Question to Kerry supporters re: his stance on the Iraq war

I would like clarification on John Kerry's stance re: Iraq.

When asked if a President Kerry would have gone to war with Iraq a few months ago he said something along the lines of "well I don't answer hypotheticals" and basically ducked the question.

Tonight at the steelworkers forum he said that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, but we should have used diplomacy etc etc etc.

So what would Kerry have done when the weapons inspectors went in and they couldn't find any WMD? I think it's quite obvious now that this would have been the outcome of the inspections.

I just can't figure out if he would have done the same thing that Bush did which was to find any reason to attack Hussein.

So please answer this question because I am confused as heck: From your understanding of Kerry's stances would a President Kerry have gone to war with Saddam Hussein even if no WMD evidence could be substantiated?

...and some other democrats running.

If they voted for the war and are now wimpishly backtracking (with little conviction), how can we expect them to stand by their principles against the Repub sharks in Congress? Or do they HAVE principles?

This is why my vote is for the outsider: Dean.

the post clearly said "for Kerry supporters"?

It was just slightly diffferent than the Iraq resolution. of course, that was last fall before the antiwar movement grew. But, you're certainly free to believe he was against the Iraq war.

Kerry's position has been unchanging for a long time. He has been in favor of disarming Iraq through the UN process. That means the whole inspection process that was subverted by BushCo. Would Kerry have driven this country into this Haliburton-sponsored war in the face of almost unanimous world opposition? I guessed I've framed the question in a way that tells you what I think the answer is.

Now you say that he said Saddam Hussein needed to be removed. I have to say I don't agree with that statement. You didn't use quotation marks and I'm guessing you didn't take notes. As far as I know it is not Kerry's position that Saddam NEEDED to be removed and that it was neccesary for us to invade. If he is saying that it would be a drastic departure from everything he has said in the past. 'It is a good thing that Saddam is no longer in power.' would be more like his position as I understand it. That is something I agree with, but not at the cost of having our troops over there or thousands of Iraqis killed. And Kerry has called quite forcefully for this whole thing to be internationalized and 'UN'ized, to end the American occupation of Iraq.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=897


As someone who has been interested in Kerry for around ten years since he first excited me with a Senate floor speech when I was watching CSPAN, I have no doubt that we would not be in Iraq today if Kerry were President. Would we have gone into Afghanistan? I don't know but if you listened to what Kerry has had to say about Tora Bora, you probably know that if Kerry had gone into Afghanistan to get Osama, we'd probably have him by now. It's a disgrace that we let him get away.

On edit: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.25A.Kerry.tactics.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.01E.kerry.bush.htm

"I guessed I've framed the question in a way that tells you what I think the answer is."

Does that mean you don't know either?

In terms of the exact wording he used, I can't get access to the cspan archive so I'm not sure. But I thought he sounded like he was trying to build a case to remove Saddam Hussein. I could have sworn he talked about how Saddam broke previous U.N. resolutions, how he threatened his neighbors and how dangerous he was etc.

And then he talked about how Clinton went to Kosovo and Haiti without congressional approval and I was even more confused. Was he trying to say his vote could not have controlled Bush anyway? Or was he endorsing the Commander in Chief's prerogative to go to war without the consent of congress and suggesting he would be a strong Prez by utilizing it?

I don't know if I could handle having Kerry as my Prez. I just can't figure out what he is trying to say.

to what he says without bothering to actually comprehend what he is saying.Like youy did with this gem.

>>>... Or was he endorsing the Commander in Chief's prerogative to go to war without the consent of congress and suggesting he would be a strong Prez by utilizing it?>>>>

sheesh.

Absolutely no way would we be in Iraq right now if Kerry were President. Anyone who has listened seriously to him speak would never honestly suggest otherwise. And to suggest that you couldn't tell that's what I meant in my post - I just don't buy it.

In fact I think any real Democrats know we wouldn't be at war right now if any Democrat were President - even the most hawkish would not have lied and steamrolled this country into this unjust, illegal war.

I don't believe you are being honest in your questioning. When I first responded to the thread I thought you were really looking to find out about Kerry's position. But here you've got another post that just includes a lot of vague questions and insinuations, protesting that 'you can't figure out what he's trying to say' without actually including the words he used. So you are basically setting us up to defend a moving target, one you move at will.

Your tactics are despicable. The lives of our troops, the future of our country are too important to be decided in such a manner.

He wouldn't have. No democrat running would have.

Only Bush.

a Pres. Kerry would not have gone to war?

who wants to wean the U.S. off foreign oil, would probably have done the Clinton thing and let the sanctions continue (not the greatest alternative, but certainly better than war) and kept Saddam where he was - relatively harmless.

If he really did have WMD's - he would have told the world about it, like Kim Jung Il - just to keep his ass safe. We wouldn't have needed to find them.

I thought he was terrific in the debate last nite.

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

then he thinks we should not have gone to war and he is against this war?

Or is he for the war even though it looks like there was no imminent threat but wished that everyone else was in the war too?

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

If he's the nominee, he's got my vote.

This Iraq war just really gets my goat and I wish he would just say he was against it.

I'll leave it here.

Thanks for your input everyone!

You will learn a lot about John Kerry, and you will come away feeling very good about the prospect of John Kerry being the next President of the United States.

http://nhpr.org/view_content/5027/

As for the war on terrorism, John Kerry feels that is it is to be won through intelligence and law enforcement, and that arrogance and unilateralism won't cut it.

This radio interview is well worth listening to. Kerry insists that it is your values that matter, what you fight for, what you care about, not where you come from.

I am with Max Cleland, who in a recent fundraising letter, said the following:

"I am writing to tell you that John Kerry has what it takes to win.

I'm convinced that John Kerry has the ideas to move America forward in a new direction to attack our problems, the leadership qualities to build broad public support for those ideas, the spirit and energy to get America moving again and the courage to wage a winning campaign against relentless opposition."

Cleland certainly knows a thing or two about relentless opposition!

And he would have gone in ONLY with the FULL backing of the UN...so...No, if the UN wasn't going in and the WMDs proved to be nonexistent, no way would a President Kerry go in. Because war as a LAST resort wouldn't be necessary then, would it?

Kerry shed many tears on the matter, unlike Bush. Kerry would NEVER have acted as irresponsibly with the lives of so many. Kerry would never have done this, nor would any of the other Dems as stated elsehwere here.
We need adults in charge again, Kerry's the most adult.

Then why wouldn't he sign on to the second resolution drawn up by kennedy and byrd in an effort to reverse the ill fated initial resolution to back smirk.

He had the chance--when it was more than obvious that Bush was going through the motions while he sent the troops in. For months Bush pounded away at this relentlessly while people poured into the streets to protest the intent of war in the bitter cold around the world.

Kerry was a political coward who selfishly hoped to get some of that nationalistic military fever directed his way.

in the words of John McCain, we could not risk appearing to the world to be un-united.
It's one thing to have protestors in the streets. It's another to have congress fighting amongst itself.
Bush fucked up the diplomacy. It's as simple as that.

for excusing those in congress who abdicated their constitutional responsibility. Those who voted along with this criminal enterprise for the purpose of appearing "united" demonstrated their inability to stand up and challenge when it is in the interests of the country and it's future security to do so. In essense they demonstarted a darth of leadership and a political cowardice in caving to the brain-dead chimp.

If Saddam Hussein refused to grant unfettered inspections to ensure disarmament. He said it was a huge mistake for Bush to muddy the waters by blustering about invasion and regime change, which spooked our allies (rightly). Regime change was an absolute last option. He also said very clearly before the vote that a Iraq did not pose an imminent threat. And, finally, Kerry said that the US should thoroughly prepare for winning the peace, including a realistic exit strategy.

Kerry has been stating the same exact position since at least 1997, which is what Dean echoed earlier this year. I say earlier this year, because I have yet to see an example of Dean calling for disarmament before mid-February. Apparently, he was too busy building himself up as THE anti-war candidate. By February, he had established himself as a contender and could lurch to the center. In the words of FAIR's Norman Soloman:

"Dean is already sending a message to his announced supporters among peace and social-justice advocates: Thanks, suckers."

----

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” -Sen. John Kerry 11/9/97

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” -Sen. John Kerry 11/9/97

----

However difficult the Iraq vote was for Kerry, he has been absolutely consistent in his proposed course of action for the last six years. Where other candidates focus almost solely on criticism, Kerry has been proposing solutions.

usually.

reminded me why I'm no longer a Dem.

- Incoherent on healthcare
- Pro US soldiers being killed for lies
- Pro WTO / Nafta

Oh, but he looks "Presidential" whatever that means. Yeah, I suppose fascists tend to do that. Maybe he could run on the "compasionist fascist" ticket...has a nice ring to it.

any other brilliant insights?

John Kerry’s Health Care plan is easy. It will:

1. Let any American - if they choose - buy into the same health plan that the President and Members of Congress give themselves -- with subsidies for those who can't afford insurance.

2. Automatically cover every child in America throuh state Medicaid programs.

3. Build on the system we have, rather than create a government-run bureaucracy with no choice and skyrocketing costs.

4. Cover 75% of the cost for catastrophic cases, reducing the burden on insurance companies and lowering premiums by as much as 10%.

5. Reduce costs by emphasizing preventive care before expensive procedures become necessary.

6. Cut prescription drug price skimming by enormous corporate middlemen that buy in bulk cheaply, but refuse to pass on the savings.

7. Cut medical bureaucracy and waste by up to 50% through new technology such as digital record-keeping of medical information.

8. Reduce medical errors by up to 88% through this technology, saving the lives of up to 80,000 people each and every year.

9. Will help weed out meritless malpractice lawsuits without taking away patients’ rights.

10. Provide targeted tax-credits to make health coverage both manageable and affordable for small businesses.

11. Offers a 75% tax-credit to the unemployed to buy into the Congressional Health Plan or pay for the coverage they already have.

12. Provide the health care America’s veterans deserve and are much too often denied.

----

You're second point is just stupid. It is. John Kerry has been a tireless advocate for soldiers' and veterans' rights since he served himself. Kerry supported holding Saddam accountable for his disarmament, not for "lies."

Perhaps you missed the Kerry Amendment to NAFTA:

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=121&chamber=S&congress=1072

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0521-13.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/news2002/0515-04.htm

If you are a Green(?), it might impress you that Kerry is consistently given A-/B+ grades by Public Citizen, and recieved a 100% rating from PIRG.

BCCI, THE CIA AND FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE

Excerpt:
On May 14, 1991, Senator Kerry wrote CIA Director Webster to again request the briefing paper on BCCI prepared by the CIA, as well as information on the CIA's own use of the bank. No reply was received in response to this letter from the CIA for over two months, during which BCCI was closed globally following its seizure in the United Kingdom by the Bank of England on July 5, 1991.

In the meantime, cleared staff requested a formal briefing from CIA staff concerning the CIA's knowledge of BCCI's activities. The CIA provided an oral briefing at its offices in June, 1991 at the "secret" level, consisting of very general information concerning BCCI's use by drug traffickers, material which was by then already largely a matter of public record. The briefer provided by the CIA to Congressional staff was unfamiliar with other basic information about BCCI, such as the names of BCCI's shareholders, including former Saudi intelligence chief Kamal Adham, the key figure in BCCI's secret takeover of First American, and the CIA's former principal contact in the Arab Middle East. Further, the briefer also appeared to be ignorant of the principal analytic documents concerning BCCI previously prepared by the CIA and disseminated to Executive Branch agencies, which contained this and other more important information about BCCI.(4)

On July 23, 1991, CIA director Webster replied to Senator Kerry's May 14 request by letter, admitting to the existence of two documents concerning BCCI, which were described as "extremely sensitive" and therefore restricted to being held by the Senate intelligence committee.(5) On reviewing these memoranda, Senator Kerry recognized that the earlier of the two documents, created in early 1986, contained startling information -- that the First American Bank in Washington was secretly owned by BCCI. The distribution list attached to the memorandum indicated that the CIA had communicated this information at the time to the Treasury Department. These was no indication that either Treasury or the CIA had ever advised the Federal Reserve, the primary regulator of First American, of this critical information.

Senator Kerry asked Judge Webster to declassify immediately the fact that the CIA had known as of 1986 that BCCI owned First American, and to begin the process of declassifying the entirety of both memoranda. On July 31, 1991, the CIA advised Senator Kerry that he could reveal the information concerning BCCI's secret ownership of First American, but no other information from the memos. The CIA had not yet acknowledged its own use of BCCI to the Subcommittee, or provided access to any other materials prepared by the CIA concerning BCCI.

…MUCH MORE....
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/11intel.htm

I'm am a Kerry fan, but I have to admit his constant waffling on the Iraq issue is pure politics. To me, it's obvious that we wouldn't have gone into Iraq if he was the President, but he's afraid to say that because he thinks it may cost him votes. In the end, though, I'm more concerned with what he would do in the future, and given his service in Vietnam and his opposition to that war when he came home, I highly doubt he'd take us into unnecessary wars.

The bottom line is that people will have far more respect for Kerry as CinC than Bush. The politicization of the war climate since 9/11 is working in Kerry's favor.... for better or worse.