With all the Iran war drums beating, a reminder from Sen Kerry (Oct. 2002)

Mods, this is Sen. Kerry's speech from the Congressional Record. Therefore, it's ok to post it in its entirety, right?


TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

Obviously, with respect to an issue that might take Americans to war, we deserve time, and there is no more important debate to be had on the floor of the Senate. It is in the greatest traditions of this institution, and I am proud to take part in that debate now.

This is a debate that should be conducted without regard to parties, to politics, to labels. It is a debate that has to come from the gut of each and every Member, and I am confident that it does. I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now.

I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that.

We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past.



Most importantly, it is a time when international institutions must rise to the occasion and seek new authority and a new measure of respect.

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.


By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.

Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation's Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.

It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq--seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms--and there are many in this body and beyond--can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq. The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections--and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections--is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That is the way in which you make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war's sake, and not to accomplish goals that don't meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves.

I am pleased that the Bush administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq. That shift has made it possible, in my judgment, for the Senate to move forward with greater unity, having asked and begun to answer the questions that best defend our troops and protect our national security. The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question--not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.

I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.

He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.

Absent a foreign supplier, it might be longer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President's resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force. So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

The President has challenged the United Nations, as he should, and as all of us in the Senate should, to enforce its own resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq. And his administration is now working aggressively with the Perm 5 members on the Security Council to reach a consensus. As he told the American people Monday night: "America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm."

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.



When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

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.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

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.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

American success in the Persian Gulf war was enhanced by the creation of an international coalition. Our coalition partners picked up the overwhelming burden of the cost of that war. It is imperative that the administration continue to work to multilateralize the current effort against Iraq. If the administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to invest, to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense program of inspection, or if necessary, through the use of force. That is the best way to proceed.

The United States, without question, has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally. But we do need friends. We need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, overflight rights from allies in the region. And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends more than anything else on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

The challenge is great: An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.

The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity. It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested sometime in the next days. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends ultimately on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.

He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power.

By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this.

It is through constant questioning we will stay the course, and that is a course that will ultimately defend our troops and protect our national security.

President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:

"The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are... The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.

I yield the floor.

course to the public? This is a great starting place.

Keep slinging those guns firing bullets of truth! Sorely needed in these times.

I'm so sick and tired of people out there (even "journalists" who should know how to read) saying that Senator Kerry voted FOR war.

People need to read the entire speech. There is no nuance WHATSOEVER in the speech and it is sickening that elements of the population of our country are too stupid to read and understand what is obviously plain and clearly stated English.

The twisted and vile psychopath in our White House is a power-mad dog. He feels he is above the law, above Congress, above the Constitution and aligned personally with the Almighty. Before 2005, I thought he was a bad President, now I am certain Shrub is an evil man.

Why do so many people still believe his distortions and lies about Senator Kerry?

by voting for the resolution. that is different than the effect of the resolution, which was to give Bush the political cover (at the VERY least) to go to war. The act of voting for this resolution was wrong, as Kerry has since admitted. It was unwise.

I have no doubt that Kerry did not want this war, but he also didn't want to seem "weak on defense" on the eve of his presidential run. Kerry was able to vote against a nearly identical resolution in 1991 calling for the first gulf war, and that one was at least justified.


He didn't WANT war, but he voted to make it easier to go to war, which essentially IS voting for the war. Some people cannot handle that level of betrayal from our leaders and they try to rationalize Kerry's actions because they see him as the hero against Bush.

the only one who misused this resolution and wanted WAR is Bush. Kerry did everything in his power to make sure he was understood on his vote.

70% or more of the American people at that time wanted Inspectors in, if you care to remember Bush was ready to go without any authority from Congress, this was just one more fucki9ng political move by Bush and his corrupt administration. I think many voted for the RESOLUTION (not war)not to make it easier but to make it harder. No matter what Congress did Bush was bound and determined to go to war, he would of done it no matter what.

I see 99% of Dems as heroes over Bush not just Kerry. Your rationale makes no sense whatsoever.

were voting against it because they wanted Bush to go to war?
The millions of democrats who emailed, called, begged and pleaded for their congresspeople to vote against this war resolution were really trying to enable the war?????????? Are you serious?

Black is white, up is down in DLC-land.

Why would Bush want a resolution that would make it harder for him to go to war? Why would Trent Lott sponsor a bill to make it harder for Bush to go to war? (IWR's true name is Daschle-Lott) Bush wanted this resolution. He complained that the alternative Biden-Lugar tied his hands by restricting military action to getting rid of WMD.

If bush was going to go to war anyway, then why does that make it ok to give him political cover with the IWR? Why not just let him abuse his power, show his colors, and then use it against him?

Oh cause Dems are scared of being called "weak", I forgot.

That isn't what Bush said at the time. That's how he gets away with the lie. To his own Bushbots, he sells them the words he said about the IWR, that he hadn't decided on war and that the IWR was a chance to avoid war. That's what he tells them. But the second a Democrat uses those words to prove that he DID NOT live up to them and that they were lies, Bush spins right around and says "voted for the war", and the left is right there to back him up. That's why we can't nail Bush down on the lies. The left is helping him tell them, over and over and over again.

just didn't understand what was going on?

If the Dems had taken the stand against the war in the first place, then the disaster would totally have been on bush, leaving the Dem candidate free to slam him for the lies and flawed intelligence.

The reason Bush was able to curtail Dem criticism of the intelligence and the decision to go to war, was because the Dems voted for Bush's pet resolution. If the intelligence fooled Bush, then it fooled the dems too. Bush has an easy out.

If the Dems voted against it, then they say, "it didn't fool US, just YOU."

Dems can be kneejerk partisans too. Just like Republicans went after Clinton on Kosovo, some Dems reflexively reject war and/or any Republican war. It's as much politics as any supposed vote for the IWR to prove they weren't weak on defense. It may well be the only person in the entire Congress who told the truth about what he believed was Robert Byrd and his belief was purely constitutional, Congress ought to give a clear declaration of war. So really, I'm tired of this phony debate.

I just don't agree with you, and I know that Kerry didn't want to go either. But he tried to straddle the fence in a clintonian way and in the end it backfired.

Simplistic kneejerk rhetoric is not good enough to resolve international issues. Some people may have been straddling, Kerry has been working on proliferation issues for years. See my post below with link to an article from an Indian newspaper. Sad that they know more about our politicians than we do.

NT

Because at the time, it had nothing to do with WMD. We didn't even know the extent of WMD and nuclear weapons in Iraq, that came later. And, he probably kneejerked against war because that's his basic inclination.

GHWB "drew a line in the sand" and said that he would go to war if Saddam didn't withdraw by that date. This was after his ambassador had missignaled that the US would not intervene in an intra-arab fight. The Democrats wanted to use sanctions and negotiations to get Saddam out of Kuwait. This was not given a real chance, so it's impossible to know how this could have worked.

Because GHWB did:
-put together a big coalition
-got the Saudis and other arabs to pay for much of the war
-Most importantly, the war was quick, met the objective of getting Saddam out and few soldiers were killed

the first Gulf War is viewed a success.

The perspective of history may be more ambiguous. Gulf War Syndrome has meant the cost is far to the American military is greater. The resulting Iraq sanctions led to misery in Iraq, which increased anti-American sentiment in the ME. Among religious arabs, the resulting military base in Saudi Arabia angered them as well.

Kerry's 2 votes are consistent in that both push for international diplomacy. The alternative to the IWR, going to the UN and asking for inspectors (that they hoped Saddam would refuse to let in) was NOT peace. The Democrats who voted against it include many who felt the resolution didn't bind Bush enough - Kerry obviously agreed (he voted for the Levin amendment and others that failed), but may have felt it was the best they were likely to get and it was better than nothing. (He does now say that he was wrong to believe Bush would honor any promises. From Kerry, this is an extremely damning statement - he is saying Bush is dishonest and dishonorable - where truth, honor and integrity are values Kerry constantly speaks of - along with love and citizenship.)

The people who insist Kerry voted for the war are either Bushbots or so far to the left they are meeting the right from the other direction.

doing it to; "protect american lives" how does this maniac continue? -- Neocon madness! we need thatbloddy oil!

so it was already a given.

did not want war. If the resolution failed, Bush would likely have gone to war 4 months earlier (after some Iraqi "provation" in the no fly zone)than they did, without having gone to the UN and go had the inspectors in. These Senators voted "no" for various reasons - but the bottom line was probably that the approval did not constrain Bush enough.

If you read it, you can see that Kerry (and possibly other Democrats who did the same thing) were trying to avoid a war that looked (and was) inevitable using a different method. In this speech, Kerry stresses the additional constraints Bush agreed to. If Bush kept his promises and his word, he would not have invaded. As WT2 says in his/her post, Kerry's decision to trust Bush was wrong and Kerry has said this. In reality, Kerry's vote didn't make war more likely.

Given all Kerry's statements in late 2002 and early 2003, calling on Bush to avoid war show that the vote wasn't political. If the war had been deemed a success like the Gulf War (which really likley set the stage for Bush II's war), Kerry's anti-war statements in 2002/2003 would have been used against him in spite of the vote.

If there was some Iraqi "provation" in the no fly zone (Tonkin, "remember the Maine"), Bush would need no political cover. The vote was devised as a lose/lose situation for Democrats in the 2002 election.

cry me a river...

do what is RIGHT and not what will maximize your so-called "electability"

and Bush STILL had the votes for war HIS WAY which included extending military action into Iran and Syria after the fall of Baghdad.

Sometimes negotiating ain't pretty but necessary for a BETTER result than the one you're certain to get if you DON'T negotiate at all.

veto IWR, call Dems unpatriotic and ask for a new resolution. I don't think he cared that much about Syria and Iran at that time.

Why would he sign a resolution that restricted him in a way he didn't want? Does that make sense?

why would I sign something saying I can't do it? It doesn't make sense.

Why would Bush?

I think he wanted to be able to say that he had a large majority, rather than a narrower one. He didn't intend to keep his word so he negotiated things - one side took the negotiations as serious, real and truthful - the other didn't.

From Kerry's comments, it's clear that he genuinely regrets believing that Bush was as honest as Nixon.

"I think he wanted to be able to say that he had a large majority, rather than a narrower one."

and it wasn't a good idea to give that cover to him.

In the summer of 2002 and in September, Kerry was one of the people speaking out as much as anyone - in a September 2002 NYT op-ed, he argued that Bush needed to go to Congress and to the UN.

Bush himself said the vote was not a vote for war and Powell spoke about how it would srenthen the US before the UN. Voting yes was clerarly not an easy choice for Kerry and in his speech before voting he does lay out his position and he did asay he would be the first to loudly speak out if Bush abused the situation - which Bush did and Kerry did speak outimmediately (calling for regime change here.)

I think Kerry took the negotiations on the IWR seriously and thought that they had added some restrictions - Bush did not do what he promised. Kerry has said he was wrong to trust Bush (which he said as early as 2003 as covered in a Will Pitt article).

If it were political, why would Kerry speak out AGAINST war BERORE the invasion and immediately (when the media was talking about the great success) condemn the invasion whn Bush attacked. I can not construct a political motive to:

-Speak and write editorials against this unilateral war in summer 2002 through September
-Vote for the IWR, but say what he said (which is not pro-war)
-Comment that he was cautiously optimistic that the inspections could avoid war as he did in late 2002.
- Speak against the invasion before Bush went in
- Condemn the invasion after it started

I challange you to create a scenario where this set of actions is the obvious political winner. I can't come up with one.

To me, Kerry's own comments on his vote seem the most believable - especially as they are consistent with his public statements from September 2002 on and because trying to find a "hole" or a different way out to avoid a bad situation seems to be part of how he does things - clearly he hoped that the inspections and the world would be able to do what Congress couldn't do - which was stop Bush. I think that most Senators who voted against the IWR felt war was inevitable, I think Kerry was more optimistic about finding a path out - but he didn't. (Some backing for this: In answer to a question about it - Teresa said the IWR delayed the war 4 or 5 months, although clearly they had hoped to avoid it. If there is anyone who knew what was in Kerry's mind and his heart when he voted, it would have been Teresa. )

Anybody with this attitude isn't worth my time. You are right, the rationale makes no sense, so I prefer to just ignore this type of individual. While I cannot be certain of anyone's motives, this type of logic and attack seems all too familiar, so I prefer to stay clear.

P.S. You can always the ones who do not bother to read the entire speech even though it was presented here for their convenience in a "dummies version" with highlighting on the key points. It is just so, so sad.

where Democratic support of the IWR was a wonderful, courageous move sticking our fingers in the eye of George Bush and the Republicans, that is fine.

But I remember that most of our party opposed going to war and most in our party voted against IWR.

But I guess a speech essentially telling Bush not to use power that Kerry is voting to give him, is supposed to make it ok.


You must remember a different 2002.

I choose to ignore you.

Bush defied Congress with regard to spying. He trampled over the FISA law which allowed him to conduct warrantless search for a 72-hour period, but never on Americans, and he did that anyway.


According to the War Powers Resolution

Bush could have legally gone to war after consulting Congress, which is what the resolution was, even if it did not pass. The resolution was specific, Bush violated the specifics. The resolution was in line with the WPR, but it was not a declaration to go to war. It was an authorization to to use force providing specific conditions were met. Under the WPR, a similar condition exists, but does not preclude the president from going to war without prior Congressional approval.

As in the 72-hour period required to file a warrant for surveillance, Bush only needed to report back to Congress after executing a war--- provide justification so to speak. He could have taken that route, the Republicans in congress and most of the country was behind him. He would have done it and it would have been a done deal. By the time Bush had to report back, that "Mission Accomplished" statement would have already been made.

So the IWR didn't make it easier, it specifically stated what criteria had to be met if he started a war. Without the resolution he would have defied Congress. With the resolution he not only defied Congress, he defied specific criteria laid out by Congress.








No matter how many times this is laid out, people continue in their denial.

you were happy that Kerry was voting "to make the war harder", right? :eyes:


Funny, it was a while ago, but that's not how I remember it. I remember massive protests and exhortations to defeat the IWR.


If the president can just go to war whenver he wants, how does that excuse votes that enable that action?

What you refuse to understand is that the vote didn't enable the action. Reread the OP.

the resolution was political cover at the very least for Bush to go to war. It doesn't matter why Kerry personally thought he was voting for it, or what he was trying to do, it mattered what did happen.

And what did happen was we went to war with the Dems purported acquiescence.

authorization to launch attacks against Iran, Syria, etc. when this resolution gave no such authority.

it is limited to Iraq, but it still was a bad resolution.


Also, please explain to me why Bush would even entertain a resolution if he had the power to just do what he wanted anyway? Why tie his own hands? The only explanation is for political and legal cover.

And, look at how they justified the invasion by claims that failure to disarm negated the cease fire agreement and that, in itself, was justification enough to use force. * didn't really need the IWR to drop the bombs. War was going to happen no matter what. Nothing could have stopped it. Even if every Democrat had voted against it and half of the Republicans, * and the PNAC fvcks would have found a way.

therefore who cares how the dems vote?

I don't agree. Dems need to take a risk, a stand, otherwise you get 2002 and 2004. If every dem had voted against it, that could have been pointed to in the campaign as the war was starting to sour. But the problem was Kerry being stuck into resorting to saying he could have run the war better, instead of "how could we have a leader so stupid and lazy as to rush into war without verifying intelligence?" Guess what, Kerry ostensibly got fooled too. Well, there goes that line of attck.

That they believed, as I did, that Saddam had WMDs and was in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions?

why give Bush authority to go to war before he needs to use it?

Diplomacy and peaceful means were to be exhausted first.

at a point Kerry was already against the war. He did say wrong war ...
and rushing to war, not going to war except as a last resort etc

That Kerry was NOT pro-war was obvious to the Republicans (and to most of the people in the middle). It was the left - that ignored everthing Kerry said against the war and wouldn't forgive him for the vote. (The fact is if you did a comparison over time in the Sept 2002 - March 2003 time period, Dean was NOT any more anti war in his statements than Kerry. As Dean didn't have to vote, he intelligently saw that he could define himself as the anti-war liberal. The primaries and the election are over - Kerry was the first with a comprehensive exit plan (though Feingold was the first to say we need a target date for withdrawing) and is a good person and a good Democrat.

George Bush signed the IWR into law. He didn't veto it, which you'd think he would have done if it "made war harder to make", but apparently, Bush now likes making things more difficult for himself.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HJ00114:@@@R

Bush probably thought just going to war would be too politically risky, so he solicited help from the Dems. He made sure to pressue the dems to vote on it right before the election, so they would comply.

even if the encouragement has no legal effect.

but I thought it didn't matter because he had the power to go to war anyway?

And show me a peep about the so-called violation from any dem who voted for IWR around March 2003.

Thanks!

Kerry was angry enough to speak against it and to say we need "regime change" here - which was strong enough that it got some MSM coverage. His comments from March onward are as anti-war as Dean's, although he took pains to also argue for things for the troops - he was one of the first to bring up the inadeqate armor and he had an amendment in the defense funding bill to reemburse families and friends who bought better protective gear for the soldiers. (It was stripped out by the Republicans after being added).

There were much smaller protests before early Oct 2002.

You said,
"If the president can just go to war whenever he wants, how does that excuse votes that enable that action?"

If the predicate of your sentence is true, the conclusion makes no sense. Bush was already "enabled" by being CIC.

Bush and his administration are solely responsible for the decision to go to war.

a person can "enable" an alcoholic, by doing things that encourage his behavior, even though those enabling actions are not NECESSARY for the alcoholic behaviors to happen.

This is the same thing. Even if Bush can go to war whenever he wants, the Dems should still not encourage him by voting for enabling resolutions.

which included extending the military arena into Iran and Syria.

You would've preferred that result?

becuase he didn't just ignore congress and go do what he wanted.

Again, doesn't make sense, and no explanation from the revisionists.

away with attacking Iran and Syria, too, without congress, because the public LOVES me - I'm a winner - and the American people will make me president for life.

Face it - with Bush so unpopular now, it's that IWR that WILL prevent further war. And the fiercest voices on that will come from those who voted for IWR.

and your post is not really an answer. Why does he restrict himself unless he feels some need to have cover from Congress? And if he needs congress, then congress has SOME power over him.

The IWR was the cover he needed and we let him have it.

but Rove calculated (correctly) that if they went for deal on the IWR, then they could get more votes and divide the Dem party AFTERWARDS with the spin that a vote for IWR was a vote for war.

Rove knew they controlled the media, and with that, they controlled perception.

ideally they would want to say the dems are all cowards who could not defend America - see they voted against going to war.

How does the spin that IWR was a vote for war help them? They thought the war would be a huge success. Why would they do it otherwise?

Here was the ultimate mistake in judgment Kerry made: "In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people ..."

He was also wrong, very wrong, when he said: "It means "America speaks with one voice." ... there were millions of us who did not speak with the one voice bush was using ...

as for Iran, Kerry and other Democrats sharply questioned Rice when she appeared before them in Senate hearings last month ... they challenged her to acknowledge that the IWR did NOT authorize combat operations beyond Iraq's borders (i.e. Iran and Syria) and that bush would have to request additional authorization from Congress if he wanted to attack those countries ... Rice refused to agree or disagree ...

there has been an extremely disturbing lack of leadership from prominent Democrats on the issue of IRAN ... the silence is deafening ... it's not enough to assert that Congressional authorization is required for any attacks on IRAN ... Democrats need to make the case to the American people that such attacks would be totally unjustified given current circumstances ... Democrats will never earn the confidence of Americans if they remain silent on critical foreign policy issues ...

He's been talking about what Bush ought to be doing on Iran since the primaries. He's over in Pakistan and India in a few days. But what's going to happen is, while he will promote some sort of practical solution on Iran, the left will do what it always does, support Iran and reject whatever appears to be the leading US position. Despite the fact that the left has been pointing to Bush letting Iran get nuclear weapons as an example of his failed policies, if it came to a confrontation, the left would support Iran. Because that is just what the left does. They'd do the same with N Korea, despite the fact that they've had 50 years to become world partners and just chosen not to. What you want is to just let the rest of the world do whatever they want to do and hope for the best. Some people think that isn't the best idea. Funny, the Indian press is more aware of Senator Kerry's work in nonproliferation than the people in this country are.

"Kerry is far from a learner on these issues. Back in December 1992, Kerry was among the first few to raise the finger of suspicion on the clandestine dealings linked with the Pakistani nuclear programme. He named A Q Khan in his report on the BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) affair and identified the matter as one that must be fully investigated in the future."

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=85439

aside from your absurd assumptions of how "the left" will see either Iran or Korea, what's more absurd are your self-contradicting comments about what Kerry has said on Iran ...

first, you say Kerry's "been talking about what bush ought to be doing on Iran" and then you say he "will promote some SORT OF practical solution" ...

please let us all know when he proposes SOME SORT of practical solution ...

then you said: "What you want is to just let the rest of the world do whatever they want to do and hope for the best." ... you have no idea "what i want" ... i'll tell you what i don't want; i don't want the US to unilaterally impose its will on weaker countries for its own greedy commercial gain ... that does not mean i'm not concerned about nuclear proliferation around the world ... and it does not mean that it is OK with me that the US continues to develop nuclear technologies and actually has threatened other countries with their use ...

perhaps you would like to share with us recent statements Kerry has made about the US policy towards Iran ... the statement i made was that Democrats have failed to show leadership on the issue ... has Kerry shown leadership on this issue or is what i read in your post advocating the same policy bush is likely to pursue??

Because unless he says that the US is bullying the world you will interpret anything he says as advocating the same policy Bush is likely to pursue. You've made up your mind that any policy that comes out of DC is going to be wrong.

Kerry has consistently talked about the US meeting with Iran, providing them with nuclear energy, opening communication and trade with the current government, drawing them into the world community instead of continuing the isolationist policy that has not worked which is evident by N Korea. New events require changes in strategy, which he consistently does as events unfold, which is what I was referring to when I said he will propose some sort of practical solution. As events in Iraq change, he will propose practical solutions to address those changes because that's what he's been doing his entire life. It's sad that you can't get past your ideological bent or hatred or whatever it is to see that.

My goodness, do you really have to be rude to her?

Is it not possible for you to discuss the content of the thread without jumping in immediately with sarcasm and insulting rhetoric?

"please let us all know when he proposes SOME SORT of practical solution ..."

"perhaps you would like to share with us..."

Why are you in attack mode? Nobody attacked you.

Welsh and I have been battling this for a while now. I'm not always the nicest to him/her either, it's no big deal. But thanks for the back up! :)

thanks ... i appreciate the integrity reflected in your post ...

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

Wow, keep going. Please.
:popcorn:

1. Kerry was wrong to "expect" that bush would do the right thing in Iraq
2. prominent Democrats have not made the Party's position on Iran clear to the American people

Just observation...

Calling people "pathetic" for disagreeing with you? That seems a little extreme.

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

So much for the peacemaking post.

Anyway, "and i don't think the US has the right to demand that any other country ends its nuclear program when we are unwilling to do so." I'm a little confused as to what would be acceptable for the US to do in international relations if we have to unilaterally disarm before we can confront other countries about their nuclear programs. Having said that, it doesn't follow that one thinks we shouldn't disarm just because they think it has to be a progressive global process, with the most dangerous countries disarming first. And despite what the left would like to believe, the US is not the most dangerous country in the world. I'd choose Bush over a whole lot of other lunatics in the world, including Kim Jong il, Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein. That's the perspective that the left rarely factors in, if you wouldn't want to starve to death in N Korea, why would you presume anybody else does either.

As to the rest of it, you could have whatever information you claim to want delivered to you personally by special courier, and you'd probably still claim to not understand. Besides, why is it when the left has a different perspective we're supposed to be a big tent party, but when the center does, we have no message. But to answer your Iraq question, there are those who want to withdraw quickly and those who want to disengage militarily and strategically, nothing wrong with with that.

do you agree or disagree with the statement i made that the Democratic Party has not made its position on IRAN clear to the American people?

Iran should cooperate with the IAEA on inspections, continue European led negotiations, stop harboring terrorists, stop interfering in Iraq's governing process, etc. I didn't think it was very confusing. How we get there is the difficult part, when you've got two lunatics in charge of the process.

as i pointed out in my first post in this thread, Kerry and others made it very clear to Rice during a Senate hearing that they did not believe bush had the right to expand the war to either Syria or Iran without obtaining authorization from the Congress ...

while i agree with most, not all, of your points about Iran, i do not believe Democrats have established a framework with the American people about the Party's views on bombing Iran ... at a minimum, Democrats need to make it clear to the American people that such actions would require Congressional approval ...

i would like the Party to make it clear that bombing a country that might have a nuclear weapon in ten years is not an adequate justification for war ... of course, the real reason bush might bomb Iran MIGHT have more to do with the Iranian oil bourse which is scheduled to open very soon ... that's not much of a justification either ... OR, is the Party's position that the US should bomb Iran?? the reality is, i don't know what the Party's position is on the issue of bombing Iran? do you? what claims to leadership can Democrats make if bush just goes ahead and bombs Iran without a clear, prior statement from the Democratic Party??

The Democrats' stance or position (not policy) on Iran has no bearing on what Bush and the Republican Congress do. If you reread the OP the point about preemptive strikes being unacceptable is reiterated.

The Democrats can press for accountability, they can press for bipartisan cooperation, but as the minority party, anything the Democrats seek to do requires Republican support.

what i've called for in this thread is for Democrats to frequently and consistently address the American people on what they believe is the right, and the wrong, course of action on Iran ...

it is my view that bush and the republicans will be much freer to act if the Democrats have not rallied the American people, in advance, to whatever position the Party has on Iran ...

The have no automatic platform (other than the weekly response to Bush's radio address) to address the American people. They address there constituencies. As someone suggested in another post, contact your senators.

Every post in reponse to yours have pointed out times when the Democrats have been afforded a national audience, like Kerry's speeches being picked up, to discuss the issues (also listen to the weekly radio address, senate floor speeches, visit the Web sites). The Democrats are not in the WH, they are not a part of the Administration, they don't automatically get the national spotlight. Whenever they do it is usally to respond to a statement or action by the Bush administration. So until official campaigns kick off the former channels are there for you to learn what other have.

FOX NEWS SUNDAY : Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

THIS WEEK (ABC) : Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)

FACE THE NATION (CBS) : Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

MEET THE PRESS (NBC) : Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)

LATE EDITION (CNN) : Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean ; Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

They will probably be asked questions by an interviewer or have been invited to discuss a specific set of issues. They don't run these programs, and are not invited on them to make speeches or offer rebuttal statements as in the weekly radio address. If the issue of Iran is part of the line of questioning or agenda for discussion, they will address it.

would you have us believe that Democrats are so politically unskilled that they are not able to broaden the questions they are asked to make their points on the issues??? ... they dutifully give precise answers to exactly what is asked and never deviate an iota from the question posed to them ...

your position seems to be that if bush does bomb Iran and Democrats are asked why they didn't try to make their case against bombings to the American people, Democrats could say "those darn talk show guys never asked us about Iran" ... that would make a great campaign slogan ...

the bottom line here is that you've provided excuses for why the Democratic Party has not demonstrated strong leadership on the possible bombing of Iran but you haven't denied that the main point i made is correct ... or do you believe most Americans are clear where the Party stands on the issue of bombing Iran??

"us" is those who read your post ...

And that Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer and Leahy are ALL on the Judiciary Committee.

My guess is the focus of the shows will be on Alito - not Iran. Harman most likely will be on the Wiretapping.

especially with Sharon's stroke, i think the Middle East will receive some coverage ...

do you think Americans have a clear understanding about the Democratic Party's position on bombing Iran? the Democrats raised the issue of attacks on Iran (and Syria) in a Senate hearing last October ... have they taken their case to the country? what exactly is their case?

i expect Alito to be a major focus as well ... that shouldn't preclude Democrats from saying something to awaken the American people to the dangers of bombing Iran ... if the Democrats appearing on the Sunday talk shows have something to say, i doubt they'll have any trouble saying it ...

You're in Massachusetts, according to your profile. Pick up the phone and call your senator and ask him.

As for me, I've heard the Democratic Party say repeatedly that war should only be as a last resort when there is an imminent threat. Everyone except Lieberman has condemned Bush for not working with the inspectors in Iraq and not going to war as a last resort, nobody has changed that position on Iran. I don't hear anybody supporting bombing N Korea. So again, I don't understand your confusion. In fact, I don't think you're confused, I think you just believe the Democrats are a bunch of liars so you dismiss what they say and listen to what the far left says they're saying, which generally is dead wrong and closer to right wing spin.

been there, done that ...

see ya ...

And base my judgment on years of specific actions taken, which haven't included unjust wars. However, when you're told what the Democratic Party is saying, which is what you asked for, you ignore it. Because you just want to believe what you want to believe. Like I said originally.

Kerry, as well as other Senate Dems, took after Rice in her confrimation hearings about Iran. Sy Hirsh had just published an article in the New Yorker that stated that the Admin planned on going after Iran and could be planning bombing runs to go after the nuclear facilities. Kerry specifically questionied Rice about this:

SEN. KERRY: "The Coming Wars." Just to quote from it for a minute, he says -- he talks about the administration conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer. He talks about the administration looking at the region as huge war zone, and next we're going to have the Iranian campaign. This is a quote from the Bush administration former high-level intelligence official, quote: "Next, were going to have the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah. We've got four years, and want to come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism."

There's one particular -- I'm not going to ask you to comment on anything classified, but I am going to ask you to comment on this. "A former high-level intelligence official told me, quote, 'They don't want to make any WMD intelligence mistakes as in Iraq. The Republicans can't have two of those. There's no education in the second kick of a mule.' The official added that the government of Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, has won a high price for its cooperation: American assurance that Pakistan will not have to hand over A.Q. Khan, known as the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, to the IAEA or to any other international authorities for questioning."

Do you know whether or not that's accurate?

MS. RICE: I will just reiterate what was said about that article by the Defense Department. It is filled with inaccuracies, and it's credibility is sorely lacking.

The --

SEN. KERRY: But on that specific point.

MS. RICE: Let me -- let me just speak to the handling of A.Q. Khan. What we have been concerned about is that we are able to get the information that we need to break up the network. We have not made any deals about what happens with him.

SEN. KERRY: I'm sorry.

MS. RICE: We have not made any deals about what happens with him, but we have been concerned with the Pakistani government to get access to as much information as we possibly can. This is a matter that's being handled by the Pakistanis. It is not our place to talk about what should or should not happen with the IAEA, and we have not.

SEN. KERRY: So what about our own interests and our own efforts with respect to A.Q. Khan?

MS. RICE: Our own interests are being very well served by the fact that A.Q. Khan is now off the market, that we are working with the Pakistanis to get information about what he knows; very well served by cooperation on several -- with several other governments about members of his network. Several of them are in custody, some will be prosecuted. And so our interests are very well being served in this regard.

SEN. KERRY: Are they being served if we don't have direct access to them?

MS. RICE: We believe that we have a working relationship with Pakistan on dealing with the A.Q. Khan matter. At this point, we are getting cooperation from Pakistan on what we need with A.Q. Khan.

SEN. KERRY: But are they being served if we don't have direct access to them?

MS. RICE: They're being served at this point.

SEN. KERRY: Adequately?

MS. RICE: We are getting the information that we need to deal with the A.Q. Khan network.

Senator, I don't know what we will need to ask in the future, but at this point, we have a good working relationship with Pakistan on this matter.

SEN. KERRY: And with respect to Iran, are you also denying or discounting any of the allegations in this article?

MS. RICE: The article has -- it is inaccurate.

SEN. KERRY: With respect to Iran?

MS. RICE: The article is, as Defense said, inaccurate.

SEN. KERRY: With respect to Iran?

MS. RICE: Senator, the article does not represent our policies toward Iran or our expectations of policy toward Iran.

http://www.acamedia.info/politics/noniraq/reference/cfr18jan05-2.htm
January 18th, 2005. Ahm, Kerry and other Senate Dems have been on Rice and this Admin about Iran all year. There are other transcripts, press releases and such that I can post, if you like and want more proof.

i specifically referred in my post to Kerry's sharp questioning of Rice during the Senate Hearing ... your post seems to confirm what i wrote ... btw, the hearing you cited was not the hearing, or at least not the part of the hearing i was making reference to ... the exchange i was referring to was Kerry demanding that Rice should acknowledge that any intrusion into Syria or Iran would require subsequent authorization from the Congress ... Rice refused to acknowledge this requirement ...

what is it you're saying is not true in my post with regard to Kerry's questioning of Rice about Iran??

oversight. That's Congress' repsonsiblity. Rice can refuse to acknowlegde whatever she wants, but her refusal to acknowledge it doesn't mean she Congress gave the authorization. The IWR is not a lifetime agreement. The line of questioning was to reiterate the checks and balances between Congress and the administration.

i fully understand exactly what the line of questioning was about ... and i don't disagree with your assessment of it ...

are you merely explaining the nature of Congressional hearings and the roles of the parties involved or are you making some other point?

the existing IWR as you mentioned in a previous post. The line of questioning was the normal role of Congressional oversight.

Are you really so thrown off by this that you can't understand what's going on at least at a basic level?

Well, I hope you will take the suggestions here and read up on what's going on. There is plenty of information readily available, start with your Democratic senators and representatives Web sites, if they are Democrats; otherwise try go to senate.gov and see the list of Democratic senators. You can link to their sites from there. Read up, it really is the only way to understand. Good luck!


edited to correct error in title and typos

i suppose because you don't believe me that i now have to go digging through Senate testimony to prove my case ... frankly, i'm not sure i'm all that motivated to try to convince you ...

fwiw, i specifically heard questioning, and i'm fairly certain it was done by Kerry but not absolutely positive, that challenged Rice to agree that the authorization for force in Iraq (i.e. the IWR) did not extend to surrounding countries ...

and your snide remark about a "basic level" is not appreciated ...

the hearing took place on 10/19/05 ...

i was not able to find a full transcript but did find references to the hearing at a wide variety of sources ... one question about the IWR's relevance to Iran was asked by Lincoln Chafee (see below) ... i believe several Democrats also pressed Rice on this issue ... here are a couple of sources about the hearing ...

... that clearly states his position for anybody with the patience and brains to go through it. Saying he voted "for war" is so much simpler though.... how unfortunate, what a shame, and what a loss!

I had never seen it before.

Along these lines, also check out Kerry's Georgetown speech delivered January before the start of the war.

To keep it in perspective, keep in mind that most people thought Saddam had WMD at the time. I've often seen Republican trolls post selections from this to claim that Kerry wanted to go to war to go after the WMD as Bush did. If the entire speech is reviewed it is clear that Kerry wanted to concentrate on a diplomatic resolution, as is seen in the section leading up to his advice to Bush: "Mr. President, do not rush to war."



Georgetown University, Washington, DC

"As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration.

I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead.

Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence.

But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

We are all of us too aware, since September 11th, of the gravity of the times and the greatness of the stakes. Having won the Cold War, a brief season of content has been succeeded by a new war against terrorism which is an assault on the very progress we have made.

Throughout our history, in peaceful exertion and in armed struggle, we were steadfast - we were right on the central issue of freedom, and we prevailed. And because we prevailed the world is a far better place than it was or would otherwise have been.

The world today has a strong democratic core shaped by American ingenuity, sacrifice, and spirit. But on the periphery are many unstable and dangerous places, where terrorists seek to impose a medieval dark age.
As we learned so brutally and so personally, we do face a new threat. But we also face a renewed choice - between isolation in a perilous world, which I believe is impossible in any event, and engagement to shape a safer world which is the urgent imperative of our time.

A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them." Between those who want America to go it alone, and those who want America to lead the world toward freedom.

The debate over how the United States should conduct itself in the world is not new.

After all, what is today's unilateralism but the right's old isolationist impulse in modern guise? At its core is a familiar and beguiling illusion: that America can escape an entangling world...that we can wield our enormous power without incurring obligations to others...and that we can pursue our national interests in arrogant ways that make a mockery of our nation's ideals.

I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

I believe the Bush Administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our long-time friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world.

Too often they've forgotten that energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries. Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism -- it amplifies America's voice and extends our reach. Working through global institutions doesn't tie our hands -- it invests US aims with greater legitimacy and dampens the fear and resentment that our preponderant power sometimes inspires in others.

In a world growing more, not less interdependent, unilateralism is a formula for isolation and shrinking influence. As much as some in the White House may desire it, America can't opt out of a networked world.
We can do better than we are doing today. And those who seek to lead have a duty to offer a clear vision of how we make Americans safer and make America more trusted and respected in the world.

That vision is defined by looking to our best traditions -- to the tough-minded strategy of international engagement and leadership forged by Wilson and Roosevelt in two world wars and championed by Truman and Kennedy in the Cold War.

These leaders recognized that America's safety depends on energetic leadership to rally the forces of freedom And they understood that to make the world safe for democracy and individual liberty, we needed to build international institutions dedicated to establishing the rule of law over the law of the jungle.
That's why Roosevelt pushed hard for the United Nations and the World Bank and IMF. It's why Truman insisted not only on creating NATO, but also on a Marshall Plan to speed Europe's recovery. It's why Kennedy not only faced down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but also signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and launched the Peace Corps to put American idealism to work in developing countries. He spoke out for an America strong because of its ideals as well as its weapons.

For us today, the past truly is prologue. The same principles and strength of purpose must guide our way. Our task now is to update that tradition, to forge a bold progressive internationalism for the global age.
As I said last summer in New York, for Democrats to win America's confidence we must first convince Americans we will keep them safe. You can't do that by avoiding the subjects of national security, foreign policy and military preparedness. Nor can we let our national security agenda be defined by those who reflexively oppose any U.S. military intervention anywhere...who see U.S. power as mostly a malignant force in world politics...who place a higher value on achieving multilateral consensus than necessarily protecting our vital interests.

Americans deserve better than a false choice between force without diplomacy and diplomacy without force. I believe they deserve a principled diplomacy...backed by undoubted military might...based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics...a diplomacy that commits America to lead the world toward liberty and prosperity. A bold, progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and the imminent but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decades, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons, endemic poverty and epidemic disease. These are, in the truest sense, not just issues of international order and security, but vital issues of our own national security.

So how would this approach, this bold progressive internationalism, differ from the Bush Administration's erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement? The answer starts by understanding the nature and source of the threat we face.

While we must remain determined to defeat terrorism, it isn't only terrorism we are fighting. It's the beliefs that motivate terrorists. A new ideology of hatred and intolerance has arisen to challenge America and liberal democracy. It seeks a war of Islam - as defined by extremists - against the rest of the world and we must be clear its epicenter is the Greater Middle East.

It's critical that we recognize the conditions that are breeding this virulent new form of anti-American terrorism. If you look at countries stretching from Morocco through the Middle East and beyond...broadly speaking the western Muslim world...what you see is a civilization under extraordinary stress.
The region's political and economic crisis is vividly captured in a recent report written by Arab scholars for the United Nations Development Program and the Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development. Let me quote:

"The wave of democracy that transformed governance in most of the world has barely reached the Arab states...The freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development."

According to Freedom House, there are no full-fledged democracies among the 16 Arab states of the Middle East and North Africa. The Middle East is not monolithic; there are governments making progress and struggling effectively with change in Jordan, Morocco and Qatar. But Iraq, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria are among the 10 least free nations in the world.

Political and economic participation among Arab women is the lowest in the world and more than half of Arab women are still illiterate.

And these countries are among the most economically isolated in the world, with very little trade apart from the oil royalties which flow to those at the very top. Since 1980, the share of world trade held by the 57 member countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference has fallen from 15 percent to just four percent. The same countries attracted only $13.6 billion worth of foreign direct investment in 2001. That is just $600 million - only about 5 % - more than Sweden, which has only 9 million people compared to 1.3 billion people. In 1969, the GDP of South Korea and Egypt were almost identical. Today, South Korea boasts one of the 20 largest economies in the world while Egypt's remains economically frozen almost exactly where it was thirty years before.

A combination of harsh political repression, economic stagnation, lack of education and opportunity, and rapid population growth has proven simply explosive. The streets are full of young people who have no jobs... no prospects... no voice. State-controlled media encourage a culture of self-pity, victimhood and blame-shifting. This is the breeding ground for present and future hostility to the West and our values.

From this perspective, it's clear that we need more than a one-dimensional war on terror. Of course we need to hunt down and destroy those who are plotting mass murder against Americans and innocent people from Africa to Asia to Europe. We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future. We need to illuminate an alternative path to a futile Jihad against the world...a path that leads to deeper integration of the greater Middle East into the modern world order.

The Bush Administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the peoples in the greater Middle East retribution and war but little hope for liberty and prosperity.

What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.

Let me emphasize that last asset in this mission: our alliances. This isn't a task that we should or need to shoulder alone. If anything, our transatlantic partners have a greater interest than we do in an economic and political transformation in the greater Middle East. They are closer to the front lines. More heavily dependent on oil imports. Prime magnets for immigrants seeking jobs. Easier to reach with missiles and just as vulnerable to terrorism.

Meanwhile, NATO is searching for a new mission. What better way to revitalize the most successful and enduring alliance in history, then to reorient it around a common threat to the global system that we have built over more than a half-century of struggle and sacrifice? The Administration has tried to focus NATO on the Middle East, but it's high-handed treatment of our European allies, on everything from Iraq to the Kyoto climate change treaty, has strained relations nearly to the breaking point.

We can do better. With creative leadership, the U.S. can enlist our allies in a sustained multilateral campaign to build bridges between the community of democracies and the greater Middle East - not just for them, but for us.

Here, in my view, is what this strategy should look like.

First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.

He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

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.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

And I say to the United Nations, show respect for your own mandates. Do not find refuge in excuses and equivocation. Stand up for the rule of law, not just in words but in deeds. Not just in theory but in reality. Stand up for our common goal: either bringing about Iraq's peaceful disarmament or the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.

Third, as we continue our focus on the greater Middle East, the U.S. must look beyond stability alone as the linchpin of our relationships. We must place increased focus on the development of democratic values and human rights as the keys to long-term security. If we learned anything from our failure in Vietnam it is that regimes removed from the people cannot permanently endure. They must reform or they will finally crumble, despite the efforts of the United States. We must side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change. America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them down.
In the 1950s, as the sun was setting on European colonialism, a young Senator named John Kennedy went to the Senate floor and urged the Eisenhower Administration not to back France against a rebellious Algeria. He recognized that the United States could only win the Cold War by staying true to our values, by championing the independence of those aspiring to be free.

What's at issue today is not U.S. support for colonial powers out of touch with history, but for autocratic regimes out of touch with their own people.

We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies of terrorism. We must help bring modernity to the greater Middle East. We must make significant investments in the education and human infrastructure in developing countries. The globalization of the last decade taught us that simple measures like buying books and family planning can expose, rebut, isolate and defeat the apostles of hate so that children are no longer brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers and terrorists are deprived the ideological breeding grounds. I believe we must reform and increase our global aid to strengthen our focus on the missions of education and health --of freedom for women -- and economic development for all.

The U.S. should take a page from our Cold War playbook. No one expected communism to fall as suddenly as it did. But that didn't prevent us from expanding society-to-society aid to support human rights groups, independent media and labor unions and other groups dedicated to building a democratic culture from the ground up. Democracy won't come to the greater Middle East overnight, but the U.S. should start by supporting the region's democrats in their struggles against repressive regimes or by working with those which take genuine steps towards change.

We must embark on a major initiative of public diplomacy to bridge the divide between Islam and the rest of the world. We must make avoidance of the clash of civilizations the work of our generation: Engaging in a new effort to bring to the table a new face of the Arab world -- Muslim clerics, mullahs, imams and secular leaders -- demonstrating for the entire world a peaceful religion which can play an enormous role in isolating and rebutting those practitioners who would pervert Islam's true message.

Fourth, The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.
The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

I propose the following policy goals:
We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people? But as we extend the benefits of globalization to people in the greater Middle East and the developing world in general, we also need to confront globalization's dark side.

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

Fifth, and finally, we must have a new vision and a renewed engagement to reinvigorate the Mideast peace process. This Administration made a grave error when it disregarded almost seventy years of American friendship and leadership in the Middle East and the efforts of every President of the last 30 years. A great nation like ours should not be dragged kicking and resisting - should not have to be pressured to the task of making peace. A great nation like ours should be leading the effort to make peace or we risk encouraging through our inaction the worst instincts of an already troubled region.

Israel is our ally, the only true democracy in this troubled region, and we know that Israel as a partner is fundamental to our security. From Truman through Clinton, America has always been committed to Israel's independence and survival - we will never waver.

Israel's security will be best assured over the long term if real and lasting peace can be brought to the Middle East. I know from my own trips to Israel that the majority of the Israeli people understand and expect that one day there will be a Palestinian state. Their frustration is that they do not see a committed partner in peace on the Palestinian side. Palestinians must stop the violence - this is the fundamental building block of the peace process. The Palestinian leadership must be reformed, not only for the future of the Palestinian people but also for the sake of peace. I believe Israel would respond to this new partner after all, Israel has already indicated its willingness to freeze settlements and to move toward the establishment of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive peace process.

Without demanding unilateral concessions, the United States must mediate a series of confidence building steps which start down the road to peace. Both parties must walk this path together - simultaneously. And the world can help them do it. While maintaining our long term commitment to Israel's existence and security, the United States must work to keep both sides focused on the end game of peace. Extremists must not be allowed to control this process. American engagement and successful mediation are not only essential to peace in this war-torn area but also critical to the success of our own efforts in the war against terrorism. When I visited the region last year, in meetings with King Abdullah of Jordan, President Mubarak of Egypt, and Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, it became clear that September 11th had changed the imperatives of these countries. The Bush Administration has missed an opportunity to enlist much greater support in the peace process and needs to focus on this urgent priority- now.

The transformation of the Middle East which can come from these efforts will determine much of our future - but we must also look to the challenges on the rest of the planet. We must build a new and more effective role for the United States in the rest of this complex world.

The central challenge for the United States is to undertake and lead the most global, comprehensive effort in history to deal with proliferation generally and nuclear weapons lost or loose in a dangerous world specifically. It is no secret that there are those lurking in the shadows eager to capitalize on a deadly market for nuclear materials held in insecure facilities around the world.

Five years ago, authorities seized a nuclear fuel rod that had been stolen from the
Congo. The security guard entrusted with protecting it had simply lent out his keys to the storage facility. Two years later, even after near disaster, the facility was guarded only by a few underpaid guards, rusty gates, and a simple padlock.

The potential consequences are fearful and undeniable. In October 2001, we picked up warnings that terrorists had acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb. If detonated in New York City, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died, and most of Manhattan would have been destroyed. Sam Nunn had an important warning, "This intelligence report was judged to be false. But it was never judged to be implausible or impossible."

This Administration's approach to the menace of loose nuclear materials is strong on rhetoric, but short on execution. It relies primarily and unwisely on the threat of military preemption against terrorist organizations, which can be defeated if they are found, but will not be deterred by our military might.

It is time instead for the most determined, all-out effort ever initiated to secure the world's nuclear materials and weapons of mass des. We must offer our own blueprint for the mission of threat reduction. Comprehensively securing materials and keeping them from falling into the wrong hands demands a global perspective and international action. The only answer - the clear imperative - is a multilateral framework implementing a global consensus that weapons of mass destruction under the control of terrorists represent the most serious threat to international security today, and warrants an urgent and global response. We must marshal a great international effort to inventory and secure these materials wherever they may be and in whatever quantity. We must create mechanisms to help those that would be responsible stewards but lack the financial and technical means to succeed We must establish worldwide standards for the security and safekeeping of nuclear material and define a new standard of international legitimacy, linking the stewardship of nuclear materials under universally accepted protocols to acceptance in the community of nations.

Nowhere is the need more clear or urgent than in North Korea.

There the Bush Administration has offered only a merry go-round policy. They got up on their high horse, whooped and hollered, rode around in circles, and ended right back where they'd started. By suspending talks initiated by the Clinton Administration, then asking for talks but with new conditions, then refusing to talk under the threat of nuclear blackmail, and then reversing that refusal as North Korea's master of brinkmanship upped the ante, the Administration created confusion and put the despot Kim Jong Il in the driver's seat. By publicly taking military force, negotiations, and sanctions all off the table, the Administration tied its own hands behind its back. Now, finally, the Administration is rightly working with allies in the region - acting multilaterally -- to put pressure on Pyongyang. They've gotten off the merry go round - the question is why you'd ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you'd get on it in the first place.

So too has the Administration missed major opportunities to address the downside of globalization by creating its upside - relief for nations around the globe struggling against environmental degradation, global health crises, debt relief in exchange for better development policies and improved trade relationships. We need to show the face of enlightened-not robber barren capitalism-something I will expand on in the months ahead.

One of the clearest opportunities missed is the environment. America has not led but fled on the issue of global warming. President Bush's declaration that the Kyoto Protocol was simply Dead on Arrival spoke for itself - and it spoke in dozens of languages as his words whipped instantly around the globe. But what the Administration failed to see was that Kyoto was not just an agreement - it was a product of 160 nations working together over 10 years. It was a good faith effort - and the United States just dismissed it. We didn't aim to mend it. We didn't aim to sit down with our allies and find a compromise. We didn't aim for a new dialogue. The Administration was simply ready to aim and fire, and the target they hit was our international reputation. This country can and should aim higher than preserving its place as the world's largest unfettered polluter. And we should assert, not abandon our leadership in addressing global economic degradation and the warming of the atmosphere we share with the other 90% of humanity.

We should be the world's leader in sustainable developmental policies. We should be the world's leader in technology transfer and technical assistance to meet a host of environmental and health challenges. We should rejoin our allies at the negotiating table - and recognize that friends in the fight for environmental clean-up are also the friends we rely on to help clean out the stables of terrorism. And this is a matter of our national security, too.

Let me offer one last example: The threat of disintegration and chaos rises steadily in Africa as the continent is increasingly devastated by HIV/AIDS. More than 29 million people there are afflicted with that disease. Africa has 11% of the world's population but 70% of all the people in the world living with HIV/AIDS.

Responding is not only morally right, but deeply practical and fundamentally important to the cause of global stability and ultimately our own safety. How can countries -- or whole continents -- torn apart by an untreated epidemic successfully resist the call to violence, terror, and the trade of weapons of mass destruction?

There is much that we can do. We have learned that we can change behavior through prevention and education programs, and if we make treatment available for those already sick. We can stop the transmission from mother to child. And we can reduce the growing number of AIDS "orphans" if we start adding voluntary counseling, testing and treatment of parents and care givers to children.

Yet the Bush Administration, intent on appeasing its right wing, assails population control while it neglects AIDS control even as that disease threatens to destroy whole populations. We must put our national interests in the claims of compassion ahead of political calculation and conservative dogma. The United States must be a leader in assembling an international coalition with other governments and private sector partners -- a coalition with the will and resources to confront the pandemic of HIV/AIDS with the same determination that we bring to the war on terrorism. I challenge the Bush Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to help the countries in Africa win the war against AIDS in their own backyard -- backed up by substantial increases in resources, beginning with $2.5 billion for the upcoming fiscal year.

Taken together, I believe these proposals, that I have put forward today, present a far better vision for how we deal with the rest of the world - a better vision for how we build relationships - and how doing so will make America safer. But there are other things we must do as well. I also believe there is a better vision for military transformation; a better vision for intelligence gathering; and a far more effective way of achieving homeland security and domestic preparedness. I intend to lay out detailed proposals on each of these areas in the coming months.

This is a fateful time - a time for new American leadership in the world and new leadership in America that sets before us the great challenges and honestly addresses what we must do to meet them. The effort will not be easy. The task will not be simple and success will not be swift. But it's our challenge to look to the long term - beyond the next election to the next generation - bending the course of history, recognizing that other nations share it with us, and joining with them in resolve and hope, thereby making safer the life of America and making better the life of the world. With a progressive internationalism. shaped by our bedrock values, and quiet confidence in our strength and in our cause, we must once again demonstrate to an anxious world. America's resolve to bear the burdens and pay the price of leadership so that we may, as President Kennedy said on a cold January day long ago, "assure the survival and success of liberty."

Check out:

http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=2

Thank you for this.

But nobody here trusts Diebold.

:hi:

Tell us about yourself...
:hi:

Stay up late into the evening. Worked my tail off in corporate America under some very difficult personal circumstances. Saved everything I could and retired at 53 on what I made in the stock market from my savings. Now free to study philosophy and Zen. Life is good, and precious.

Well said! :hi:

Me: Child of the 70's/80's, class clown. Incurable prankster, mostly get by on weird twists of fate. Have Forrest Gump-like ability to end up in interesting places with even more interesting people. Not sure how or why, but it works for me.

Still trying to figure out what I think of life. It's ok at times...

Mostly I'm glad that I seem to be blessed with oddly good luck, and pretty good hair. :-)

*knock on wood*

I don't understand at all the worshipping of this Establishment prowar idol.

He's just repeating the same kind of BS that all of the hawks used against Iraq, not once talking of humanitarian needs or alternate motives for action against Iraq. He's just a little sniveling coward that did not deserve his 49%.

as they are and try to make them better.

What the hell does that mean?

Oh. Do you mean "pro-war?"

Hmmm. I'd be curious to see if you believe someone who supports a woman's right to choose is "pro-abortion."

There is a huge difference between voting to protect a measure that allows for an action to be taken as a last resort, versus being PRO that action

How is Kerry "pro-war"?

Oh, and do justify how he's a coward, too. This I'm DYING to hear!

In Terran's perfect world, who would be the leader? Not knocking you dude, just trying to understand you better.

Oh, and before you go calling John Kerry a "little sniveling coward", I suggest you take a few minutes out of your busy day and learn a little bit more about the man and the life he's led. He is the antithesis of each and every one of those words.

I like the way you actually comment on the content of the speech instead of resorting to schoolyard insults and namecalling.

and the entire DC powerstructure ostracized Kerry for years in protest of his IranContra and BCCI investigations and his efforts to END three wars.

Smoke THAT, pal. HISTORY and the congressional records prove you are not being truthful in your charges. Try reading the National Security Archives before you shout out false charges against one of our great historic figures.

What wisdom, insight, forsight. What a steady "hand"...and grasp of the nuance it TAKES to be a true leader, seeing all sides... not just black and white. Seeing all the consequences, and expressing them eloquently.

Thanks for sharing

Just saying. Twenty years of speeches like this, on every single issue I care about. From early childhood, mental illnesss, nursing shortage, SCHIP program, domestic violence, agent orange, real clean campaign reform, corporate reform, ag subsidy reform, Vietnam normalization, BCCI, Iran/Contra, weapons proliferation, international money laundering, the list just goes on and on and on. And that doesn't even bring in Teresa and her work and wisdom. The world is missing an enormous opportunity without that man in the White House. It's just sad beyond words.

but also by many folk on DU who claim to be Democrats.

What strong words, written and spoken with foresight,care and concern. These words, twisted and not listened to, that would have made so much difference today. And now, we have Iran to contend with. Are we being lead once again into a mistake?

I know there was some disagreement expressed, but I wanted to tell everyone thanks (except for the couple of rude people) for the dialogue here. It really helped me understand better the factors involved in the IWR and Kerry's (and others') votes. I always found that entire issue so confusing, and even found myself wondering why someone with Kerry's anti-war background voted the way he did. It sounds like there were a lot of other factors involved, and I wish it had been easier to explain to the public--but it's definitely not sound-bite material.

I was just thinking--it's easy for all of us to play arm-chair congresspeople, especially looking back with the info we have now. I have a feeling there would be few of us who could manage to carry out a 20+ year career like John Kerry's, error-free. I prefer to look at a person's total record and what their character is like instead of condemning them because I feel they made a mistake on one thing. It's how I would prefer to have my life and career judged, and I want to give other people that respect.

I greatly respect and admire John Kerry's career record and what he has chosen to do with his life. If he made a mistake with the IWR vote, that is regrettable. However, it sounds to me, especially after reading this exchange here, that no matter how he or others voted, the war would have still happened. To me, that is what we should all be outraged about--that a President would have the ruthlessness to cause the carnage and pain that he has caused, and then have the obscenity to look the world in the eyes and say "I don't care. I'll do what I want, when I want, how I want, and to hell (literally) with all of you."

I don't expect John Kerry or any other person to be flawless, but give me his integrity and compassion and humility any day over the arrogance and cruelty of the man we have to call "President" right now.