John Kerry's statement on the Iraq "authorization"

[Babar]

John Kerry's statement on the Iraq "authorization," made from the Senate floor on October 9th, 2002. For those people who mistakenly assert that Kerry was gung-ho to get rid of Saddam Hussein and that he flip flopped when he later express his misgivings about the war--here's what he REALLY said. He didn't flip flop--his exact words are here.

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.'' It means "America speaks with one voice.''

 Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is 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 joint concert with our allies.

 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.

 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."


From the Congressional Record

[Babar]

John Kerry's statement on the Iraq "authorization"

[ric]

This report was made in Sept 29 2004  .... Do you see the difference?

(CBS) In Part Two of our series examining how the candidates have changed their minds on the issues, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn looks at John Kerry's most notable flip-flops.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate's Role In Wars With Iraq

Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.”

Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress “no further say” on the war.

In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.

In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply “to threaten” the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.



If I Knew Then What I Know Now…

“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."

But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.

In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”

But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."


The $87 Billion Vote

In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.

"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.

Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.

But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.

Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."


The Israeli Security Fence

In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”

“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”

But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”


Patriot Act

Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, “it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11.”

But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated “replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.”


Death Penalty for Terrorists

In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a “terrorist protection policy.”

He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.

Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.

Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.


Releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserves

In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “not relevant” to solving the problem with high fuel prices.

But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government's emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.

In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.


Affirmative Action

Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program "inherently limited and divisive," and said it had "kept America thinking in racial terms." He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.

At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry’s critics question how he can support a program that he once called “divisive.” Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.


Trade

Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.

Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade – including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.

As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure “workers rights” in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating "a race to the bottom" among poverty-stricken nations.


No Child Left Behind

Kerry voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act” but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.

Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were “punitive.”


©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Sept 29 2004

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
John Kerry's statement on the Iraq "authorization," made from the Senate floor on October 9th, 2002. For those people who mistakenly assert that Kerry was gung-ho to get rid of Saddam Hussein and that he flip flopped when he later express his misgivings about the war--here's what he REALLY said. He didn't flip flop--his exact words are here.

"As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.'' It means "America speaks with one voice.''

 Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is 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 joint concert with our allies.

 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.

 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."


From the Congressional Record

Um yeah and let's take a look at what happened.  We presented our information to the UN just as we were asked to.  We discussed these various proposals with the voting members of the security council.  We put a resolution through to have a vote on using force to make Saddam disarm.  We had the necessary number of votes to get that resolution passed making it perfectly legal in the eyes of the UN.  

HOWEVER.

France stepped up to the plate and said point blank that the resolution was pointless because if it was ratified they would use their security council vote to veto it and make it null and void.  The same France that was buying illegal oil under the table from Saddam.  The same France that had intelligence reports saying Saddam had WMDs.  

The US then went off and garnered the support of 46 other nations and invaded Iraq.  All of Kerry's prerequisites were met and it was obstructionist France which stopped them from being carried out in the UN, not Bush.

Regardless, this speech by Kerry outlined why HE wanted the US to invaded Iraq.  That's fine and good, but it doesn't represent why Bush wanted to invade Iraq and as I have pointed out, Bush's state of the union address outlined more reasons than WMDs.  

Editorial about Bush's reasons for the war and Kerry's attacks on them.

[ScutMonkey]

Editorial about French corruption.

It outlines some of the findings in the Duelfer reports which are an indictment of various members of the French government which have ties with Chirac.

[Babar]

From where did all these third party analyses and all this fluff about France come?

I showed you Kerry's own words. I don't care what CBS says--read his own words, given during debate on the Iraq authorization. Unless you are judging him by what you suspect his intent to be--rather than relying on what he actually said. I do not subscribe to argumentum ad populum fallacy. I rely on words and actions, not editorials or secondary analyses.

The topic of this thread is John Kerry's statement on the Iraq authorization. I don't care what France did, because that argument also goes both ways. Halliburton unduly and unethically profited from Iraq, and Scut, your "46 countries" statement is so ridiculcous. Only one country has any sort of substantial number of troops (UK); the rest have minor contigents (nine have under 100!) and countries are actually withdrawing from the "coalition" now, not joining.

The "imminent threat" requirement of the authorization, that John Kerry mentioned in his floor speech, was never met. Kerry is and should always be correct that the President should have such authority to wage war; after all that is part of the job description! Nobody disputes that. To pull a straw man fallacy here is unbecoming. What has been ignored are Kerry's assertions that he would have conducted himself differently than Bush, which have remained consistent! He has always said that he supported the President possessing the authority, and has always said he opposed the way the President chose to exercise this authority. To try and argue otherwise is a syllogistic error.

[Babar]

No response?

[Rocky]

"Um yeah and let's take a look at what happened. We presented our information to the UN just as we were asked to."


Scut WE WERE WRONG.  We went to the UN with wrong information.  Information that many of the highest intelligence officials in the US said was wrong at the time.  You dont seem to get the fact that we were wrong, we made the mistake.  You like to keep blaming France.  Yay France sucks, no one is debating, John Kerry is pro French even thoughg you make it sound like he is.  He's Pro admitting we screwed up big time about a war and plans to do the best to deal with a bad situation.  Bush wont admit he was wrong, that he used wrong evidence at the UN, or that anything bad is going on in the world because of Iraq.  So your stubborness goes right along with Bushs, no wonder youve fallen as such a pawn to his rhetoric.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Rocky
"Um yeah and let's take a look at what happened. We presented our information to the UN just as we were asked to."


Scut WE WERE WRONG.  We went to the UN with wrong information.  Information that many of the highest intelligence officials in the US said was wrong at the time.  You dont seem to get the fact that we were wrong, we made the mistake.  You like to keep blaming France.  Yay France sucks, no one is debating, John Kerry is pro French even thoughg you make it sound like he is.  He's Pro admitting we screwed up big time about a war and plans to do the best to deal with a bad situation.  Bush wont admit he was wrong, that he used wrong evidence at the UN, or that anything bad is going on in the world because of Iraq.  So your stubborness goes right along with Bushs, no wonder youve fallen as such a pawn to his rhetoric.

Look, you're the one that wants to argue like a lawyer.  At the time the intel was presented, NOBODY thought we were wrong on the intel.  Not France, not Germany, not Russia.  Why?  Because their intel said the same thing.  You walk into a court of law, a real court - not an anti-American kangaroo court like The Hague - and you present this information and the US is clearly in the right here.  France didn't use their veto because they thought the intel was wrong, they used it because they were buying oil illegally.

[Babar]

I don't care what France did, because that argument also goes both ways. Halliburton unduly and unethically profited from Iraq, and Scut, your "46 countries" statement is so ridiculcous. Only one country has any sort of substantial number of troops (UK); the rest have minor contigents (nine have under 100!) and countries are actually withdrawing from the "coalition" now, not joining.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
From where did all these third party analyses and all this fluff about France come?

Gosh, if that doesn't prove my point, I don't know what does.  You've never heard of the Oil for Food scandal?  If you haven't, then you're so in the dark about the mess the UN is.  Basically it boils down like this.  In the last 11 years while nobody has been pushing Saddam on the WMDs like they were supposed to, France, Russia and other countries were secretly buying oil under the table from Saddam and they were using Kofi Annan's son as the middle man for the deals.  When the vote on using force against Saddam arose in 2003, all of the sudden France is using her security council veto against the US even though France's own intelligence reports back what the US is saying.  In fact, much of our intel was given to us by France by people THEY interrogated.  As a result of that veto, there is no vote - a vote we would have won, btw.  We win that vote and the actions in Iraq are completely legitmate by UN standards and these arguments are completely different.  We'd be arguing about why our collective intel was so wrong, which is what we SHOULD be arguing about.  

How is any of this fluff?  If the US was buying that oil illegally from Iraq, we'd be getting raked over the coals internationally.  Instead, the world is practically ignoring the scandal.

quote:
I showed you Kerry's own words. I don't care what CBS says--read his own words, given during debate on the Iraq authorization. Unless you are judging him by what you suspect his intent to be--rather than relying on what he actually said. I do not subscribe to argumentum ad populum fallacy. I rely on words and actions, not editorials or secondary analyses.

The topic of this thread is John Kerry's statement on the Iraq authorization. I don't care what France did, because that argument also goes both ways. Halliburton unduly and unethically profited from Iraq, and Scut, your "46 countries" statement is so ridiculcous. Only one country has any sort of substantial number of troops (UK); the rest have minor contigents (nine have under 100!) and countries are actually withdrawing from the "coalition" now, not joining.

And you think it was that much different in 1991 when we had the full compliment of the world's troops.  The only countries with any troops in Iraq were the major players.  

As far as Haliburton, that's a red herring.  Haliburton has been doing these sorts of operations under both Democrats and Republicans since Vietnam.  Clinton used Haliburton like crazy because this is what they do and yes, there were no-bid contracts under these various Presidents as well.  

quote:
The "imminent threat" requirement of the authorization, that John Kerry mentioned in his floor speech, was never met. Kerry is and should always be correct that the President should have such authority to wage war; after all that is part of the job description! Nobody disputes that. To pull a straw man fallacy here is unbecoming. What has been ignored are Kerry's assertions that he would have conducted himself differently than Bush, which have remained consistent! He has always said that he supported the President possessing the authority, and has always said he opposed the way the President chose to exercise this authority. To try and argue otherwise is a syllogistic error.

Excuse me, but when is Kerry allowed to rewrite a law all by his lonesome without letting anyone else vote on it?  The authorization for force was written a certain way and if Kerry didn't like it, he didn't have to vote for it.  He did and regardless of his vocal stipulations to that law, they are not IN that law and Bush was not bound by that law.  That means one of two things:

1.  He's a naive idiot who didn't read that law - I don't believe this because he's been in Congress for 20 years and knows better.
2.  He was covering his own ass with that vote.  If all goes well, he voted for it - zippidy doo dah.  If it doesn't, he can always say he voted for it without voting for it - which is what he's doing now.

[ScutMonkey]

quote:
Originally posted by: Babar
I don't care what France did, because that argument also goes both ways. Halliburton unduly and unethically profited from Iraq, and Scut, your "46 countries" statement is so ridiculcous. Only one country has any sort of substantial number of troops (UK); the rest have minor contigents (nine have under 100!) and countries are actually withdrawing from the "coalition" now, not joining.

You don't care what France did because you hate this administration so much you can't think reasonably.

Even if what Haliburton did was illegal  - and it's clearly not - two wrongs don't make a right do they?  And how does illegally gotten oil which subverts the entire UN process equal completely legal Haliburton contracts?  

How in the world can you brush aside the damage France and others did with that security council veto coverup?  You do realize that looking at this from another angle, all of this enmity between the US and those other members is spawned not by so called American Imperlialism but by French, German, and Russian corruption.  If that veto never happens and there is a vote which the US wins, all of the sudden it is a UN action, not a US action and none of the accusations about "unilateralism" can fester.

[Babar]

From Factcheck.org, the site Cheney meant to refer people to when he told people to go to "factcheck.com."

Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

[Babar]

And Scut, I don't appreciate your misleading assertion that Kerry didn't know what he was voting for. His speech, which I copied pasted in my first post, mentions explicitly the exact language used in the resolution you speak of.

H.J.RES 114

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[Rocky]

Scut again you come to me with France.  Why dont you get the fact that France sucks?  Is it really necessary to have me repeat myself in agreement with you everytime because you cant come up with an argument about why Bush shouldnt be held accountable.  Bush was wrong, doesnt matter if France agreed with us or disagreed we were wrong.  And you say that no one thought it was wrong?  Maybe you missed the 9/11 commission and all their testimony from Intelligence officials.  There were quite a few saying we were wrong.  Maybe you missed all the posts on this board at the begining of the war saying the US was wrong and Iraq had no WMD.  Sure the case wasnt black and white, but dont tell me everyone agreed.