Kerry Speech - Iraq & World Alliances

There is Dean rhetoric here, it's a campaign after all. The stuff highlighted is why I support Kerry.

As Prepared for Delivery

Shortly after he took office, Thomas Jefferson – America’s first chief diplomat – laid out the goals of American foreign policy: “We are pointing out the way to struggling nations who wish, like us, to emerge from their tyrannies.” For 225 years – and with gathering force during the course of the last century – these words have guided an America that has come to believe that the surest way to defend our people is to advance our ideals.

Saturday evening, halfway around the world, in a dark hole beneath a mud shack on a sheep farm, Jefferson’s promise was fulfilled again. Saddam Hussein was a totalitarian who waged a reign of terror against his people and repeatedly endangered the peace of the world. And no one can doubt that we are safer – and Iraq is better – because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars.

His capture is a great tribute to the skill and bravery of the U.S. Armed Forces, who showed Saturday as they do everyday what it means to have the greatest military in history – and why we must never retreat from having the strongest military in the world. This nation stands united with a single message for our troops: Job well done.

Saddam Hussein’s capture also represents a two-fold opportunity. For President Bush, it is still another chance to transform the situation in Iraq from an American occupation to a global coalition. And it is an opportunity for America to reclaim the best of our historic role overseas and to once again lead the world toward progress and freedom.

From the Battle of Belleau Wood to the Battle of the Bulge, from Korea to Kosovo, the story of the last century is of an America that accepted the heavy responsibility of its historic obligation – to serve as not just a beacon of hope, but to work with allies across the world to defend and extend the frontiers of freedom.

But today, we confront a dual danger – two major detours from the true path of American leadership. On one side is President Bush who has taken America off onto the road of unilateralism and ideological preemption. On the other side are those in my own party who threaten to take us down a road of confusion and retreat.

Iraq has been ground zero in that ideological tug of war, with difficult decisions that had to be made, and complicated issues of national security that had to be discussed with Americans honestly and responsibly.

When America needed leadership on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot, with a lot of slogans and a lot less solutions. One moment he supported authorizing the use of force, the next he criticized those who did. He said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, then he said he’d figured out that he didn’t. He said he opposed the war all along, but less than a month before it began he said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then ‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’

And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for our security, better for Iraq’s future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing – it cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound danger for both our national security and global stability.

The Democratic Party has always been stronger than that. Woodrow Wilson led America in a fight for self-determination and against old empires. Franklin Roosevelt defended freedom from fascism. Harry Truman contained the expansion of communism and introduced the Marshall Plan. John F. Kennedy pledged a “long twilight struggle” to end the Cold War. Jimmy Carter renewed America’s commitment to human rights around the world. And from Haiti to Bosnia, Bill Clinton placed America’s might on the side of America’s values while he expanded our circle of allies at the same time. And none of them would ever have given others the power to prevent America from defending its interests or its ideals.

To follow the path that Howard Dean seems to prefer is to embrace a “Simon Says” foreign policy where America only moves if others move first. And that is just as wrong as George Bush’s policy of schoolyard taunts and cowboy swagger. Our job is to lead the world to a better place, to convince allies of mutual interest and global responsibilities.

We need a President who will not walk away from a dangerous world – and a President who will not walk alone by choice – but a President who will lead a new alliance of free nations to build a new era of security and peace. A President who will rally democratic countries to join in a lasting coalition to address the common ills of a new century – terrorism, loose nukes, and drug trafficking, environmental destruction and epidemic disease. And with your help, that’s the kind of President I will be.

I believe it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN agreements. I believed then – and I believe now – authorizing force was the only way to get inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to enforce Saddam Hussein’s compliance with the mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last resort war could become the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.

And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the credibility to be elected President.

A year and a half ago, as this campaign was starting, I argued that for Democrats to win America's votes we must first convince the voters that we will keep America safe.

I believed then and I believe now that Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. To provide responsible leadership, we need to take the third path in foreign policy – a bold, progressive internationalism – backed by undoubted military might – that commits America to lead in the cause of human liberty and prosperity. If Democrats do not stand for making America safer, stronger, and more secure, we won’t win back the White House – and we won’t deserve to.

We need a President who can take us back to America’s rightful path in the world because President Bush has taken us so far off course. Whether it is failing to support a new Afghanistan or supporting a failed coup in Venezuela, whether it is pushing the world away on the Kyoto treaty or pushing the world into danger over North Korea, this Administration’s go-it-alone attitude has endangered our interests and enraged those who should be our friends.

Nowhere is that clearer than in Iraq. The Bush Administration has not just been unilateralist in war, but unilateralist in the ongoing guerilla struggle. And we have been paying too high a price – in dollars and the deaths of young Americans – to continue down this road. Let’s be clear: Our problems in Iraq have not been caused by one man – and simply capturing Saddam Hussein does not finally and fully clear the path to a peaceful and democratic outcome. This is a moment of opportunity, a turning point when the Administration can and should face the realities of how you gain international support in this effort. We cannot expect other nations to join us now if the Administration prohibits them from sharing the reconstruction because they opposed us previously. That not only defies common sense – it’s childish retribution which puts our troops at greater risk. It’s time we leave no doubt what we believe: Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, not Halliburton and Bechtel.

The Administration’s reluctance to share power and responsibility is all the more stunning because it prevents them from investing Europe and Middle Eastern neighbors in their own self-interest not to have a failed state on their doorsteps and borders.

Saddam’s capture is a victory for the Iraqi people; they no longer need to fear the return of a brutal dictator who terrorized them for so long. But Saddam’s capture also represents a vital chance for the United States to build the coalition to win the peace that we should have built to win the war. To offer a real invitation to the rest of the world that says: “Join us. Share the burden of creating a peaceful and stable Iraq because your security depends on it too.”

The threat of Saddam himself is gone. But the threat of terror continues to reach from the streets of Baghdad and the Middle East to the streets of Asia, Europe, and America itself. We must not waste this opportunity to rebuild alliances, both in Iraq and against global terrorism.

We owe this kind of internationalism first of all to our troops. Today American soldiers in Iraq fear getting shot while getting a drink of water. They wonder whether the old station wagon driving toward their checkpoint will explode when it gets there. For their sake, we must put aside arrogance and swagger and enlist other countries to share the burden and the authority in Iraq so that we get the targets off the back of our soldiers. We need tools of diplomacy equal to the tools of war. Our forces are doing their job and doing their best. Now it’s time for America to have leaders that do the same.

With Saddam in custody, with others who did not join us in Iraq now celebrating that fact, we must reach out to the U.N. and our allies – and internationalize the reconstruction of Iraq. I hope that the President exercises that kind of leadership.

Unfortunately, on three different occasions, when he could have led in the past, he stubbornly refused to do so.

The first opportunity came last fall after Congress authorized the use of force. President Bush promised America he would “work with the UN Security Council to meet our common challenge.” Instead, he refused to give the inspectors time and rushed to war without our allies.

There was a second opportunity – after the Iraqi people pulled down Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad. Again, the President could have worked with the United Nations to share the burden of rebuilding Iraq – to ensure that the Iraqi people would not see us as an occupying power. And again, the President chose to let America shoulder the burden alone.

Then this Fall, the President addressed the UN General Assembly. Other nations stood ready to stand with us – to provide troops and funds to stabilize Iraq. But instead of asking for their help, the President repeated the old formulas of his unilateralism, raising the risk for American soldiers and the bill to the American treasury.

Today, the risk is still too high and the bill is still too large. But today, we have also been given that rare fourth chance to set things right. We can return to the world, reject the idea of going it alone and hoarding all the power, and forge a shared response to the challenges of Iraq. No more snubbing allies, no more stonewalling the U.N., and no more sham coalitions. It’s time to win the peace, and it’s time to do it right.

So President Bush needs to take four immediate steps.

First, go back to the international community and to the United Nations and offer a real partnership in Iraq. We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding process and the development of a new Iraqi Constitution and government. Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority should be sincerely thanked for their service – and replaced by a UN Special Representative in Iraq who will remove the stigma of foreign occupation from our presence there. The United States has ample power and influence to establish a working relationship which guarantees— indeed guides us to—an outcome which meets our goals and security needs.

Second, the UN authorization for international forces in Iraq is finally in place, but to expand participation we have to share responsibility, which the Administration still won’t do. We need to conduct real diplomacy with the goal of really getting boots on the ground.

As we internationalize the work in Iraq, we need to add 40,000 troops – the equivalent of two divisions – to the American military in order to meet our responsibilities elsewhere – especially in the urgent global war on terror. In my first 100 days as President, I will move to increase the size of our Armed Forces. Some may not like that. But today, in the face of grave challenges, our armed forces are spread too thin. Our troops in Iraq are paying the price for this everyday. There’s not enough troops in the ranks of our overall armed forces to bring home those troops that have been in Iraq for more than a year.

President Bush’s policies have overextended our military – and turned reserves into fulltime soldiers. Iowa, with a population of less than three million people, is in the Top 10 states in the proportion of National Guard troops on active duty; more than 2,600 of Iowa's 9,500 Army and Air Guard soldiers have been activated. George Bush and Don Rumsfeld say we have enough troops. I think they’re putting politics and pride ahead of what is right for our soldiers, our reserves, and our security.

Third, we need a reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government, for transferring political power and the responsibility for reconstruction to the people of Iraq. That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in that country – not cutting and running in order to claim a false success for the sake of the 2004 election. The timing of events in Iraq should not be keyed to the timetable of the Bush re-election campaign. Genuinely engaging the Iraqi people in shaping new institutions is fundamental to the long term cause of a stable, peaceful, and independent Iraq that contributes to the world instead of threatening it.

The actions we now take to try Saddam Hussein can advance that hope – or set it back. Justice must come to a brutal tyrant who has threatened the world and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own citizens.

But it must come through a new American partnership with the people of Iraq and of the international community. This is a unique time when we can show and not just speak the values of a free and just society to Iraqis, to the rest of the Arab world, and to our own people here at home. We can demonstrate in an unforgettable way that the rule of law includes rights that cannot be denied even to a despot. What a powerful signal that would be – a signal that would reverberate across the globe and even across generations.

So the question of how to structure the trial of Saddam Hussein is not just a legal issue; it is a test of our values and our intentions. Saddam Hussein committed heinous crimes against the Iraqi people and the international community, but we cannot try him in some kind of kangaroo court without due process of law. To do so would reinforce our image as an occupying power and set back the cause of a new beginning in Iraq. We need to work with the Iraqi leadership to create a path to true justice that is fair and credible – in their eyes, in the eyes of other Arab and Muslim people, and in the eyes of the international community.

After working with the Cambodian government and the United Nations for years to form the upcoming genocide tribunal in Cambodia, it is clear to me that we cannot and must not ignore the emotional and political stake the Iraqi people have in this issue. But as I saw in Cambodia, the international community also has a major stake in the quest for justice.

The Iraqi people should see the trial firsthand because that will prove once and for all that Saddam Hussein is gone. It was important that Nazi war criminals be tried in Germany, just as it will be important that those responsible for the Killing Fields be tried in Cambodia. Trying Saddam Hussein in Iraq will provide an essential sense of closure for the Iraqi people. And we and the world have a deep interest in showing the Iraqi people that a judicial process with transparency, fairness, and justice can provide accountability and a penalty that fits the crime.

That’s why I believe a mixed tribunal, in which international judges, prosecutors, and investigators work alongside Iraqis, is the best guarantee of a fair and valid process. While setting up a credible mixed tribunal in Iraq may be more difficult then going to an international tribunal in the Hague, I believe it will be more credible in the long term; it will give Iraqis a place and a stake in the process – and it will lead to a stronger judicial system in that country for years to come.

Fourth, as we establish the rule of law, we urgently need to rebuild a sense of basic order. Today lawlessness and chaos, rampant violence and property destruction, threaten Iraqis and undermine the creation of a civil society. The job properly belongs to the new Iraqi security forces. And the United States and the allies we enlist need to do a far better job of training them – and then transferring authority to them.

The Iraqi military battalion we just trained suffered a massive desertion when about half the troops left over inadequate pay. We need to get the planning right and stop making elementary mistakes. We need realistic support, equipment and pay. And we need to get this Iraqi Security force into shape to achieve early successes so that Iraqis can have confidence in their army and the troops can have confidence in themselves.

Iraqi police forces also need adequate training and mentoring. Here at home, a police officer has four to six months of training. We may not have that luxury in Iraq, but training must be sufficient – not just speedy. And the police forces too need real support, equipment and pay. Countries like Italy, France, and Spain have national police forces with a paramilitary capability. They could contribute by preparing and mentoring a similar Iraqi force.

But they won’t do it unless the Bush Administration changes course, renounces unilateralism, and turns a new page in Iraq and in all our international relations. We must lead, not order.

We should be prepared to act to protect our interest, but we must also be ready to listen to others.

So leadership is the issue – abroad and at home.

In a world shadowed by terrorism, Americans are asking. Who can best defend us? Who can meet the challenge of this dangerous time? In the next election, Democrats owe the American people more than anger; we owe them answers. To earn their trust, we must prove by our experience and our vision that our approach to national security and foreign policy is strong and credible – and the best way to defend our nation.

I am here to say that holding Saddam accountable was important, even if not always popular. I am here to say that doing nothing would have been the most dangerous path of all. But I am also here to say that the price of unilateralism in Iraq is too high, and Americans are paying it – in resources that could be used for health care, education, and our security here at home. We are paying that price in respect lost around the world – respect we need to win the war not just in one country, but the global war on terror. And most important, the price is paid in the lives of young Americans forced to shoulder the burden of this mission alone.

We must change a course of unilateralism and pre-emptive war that is radically wrong for America. Saddam’s capture offers even this Administration the chance to make change. And if we as Democrats are to change America, we cannot seek to replace the Bush unilateralism with confusion and retreat. Let’s bring in our allies, take the target off our troops, and let’s finally win the peace in Iraq. In a time of fear, in a uncertain world, let’s affirm that America’s security depends on our own strength, but also on our ideals, and on the will and wisdom to forge a new era of internationalism where this nation truly and proudly is, as Lincoln said, the “best hope of earth."

Why don't we discuss what it actually says, instead of what a reporter says it says. Half the problem around here is that we listen to repeaters who are not reporters and don't get the facts ourselves.

This shows why John Kerry is the best man to lead our country. This is a man who can take on the repug's and bush next november.

We need a leader and JK shows over and over that he is it. On domestic issues and on foreign policy.

DemOutWest

it would be a shame if he isn't nominated.

Hearing him speak is amazing, simply amazing.
He has the skills to take down Bush.

“When America needed leadership on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot, with a lot of slogans and a lot less solutions. One moment he supported authorizing the use of force, the next he criticized those who did. He said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, then he said he’d figured out that he didn’t. He said he opposed the war all along, but less than a month before it began he said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then ‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’”

This is a gross oversimplification that I would expect to hear from White House officials. Kerry doesn't seem to recognize that there are significant differences between between the final IWR, and Biden-Lugar approach which Kerry preferred.

He also refused to recognize that while Dean thought Saddam probably had chemical or bio weapons left over, he never believed he had nuclear capability or was working with terrorists, as no solid evidence was put forth stating that was the case.

According to Dean, nuclear weapons and/or terrorist ties would constitute an imminent threat to the US, but that case was never made or proven. There is also a difference between what Dean suspected Iraq of doing or having, and facts which would prove it. In this case Dean thought Iraq was up to something, but until it was proven, he would not go along with an invasion.

I have no idea what Dean's quote saying that he would enfornce the UN mandates if the UN refused to act has to do with anything, as the UN was enforcing it's own mandates at the time (Kerry even called for longer inspections), and even if they weren't it would not require a unilateral invasion or regime change.

And at other times, Governor Dean said that we should not go into Iraq unless the UN Security council gave us authorization. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a President protects the United States. I have said many times I believe that America should have worked to get international backing before going to war. Our diplomacy should have been as good as our soldiers. A true international coalition would have been better for our troops, better for our security, better for Iraq’s future. Perhaps it reflects inexperience, but for Howard Dean to permit a veto over when America can or cannot act not only becomes little more than a pretext for doing nothing – it cedes our security and presidential responsibility to defend America to someone else -- a profound danger for both our national security and global stability.

Dean opposed going into Iraq because the UN was enforcing it's own mandates and Iraq was not proven to be an imminent threat. Kerry is spouting a fundamental misunderstanding of Dean's position. If, however, Kerry believes we should invade countries unilaterally even if they don't pose any threat to us, then he should just say so. I would deeply disagree with him, if he did.

Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US, therefor leaving the issue up to the UN does not cede any US security to the UN.

In an interview, Dean said that he opposed the congressional resolution and remained unconvinced that Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States. He said he would not support sending U.S. troops to Iraq unless the United Nations specifically approved the move and backed it with action of its own.

"They have to send troops," he said. -
Feb. 22, 2003

Once again, Dean opposed going into Iraq without the UN, because he did not see Iraq as an imminent threat. If Iraq was a threat, then he would support unilateral action in the very, very, minimal chance the UN refused to act.

If Kerry disagrees with this, which I don't think he does unless he believes in the Bush doctrine of preemption, then he should say so.

Dean is the one who had a stance so close to Kerry's and then took a sliver of difference and demagogued it into a two by four which he used relentlessly on the other candidates.

Dean is the one who took all the nuance out of the issue and framed it as black and white, antiwar and prowar, for his audiences. He idn't INFORM his audiences of the real differences, instead he DECEIVED them by omitting the closeness of their positions.

The shame is Dean's and he deserves every blowback he gets.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Why, it was John Kerry, when he voted for the IWR.

What I want to know is, did Kerry believe that a multilateral effort was impossible or that Iraq posed an imminent danger to the US in the weeks leading up to war? His call for more inspections seems to tell me he though nothing had changed. Why then is he attacking Dean for a similar stance?

Dean is the one who was inconsistent, not Kerry.

Can you find me ONE speech that Dean made where he explains the truth about the slight differences in their stands on Iraq? Nope...because Dean carefully avoided telling people the truth. The truth wouldn't play as well as his black and white message. Did he take lessons from Limbaugh on demagoguery?

Dean spoke out against the war clearly and consistantly, even on the eve of war and after the statue fell.

Kerry didn't.

Dean said voting for the IWR was a mistake.

Kerry says the vote was right.

They both said unilateral war is wrong unless the threat is imminent and multilateral disarmament is impossible. But Dean backed up his opinion by clearly speaking out against the invasion.

He omitted to inform his audiences about the real differences being his stand and others, because they wouldn't have played well to his antiwar supporters.

....well, you know what they say. (chuckle)

When I was researching for the best candidate, all I heard from the Dean people was that he was against the war. Kerry and Gephardt were for it. Later I realized the little differences. He said he was against, then he was against it.

Kunicich is the only true and truthful anti-war candidate.

Dean now has to listen to backlash.

antiwar support $$$$.

As much as Deanie's would like to try and cut this up into pieces, it can't be. Dean has said he was against the war from the beginning. His words don't match it. He was all over the lot.

Then you say he thought Saddam had the bio/chem weapons. In this time in history, it's no longer acceptable to ignore rogue nations with those kind of weapons. Either Dean understands diplomacy sometimes must be backed up with threat of force and supports that, or he doesn't. Unfortunately, he's already painted himself as someone who knew it was all lies and therefore against the war from the beginning. He's just made too many statements about this war for him to have any credibility on it at all.

Nothing has really changed since Saddam was captured. People are just finally waking up to what a campaign between Dean and Bush would look like. Not good. I don't know who the eventual nominee will be, but Kerry lines out clearly why it can't be Dean.

He said for unilateral invasion to be justified, Iraq had to be an imminent threat to the US, but the administration had not made that case.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

This is what Kerry said when he voted for the Iraq war.

What changed from October 9th, 2002 through March 16th, 2003? Did Iraq become an imminent threat? Was a multilateral effort to disarm Saddam impossible? I don't think so, and if Kerry did, then I question his judgement.

Why then was he not clearly against Bush invading Iraq? He said he supported Bush's decision to invade, why? Did he believe Iraq posed enough of a threat to justify a unilateral invasion, despie the damage Bush's approach has/would cause?

what constituted imminent threat. It was in Biden-Lugar which Dean would conveniently like to forget.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html
http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l100202a.html

If Biden-Lugar passed, we would be restricted to only disarming Saddam. Not invading and toppling his regime.

Bush also would be forced to get a resolution in the UN authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

Barring that, it would require for Bush to put on the record, unequivocally, that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.

If Bush went to war under these circumstances, he could be held responsible today for violating the resolution. That's why Bush said the resolution "tied his hands".

Dean attacked others for.

Where does the ACLU article explain why Dean attacked others for a stand that he supported?

You're right. He was and has been clear.

He did not support the unilateral invasion of Iraq. He's been clear on that. I posted the entire statement to you. He did recognize the President having the responsibility to make those decisions, and supported the goal of holding Saddam accountable. He said that. "We are where we are." Even though he was thoroughly disgusted with being there. Kerry is just not going to make negative comments when our troops are in the field. You're taking two paragraphs on the eve of war out of thousands to support your claims. It's ridiculous.

As opposed to Dean, which I already posted.

instead of trying to walk the fence on the issue, he would have said, flat out, that the invasion was wrong.

On the eve of invasion, Kerry said the president botched diplomacy, but that no president could defer national security to the UN.

From that perspective, regardless of the Administration's mishandling of so much of this situation, no President can defer the national security decisions of this country to the United Nations or any other multilateral institution or individual country.

Did he believe Saddam posed an imminent threat to the US on the eve of war? If not, why did he say these words? And if he did believe he was an imminent threat, why did he support more time for inspections?

Why did he say he agreed with the president's decision to "disarm" (used interchangably by Kerry with "invade" which is what the question was about).

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS
Senator Kerry, the first question goes to you. On March 19th, President Bush ordered General Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

May 4th, 2004

That has nothing to do with supporting the troops. You can support the troops without giving your blessing to Bush's war of idiocy.

And why would he criticize Dean for saying we should not go in without the UN, because Saddam was not an imminent threat? Did he believe Iraq was an imminent threat, or was he deliberatly taking Dean's words out of context to try and paint him as weak on security?

Why was Kerry never painted as a McGovern anti-war liberal, despite his position being nearly the same as Dean's?

If Kerry was against invading, why have I read so many Kerry articles in the wake of the invasion stating Kerry was for the war, (some of which are very pro Kerry)?

For example:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/clips/news_2003_0601.html

Why hasn't Kerry just been clear about where he stands?

This is so simple. He supported disarming Saddam, just not the method Bush chose to do it. Since Bush chose to do it anyway, he hopes the troops succeed in their mission. We are where we are. It's simple.

The soundbites are childish right now though. Has to hammer on the fact that noting about the Bushco juggernaut and oil occupation can or will change. Has to keep focussing on the general hoopla being all about expectations that cannot happen though Bush intends to subtly benefit from the air alone.

People don't get that the neocons see this as an affirmation for continuing wars that have never stopped advancing even with the quagmire.

Excellent speech.