The GOP video quotes only the line in which he affirms that the
president has the authority to act to defend the country, to imply
that Kerry thought President Bush should take us to war immediately.
Of course, Kerry has said all along that the president has the authority
to act to defend the country. Kerry is not recommending that we go it alone, however; Kerry is talking about what kind of resolution
the Administration should take to the UN in order to get the UN
Security Council on board.
The exchange after the quoted part is also interesting, as Kerry
notes that only with the threat of force is there any hope of getting
Hussein to allow rigorous inspections. This is what he's said for
the last two years: threatening the use of force was a part of getting
the inspections going again. Of course, the GOP wants you
to think that when he cast his vote on October 11, 2002, he was
in favor of going to war (or that he voted Yes just because it was
politically convenient). We can see from Kerry's statements that
he was always thinking in terms of more options than just “war/no
war,” and that he viewed the threat of force as a vital part
of the strategy to get Saddam to comply with weapons inspections.
MATTHEWS: ... anybody it's a fair - well this is not maybe a
fair question because I don't want to establish any kind of moral
equality or any kind of equivalence in this issue. But, do you
trust the White House to present to the United Nations Security
Council a reasonable resolution? In other words, not to throw
in language beyond the issue of arms, especially weapons of mass
destruction, for them to throw in language that says, this government
must become a democracy, that it must end its repression of its
people and establish human rights. How — are you confident
that this White House won't try that attack to raise the bar?
KERRY: Chris, at some point, this — they obviously reserve
the right to take actions that they deem fit, to protect the security
interests of our country. But for the moment, it's my judgment
that Secretary Powell, the president, and his advisers are trying
to proceed in a way that genuinely brings support on board. I
think if they go that route, if they try to throw every single
possible resolution or complicated scenario into this, they're
going to make it very difficult for some of those countries who
might be with us to be with us.
I think the first step is to do the arms and do the weapons of
mass destruction. That's the most immediate threat to the United
States of America. But the president, as I also wrote
in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally
protect the interests of our country.
MATTHEWS: Do you think the United States should resolutely oppose
a process whereby you have a series of resolutions before the
Security Council. Some resolutions at the outset saying that the
Saddam Hussein regime should permit inspections. And then let
those resolutions carry effect for say six weeks to see if they
actually comply or not. And then and only then the U.N. Security
Council meets again and considers a resolution to sanction, in
other words, to call for war with Iraq. Would you accept such
a plan?
KERRY: I think it would make much more sense and be much
stronger for the Security Council to pass a resolution immediately,
similar to the one that we passed previously, where they empower
the inspections themselves, but they also empower the member nations
to be able to take such means as necessary to enforce them. I
think that's the only way you really have strength in the inspection
process itself. That's the only way you have a prayer of making
what is already a very difficult task, anything near a reality.
[Hardball, September 17, 2002]
