 |
 |
 |
|
|
Why did Kerry vote yes on the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq?
The
resolution of October 11, 2002 authorized the President to use force if
necessary; it did not direct the President to go
to war. Kerry voted for the resolution in order to strengthen
the President's hand in dealing with Saddam Hussein and the U.N. It was
not a vote on the question "Should we attack Iraq?" Nothing
in the resolution required or recommended that the President take the
nation into war when alternatives were available. That decision was made
by President Bush.
How would John Kerry have handled Iraq differently than George Bush?
Kerry
would not have unnecessarily taken the nation to war or made the other
mistakes that came with the headlong rush to war. While Kerry took the
problem of Saddam Hussein very seriously, he consistently advocated building
alliances and putting pressure on Hussein, using military force
only if needed and only when the time was right. He affirmed
that the U.S. has a right to defend itself without waiting for approval
from allies, but also that the best course of action, in order to safeguard
American lives and reduce the burden on American taxpayers, was to make
every effort to act in concert with allies. Kerry has been clear and consistent
on this from the very beginning.
How can Kerry criticize the President's handling of Iraq after he voted for the authorization to use force?
The
fact that Senator Kerry voted to grant President Bush authority to handle
the situation does not mean that he is required to approve of the way
the President actually did handle it.
"The idea was simple: We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: 'If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.' He said that military action wasn’t 'unavoidable.'
Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done." — John Kerry, address at New York University, September 20, 2004
Why did Kerry say on August 9, 2004 that he would still have voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq if he knew what he knows now?
The
resolution was not a vote to go to war (see first question above). Kerry
did not say that he would have invaded Iraq even if he knew no WMDs would
be found. He only said that he would have voted to affirm the president's
authority to handle the situation. While George Bush attempted once again
to spin this as a statement that Kerry would have handled things the same
way he had, that is not even remotely what Kerry said. Kerry was simply,
and clearly, reaffirming his unchanged position on granting the President
authority in that situation. John Kerry has never changed his position
on whether it was correct to affirm the President's authority to take
action to defend the nation. Nor has he changed his position on whether
he would have handled the situation differently.
"Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to go to war]. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has.
"And my question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve and relieve a pressure from the American people?" — John Kerry, August 9, 2004
"I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, because, had I been president, I would have wanted that authority, because that was the way to enforce the U.N. resolutions and be tough with the prospect of his development of weapons of mass destruction. But the president said he would go to war as a last resort. The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the U.N. The president said he would build a legitimate international coalition.
"And here we are, several years later, having made an end-run around the United Nations, alienated our allies, put our soldiers at greater risk than they needed to be, asked the American people to pay almost $200 billion, because we didn't have the patience, we didn't have the maturity to exhaust the remedies available to us and truly build that coalition and understand the nature of the threat." — John Kerry, Unity Conference, August 5, 2004
Why did Kerry vote against the $87 billion? Didn't he want the troops to have funding?
Of
course Kerry wanted the troops to have the funding they needed. The issue
was whether the bill was really the best way to help the troops, or whether
it was a way to promote bad policy in Iraq, give special treatment to
Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration, and
stick our children and grandchildren with a massive debt while cutting
taxes on wealthy people. Kerry was taking a stand for the troops by objecting
to the irresponsible way that Bush was conducting the war — the
failed strategy that has made Iraq the quagmire that it is, in which our
troops carry almost all of the burden alone. He was also fighting for
the ordinary American taxpayer by objecting to the irresponsible way that
Bush insisted on funding the war, and standing up against giving special
treatment to companies like Halliburton.
"I'm prepared to spend whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq. But I want to spend the money smart. I don't want to spend 87 billion dollars, when it comes from the average American, when it ought to be coming from the wealthiest Americans instead." — John Kerry, Senate floor, October 17, 2003
Has Kerry changed his position on Iraq?
Kerry has consistently maintained his position on how the Iraq situation should be handled. His criticisms have become more strongly worded as it has become increasingly clear how badly George Bush has mishandled the situation, but his stance has remained the same. Kerry had stated for years that Saddam Hussein was a serious problem, and had advocated for strong and effective action. He was also crystal-clear that a key component of effective action was to use diplomacy to step up the international pressure on Hussein to permit inspections and to disarm. Direct military intervention was to be used only as the final option. He made it clear in his October 9th, 2002 statement (days before the vote on the authorization of the use of force) that he understood President Bush to share the commitment to using military force only as a last resort, and to making every effort to bring allies into the effort.
During the run-up to war, Kerry spoke out repeatedly against George Bush's headlong rush to invasion. Since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," Kerry has clearly pointed out the failures of Bush's Iraq policy -- the same failures which Kerry warned against in the period leading up to the war.
Kerry always supported the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein, but he was also clear that there were right ways and wrong ways to do it. Kerry has also consistently stated that he does not believe President Bush exhausted the alternatives to war. The results of rushing to war prematurely are now clear in the many ways the war has been mishandled. Kerry has never wavered from his position that he voted correctly to affirm the President's authority to handle the situation, and that George Bush misused the authority and bungled the job.
Bush continually presses Kerry to change his position on these key points, and Kerry has stated repeatedly that his position is unchanged. Bush has bent over backwards to claim that Kerry's refusal to change his stance somehow counts as "flip-flopping." In fact, Kerry's position has remained steadfast.
What is Kerry's plan for dealing with Iraq?
Kerry's
comments on how to deal with the catastrophe in Iraq focus on things that
need to be done now, rather than plans for January — rightly so,
since he doesn't know what he'll find in January. He calls for a change
of course based on the same points he's been stressing for the last two
years: The go-it-alone policy needs to be scrapped. We need to “get the
target off the backs” of our young men and women in uniform, and to do
this, the U.S. needs to make a realistic effort to bring
in assistance from Iraq’s neighbors and our European allies. At the same
time, we need to do a serious and competent job of training
Iraqi security forces and involving Iraqis in the rebuilding effort.
In a speech at New York University on September 20th, he called on President Bush to take action in four areas:
www.kerryoniraqwar.com
Not associated with, funded by or endorsed by Kerry-Edwards 2004