What John Kerry actually said on 10/9/02

[Vegas Vic]

Here are his actual words before he voted "yes" on the resolution.

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.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

This certainly proves that he is a flip-floping pro war communist!

[Cap Ologist]

Can you post the link where you found this? I'm just wondering why Kerry states that the administration is not in the habit of coalition forming. As I remember, we had a pretty good coalition for Afghanistan. That seems to be an unusual choice of words before anything actually happened.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Not taking sides here, but that seems to be a pretty CONSISTENT position from then to now. I don't see any flip-flop there. Why he doesn't send this around to the media outlets or explain it better to the people is beyond me?

[Vegas Vic]

Can you post the link where you found this?

http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

[Cap Ologist]

Thanks.

[Peregrine]

Not taking sides here, but that seems to be a pretty CONSISTENT position from then to now. I don't see any flip-flop there.

I think that's the point of this thread.

[John Galt]

Not taking sides here, but that seems to be a pretty CONSISTENT position from then to now. I don't see any flip-flop there. Why he doesn't send this around to the media outlets or explain it better to the people is beyond me?

Don't you think he has? This story lacks a soundbite and has drifted to the back pages. Here is factcheck.org's take on this (as posted in this thread: http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=31251) as it was talked about in the VP debate:

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ): I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

Bush (Oct. 2, 2002): None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

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.[/b]


This is so much bullshit. This speech boils down to:

"I don't think there is a cause for war. I don't think that the administration is going to build a coalition. I recognize that if I vote for this resolution, the Bush administration will go to war and damn the consequences. This is a really bad idea, but party leadership says that we need to vote for this thing or else we'll lose the mid-term election, so I'm voting for it anyway. Because to me, politics is more important than policy."

[mgadfly]

This is so much bullshit. This speech boils down to:

"I don't think there is a cause for war. I don't think that the administration is going to build a coalition. I recognize that if I vote for this resolution, the Bush administration will go to war and damn the consequences. This is a really bad idea, but party leadership says that we need to vote for this thing or else we'll lose the mid-term election, so I'm voting for it anyway. Because to me, politics is more important than policy."


:rolleyes:

Or it says, I want to give the President and the country the leverage to get the job done right.

[gstelmack]

Or it says, I want to give the President and the country the leverage to get the job done right.

You forgot the "... after attempting to continue the same diplomatic efforts that have not worked over the last 11 years, but I won't tell him how much effort he needs to put in beyond those of the last 11 years so I can always have an excuse to berate him later." part.

[Sharpieman]

This is so much bullshit. This speech boils down to:

"I don't think there is a cause for war. I don't think that the administration is going to build a coalition. I recognize that if I vote for this resolution, the Bush administration will go to war and damn the consequences. This is a really bad idea, but party leadership says that we need to vote for this thing or else we'll lose the mid-term election, so I'm voting for it anyway. Because to me, politics is more important than policy."
I don't know, but critizing a guy for voting to give the power to use military force is much different from actually sending troops into battle on faulty intelligence. No WMD, No serious intent to attack the US. Can someone explain to me why we went to war in Iraq?

[gstelmack]

Can someone explain to me why we went to war in Iraq?

How about "because the Middle East is turning into a very dangerous place, is producing people that are attacking Americans wherever and whenever possible, and the only way to change that is regime change, so we'll start with the 2 most dangerous countries in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq) and help one of the governments that is cooperating with us (Pakistan) clean up their own house".

[ISiddiqui]

Quite frankly, I'd say that Iran is FAR more dangerous than Iraq (with Saddam). But that's just me ;).

[Chubby]

Can someone explain to me why we went to war in Iraq?
Because someone tried to have someone else's daddy murdered. We also want control over any oil we can get our grubby little hands on.

[John Galt]

This is the beauty of the Bush campaign argument:

If Kerry had voted against the authorization of force, he would be a bad president to lead our troops

If Kerry had voted for every use of force by the President, there would be no reason to elect him because he would indistinguishable from Bush

Because Kerry voted to allow an authorization of force, but did not have to vote on actual military decisions, he is portrayed as a flip-flopper (who is changing views to win an election).

The situation is Lose-Lose-Lose for Kerry.

[Chubby]

Quite frankly, I'd say that Iran is FAR more dangerous than Iraq (with Saddam). But that's just me ;).

It's not just you, don't worry :)

[KWhit]

Which do you think is easier for most of America to understand in this age of info-tainment and sensationalized "journalism" - what Kerry said in that speech, or a few thousand people chanting "Flip-Flop" at the RNC?

This is similar to the hubub that was created by Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" during the first debat. Hardly anyone cares to listen to the whole answer, they just hear that and think, "Kerry's going to let France and the UN dictate US policy!"

[KWhit]

How about "because the Middle East is turning into a very dangerous place, is producing people that are attacking Americans wherever and whenever possible, and the only way to change that is regime change, so we'll start with the 2 most dangerous countries in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq) and help one of the governments that is cooperating with us (Pakistan) clean up their own house".
Actually, our actions in Iraq will produce thousands more people who want to attack America.

[Maple Leafs]

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. Interesting that he's basically saying "either we get rid of the WMDs through inspections, or as a last resort we get rid of them through war". Nowhere does he express any doubt that there are WMDs, just like everyone else in the world assumed them to be there.

I think Bush is fair game for a lot of criticism about Iraq, but I think the left is taking the wrong path by pushing the "He was wrong about WMDs" angle. Everyone was wrong about the WMDs - Bush, Blair, Kerry, the UN, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, everyone.

[SirFozzie]

Maple Leafs.. we were wrong because we were being TOLD wrong.. it's not like we have an option other then to go by what the government says.. they're the ones with the actual, you know, head count and money and access...

[Maple Leafs]

Actually, our actions in Iraq will produce thousands more people who want to attack America.In the short term, yes. In the long term, we'll see.

Remember, many of those in the Middle East who hate America do so because they view the Americans as spineless manipulators who talk tough about rights and freedom but don't do a thing about it as long as they get their oil.

Ignoring the slaughter in Algeria in the 1980s created a generation that hates America. Encouraging Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in 1991, then walking away and watching him wipe out those who opposed him created a generation that hates Americans. Running away after Mogadishu created the "paper tiger" image of the US and emboldened a generation of terrorists (including Bin Laden) to attack Americans.

Talking tough about taking Saddam out in 2004, then meekly doing nothing almost certainly would have created even more hatred. Would that have been worse than what we have now? I'm not sure. We'll probably never really know.

There are no easy answers in this Middle East mess.

[Ksyrup]

If Kerry had voted for every use of force by the President, there would be no reason to elect him because he would indistinguishable from Bush
And you've hit on the source of my skepticism about the Democratic Party's motives. You'll notice that this was precisely the Democrats' downfall in the 2002 elections. One of the things I don't trust about the Democratic Party in this election cycle is the fact that their position on a number of issues changed as a result of the 2002 elections. There was no reason to vote against the incumbents if the challengers agreed with them, which is what the Democrats (rightfully) did in the aftermath of 9/11, so they realized that they needed to start disagreeing with Bush to demonstrate a difference which would make them electable. And that started in very early 2003.

We did try diplomacy. It didn't work. This ended up being a matter of how many more chances do you want to give someone who repeatedly refuses to obey empty threats. Remember, Saddam didn't come forth and say, "I haven't had any weapons since 1991," he simply refused to cooperate. He was asked to provide documentation that he had destroyed WMD, but he wouldn't do it. And we know - even the intelligence now still shows - that he had them before. So, he brought all of this on himself, and combined with the bad intelligence from numerous sources, military action ensued.

It's unfortunate that the intelligence was faulty (for a number of reasons), but one is because it clouded the underlying issue - how long do we continue to subordinate our country's interests to what the world wants to do? Next time, I expect the intelligence to be better, which means there will be a threat, and I do not want a President who will continue to look for other ways of dealing with the threat except force, even when those ways have produced no results, and who will accept the UN's decision not to use force as the final answer.

[Maple Leafs]

Maple Leafs.. we were wrong because we were being TOLD wrong.. it's not like we have an option other then to go by what the government says.. they're the ones with the actual, you know, head count and money and access...You were being told by far more sources than the US government. Observers around the world, including UN inspectors, were virtually unanimous in their agreement on the subject.

Be angry about being misled if you want to, but you're revising history if you think this should be pinned this one exclusively on Bush.

[Chubby]

You were being told by far more sources than the US government. Observers around the world, including UN inspectors, were virtually unanimous in their agreement on the subject.

Be angry about being misled if you want to, but you're revising history if you think this should be pinned this one exclusively on Bush.
I must be missing where the inspectors said that Saddam definately had WMDs...

[Glengoyne]

Quite frankly, I'd say that Iran is FAR more dangerous than Iraq (with Saddam). But that's just me ;).
This was pretty much always my opinion as well. It was somewhat mitigated by the fact, that I thought Iran's government would self destruct sometime in the next 10 years.

I was on board with the war in Iraq, because Saddam had been thumbing his nose at the U.N. for 12 years.

[Glengoyne]

I must be missing where the inspectors said that Saddam definately had WMDs...
They never said they "knew" Iraq had WMDs, but it was their suspicion. A couple of months before the war Hans Blix stated that "Iraq hasn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they need to disarm".

[John Galt]

They never said they "knew" Iraq had WMDs, but it was their suspicion. A couple of months before the war Hans Blix stated that "Iraq hasn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they need to disarm".

Hans Blix, statement to the Security Council, 7 March 2003: "the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'".

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, statement to the Security Council, 7 March 2003: "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."

"In the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly 'found' them." - Sarcastic reference to the British and American governments' insistence that there are WMD in Iraq after Blix had already concluded and reported there was nothing to be found.

Do you really want to cite Blix and the IAEA to prove your point? They complained in Feb that Iraq wasn't cooperating, but by March, they said that Iraq was being proactive and working. It was the US that insisted the inspectors withdraw and not Saddam (as Bush has been saying in his speeches).

[Maple Leafs]

Do you really want to cite Blix and the IAEA to prove your point? They complained in Feb that Iraq wasn't cooperating, but by March, they said that Iraq was being proactive and working.In which case it's fair to accuse Bush of rushing to war and ignoring the inspectors. It's still not fair to accuse him of being alone in thinking there were WMDs -- even the inspectors thought so (after all, what else did they think Saddam was pro-actively disarming?)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

I don't know, but critizing a guy for voting to give the power to use military force is much different from actually sending troops into battle on faulty intelligence.

I heartily disagree. In October 2002, it was a foregone conclusion that Bush would go to war if the resolution was passed. Look at the statements of people like Russ Feingold who voted against the resolution. They voiced concerns that Bush had no sufficiently proven his case for war, that they didn't have faith in his efforts to work through the UN, that they didn't know where the money was going to come from, that the administration had refused to discuss any post-war plans. Essentially they criticized then everything that Kerry criticizes now. So either Kerry saw all these problems too, and voted for it anyway as a cynical political ploy, or else he was criminally stupid and oblivious to what was going on. Neither one is anything to be proud of.

And the points about voting simply out of concern for the mid-term elections is hardly the stuff of conspiracy theory. Liberal columnists and strategists openly discussed at the time that the democratic leadership was scared that they were perceived as weak on terrorism and they didn't want to go into the election with the issue still on the table. So they gave a quick yes vote to show that they were tough and in hopes that they could move on to other (domestic) issues for the election. They were wrong (the midterm elections were all about Iraq and the war on terror) and they got hammered in those elections anyway. It was a stupid move, and they realized that six months later when Howard Dean roared to the front of the pack by repudiating this decision. They've been trying to backfill and recast the issue ever since. I'm not buying it. They fucked up. They should admit it and move on.

[Glengoyne]

Hans Blix, statement to the Security Council, 7 March 2003: "the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'".

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei, statement to the Security Council, 7 March 2003: "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq."

"In the Middle Ages people were convinced there were witches. They looked for them and they certainly 'found' them." - Sarcastic reference to the British and American governments' insistence that there are WMD in Iraq after Blix had already concluded and reported there was nothing to be found.

Do you really want to cite Blix and the IAEA to prove your point? They complained in Feb that Iraq wasn't cooperating, but by March, they said that Iraq was being proactive and working. It was the US that insisted the inspectors withdraw and not Saddam (as Bush has been saying in his speeches).
I actually wasn't trying to prove a point, I was just chiming in with my opinion that the Iraqi's continual hindrance of the inspection process had raised suspicions within the inspector community.

As for the withdrawl of the inspectors, wasn't that done immediately before the start of the war? I think I have said this before, but I don't think that is what Bush is talking about. I think Bush is talking about the earlier withdrawl of inspectors in '97. You are still correct that it was the U.N. or U.S. that called for the withdrawl, but that action was the result of Saddam's rebuff of an ultimatum to allow the inspectors unrestricted access. Since Saddam refused unimpeded access, the inspectors were recalled. I just don' t think you should hang your hat on this as a lie or deception. Look at the misuse of statistics, and numbers by both sides in the election now. I don't claim either party is lying. I do think they are both spouting bullshit, but I don't consider it lying.

[John Galt]

In which case it's fair to accuse Bush of rushing to war and ignoring the inspectors. It's still not fair to accuse him of being alone in thinking there were WMDs -- even the inspectors thought so (after all, what else did they think Saddam was pro-actively disarming?)

I think you are mis-reading "proactive" - Blix is referring to them being proactive in provided accounting and access - that doesn't mean they were currently disarming WMD's.

[Chubby]

They never said they "knew" Iraq had WMDs, but it was their suspicion. A couple of months before the war Hans Blix stated that "Iraq hasn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they need to disarm".
That would probably be because they didn't have anything to disarm.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Why doesn't anyone realize that the only question we need to answer on November 2nd is who we would rather have lie to us for the next four years?

[gstelmack]

That would probably be because they didn't have anything to disarm.

They were working awfully hard to hide this stuff they didn't have...

[Chubby]

They were working awfully hard to hide this stuff they didn't have...
Oh yeah, I forgot how we found all theie WMDs :rolleyes:



So i guess which is it, they did the best job in the history of the world in hiding stuff or we're the stupidest people ever in that we can't find it (since you're convinced they had WMDs it has to be one or the other)

[rkmsuf]

Why doesn't anyone realize that the only question we need to answer on November 2nd is who we would rather have lie to us for the next four years?


It's funny how everyone has all of these strong opinions but nobody knows. It's a complete guessing game. I mean really, what issues have they outlined? I can't see a definative difference either way.

In 4 years it will be much easier when we can play the told you so game.

[valhalla]

That would probably be because they didn't have anything to disarm.

Tell that to the tens of thousands of iraqi kurds he gassed. :eek:

He had them and he used them before, thats a fact jack.. You must think he had a change of heart or something and suddenly changed his ways, he became a saint or something maybe... Bottom line is he couldnt be trusted.. He refused to abide by the terms he agreed to on iraqs surrender. (I fought in that war) That alone was reason enough to kick his ass, UN wasnt gonna do anything.. Never have and never will.

The philosophy kick ass and take names later, applies in this situation. Some people only understand force and saddam is one of those people.

[yabanci]

...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...

At least he was correct here and understood simple reality, unlike the "it's a cakewalk and we will be greeted as liberating heros with rose petals thrown at our feet" fantasy that the oil drunk Cheney crowd pandered day after day.

[Chubby]

Tell that to the tens of thousands of iraqi kurds he gassed. :eek:

He had them and he used them before, thats a fact jack.. You must think he had a change of heart or something and suddenly changed his ways, he became a saint or something maybe... Bottom line is he couldnt be trusted.. He refused to abide be the terms he agreed to on iraqs surrender. (I fought in that war) That alone was reason enough to kick his ass, UN wasnt gonna do anything.. Never have and never will.

The philosophy kick ass and take names later, applies in this situation. Some people only understand force and saddam is one of those people.
in what, the 80s??? The fact is, it was never proven that he had any WMDs after the 1st war (and still hasn't been proven because we have found JACK and SQUAT so far haven't we). He only understood force? Right, which is why AGAIN he didn't have any WMDs between the two wars but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

And that philosophy is why the majority of the world hates us and there continues to be a constant terrorist threat against this country.

[TwinCitiesFan]

We did try diplomacy. It didn't work.


It is the job of the president to be diplomatic. The only reason diplomacy did not work was because George W. could'nt get it done.


Remember, Saddam didn't come forth and say, "I haven't had any weapons since 1991," he simply refused to cooperate.


In the Middle East and with the screwed up mindset Saddam has, there is no way he would have admitted to having a weak military.

[Julio Riddols]

*Throws up hands and leaves the country*

[Tigercat]

I'm planning on moving to Baldwinia.

[Dutch]

I don't know, but critizing a guy for voting to give the power to use military force is much different from actually sending troops into battle on faulty intelligence. No WMD, No serious intent to attack the US. Can someone explain to me why we went to war in Iraq?

You say that with such certainty that only invading Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein could bring. That's the sad truth of Saddam Hussein's legacy.

[gstelmack]

in what, the 80s??? The fact is, it was never proven that he had any WMDs after the 1st war (and still hasn't been proven because we have found JACK and SQUAT so far haven't we). He only understood force? Right, which is why AGAIN he didn't have any WMDs between the two wars but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

Then why was he spending so much effort attempting to foil the inspectors? He could have let them in (as mandated by the UN in countless resolutions), they would have found nothing, and this could have been over a decade ago. But he didn't. He did his best to convince everyone he did have them. Guess what: it worked.