and laid out guidelines in a NY Times column in Sept. before the vote which helped push Bush to the UN. He also appeared on Hardball for an hour and discussed it at the Citadel.
Noone was FOR war. They supported a resolution that allowed the president to make the determination that force was needed. War as a last resort. Same as Dean. But Dean never told his audiences that he supported that same aspect of the IWR that he was using to attack the others.
We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
September 6, 2002
By JOHN F. KERRY
WASHINGTON - It may well be that the United States will go
to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have
to - not because we want to. For the American people to
accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their
consent to it, the Bush administration must first present
detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction and then prove that all other avenues of
protecting our nation's security interests have been
exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning
the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to
war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential
to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue
statement this week that he would consult Congress is a
beginning, but the administration's strategy remains
adrift.
Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change
by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a
Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein - the
ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism - should
be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the
inspection process is merely a waste of time should be
reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our
people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential
foundation of success.
>>>>>>
In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than
making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the
administration has complicated its own case and compromised
America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused,
overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale
for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of
invasion and regime change, the administration has
diminished its most legitimate justification of war - that
in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of
weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein
is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors
is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991
cease-fire agreement that left him in power.
>>>>>>>
There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win
militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no
question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of
mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our
interests in the region and our security at home. But
knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will
remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or
much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq,
is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites
support from the region and from our allies. We will need
that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a
future democratic government after the war.
The question is not whether we should care if Saddam
Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards
of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is
how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and
the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have
to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an
American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue
of utilizing the procedures of international law and
community - institutions American presidents from across
the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to
global security.
For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause
and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must
seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the
evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our
allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing
cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security
Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum
to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections
without negotiation or compromise. Some in the
administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum
might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam
Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international
community's already existing order, then he will have
invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at
the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if
the Security Council fails to act. But until we have
properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow
citizens and our allies that we really have no other
choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral
decision-making in going to war against Iraq.
John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from
Massachusetts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/06KERR.html?ex=1032312456&ei=1&en=930a8857e0bbb35c
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
