Reply #6: which is roughly backed up by Kerry's speech in January 2003 [View All]

at Georgetown University: http://kerry.senate.gov/text/cfm/record.cfm?id=189831

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

Personally, I'd have liked to see something in there about letting the UN inspectors finish their job - it's sort of implied, but there's nothing explicit. If someone had thought 'in good faith' that the intelligence showed Iraq had WMDs before Resolution 1441, then they ought to have paid close attention to the inspectors' not finding anything. But I think the speech shows that Kerry had already gone on record as saying the war wasn't yet justified by early 2003.

It's also notable that Hans Blix has backed Kerry for President - http://www.lastampa.it/Speciali/iraq2004/articoli/art040524.asp . Roughly "Are you following the campaign for the American presidency?"
"I have trust in the multilateralism of the democratic candidate John Kerry. I think however that all the world ought to vote on 2 November, because so much depends on that result".