peace, to reconstruction, while maintaining that disarming Saddam Hussein by military action was only necessary after certain conditions were met.



Most recently, in Will Pitt’s article, Kerry said:

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.
The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”



It is not John Kerry who owes an apology for voting for the IWR, it is George Bush who needs to apologize for the “fuck up,” as Kerry recently called it. Kerry and Congress (and thus, the people) trusted Bush, and he fucked up. So stop the anti-Kerry banter based on his IWR vote. His intestest was the safety of the people he represents. Kerry shouldn't be faulted for caring about his constituents. This does not make him a "Bush-enabler." His vote, as he explained/defined/defended it, was not to give Bush exactly what he wanted.

[HFishbine]

4. Compare and contrast

to another lawmaker who took a different approach:

http://kucinich.us/DennisKucinichWasRight.pdf

[bigtree]

40. Good for him

[worldgonekrazy]

5. My problem with Kerry's IWR vote

Kerry did stipulate that his vote was dependent on certain conditions, yet those conditions were not codified in the resolution and thus were empty. He knew that, and he should have known (and I believe he did know) that the Bush Administration was not going to abide by them. Did he know Bush would blow off the U.N. almost entirely? Perhaps not, but he had to at least be aware of the PNAC agenda in Iraq.

Keep in mind, the guy is a U.S. Senator and as such knows far more about the going-ons of the Bush Administration, yet people just like myself knew the IWR was a sham. That is what all those anti-war marches worldwide were about. So how come Kerry didn't know it was a sham?

I believe he did know but voted for it anyway in the name of political expediency. Despite what some might say, I am not such a purist that I can't recognize the value in political expediency, but I believe that it has no place when it comes to something like war. Over five hundred U.S. soldiers have died already and thousands more have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have died as well. If Kerry had stood his ground and voted his conscience he would not have been culpable in this atrocious U.S. intervention.

[deutsey]

7. I agree

Good post.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. In fact the resolution

does stipulate that the President send a determination to Congress stating that diplomatic means were not working to achieve the stated goals. Since that determination was not truthful, Bush did not fullfil the terms of the resolution.

[worldgonekrazy]

13. That is merely a technicality

Kerry had to have known the determination would be a sham. He should have demanded something that could not have been so easily manipulated, because he ought to know better.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. The fact is under the Constitution and the War Powers Act

the President has the power to go to war without prior Congressional approval. Bush could invade Chile tomorrow if he wanted to. The IWR was an attempt to limit his power. But no Congressional action could have actually stopped Bush from going to war.

[worldgonekrazy]

18. Would Bush have gone to Iraq without the political cover of the IWR?

The war is already unpopular enough, EVEN with the IWR. Without it there is no way he would have taken that political risk.

[isbister]

27. Of course he would have

Only the polls and the Congress stopped bush and the gang.

The war has been and is popular. Look:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

At the time of the IWR bush's unilateral invasion was not popular, the people wanted to go through the UN and handle Saddam that way.

How many things has bush done where you thought...no way would he take that political risk? bush does as he's told.

[Old and In the Way]

28. If Democrats had been solidly anti-IWR,

would the possibility of another terrorist "event" have been more likely in the US? If you beieve in 9/11 MIHOP/LIHOP, it's not a stretch. With mid-terms coming on, another event would have sealed it for the Repubs. We'd be settled into martial law now and Bush would be running the PNAC table, with the co-enabling broadcast media effectively nuetralizing Democrats in 2002/2004 as the "Party of Appeasers".

I'd say the Democrats, particularly Kerry, played the best hand they were dealt. Betting "all in" on an anti-War vote would have been a huge political risk for the Democrats, IMHO.

[goobergunch]

31. It would have been a political risk?

It is more important to do what is right than what is popular or politically expedient, IMHO.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Dean certainly did the politically expedient thing.

And I totally agree with his anti-war sentiment, as do most Democrats. The unknown irony is that the Senate Democrats may have taken a big one for the team so Dean and all anti-war Democrats could continue to make the case.

If you think thaat MIHOP/LIHOP occurred, is it out of the question to think that the IWR was set up to get the Democrats to bite bigtime on this gambit? Since I think this administration is directly culpable for the deaths of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, I don't doubt for a second that the same people who delivered Anthrax to our Senate leaders would not have thought twice about creating another event to seal their grasp on power.

[Cocoa]

yes, definitely he would have gone

it's inconceivable to me that Bush would be stopped from going to war.

If he was capable of using forged evidence in the SOTU, he clearly thinks he can get away with anything.

[Skittles]

11. ditto, wgk

I too believe Kerry knew IWR was crap but voted for it anyway. It is shameful and no amount of "history" and "stipulations" change that fact. I find it absolutely digusting. Will I support Kerry if he is nominated? At this point I feel like I would support anyone who runs against that arrogant, thieving incompetent bastard Bush. But do I wish we had better candidates? HELL F***ING YES.

[DrFunkenstein]

12. Kerry Trusted The Honor Of Powell, The Joint Chiefs, and The CIA

As a 18 year veteran of the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry knows that when it comes to these people, partisan differences stop at the water's edge. They are dealing with national security and don't mess around.

There was no way for Kerry to know that the Pentagon hawks would hi-jack the entire process and systematically shut out the opinion of the State Department!

Who the hell starts a war and shuts out their State Department!!!

Kerry had every assurance that Bush Jr. would follow in his father's footsteps in conducting the war, as well as access to intelligence that these honorable men were saying was legitimate. At a certain level, you cannot second-guess the intelligence community. It is not like Kerry could have sent out his own agents or something.

------

Read this and you will see what I mean about the State Department:


The State Department and other agencies spent many months and millions of dollars drafting strategies on issues ranging from a postwar legal code to oil policy. But after President Bush granted authority over reconstruction to the Pentagon, the Defense Department all but ignored State and its working groups.

And once Baghdad fell, the military held its postwar team out of Iraq for nearly two weeks for security reasons, and then did not provide such basics as telephones, vehicles and interpreters for the understaffed operation to run a traumatized country of 24 million.
"There was a serious disconnect between the forces necessary to win a war and occupy a country," said a U.S. official who worked in the initial postwar effort and is still in Baghdad. "We fooled ourselves into thinking we would have a liberation over an occupation. Why did we do that?"

Veterans of other conflicts soon identified security as the most important requirement for early relief and long-term stability. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell emphasized the need in talks with Bush last fall, aides said, as he urged the president to seek U.N. approval for the war. With U.N. assent, Powell believed, would come troops and contributions from other nations.

Similarly, the intelligence agencies, especially the CIA, were "utterly consistent in arguing that reconstruction rather than war would be the most problematic segment of overthrowing Saddam," a senior administration official said. In classified written and oral reports, the official continued, the intelligence community warned the administration "early and often" about obstacles U.S. authorities were likely to face.

In particular, the agencies repeatedly predicted that Hussein loyalists might try to sabotage U.S. postwar efforts by destroying critical economic targets, the official said. One analysis warned that Iraqis "would probably resort to obstruction, resistance and armed opposition if they perceived attempts to keep them dependent on the United States and the West."

Those concerns, however, were secondary among the principal architects of the Iraq policy, who were concentrated in the Defense Department, the White House and Vice President Cheney's office.

http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2003nn/0307nn/030724nn.htm#254

[girl gone mad]

8. Keep spinning.

Everyone in Washington knew that a vote for the IWR was a vote to give Bush unchecked power to unilaterally invade Iraq.

Talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words. Everybody who was paying even the slightest attention knew Bush was going to invade, knew he wasn't going to give inspections any more time, knew he wasn't going to wait for UN approval.

Why didn't Kerry just stay home that day like he has 56% of the rest of the time since he's been in the Senate?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. If 'everyone' agrees with your viewpoint

why is it that Kerry won the vote among voters that oppose the Iraq war?

That fact shows that the people of this country are smart enough to understank Kerry's position.

[isbister]

20. The facts are there

for anyone that cares to look. For some, the facts about the resolution or Kerry's position are just not going to get in the way of the argument. We can thank our lucky stars that they are only a small percentage of the population.

[Old and In the Way]

33. girl gone mad

Perhaps you could think about what Kerry said and understand the difference between an elected Senator with accountability to his constituents vs. a private citizen whose words bear no consequences.

If you think the worst about Bush and his criminal organization, as I do, perhaps my post above will make you consider that Kerry and the rest of the Senate Democrats had no choice but to play along. Certainly, if they had done the politically expedient thing, they would have voted against it....I'm sure the polls showed strong support for an anti-War vote. So why was it politically smart for them to vote for it? I conjecture it was to survive to fight another day.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

15. The problem is people view complex realities and thought as

doublespeak.

The only acceptable answer is I WOULDN'T HAVE VOTED FOR THIS RESOLUTION.

It is only OK to politicize your decision when you didn't have to make one...not when you did.

The people of DU have spoken.

Kerry is a liar who has not accomplished one thing for liberals. It doens't matter that he has co-authored over 350 bills. A guy who governed a state smaller than the city I live is was able to balance it's budget. He is much more accomplished.

IT doesn't matter than Kerry investigated Iran/ Contra and BCCI, he only did it to cover for his Skull buddy.

It doesn't matter that Kerry has actually been one of the better votes on the environment in DC for two decades. He is a Republican. Howard Dean said so and stood behind the accusation on Meet the Press this morning. It must be true. Howard doesn't lie or campaign dirty. When Howard calls Kerry a Republican, it is very very clean.

(very civil sarcasm on)

[Old and In the Way]

37. The game is chess, but we seem to have a lot of checker players here.

:-)

[BruinAlum]

38. Excellent analogy

[bigtree]

17. Stellar work

This goes in my file! Thanks!

This is great!

[goobergunch]

19. I can't believe I'm seeing the Iraq resolution being defended at DU

I'm really disappointed.

Poll

[DrFunkenstein]

22. I'm Not Defending IWR

I'm simply establishing Kerry's stance. Is there anything in his statements that you disagree with?

[milkyway]

23. His statements didn't mean a damn thing except for his political future.

The only thing that mattered was his vote. Typical Kerry.

[goobergunch]

25. Yep

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

Saddam's threat was greatly overstated, and here Kerry states that Saddam will be a threat to the world soon. IMHO, Saddam would have probably died of natural causes first.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

No, he didn't....why did Kerry trust Bush*'s intelligence?

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary.

I disagree. Only a clear and imminent threat of immediate attack, or an attack itself, is justification for a war.

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

The best way IMHO to hold Saddam Hussein accountable was continued weapons inspections, not military action. And Kerry was horrifically naive in believing in the Bush* administration's committment to war as a last resort.


I do not dissent in full to Kerry's statements, but I do dissent with respect to the more important parts - and to what he said when the Clerk called his name.

The question is, shall the resolution be adopted?

<snip>

Mr. Kerry? Mr. Kerry, aye.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r107:FLD001:S60165

[DrFunkenstein]

32. My Replies

1."Saddam's threat was greatly overstated, and here Kerry states that Saddam will be a threat to the world soon. IMHO, Saddam would have probably died of natural causes first."

If you look at the text, he does not state that Saddam will be a threat soon. I'm not sure of your intentions in suggesting as much. Kerry says that Saddam has repeatedly proven himself to be prone to dangerous miscalculations, and as such cannot be left to his own devices (hence inspections leading to disarmament).

2. "No, he didn't....why did Kerry trust Bush*'s intelligence?"

How does the CIA become "Bush's intelligence"? What other intelligence community do you think is out there? Private eyes? That is U.S. intelligence, and it is what the Foreign Relations Committee relies upon to make their informed decisions.

As for the "No, he didn't" part, Kerry clearly says that it is known "through intelligence."

3. "I disagree. Only a clear and imminent threat of immediate attack, or an attack itself, is justification for a war."

Although you cut off the rest of his statement, I'll take you at your word. If this is your opinion, you clearly disagree with Dean and Clark, who believe that severe humanitarian crises constitute a just cause. And I agree with them.

4. "The best way IMHO to hold Saddam Hussein accountable was continued weapons inspections, not military action. And Kerry was horrifically naive in believing in the Bush* administration's committment to war as a last resort."

Kerry agrees with your first statement wholeheartedly. The second statement I have already addressed. Kerry had every intention to believe that Powell, the Joint Chiefs, and the CIA were not lying to the Foreign Relations Committee. While Kerry did not trust Bush, he did trust these men, many of whom worked through several administrations for both Parties.

As far as naive, how does this sound:

Russert: ...and I'll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, "I would be surprised if didn't have chemicals and biological weapons."

Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

Russert: What did you think of Senator John Kerry's comments that President Bush misled the country?

Dean: Well, I thought it was Senator Bob Graham that said that and I agree with that.

Russert: No, John Kerry said the president misled us and...

Dean: Well, I wasn't aware that Senator Kerry said it. I knew Senator Graham had said it in Iowa. But I believe that. I think we were misled.

http://www.deanrocks.com/page.cfm?p=1&c=9

[milkyway]

24. Sometimes I think I mistakenly stumbled on Republican Underground or DLC

Underground.

[DrFunkenstein]

34. This Is The Kind of Intolerance of Opinion That Sickens Me

If you disagree (and somehow I think we agree on much more than we disagree) with something, you paint it as the furthest extreme. It is such a cheap move.

If you want to talk about Republican Underground, that sort of demand for conformity of thought would fit right in.

[salin]

41. If you can agree to tolerate the fact

that I listened that night, I have re-read the statements, I did not agree with this stand then, nor do I agree with it now - without fighting me as somekind of ignorant person - than I can agree that you can read it with the same context in a very different light without refering to you as some kind of blinded person. The fact is - (and I take it as fact) - that we can read the same thing intelligently - and still have a different opinion about it.

I don't always read those defending this position - as being tolerant of those who are also aware - as having a different take on the whole thing. If you ask for tolerance of difference of opinion - then I trust that you are willing to extend that same tolerance?

Is that not fair?

[bicentennial_baby]

30. We agree friend

Sad isn't it?

[Old and In the Way]

39. Thanks for the post

I suspect that some will choose to believe their own political mantra, instead of actually understanding what Kerry said....but I appreciate you posting the context of Kerry's speech in easy to understand format...