I found an old interview from December 2003

I thought you guys would enjoy it. Once again, it shows us a man of principle and character.
-------------------------------------

Interview: John Kerry with William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Interview

Monday 22 December 2003

This interview is formatted somewhat differently than the one I did with Governor Howard Dean this past May. Senator Kerry and I spoke for about 20 minutes in a minivan that was flying down some back road in New Hampshire on the way to a gathering at Hopkington High School. Kerry was slated to speak about environmental issues to a science class that was constructing an electric hybrid car as part of the curriculum. Because our one-on-one time was constricted due to his campaign schedule, I have decided to add a portion of his comments from that classroom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WRP: Senator Bill Nelson revealed last week that he and some 75 other Senators had been given an intelligence briefing by a Bush administration official just before the Iraq war vote, during the time frame of those quotes I just read. In that briefing, they were told that Iraq had not only chemical and biological weapons, but had the technical capability to strike American cities on the East Coast with unmanned drones filled with these poisons. Nelson refused to divulge who gave the briefing. I want to take you back to this time, to September and early October of 2002. What were you thinking about during this period, in the days and weeks before the Iraq resolution? I know you can’t reveal classified briefings, but were you getting at the time data that persuaded you that a yes vote was the proper course?

JK: Absolutely. More than that. I attended one particular briefing at the Pentagon. The Secretary of Defense was there, as well as the Admiral in charge of all intelligence. They passed photographs around showing us very specific locations and places where, they said, their intelligence confirmed that weapons of mass destruction were being held. This was in addition to those unmanned drones, which we were told about, and in addition to the 45-minute deployment capacity, which we were told about.

WRP: I wrote a book last September called ‘War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You To Know,’ which stated that Iraq’s WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?

JK: There were a number of people offering contrary opinions, but this was compared to the overwhelming evidence that was put in front of us in very specific and factual terms. When someone shows you a photograph and says, “Our intelligence tells us that in this building is the following, and we have the following sources to back up these determinations,” it is pretty compelling.

What’s more, what I thought was equally compelling was not just the evidence, but were the very direct promises of Colin Powell and others within the administration about how they were going to proceed, about working with the United Nations, about using weapons inspectors, and about war being a last resort. In foreign policy, traditionally, we have worked across party lines to try to have one voice to speak with as a country in the interest of our national security. Obviously, the President, we now know, broke every single one of those promises and disregarded his own word. He is not a man of his word.

Given the information we were given at that time, however, a lot of very smart people made the same decision. Bill Clinton thought we ought to do what we did. He was the former President of the United States, and made his judgment based on eight years of experience. Hillary Clinton voted for it. Tom Harkin voted for it, as did Joe Biden. A lot of people made the judgment that this is a serious threat, and made the judgment that the administration was committed to going through the international process, build a coalition and do this right.

They didn’t do it right. They did it wrong. I was one of the first Senators to stand up and hold them accountable for it. In fact, I forewarned them each step of the way about what they needed to do to legitimately live up to their obligations

WRP: How do you feel now, after all this time has passed, when you hear these stories about unmanned drones striking the East coast, and other threat stories like that?

JK: It is one of the worst intelligence lapses, or deceptions, in modern history.

WRP: True or False: A solution to the Iraq problem, particularly the need to bring international cooperation into the conflict, and into the repair of that country, will never be found as long as Bush is in the White House.

JK: True. The solutions are very specific and very achievable, but depends on the United States not acting arrogantly, not acting unilaterally, and being willing to share power, authority and responsibility. If you are willing to transfer that to the United Nations, or to a coalition working under an umbrella – it doesn’t have to be directly U.N., but has to be approved by the U.N. – so that you are giving real shared authority over reconstruction and governmental transformation, and it’s not a Paul Bremer/U.S. decision-making process but a legitimate international accord as to how you empower the Iraqi people to decide their own future, then you absolutely have the ability to get additional help on the ground.

I’ve talked to the ambassadors and the other people involved. I know Kofi Annan and the U.N. are prepared to be involved. But you have to invite them and share with them appropriately, and this administration has refused to do that.

WRP: Do you feel a kinship with the peace movement that exploded around this Iraq invasion, given your background? Or do you feel alienated from them because of that vote?

JK: I felt enormous understanding, empathy, sympathy and respect for the voice they were articulating. I completely understood it. I came from there. I understood the confusion over why someone with my long history, why there was confusion over my position, why people were questioning it.

But I felt my decision was absolutely consistent with the counter-proliferation efforts I have been making as a Senator for my entire career. I felt proliferation was a critical issue. I thought a President ought to get inspectors back into Iraq. I thought a President ought to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. But I knew how to do it right, and my regret is that this President proved he not only didn’t know how to do it right, but was prepared to go back on his promises, be deceptive, and mislead the nation. I regret that he did that, and I regret that I put any trust in him at all. I shouldn’t have, obviously.

Put it this way: Given the circumstances we were in at the time, the decision was appropriate, but in retrospect I will never trust the man again. That’s why I am running against him. He deserves to be replaced with someone who is trustworthy.

WRP: In terms of the 2004 campaign, the central argument put up by a lot of people in the Democratic base who are against you is that you don’t “get it.” They see other candidates as fighting for their progressive values, and they see you saying “Get over it” after the election debacle in Florida, as quoted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. In contrast, your voting record in the Senate is clearly as progressive as the day is long. Where do you stand with the progressive community? Do you “get it”? Can you be their leader?

JK: I believe that I am the most consistent, most accomplished progressive fighter in this entire field. My record over 35 years of standing up and fighting for progressive causes is clear on with respect to women, with respect to the environment, with respect to children, education, health care, our role in the world, human rights, civil rights. My record is stronger, longer and deeper than any other candidate in this field with respect to the progressive agenda of this party.

When I say “Move on” from 2000, I’m as angry as anyone else. Votes ought to be counted. But my objective is to win. My objective is “Don’t get mad, get even.” They way you get even is to go out and take that agenda to the country and build a coalition around it. I think if you compare my record to the people in this field, I think it’s clear that I am the progressive candidate. I am the one who has stood up and taken the risks and fought for the agenda of my party with consistency.

I think the progressives in our party need to look and see who has the ability to take that progressive agenda and still stand up and beat George Bush. We don’t need to send the country a message. We need to send the country a President.