Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before Voting For the War Resolution

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Independents For Kerry

Highlights:

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... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.


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.

In typical Kerry fashion, the whole speech reads like a boring high school textbook and is longwinded as hell. But what I concluded from this is that Kerry has in fact been consistent on his stance. He said these things 2 days before voting for the resolution, and he says the same exact things now.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
i believe the Euroweenie phrase to describe Kerry's comments are that they are nuanced...meaning they give him complete deniability, and fail to actually take a position on anything!!

He votes for the Resolution, which is very concrete, and granted Bush complete authority to proceed as he saw fit...but then states a multitude of nebulous criteria that he feels needed to be fulfilled prior to use of force..NONE OF WHICH APPEAR IN THE RESOLUTION HE VOTED FOR.

If he didn't feel the Resolution clearly expressed his position..he should not have voted for it...He votes for it, then tries to "rewrite" the document he approved..

In effect, he can deny accountability or responsibility for his affirmative vote, by claiming his "criteria" for invading Iraq were never met, even though that was NOT what he voted for.

He continues to obfuscate on everything....he stands for nothing...he is just a "Anti-Bush", and that appeals only to his base (some of which will be voting for Nader), while not being attractive to the "undecided" middle of the road voter.


wait until "middle america" starts hearing about his track record..
ranked "Most Liberal" Senator 2003 (linky), beating out such lumiinaries as Teddy Kennedy.

he's getting a "free ride" right now because the networks are swooning over the Dem primaries...

remember the Clinton's don't really want him to wim either...HAHAHA
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
i believe the Euroweenie phrase to describe Kerry's comments are that they are nuanced...meaning they give him complete deniability, and fail to actually take a position on anything!!

He votes for the Resolution, which is very concrete, and granted Bush complete authority to proceed as he saw fit...but then states a multitude of nebulous criteria that he feels needed to be fulfilled prior to use of force..NONE OF WHICH APPEAR IN THE RESOLUTION HE VOTED FOR.

If he didn't feel the Resolution clearly expressed his position..he should not have voted for it...He votes for it, then tries to "rewrite" the document he approved..

In effect, he can deny accountability or responsibility for his affirmative vote, by claiming his "criteria" for invading Iraq were never met, even though that was NOT what he voted for.

He continues to obfuscate on everything....he stands for nothing...he is just a "Anti-Bush", and that appeals only to his base (some of which will be voting for Nader), while not being attractive to the "undecided" middle of the road voter.


wait until "middle america" starts hearing about his track record..
ranked "Most Liberal" Senator 2003 (linky), beating out such lumiinaries as Teddy Kennedy.

he's getting a "free ride" right now because the networks are swooning over the Dem primaries...

remember the Clinton's don't really want him to wim either...HAHAHA
You say "Anti Bush" like it's a bad thing.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Here's some more of the quote:

And also by voting for this Resolution, President Bush must swear that no civilians will be killed. And that no animals will be harmed during the filming of the war. Oh, and that he promises not to bring up my vote against me. Really any of my votes in the senate. Cause if he does, I'll start saying I'm being accused I'm not patriotic. And if that happens, oh boy I'll open a can of vietnam whoop ass! Cause I'm a friggin WAR HERO!!!
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Here's some more of the quote:

And also by voting for this Resolution, President Bush must swear that no civilians will be killed. And that no animals will be harmed during the filming of the war. Oh, and that he promises not to bring up my vote against me. Really any of my votes in the senate. Cause if he does, I'll start saying I'm being accused I'm not patriotic. And if that happens, oh boy I'll open a can of vietnam whoop ass! Cause I'm a friggin WAR HERO!!!

Buahahahaha!!!!

CkG
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
hs, cant you post without flaming?
Why do you associate Euroweenie with flaming? I do not take offense when somebody calls President Bush a Cowboy. I celebrate the fact I have a genuine cowboy as President!
The last time i checked, the Euroweenie Union did not included Iceland.
Besides, you are Viking! not Euroweenie
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
hs, cant you post without flaming?
Why do you associate Euroweenie with flaming? I do not take offense when somebody calls President Bush a Cowboy. I celebrate the fact I have a genuine cowboy as President!
Besides, what do you care...the last time i checked, the Euroweenie Union did not included Iceland.
so you taking your time bolding and italicing the word that has no importance to this thread other than trolling it seems just for the hell of it?

I care because I just bloody well hate trolls
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
hs, cant you post without flaming?
Why do you associate Euroweenie with flaming? I do not take offense when somebody calls President Bush a Cowboy. I celebrate the fact I have a genuine cowboy as President!
Besides, what do you care...the last time i checked, the Euroweenie Union did not included Iceland.
so you taking your time bolding and italicing the word that has no importance to this thread other than trolling it seems just for the hell of it?

I care because I just bloody well hate trolls


Where's all these comments when other people "troll" ? When terms like sheep, YABA, etc. are used?

You're nothing more than a whiny ass hypocrite. Get over it.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
I just bloody well hate trolls
I came across this old Viking statement: "Hatred is the most poisonous human emotion. It blocks the capacity to empathise that lies at the heart of human association. It turns the object of the hatred into just that - an object. It robs the hater of his or her fundamental human quality - humanity. In so doing, it opens the door to the most callous and depraved acts that one human being can commit against another."

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
hs, cant you post without flaming?
Why do you associate Euroweenie with flaming? I do not take offense when somebody calls President Bush a Cowboy. I celebrate the fact I have a genuine cowboy as President!
Besides, what do you care...the last time i checked, the Euroweenie Union did not included Iceland.
so you taking your time bolding and italicing the word that has no importance to this thread other than trolling it seems just for the hell of it?

I care because I just bloody well hate conservative trolls
Fixed your quote ;)

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,786
6,517
126
The thing I enjoy about the pathetic aspects of Kerry is that he is orders of magtnitude better than Bush. The chump vs the turd. Should be interesting.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The thing I enjoy about the pathetic aspects of Kerry is that he is orders of magtnitude better than Bush. The chump vs the turd. Should be interesting.

Will Kerry try to mimic the puppetry of Reagan?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,786
6,517
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The thing I enjoy about the pathetic aspects of Kerry is that he is orders of magtnitude better than Bush. The chump vs the turd. Should be interesting.

Will Kerry try to mimic the puppetry of Reagan?
Don't tell me Cheney had his hand up Reagan's ass too.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The thing I enjoy about the pathetic aspects of Kerry is that he is orders of magtnitude better than Bush. The chump vs the turd. Should be interesting.

Will Kerry try to mimic the puppetry of Reagan?
Don't tell me Cheney had his hand up Reagan's ass too.

His was but one of many.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
"He votes for the Resolution, which is very concrete, and granted Bush complete authority to proceed as he saw fit...but then states a multitude of nebulous criteria that he feels needed to be fulfilled prior to use of force..NONE OF WHICH APPEAR IN THE RESOLUTION HE VOTED FOR.

If he didn't feel the Resolution clearly expressed his position..he should not have voted for it...He votes for it, then tries to "rewrite" the document he approved.."


When a Senator makes a speech on the floor it becomes part of the Congressional record and that record is a legal document, just as the Resolution is. It isn't the same thing as making a speech somewhere else, it is in a manner of speaking part of the law.

There are 100 Senators, if every Senator had to agree with every point of every Resolution before voting for it nothing would ever get done.

 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
it is in a manner of speaking part of the law.
It is in a manner of speaking part of the congressional record......

laws are what congress creates and passes, and the President must sign.
bad wind is what most of the entries into the congressional record consist of.

There are 100 Senators, if every Senator had to agree with every point of every Resolution before voting for it nothing would ever get done.
No, that's a lie as well. You only need 50 Senators to agree to get a bill passed.

you flunk civics 101, you apparently have no idea what is in the Constitution, and how our goverment functions.

If Senator Kerry didn't like the wording or intent of the Iraq resolution, he should not have signed it. His vote was not even needed to pass the resolution. Several of his fellow Democrat Senators did not vote for the resolution.

 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,800
469
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The thing I enjoy about the pathetic aspects of Kerry is that he is orders of magtnitude better than Bush. The chump vs the turd. Should be interesting.

Will Kerry try to mimic the puppetry of Reagan?
Don't tell me Cheney had his hand up Reagan's ass too.

you sound jealous

;)