Does Kerry think the benefits of Iraq outweigh the costs?

[ProfessorPlum]

Since the media and my fellow democrats are telling me that Kerry is to be my candidate this November, I would like to know his position on the Iraq war.

If I have to convince people I know, relatives, etc. that he is a better choice than Bush, and they ask me what his position on the war is, what should I answer?

I know he thinks Bush went about it in the wrong way.

I know he thought that threatening Saddam with invasion to get him to let in inspectors was an acceptable policy (what I believe he meant by his IWR vote, based on his speech before the vote - and it actually worked! Saddam let in the inspectors, but then Bush invaded anyway).

I know he must have thought that speaking out against the invasion in the first weeks would have been demoralizing to the troops (at least I hope that is what was keeping him quiet).

But his messages about the war seem to echo Bush's, primarily that it is great that Saddam is gone.

On balance, is Kerry's position:

that he would have done it a different way, but he is generally pleased with the outcomes of the invasion

OR

that the costs of the invasion are too high for the benefits derived?

Let's not get into the legality, morality, or any other arguments here. Let's keep it strictly practical and Machiavellian: does Kerry think the benefits to the US outweigh the costs of this war??

Also: This is NOT about IWR. The first person who mentions IWR or Biden-Lugar gets 50 lashes with Tom Delay's Hooters bill (see the bottom of this page: http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2004-02-05/hairballs.html/1/index.html )

[displacedtexan]

1. If you don't believe now that Kerry is better than Bush*...

there's no way you can ever convince "the people you know, relatives, etc."

I can only suggest that you do what I did in 1992: vote for the Dem candidate, even though he's not your first choice... unless you prefer Bush*.

[LuminousX]

2. Why not answer the question?

Or answer this: do you consider Kerry to be a Pro-Iraq war candidate or an Anti-Iraq war candidate?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

I'll answer that.

"Or answer this: do you consider Kerry to be a Pro-Iraq war candidate or an Anti-Iraq war candidate?"


No.

[LuminousX]

8. And that is exactly how I think Kerry would answer it.

How do you think Kucinich, Edwards, Lieberman, Dean, Gephardt, Sharpton, and Braun would answer? Funny thing is, I know they wouldn't try to split the difference and have it both ways.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Funny thing is,

I think it is a stupid, overly simplistic question, and I wouldn't care how anyone answered it.

[LuminousX]

14. Alas, many of us care. It is his mealy-mouthed postioning that bothers us

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. There is a mealy-mouthed candidate in the race but it's not Kerry.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LuminousX]

33. Oh? Who? Why do you say that about a candidate?

Does this candidate you refer to have a specific position that he tries to have both ways, like being both for and against the war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Yes, as a matter of fact, Dean pretended to be both for and against

You have to give credit to Dean for this, he is really one slick politician, he did a masterful job of straddling this fence. A lot of his supporters are actually laboring under the delusion that he was some kind of implacable opponent to unilateral action in Iraq.


Dean:Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/20/dean/index2.html


Dean:"In Iraq, I would be prepared to go ahead without further Security Council backing if it were clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent, and could neither be contained nor deterred."
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dean/dean021703sp.html



Dean:"never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction."
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[LuminousX]

39. Ask him today what his position is

He will say "OPPOSED" what will Kerry say?

Dean, like many, had difficulty grasping exactly what was happeing, but as soon as it was happening, he stood against the war.

And just because he thought Saddam was evil doesn't mean he supported the war... nice try.

Nope, Dean's position shows a perfect evolution of thought from "Gotta do something" to "This isn't right."

Kerry is still talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Funny that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. Why give him another chance to pander? Dean's irrelevant anyway.

[LuminousX]

45. You brought him up. So let's talk about Kerry

If I were to tell people he supported the war, but not the method it was waged, would I be on target?

If I were to tell people he opposed the war, but supports the results, would I be on target?

[ProfessorPlum]

47. You've boiled it down.

I think Kerry supports the results, but not the method in which they were gotten.

Therefore, he both supports and opposes the war.

I'm reminded of Pat Paulson.

[Straight Shooter]

104. And we may ask, what did Kerry know and when did he know it?

Dean saw the handwriting on the wall and understood that being against the war was the correct position.

But Kerry always has to wiggle his big toe in the political stream before he takes a chance to wade into the water. And I would venture to guess he had a lot of information available to him, like Dennis Kucinich, which should have served his judgment better. But Kerry does not display good judgment when it requires bucking the establishment. He is really good at rhetoric, though. I'm willing to put a gold star by his name for that ability.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

49. I don't think anything you say about Kerry would be accurate,

based on the content of your posts at DU, I would judge anything you say about Kerry to be spin meant to attack him.

Just to be clear,I am responding to your question about your comments and I am speaking about your comments, not about you.

[LuminousX]

59. Then tell me his position

Give me a good sound bite to use.

As my book on Guerilla Publicity states, you've only got 10 seconds to capture your audience to get them to listen to the next 20 seconds of what you are saying.

Give me the 10-Second Kerry on the Iraq War.

If someone comes up to you and asks, "Did Kerry support or oppose the Iraq war?" What do you say?

edit: correct type

[Feanorcurufinwe]

66. Why? I have no desire to convince you of anything,

and I don't think unbiased observers are having any trouble understanding Kerry's position.

That's why Kerry has won such broad-based suppport -- the kind of support that will beat Bush in November.

[LuminousX]

67. For trying not to convince me, you sure are spending a lot of time here

And I read that position. If I were to hand that to someone who asked me "Does Kerry support or oppose the war?" They'd look at me funny and say "No where in this page does it say one way or the other."


:shrug: I guess Kerry just really doesn't care, one way or the other.

I can come to no other conclusion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

70. What can I say? I'm a DU addict.

And I've been here long enough to know who is who, and how open they are to persuasion.

[0rganism]

132. based on that position, Kerry appears to support American hegemony

According to the article you linked,

"(Kerry) believes that we need a President who will lead the nations of the world into a new era of security, freedom, and peace."

Is this Pax Americana to be consistent with the overall PNAC vision, or does Kerry have his own unique version he intends to promote vis a vis solidifying global American leadership?

[ProfessorPlum]

134. ouch

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

145. Did you stub your toe?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

144. You seem to think there is no difference between leadership and hegemony

You are wrong.

[0rganism]

161. I think you'll find I've used the term correctly

From Dictionary.com

he·gem·o·ny n. pl. he·gem·o·nies
The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others.

One can safely presume, based upon the context of the surrounding paragraph, that Kerry's interest in "lead(ing) the nations of the world" is exactly hegemony. If the "lead" mentioned was of the "going first" or "outscoring" variety, the preceding sentence would be rendered meaningless: "Kerry believes that we don’t need a President who will walk away from the world or a President who will walk alone." In other words, Mr. Kerry apparently intends to enjoin with other nations, in a position of predominant influence.

The nations of the world will be a team, America will be its leader. Explain how this is not the case, if you disagree.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

164. I think you'll find that false assertions are not persuasive.

[ProfessorPlum]

5. There are no quotes in my post title

and who said I didn't think Kerry was better than Bush? '

Please tell me more about Kerry's view of the cost/benefit ratio of the Iraq war.

[mzmolly]

3. I spect you'll be waiting a loooong time for the answer to that question..

:shrug: ;)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. NO.

[LuminousX]

6. Would Kerry change anything he did leading up to the war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. Kerry would change everything Bush did leading up to war.

Bush took us to war, in case you didn't notice.

[LuminousX]

15. That wasn't my question. What would change about what HE did?

Kerry has no control over Bush. What would KERRY do differently, if anything?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. I don't know, but my guess is, no.

Thank god these stupid, pointless arguments will be over in a few weeks.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. They questions aren't too hard, but supporters of losing candidates

may be frustrated by the answers.

[LuminousX]

40. Yes, Avoid the uncomfortableness

Kerry is trying to have it both ways. When someone is doing the splits like that, he deserves to be kicked in the balls.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. You owe me a new keyboard

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. I'm avoiding nothing.

I can understand the frustration of Dean supporters right now. They thought everyone in the country would agree with them. As it turns out, only a tiny, tiny minority of voters agree with Dean. A million Dean supporters could empty out there bank accounts but it won't change the fact that Dean has demonstrated to the nation that he just isn't qualified to be President.

[LuminousX]

65. This has nothing to do about Dean, only you have brought his name up.

Again, is that an avoidance mechanism?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

68. That is a ridiculous and obviously untrue statement.

We are discussing the primaries, and that by definition is about the candidates.

BTW, I hate to break it to you, but teasing me isn't going to work. You can 'say' I'm avoiding something, but it isn't true. lol

[LuminousX]

71. That's great, but why won't you give me an answer?

Kerry. A PRO war candidate or an ANTI war candidate?

You say you won't tell me because you don't want to bother trying to convince me. You aren't convincing me of anything. I'm asking your opinion. How would you classify him?

If you don't want to answer, that is fine. But I'm going to say that you are avoiding the question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

77. I have given you an answer: you just don't like that answer.

The answer is NO. Kerry is not a pro- or anti- war candidate.

Just because you don't like that answer, doesn't make it invalid. YOU may believe that this is a simple, binary, black and white issue. But your opinion is a tiny minority in our country and in our party.

[LuminousX]

83. Who in their right mind would accept that as an answer?

I accept my opinion may be a tiny minority. But I won't accept that answer. It is nonsensical. Unless of course, Kerry doesn't care about the war one way or the other, which is what I am coming to realize.

Now, if he is the nominee, and I am asked about his stance on the war, I will say, "He doesn't have one. He doesn't care about it."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. The voters of IA, NH, MO, ND, AZ, NM, DE

I guess they're all crazy. :crazy:

[LuminousX]

91. Or reading into Kerry what they want to believe

[Feanorcurufinwe]

96. The voters are stupid, gullible sheep -unless they vote for Dean?

:eyes:

[LuminousX]

100. Who said that? Not I. And why do you keep mentioning Dean

When you look into an abstract ink blot, you see images you want to see.

Kerry is a good package for the most part, but his stance on the Iraq war, unlike all the other candidates, cannot be boiled down to a straight forward up or down, yes or no response. Thus it is nebulous and if a voter supported the war, they see Kerry voted for IWR and said positive things when Saddam was captured. If they don't support the war, they see Kerry's rhetoric as he ranted about Bush violating the terms of the resolution.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

108. LOL.

You want to have a discussion about politics, but you don't think I should be allowed to mention the candidate that you support?

:eyes:

[LuminousX]

116. Go ahead and mention Dean, but this thread's topic is Kerry and the war

Dean would be offtopic. If you want, you can start a thread regarding Dean, but as we have already been over... you consider Dean irrelevant.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

119. If you were talking to a 4 year old, your teasing might work, lol

but I'm all grown up. :hi:

[LuminousX]

136. I'm sorry you think I'm teasing

I'm just trying not to run off on tangents.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

146. Forgive me if I take your comment with a grain of salt.

Actually, an entire salt mine might be more appropriate.

[LuminousX]

153. You are forgiven. You and I are often at odds, so you have no reason

to think I'm being sincere.

[LuminousX]

152. Sadly the tangent meant the statement was never addressed

So much energy expended to turn a Kerry thread into a Dean thread. Odd.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

155. WTF?

:wtf: What are you talking about?

[ModerateMiddle]

7. For the most part

you have keyed in on exactly Kerry's position on Iraq. I don't know if he thinks the benefits outweigh the costs. That specific question hasn't been posed, I don't think. I know that he believes that the ends could have been reached by other means.

When something good happens - i.e. the toppling and subsequent capture of Saddam Hussein - even if the cost was very high, it's not a good idea to pretend that something good didn't happen.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. Yes, but when bad things happen

like thousands of innocent people killed, and more than 500 dead American soldiers, and huge financial costs for future generations to pay for this war, it may not be a good idea to pretend that something bad didn't happen.

I'm amazed that Kerry hasn't made the answer to my question clear.

[corporatewhore]

10. What benefits?

500 soliders died in vain
who knows how many more will die
we helped to invigorate support for al qaeda because of the us occupation
we were robbed of social programs and surplus thanks to the rising defense costs that were justified becuase iraq
but heh it was all worth it for the oil and haliburtons profits

[ProfessorPlum]

11. I agree with you

But people who support the war: Lieberman, Bush, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry(?) have to pretend that there are some benefits. Otherwise, why support it? Because it makes the people feel all good and jingoistic and like we "kicked ass"? I don't ascribe the jingoistic argument to Kerry - so there must be some substantive benefits that he sees.

What they are, I'm waiting for his supporters to tell me. Nothing much yet.

[ProfessorPlum]

18. Wow. The responses just come pouring in.

Can't anyone (who isn't on my one-person ignore list) answer this questions for me?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. The answer to your question is no.

[ProfessorPlum]

24. Still waiting . . .

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. The answer to your question is no.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. STILL waiting

can't someone not on my ignore list come up with a definite answer? Maybe something backed up with a quote or two? Or better yet, a stated position on the website, etc?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Ignoring the answer won't make it disappear. The answer is NO.

[paulk]

19. why does thinking Saddam's capture was a good thing translate into

support for the invasion? Is that what you're trying to say? That's all I can get from this...

You're giving false choices; you're making distinctions that don't exist. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Does Kerry think the benefits of the war outweigh the costs? I've read nothing to make me believe he does. He's been quite clear on that, if you read his speeches and debate answers.

It is also quite clear that Kerry is not happy with the outcomes of this invasion.

[ProfessorPlum]

21. I've read nothing to make me believe

that he thinks the costs outweigh the benefits. He certainly hasn't said as much out loud to other candidates who paint him as supporting the war.

Isn't that cool? Everyone is free to pin their own interpretation of the war onto him.

In every debate I've ever watched so far, when Kucinich or Dean would go off on "not supporting the war" and how they were in small company on the stage, I never once heard Kerry pipe up and say:

"You know, I don't support this war - Dennis, quit mis-representing me."

And I expect that when Bush paints Kerry as a war supporter, Kerry will not pipe up and say:

"You know, I don't support this war - George, quit mis-representing me."

Why? It's just a feeling.

[paulk]

25. your interpretations are colored by partinsanship

you won't let yourself believe. You won't let yourself listen.

Why would Bush paint Kerry as a war supporter? That's absurd. That makes no sense politically.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. So, if I "believe" that Kerry opposes this war,

that will make it happen?

I wish I had the link to that story that came out a while ago. Bush was at a fundraiser, and he said to his cronies: "I heard that John Kerry was criticizing the war the other day. That's funny, because he voted for it!".

I'm paraphrasing, but that is exactly why Bush will paint Kerry as a war supporter. It takes the issue off the table for Bush.

And, unless Kerry starts making it very clear, very soon, where he stands on the war (and no, I don't consider W a valid source), that is why the war will be taken off the table as an issue, to W's advantage.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

28. You think Bush will attack Kerry as a supporter of the war?

That wouldn't make much political sense would it?

[janx]

76. It will make perfect sense politically for Bush to do so should

Kerry be the nominee. Then and only then will the Chimp use it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. It's that kind of political calculation

that has given Dean's campaign the success it has enjoyed.

[LuminousX]

32. Kerry on Hardball

“It was the right vote, but the president did it in the wrong way, and he’s still doing it in the wrong way,” Kerry said of President George W. Bush’s handling of military action in Iraq.

Knowing now that Bush would pursue the war 'in the wrong way' would he still vote for IWR or would he have done something different?

[ProfessorPlum]

34. Ah shoot

I was hoping you were going to have something definite about him saying this war was a terrible mistake.

I keep hoping. After all, he is going to be my candidate, apparently.

[LuminousX]

42. I have more respect for Lieberman and Gephardt

who were solidly PRO Iraq war and never tried to have it both ways.

[paulk]

46. Kerry has stood by his vote

He's not responsible for what Bush did.

To paraphrse Kerry - if you think that he would do what Bush has done, then don't vote for him. What more do you want?

[ProfessorPlum]

50. Whoops - IWR vote

It's the wet noodle for you.

Kerry is responsible for what Kerry did, however.

That's a pretty weak condemnation of Bush's folly, don't you think? I don't think Kerry would do what Bush has done - what sane person would?

What I want to know is, is Kerry the kind of person who would stand up against the actions of a person like Bush in this area? So far, I'm not liking what I'm seeing.

And I'm not talking about the IWR vote - that's a red herring.

[LuminousX]

56. I agree, IWR was a political trap

Bush was going to war in Iraq no matter what.

[paulk]

87. it's become clear over the last several days

that no answer will satisfy you.

[LuminousX]

94. The only answer that has been given

is Kerry is neither a Pro or Anti war candidate. That doesn't make much sense. Is that how all Kerry supporters feel?


And I know I'm not looking to be convinced of his position, I just want to know it. If Kerry is asked "Did you support the war?" What does he answer? Does he answer 'No, I opposed the war.' Or does he answer 'Yes, I supported the war.'

Or, if it is some other position that can be summed up in a few simple sentences then please, don't let my phrasing stop you from coming up with your own.

[ProfessorPlum]

95. Holy crap, there are several answers that would satisfy me

1. John Kerry fully believes that this war is justified from the standpoint of America's self-interest.

I would totally disagree with him on this point, but I would be satisfied that that was his position. I would not be satisfied with having him as our nomineee, however.

2. John Kerry fully believes that this war is not justified from the standpoint of America's self-interest.

I would totally agree with him on this point, and would be happy to support him as our nominee, in that he understood it to be true, as I do. He'd be a little late getting to this conclusion, as if he weren't the sharpest crayon in the box, but I'd be happy to have him there.

Actually, I guess there are only two answer that would satisfy me. But that's a lot better than "no answer".

And by the way, I've been discussing Kerry and the war here for nearly a year. I've yet to find his position on it something I can hold on to - it's like trying to grip dry sand.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

99. But the real answer is one you are not willing to hear.

[paulk]

124. you want a black and white answer, and there isn't one

Kerry, and the Democratic party in general, has believed since 1991 that a Saddam Hussein, with WMD, is a threat to the stability of the region. During the first Gulf War, Hussien attacked Israel in an attempt to escalate the war into an Arab/Jewish conflict. Clinton used a combination of diplomatic and military action to prevent Iraq from gaining WMD. So, it's reasonable to conclude that Kerry believed that making sure Hussein had no WMD was "justified from the standpoint of America's self interest". One way to ascertain if Iraq had WMD was to get the UN inspectors back in. The IWR threatened invasion unless Hussein let those inspectors in - and yes, Kerry certainly supported the use of force to gain that end.

From Kerry's POV, the IWR had done it's job - forced Bush to go to the UN and gotten the inspectors into Iraq. Does he support that Bush overrode both the inspections and the UN in his rush to go to war? Obviously not.

Does he support Bush's handling of the war and it's aftermath?

No.

[ProfessorPlum]

129. Apparently not.

I certainly am not getting one. (Or rather, just one)

We none of us were ever sure about how armed Iraq was, but I would hesitate to say, as you have, that people in 2003 believed that Hussein was a threat to stability.

Colin Powell himself, in 2001, dismissed Hussein as being a problem, "He's completely contained." was his quote at the time.

You are drifting into IWR, which is off topic here.

"Does he support Bush's handling of the war and it's aftermath?

No."

We know that no one supports Bush's handling of anything. Would you say, though, that Kerry thinks the war and its outcomes are a net plus for the US? Would you characterize Kerry as "anti-war"? We already know he is "pro-threat", we don't need to discuss that again.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

147. Why do you keep asking the question, getting an answer, and asking again?

As if the answer had never been given?

Actually, I think we all know why. :eyes:

[paulk]

157. There were certainly some in the intelligence community

who felt the Iraq was not a threat. Scott Ritter leaps to mind. There were others that felt that Iraq was a long term and future threat. The point is that no one really knew - there had been no inspections in four years.

What the David Kay/WMD fiasco has made clear is that our intelligence services have let us down in a big way. Partisan posturing aside, it's becoming obvious that they've failed our country, both through letting political pressure exert influence and flat out not knowing what was going on inside Iraq.



Does Kerry think the war and it's outcomes are a net plus?

I do know that Kerry, in 1998, felt that Hussein and his WMD capability was a legitimate enough threat to advocate for a CIA backed overthrow. Up to the point the inspectors left, they had found a lot more WMD than they expected - and they had discovered Iraq was closer to gaining nuclear potential than previously thought.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Kerry would have backed the invasion if Hussein had refused to let inspectors in. But that military action would have needed the support of the UN and the sort of coalition put together in 1991.

So, if Kerry thought regime change was a good idea in 1998, does that mean he thinks that result now is a good thing? I think the answer is pretty clearly no. The war and it's outcome have the potential, under Bush's mishandling, of becoming a "clash of civilizations", per an answer he gave in the S.C. debate.

Would I characterize Kerry as "anti war"?

This is too broad a question. Could we characterize any of the candidates as anti-war? They have all stated that, under certain circumstances, military force is justified.

I think that, in general, Kerry as president would only resort to military force when all other options have been absolutely exhausted.

[0rganism]

142. Here are a few other possibilities

I would accept these as potentially stable positions -- don't know about you, but I think they would work. Not saying I'd agree with them, but they'd represent a reasonable answer.

3. John Kerry fully believes that this war is justified, but not from the standpoint of America's self interest.

This would be consistent with Clinton's Kosovo intervention, insofar as any benefits to America would be tangential rather than direct.

4. John Kerry fully believes that this war is not justified, although it is in America's self-interest.

This would be a statement that recognizes, e.g., the potential economic benefit of occupying an oil-rich territory, while perhaps deploring the manner in which it was obtained.

5. John Kerry fully believes that this war could have been justified for some reason(s), but has been conducted in such a way as to make it unjustifiable for any reason.

Sort of like the Vietnam war, if you buy into the anti-communist rhetoric of the '50s and '60s.

6. John Kerry fully believes that this war was and remains justified from the standpoint of America's self interest, but the desirable outcome itself has not been achieved and cannot be achieved according to current policies.

This amounts to a more nuanced version of your #1, in which the candidate could be objecting to any number of post-invasion goofs while still supporting the invasion and occupation itself. I would expect Kerry to outline exactly what the outcome(s) was/were and how he meant to achieve it/each, were this the case.

I wouldn't call this an exhaustive list, but I do think each of these represents a position that could be explained coherently.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. I'm only being halfway facetious

I really would like an answer that I can hang onto as proof of Kerry's wisdom in this area.

My impression is that he just wants this issue to go away.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

37. Your post isn't facetious, humorous, or insightful and the answer is NO

[LuminousX]

44. He wants it to go away, and so do his supporters

who may realize that his lack of leadership and strength in this area is harmful.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Kerry: If Bush wants to make Nat. Security the central issue, Bring It On!

Yeah, it really sounds like Kerry is hoping the issue will go away, huh?

lol

[LuminousX]

73. Then he better be prepared

The GOP will label him ANTI war. Will they be correct? Will he come out swinging saying "No, dammit, I supported the war!" And what message will that send to the Clark, Kucinich, and Dean supporters who may end up having to vote for him?

[ProfessorPlum]

75. OR Bush will wrap an arm around him

and thank him for being a supporter on his war.

Either way, it will be in Kerry's favor to let this issue just go away, apparently, the way it has just gone away for him so far.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. I hope your doom and gloom predictions don't keep you up at night.

Since they're wrong anyway.

[ProfessorPlum]

38. Man, it is just dead silence here

Can any of Kerry's more intelligent and thoughtful supporters give me some help?

[Jacobin]

51. Well, I'm a Dean supporter

But my guess, based on Kerry's past practices, is that he will answer the question the way he thinks most people would like to hear it answered, at the time the question is asked.

I'm also concerned that he wants to send two more divisions over there to add to the quagmire. (Lyndon Johnson, anyone?)

Kerry freaks me out.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. Oh man,

this is not the answer I'm hoping to hear.

Please, someone - tell me that Kerry isn't so foolish as to support this war!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. Your post is inaccurate

Kerry wants to add two divisions to the army, because our forces are overextended and in order to take some strain off of the reserves and National Guard.

Kerry DOES NOT want to send two more divisions to Iraq.

[Jacobin]

158. Uhm, convince me how that's happening:

Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday that he favors expanding the Army by roughly 40,000 soldiers to relieve troop strain, and would spend whatever it takes to stop the guerrilla warfare in Iraq. But Kerry said he would not send more US soldiers into the country, preferring international troops that include a corps from Muslim nations.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/01/kerry_says_army_should_grow_by_40000/


Lessee here, he's gonna add two divisions to the U.S. Army AND "spend whatever it takes to stop the guerilla warfare in Iraq" but 'would not send more U.S. soldiers' to Iraq but would come up with some "muslim" canon fodder?

Those goals are all of course completely mutually exclusive, a sap and pablum to soothe worried people. We can't 'stop the guerilla war' until we leave and give them their country back. What fricking 'muslim' cannon fodder will Kerry find that Smirky hasn't been able to buy?

This is just silly. If he adds soldiers, we ALL know where the hell they are going, despite his protestations.

You are correct that he has DENIED he will send more. But looking at his whole statement, it is OBVIOUS he will have to so as not to "lose" the war. HA. The invasion was lost when it was launched. Just like Vietnam.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

159. Your link shows the facts. Your spin is nothing but.

Just asserting that Kerry means the opposite of what he is saying is not persuasive.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. The answer to your question is NO.

Why are you pretending you haven't received an answer?

[ProfessorPlum]

54. Can't I please get an answer from reasonable people here?

I think I'll have to try reposting this tonight. Apparently, Kerry's thoughtful supporters aren't on this board this afternoon.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

57. The answer to your question is NO.

Why do you keep pretending you haven't gotten an answer?

[David Zephyr]

58. Could the Silence Be Because They Have No Answer to Give?

I thought about posting along these same lines, ProfessorPlum, but decided against it because it seems that there is a small, minority within greater the number of Kerry supporters here who seem to be incapable of dealing with the reality that many of us were and are still actually opposed to the War in Iraq.

I feel that your honest and fair question was presented clearly and in a helpful tone and spirit. It deserves an answer.

*****************************

Professor Plum's Question:

On balance, is Kerry's position:

that he would have done it a different way, but he is generally pleased with the outcomes of the invasion

OR

that the costs of the invasion are too high for the benefits derived?

*****************************

Perhaps the Kerry supporters do not attempt to provide an answer due to the fact that Kerry himself, to my knowledge, has not answered this large, looming and relevant question.

Good luck in trying to get an answer.

[ProfessorPlum]

61. Thanks

It doesn't look like there is going to be a credible answer forthcoming. All I see is a field of "ignored"s.

Maybe if I try again later this weekend I can get some good answers. But it isn't looking good.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. The answer to your question is NO.

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. The answer to ProfessorPlum's question is NO.

[LuminousX]

64. Isn't it odd?

Ask a Lieberman supporter, "Does Lieberman support or oppose the Iraq war?" The answer would be support.

Ask a Kucinich supporter, "Does Kucinich support or oppose the Iraq war?" The answer would be oppose.

Ask a Kerry supporter, "Does Kerry support or oppose the Iraq war?" The answer never materializes. They instead shrug it off. Pretend that the issue is too complex to boil down in such a simple sentence. Perhaps if I read Kerry's position paper I may have a firmer understanding of the issues at hand. It is bullshit. Kerry has said Bush was wrong in how he executed the war. Then why won't Kerry stand with Kucinich and OPPOSE the war?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Isn't it odd? Voters have rejected Dean's simplistic worldview.

And Dean supporters keep repeating the same failed arguments that the voters have rejected.

[LuminousX]

72. Dean isn't the issue

Clark, Kucinich, and Dean were all anti-Iraq war.

Their supporters will have to back the nominee. If that nominee is Kerry, and they don't know if Kerry is Pro or Anti war - what does that mean? Why can't Kerry's position be articulated?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

80. Dean's already dropped out? He's not part of this anymore?

That would be welcome news, but I don't think it's true.

[LuminousX]

86. If you want, we can start a thread regarding Dean's stance on the war

But up above you told me that "Why give him another chance to pander? Dean's irrelevant anyway."

So, he is irrelevant... then let's talk about Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

98. I'm glad you agree that Dean's campaign is a lost cause.

[LuminousX]

101. Now that THAT is settled, back to Kerry.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

110. You're backing Kerry? That is good news.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorPlum]

115. That is the position of some of his supporters, apparently

see posts #81 et al.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

148. The post you are referencing is from a Clark supporter.

[ProfessorPlum]

74. That IS odd

you'd think that Kerry would be safe to now oppose the war, especially now that it has become obvious to even the most pitiable, mouth-breathing Bush supporter that we had no credible reason to invade. (Even Mort Kondracke was apparently backpedaling on the war - see today's liberaloasis.com).

Why do ignored people keep cluttering up this thread? The number of Kerry supporters here is vast - why can't I get one to answer this?

The number of people whom I can read on this thread is x-1, where x is the number of people at DU. Yet, this post is completely cluttered. I really would like to get an answer.

Surely, I thought, Kerry supporters could do better than this.

Come on, guys. JFK's going to be MY candidate, too. Can't I get some support on this?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

79. What is odd is that you are unwilling to read the answer to your question.

lol

[LuminousX]

105. Dude, he has you on Ignore...

You can post your "NO" fifty more times, and it will still be ignored.

LOL

[ProfessorPlum]

107. that seems to really bother some people

go figure.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

151. Ignoring the answer won't make it go away.

LOL

[David Zephyr]

78. Not Just Odd, LuminousX, But Troublesome

The silence is deafening.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. Why pretend there's been no answer? The answer is NO.

:hi:

[edzontar]

123. I was just wondering the same thing....

Kerry is the one candidate--along with Edwards, to an extent--who has failed to take a reasoned and clear stand on the war one way or another.

This is what I hold most personally against him, and is why I wish almosy anyone else would be the nominee.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

156. Wondering why the voters are smart enough to reject simplistic answers?

Most people in this country recognize that we do not live in a black and white world.

[Mattforclark]

81. How can one make such a judgement yet?

about whether "the costs of the invasion are too high for the benefits derived" or not?

The war is by no means over, and the 'aftermath' plays heavily into the results. If somehow Iraq does turn into a happy democracy and everyone smiles and claps their hands, that would obviously be a positive, maybe, but not necessarily, enough to provide post hoc Utilitarian justification. On the other hand, there is the possibility of civil war, the certainty of more (how many?) soldiers being killed, and all the other uncertainties of war. And then there is the taking of resources away from Afghanistan.

So personally I think that your question is unreasonable. Whether he thought that the costs would outweigh outweigh the benefits at the time is a much more valid question than whether he would make a certain historical judgement about a certain historical event that is still creating shockwaves.

IMHO.

[ProfessorPlum]

84. I think you've provided a definitive answer

Anything might happen, and Kerry needs to come down on the right side of history. Therefore, he cannot decide yet.

How many lives will have to be lost, or treasure squandered, before he weighs in on this matter?

How many flourishing democracies will have to rise in the Middle East before he decides to let us know?

Good show.

[LuminousX]

90. Placing bets after the roullette wheel has stopped....

Real leaders take positions before they know how history will turn out.

Clark has come out strong against the war as has Kucinich and Dean. If things turn out all happy and glorious, they reap no benefit.

Kerry either doesn't care about the war one way or the other or is an opportunist.

[Mattforclark]

109. "Real leaders take positions before they know how history will turn out"

Certainly. And Kerry should (do) have done so (I make no judgement for the purposes of this post and don't want to get into whether he did and if so what it was).

Asking someone to take a policy position before history turns out is entirely fair.

Asking someone to take a historical position before policy is decided is not.

So ask him: "Do you think that Bush's x proposed policy in postwar Iraq is wise and if you were currently President what would you do differently," not "Predict the future: do you think that Iraq will end up as a united democracy, 3 seperate states, a dictatorship, a theocracy, or other?"

[ProfessorPlum]

113. How about this?

"Do you think that the Iraq war, to date, has been a net benefit or a net loss to American interests, and was it therefore, from the perspective of this point in time, a mistake to invade?"

[Mattforclark]

125. Yes, that changes the question - but fundamentally yes

"Do you think that the Iraq war, to date, has been a net benefit or a net loss to American interests, and was it therefore, from the perspective of this point in time, a mistake to invade?"

He should be able to answer this, but it should be noted understood that any humanitarian benefits (e.g. "freeing the Iraqi people") cannot then be entered into the calculation and so the question is different from the original policy question.

It is "Ignoring all potential long term humanitarian benefits or costs. Consider only WMD, alleged links to terrorists, people who have been killed in the invasion/occupation, and people who would have been killed/tortured by Saddam in the time since we invaded had he still been in power: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?"

Or you could ask him the same question that was posed to Colin Powell: "would you have recommended invasion if you had known beforehand that Iraq had no WMD" For good measure you could add in other things like ~500 KIA, ~3000-10,000 WIA (depending on figures), ~10,000-60,000 civilian casualties, etc.

[Mattforclark]

102. But what is he supposed to decide on?

For example, if you ask him something like, "Should we try to hold elections in Iraq like Al-Sistani wants," he should be able to provide an answer about that specific policy question.

But you seem to be asking him to decide what will happen when he does not know what policies will be instituted, and when he has no control over what policy choices will be made.

Again, whether he thought at the time if one policy choice (invasion, for example) had benefits outweighing the costs at the time the policy was enacted is a valid question, as is what policy choices he thinks we should make now, but you are asking him what George Bush and other actors will do in an extremely complex situation.

He has said what George Bush SHOULD do (and it may be valid to criticize his recomendations), but I don't understand why you must know what Kerry guesses that Bush (and others) WILL do. That seems like an unhealthy dose of hubris to me.

Asking someone to predict the future is a very different thing from asking them what steps we should take to try to create a better future.

[ProfessorPlum]

106. He doesn't have to predict the future

but he could, oh I don't know, weigh in on the recent past once in a while.

[Mattforclark]

111. Certainly, but the invasion is an ongoing event, not the recent past

and cannot be neatly seperated from the postwar.

You can't answer whether in hindsight the costs of the invasion outweigh the benefits when events are still going on.

[ProfessorPlum]

114. Ok, then, I guess from your perspective we'll just

have to wait this one out, as Kerry seems to be doing.

Thanks for playing.

[LuminousX]

118. That makes things rather easy

When Bush was rushing to war, he should have just said, "Hold up guys, don't say anything until we know if this is going to be a good thing or bad thing."

Don't oppose something because it may turn out okay.

[Mattforclark]

128. Not what I am saying

I think that he and anyone else should be accountable for a policy decision that they made (or would have made), and should have to express a position on whether or not the policy should be executed. But that is not what was being asked.

[ProfessorPlum]

131. I'm trying to find out whether Kerry recognizes a bad policy decision

when he sees one. Does he think that, overall, the decision to invade Iraq was a bad decision? (Not, mind you, how the invasion was "handled", but rather the decision to invade at all).

[Mattforclark]

139. Valid question

If that is what you meant originally, then I misunderstood you. He, and every other candidate, should have an answer to that question.

[ProfessorPlum]

89. Part of the reason I find this answer unsatisfactory

is that in matters of policy, it is often not good enough to let things happen and then praise them or denounce them retrospectively, depending on how the political winds are blowing.

It is often important to use your knowledge of history, your understanding of how the BFEE works, for example, or the way violence changes a situation, or how wars are started for the benefit of the war profiteers, to look forward and analyze how things might turn out. You might, for example, demand that some level of proof be reached before you undertake something as momentous as an unprovoked war.

Or you might wait and see what everybody else thinks, after nearly a year has passed and it is pretty clear what direction things are heading in.

[DrFunkenstein]

93. An Answer From A Kerry Man

Kerry's position: A) that he would have done it a different way, but he is generally pleased with the outcomes of the invasion, OR B) that the costs of the invasion are too high for the benefits derived?

I'm not sure if you are looking for an exact quote framed under the terms you put out, but I don't have much problem answering B. I think Kerry's goal was clearly disarmament, not regime change.

Kerry said on one of the Sunday morning shows in December that there was no reason why inspectors couldn't still be there. I remember the host repeating it back and Kerry saying it again.

The only benefits to be seen today are regime change, while the costs in lives and dollars are enormous. I find it hard to believe that anyone would suggest that Kerry is generally pleased with the outcome, although people around here tend to renew my faith.

I've tried my best to answer the question presented. Let me know if I'm missing the point somehow.

Here's a quote from Rolling Stone that might help:

"I voted to protect the security of our country, based on the notion that the only way to get inspectors back in was to have a legitimate threat of force and the potential of using it. They took that legitimacy and bastardized it. If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today -- we would not be at war."

http://www.rollingstone.com/features/nationalaffairs/featuregen.asp?pid=2454

And from Will Pitt's interview:

“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.”

The most revealing moment of the entire event came as it was breaking up. Kerry was slowly working towards the door when he was collared by Art Spiegelman. Though Kerry towered over him, Spiegelman appeared to grow with the intensity of his passion. “Senator,” he said, “the best thing you could do is to is to just come out and say that you were wrong to trust Bush. Say that you though he would keep his promises, but that you gave him more credit than he deserved. Say that you’re sorry, and then turn the debate towards what is best for the country in 2004.”

Kerry nodded, bowed his head, and said, “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.”

http://truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

[LuminousX]

97. “You’re right. I was wrong to trust him. I’m sorry I did.”

Can I safely infer from this quote that Kerry would do something different during the run up to war?

[ProfessorPlum]

103. Thanks Doc

I was hoping you'd come through. See, now, that is a cogent response, and one that seems to make a reasonable amount of sense from Kerry's part.

But look how you've had to read the tea leaves to find it. And note that in the Pitt article, he was _forced_ to admit even as far as he did by a passionate anti-war person.

It wasn't until he was in a room full of people who were telling him, hounding him, in fact, about his war position, that he broke down a bit and admitted that they were right.

Why is that?

Why should he have to be ashamed at being able to use his brain and realize this is all a farce? Why should he have to be shamed into admitting that Bush's folly is a terrible fiasco? Why wouldn't he stand up with Kucinich, and Clark, and Dean, about what is right and what is wrong? Why is he afraid to take a position in the full light of the public?

I don't want our nominee to be someone who is afraid to take positions on right and wrong, legal and illegal, etc.

Maybe I'm being too hard on him. Maybe he feels the only way to beat Bush is to just ride the tide of ambivalence.

[DrFunkenstein]

117. What Is The Ambivalence?

There is no ambivalence that I can find regarding the outcome of the war. He is clearly pissed at how things turned out, how his trust in bi-partisan people like Powell and George Tenet was abused.

If you want to put together the outcome and the belief in disarming Saddam Hussein, then yes, you could say that he had two distinct feelings on the issue. And I would share his sentiment.

As far as being hesitant to admit his regret in trusting Bush, that seems to be exactly what he has been saying to the media for weeks. Perhaps it took Spiegelman to put the issue in those terms, but since then he has embraced them.

I understand your frustration - believe me, I felt it too. It was frustrating that I had to put together the pieces of his argument instead of a clear, concise formulation, although I really believed that ultimately his position (if not the sucky vote) was absolutley correct.

On top of that, I believe that he is the most capable of leading us forward internationally in January 2005.

[ProfessorPlum]

121. The ambivalence I'm referring to is that of the electorate

Who don't want to be told that _any_ war might be a bad decision, apparently.

I hope, I really hope, that we start hearing much more from Kerry about this fiasco going forward. And I don't mean about how he personally had his feelings hurt by being betrayed by these other warmongers. I mean about how bad this war is hurting the rest of the people in this country. (And other countries, for that matter).

But I fear that it will be removed as an issue in the general. It just isn't in Kerry's interest to bring it up.

Thanks for the response. We'll see what happens.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

149. THe electorate isn't ambivalent -- they overwhelmingly support Kerry.

Did you miss the election results?

[DrFunkenstein]

160. Only Hardcore Dems Focus So Much On The IWR Still

Kerry has a harder time explaining the nuances of his differences with Dean's Biden-Lugar fantasy position than the glaring differences with Bush.

Kerry will hammer Bush for going back on his word, being an incompetent commander-in-chief, and for continuing to screw up every day that passes.

Dean was too close to the body for a man of Kerry's reach. But Kerry'll come out swinging when he takes on AWOL boy.

[Nicholas_J]

120. Kerry and Gephardt

Are the only two candidates who stated that somnething had to be done about Saddam when he threw the U.N. out in 1998. Perhaps if they had been listened to then, we wouldnt be where we are now.

This was the same stance Kerry took in 1991 when he opposed going to war too soon after Saddams invasion of Kuwait, and his insistance on giving diplomatic and economic pressures to get him out before resorting to war. ZIts not like we have not already been spending billions to keep Saddam in check. That definitely wasnt worth it, and there was not end in sight to the expense.

Is it worth the expense. Considering that we have been spending 20 billion dollars a year to maintain the no fly zones as well as the command support structure to observe Saddams regime and its attempts to get around the conditions set on him at the end of the Gulf War. Yes its worth the expense. Eventually paying billions a year to keep Saddam bottled in Iraq, and a very leaky bottling at that, isnt worth it. Eventually spending billions to keep a brutal dictator starving his people and living in splendor isnt worth it. We have spent the last 12 years keeping Saddam in obscence wealth and his people living in a brutal state of terror. Eventually the shit has to got hit the fan.

[ProfessorPlum]

126. Oh boy

Let's try to get our facts straight, shall we?

Saddam didn't "throw the UN out" in 1998. We pulled the inspectors out because we then began bombing Iraq. Something WAS done about Iraq in 1998. Iraq went from being almost completely disarmed to being totally disarmed, which we've now learned from Bush's own handpicked whitewasher.

And I would point out, that your response "Yes its worth the expense" is in opposition to other Kerry supporters here, but I don't know if you are speaking for Kerry or not.

In any case, the variety of responses seems to make my point that Kerry doesn't seem to have a position on the war. I realize that it is a mixed bag, and that there are some positive results from it, but on the whole, I'd say it is a terrible, horrible error. Probably the worst mistake this country has made in 30 years.

[Mattforclark]

138. For fairness

"In any case, the variety of responses seems to make my point that Kerry doesn't seem to have a position on the war." It could also make the point that his supporters have different ideas about what he thought"

"Probably the worst mistake this country has made in 30 years."

I agree.

[Nicholas_J]

141. We have been spending

Over 20 billion a year maintaing the rater ineffective obseration and maintaining of the no fly zone in Iraq with no end in site to that expense. And yes the U.N, inspectors were required to leave Iraq in 1998, they did not decide to pick up and leave of their own accord.

Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.

--AP, 9/7/02

http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html

Foreign media attention this weekend focused on Iraq's decision on Saturday to ban UN weapons inspectors from working in the country.

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/02/wwwh8n02.html



Fact Sheet
Bureau of International Organization Affairs
Washington, DC
March 20, 2003


"Condemns the {b]decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/fs/2003/18850.htm

Sorry, what part of expelled, banned, and cease to co-operate do you not understand?

How about news reports from quoting the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.N.?


SPENCER MICHELS: Ten days ago, on October 31st, Iraq announced it would bar UN inspectors from visiting suspected weapons production sites unless the United Nations Security Council moved to end trade sanctions against the country.

NIZAR HAMDOON, Iraqi Ambassador to the UN: They will not be given any access to any of our installations from today on.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/iraq_11-10.html

Give me a break ,whether they were thrown out, or told they would not be alowed to operate in Iraq is a matter of pure semantics.


Oct. 31, 1998: UN weapons inspectors are removed from Iraq.

Dec. 16-19, 1998: U.S., U.K. launch "Operation Desert Fox" bombing campaign to destroy suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs.

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/iraq2003/saddam_background.html

1998, the U.N. removed its inspectors from Iraq after issuing a report that indicated that its efforts to fully explore the full extent of the Iraqi weapons program, particularly with respect to biological weapons, had been frustrated. In response, Iraq accused the weapons inspectors as operating as spies for Israeli and western intelligence. The U.S. and Britain (without U.N. approval) immediately launched a four day bombing attack aimed at suspected weapons locations. Iraq has refused to permit inspectors to return since that date.

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

Any you still avoid the question. Is it better to spend 20 billion dollars a year maintaining an air reconnaissance and support facilities in the Mid-East in order to maintain an attempt to keep Saddam bottled into Iraq. Which he has easily gotten around, as recent events have proven that Saddam was easily able to get around the economic sanctions. Which means we were spending 20 billion dollars a year to do absolutely nothing, but keep Saddam in power and wealth,while impovershing his people and mudering and torturing dissidents.

Which over 12 years adds up to 240 billion, with no estimated date which we would stop the air reconnaissance.

Or would it have been better to have donevthins in 1998, and saved an the 100 - 120 billion that has been spend since 1998 doing nothing, and then having to spend close to 260 billion now that it has been decided that enough was enough. WOuld it have been worth another ten years of watching Saddam's borders and attempting to enforce very weak economic sanctions. Years and years at 20 billion or more a year as the costs of doing so increase. Or getting rid of the problem once and for all.

I for one and completely against throwing good money after bad, like spending thousands of dollars a year to try to keep an old car running when the obvious solution eventually is that you must go and buy a new car.

[Mattforclark]

143. What effects are you looking for?

"We have been spending over 20 billion a year maintaing the rater ineffective obseration and maintaining of the no fly zone in Iraq with no end in site to that expense."

What was ineffective about it?

Are the effects - containment - that the policy was supposed to achieve the same ones you are looking for?

Of course there was no end in site to that expense, but is there any end in site to the current expenses? If not, why is the invasion policy better from that perspective if both have no monetary end in site? Wouldn't they both be equally bad from that POV?

"Is it better to spend 20 billion dollars a year maintaining an air reconnaissance and support facilities in the Mid-East in order to maintain an attempt to keep Saddam bottled into Iraq."

Yes. It was not "good" but was better than any alternatives I was ever aware of.

[Nicholas_J]

162. Containment wasnt working

Saddam and the other nations who agreed to containment were doing a lot more than sending the humanitarian aid that economic sanctions were supposed to limit sales to Iraq to.

Sorry. Saddam was given many chances to abide by the terms set at the end of the Gulf War. He didnt. Spending 20 billion dollars a year on a totally ineffective containment effort was throwing 20 billion dollars a year doen the toilet, with no end in sight. With Saddam gone, and bringing in U.N. Nation building agencies, that 20 billion a year gets reduced by a significant percentage, with the members of the U.N. picking up a significant portion of the tab, as they would have had the Bush Adminsitration kept the conditions set before going to war, which was to get an internatioal coalitionm sanctioned by the United Nations and with the member nations sharing the financial burdens, not with the American tax payer picking up the entire tab.

Containment was totally ineffective. Money meant for humanitarian aid was spent on high priced items for Saddams palaces, whil the people of Iraq basically were living from hand to mouth.

Containment simply meant trying to keep Saddam from attacking other nations in the region, but it was also meant to assure that the people of Iraq werew not adverssely effected by the economic sanctions placed on Iraq, and that the people of Iraq would be the only people to benefit from the humanitarian aid allowed under the sanctions. This clearly did not happen, It was clearly not true. THe entire nation was falling to pieces, except for the welathy supporters of the Baath Party.

This owuld have been no differnt than arriving at a decision to contain Hitler in the 30's and 40's, but to ignore concentration camps and the mass genocide that the Nazi regime engaged in.
Eventually you must look at containment and see if it is doing what was intended. And it simply did not.

[Mattforclark]

137. Why must the s*** hit the fan?

"Are the only two candidates who stated that somnething had to be done about Saddam when he threw the U.N. out in 1998. Perhaps if they had been listened to then, we wouldnt be where we are now."

Yes, but "something" is not synonymous with invasion. There are other methods of coercion.

"This was the same stance Kerry took in 1991 when he opposed going to war too soon after Saddams invasion of Kuwait, and his insistance on giving diplomatic and economic pressures to get him out before resorting to war. ZIts not like we have not already been spending billions to keep Saddam in check. That definitely wasnt worth it, and there was not end in sight to the expense."

Neither is there an end in sight to the present expense. Sanctions (or certain types of sanctions) are also not necessarily parts of a policy of containment.

"Is it worth the expense. Considering that we have been spending 20 billion dollars a year to maintain the no fly zones as well as the command support structure to observe Saddams regime and its attempts to get around the conditions set on him at the end of the Gulf War. Yes its worth the expense. Eventually paying billions a year to keep Saddam bottled in Iraq, and a very leaky bottling at that, isnt worth it. Eventually spending billions to keep a brutal dictator starving his people and living in splendor isnt worth it. We have spent the last 12 years keeping Saddam in obscence wealth and his people living in a brutal state of terror."

First of all that's False dilemma, as you allow no possible changes or tweaking of a containment policy (e.g. looking at 'smart sanctions' or dropping sanctions entirely). And then there are also many other options other than full scale invasion, such as giving air support with some special ops guys on the ground to the Kurds/Shia in 91. The Kurds were essentially an independent state in the 90's even without our help (though many were killed), and perhaps the Shi'ites could have been too. You also note rightly the costs of containment but do not mention its benefits, nor do you mention the costs of invasion.

"Eventually the shit has to got hit the fan."

Why? And the purpose of containment is to prevent the shit from hitting the fan, hence the name "containment."

[Nicholas_J]

163. THey kept twaeking the policy of containment

Over that 12 years and there were repeated U.N. resolutions dealing with Iraqs intransigence between 1991 and 2001.

The U.N. did not write one batch of resolution after the gulf war and leave them sit, they kept on altering and changing thepoliciy of containment and the types of sanctions they placed upon Iraq for 12 years. This resulted in the Clinton Administration passing:


In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The UN showed obvious frustration over the years that Iraq was not only failing to disarm, but was interfering with the work of weapons inspectors. Resolutions were passed and statements were released - at least once a year - calling for Iraq to disarm and fully cooperate with inspectors. On many occasions, Iraqi soldiers physically prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job and in at least one case, took documents away from the inspectors.


In 1998, US President Bill Clinton expressed concerns about Iraq's failure to disarm, noting that he believed the country would give its weapons of mass destruction to other countries. Clinton also stated his belief that Saddam Hussein would eventually use these weapons - it was "only a matter of time." On September 29, 1998, The United States Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which states that the U.S. intends to remove Saddam Hussein from office and replace the government with a democratic institution. The Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Clinton on October 31, 1998. On the same day, Iraq announced it would no longer cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

Clinton's plans to remove Hussein from power were put on hold when the U.N., under Kofi Annan, brokered a deal wherein Iraq would allow weapons inspectors back into the country. Iraq quit cooperating with the inspectors only days later and the inspectors left the country in December. (Inspectors would return the following year as part of The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic).

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/jsp/db/viewWiki.jsp?title=Iraq+disarmament+crisis

Sorry, again, there is no justification for spending 20 billion dollars a year on what is essentially a failed policy. It is no more justified performing the kind of tweaking noted above if the one of the parties involved repeatedly shows that they have absolutely no intent to abide by the agreements. The resolutions passes between 1991 and 2001 had absoltely no effect on the nature of the regime in Iraq, and there is absolutely no intelligence in following a broken policy. For any reason whatsoever.

Looks like the attempted to do tweaking, every year between 1991 and 2003 to absolutely no avail, other than Saddam would agree each time, and then simply disregard his agreement, calling for the U.N. to do more tweaking, Saddam agreeing, and then disregarding what he agreed to.

It is more than obvious that 12 years of tweaking had absoltely no effect at all.

Eventually, when you have given someone every opportunity over a period of 12 years to comply, and you do so using diplomatic methods that that party simply ignores, then the shit must hit the fan.

In order to maintain relations with the other nations of the world, Saddam Hussein signed onto numerous agreements stating that he would play by the same set opf rules that the resto of the world hasbasically agreed to play by. Dont invade your neighbors to stela their oil. DOnt lob nerve gas into small towns of minority member of your nations. Dont lob nerve gas rounds over your border into another nations you want to stealt oil resources from. Once you have had your ass whupped for doing it andsue for peace, abide by the agreements that you signed in order to stop your ass from being whupped more. It is really quite simple. And eventually when you keep breaking the rules, you may have to face more serious consequences.

And not expect the American people to leep shelling out billions of dollars a year to shore up your ability to build and own more and more palaces and luxuries while you abuse your own people.

Sorry, thecontainemt was totally ineffective and did nothing more than keep a brutal tyrant living in the style to which he had become accustomed.

[edzontar]

122. I assume that Kerry still supports the war he voted for.

But who can really tell when he consistently fails to speak clearly on the subject?

[ProfessorPlum]

127. Buzzz. Sorry

No IWR here please. I agree though that he doesn't speak clearly on the subject.

[edzontar]

130. If he can't explain his views on the subject, then all we have is the vote

To judge him by.

[ProfessorPlum]

133. Ok, fair enough

but as I said at the top, his vote was a vote to threaten Saddam with invasion if he didn't let the inspectors in. It was, in effect, a bluff, with the intention to back the bluff with force if the UN said Ok and there was proof and everything was conducted in a non-insane way from Kerry's perspective. I just don't think we can beat him up about that - he made a call (a bad one in my opinion), but he can redeem himself by having a position on the war which is understood and articulated well.

[edzontar]

140. Well, that is one way to read the vote. Kennedy, Byrd and others

Seem to have recognized the reslution for what it really was and turned out in fact to BE--a Blank check for war.

Look, anyone who really looked at the situation could only have concluded that Bush was going to go to war.

Kerry is not a stuid man, so he MUST have known what his support was going to lead to.

When he tries to tell me anything else my eyes glaze over, because I just cannot believe him.

[LuminousX]

150. More importantly

Kerry should have realized Bush was going with or without the resolution and should never have enabled him, giving Bush the cover of bipartisan support.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

154. Kennedy seems to have recognized that Kerry should be President.

Perhaps your opinions about his judgements are wrong.

[corporatewhore]

135. I was thinkin about this question and words that my congressman came to

mindI rember when i got a chance to talk to my congressman Lloyd Doggett in the months that the newswhores and the white house where trying to sellus the war he came down to austin for a meeting with his constituents and i asked him why will all the other congress members go along with bush? He responded because they think it it will be a "good war" quick easy and it will get them patriotism points so maybe that is what kerry was thinking