Kerry was not mislead by the President

[quaker bill]

A couple of dated bits from the federal record. Senator Kerry in his own words:

Scott Ritter's Congressional Testimony
Iraq News, SEPTEMBER 7, 1998

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/09/980907-in.htm

<<<snip>>>

That is precisely the point. There are no good options regarding Iraq. The Clinton administration/political leadership of this country has to grasp and define the problem clearly and pursue and work through the least bad option. Yet the more time passes with the US doing nothing, the stronger Saddam gets, the worse the least bad option will be.

Indeed, Sen. John Kerry seemed to understand that. He explained that Saddam's aim was not to lift sanctions, but to build weapons of mass destruction. That is the point which the Clinton administration stubbornly refuses to acknowledge. Kerry took issue with Biden, saying that the matter was much bigger than whether Scott Ritter or his team could get into a site or not. Kerry said, as he had before, that the US should be prepared to use force to achieve its goals, even as it would be necessary to prepare the public. He also suggested that any US military strike on Iraq should involve sustained targeting of the regime.

<<<end>>>

And some more:

DISARRAY IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OVER FACING SADDAM HUSSEIN;
HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE;

10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/990928-iraq-sfrc.htm

SEN. KERRY: So, in fact, the threat that was sufficient to summon all of this international outrage and the very precise and clear goals, as clear as any goals I've ever seen the U.N. state, that threat is, in fact, greater today than it was then, is it not?

MR. BUTLER: It's undiminished. And possibly greater because of the absence of monitoring.

SEN. KERRY: So, what has happened? I mean, you may have described -- I just read your testimony -- have described a little bit. But, I mean, what really has happened here? Have we been bamboozled? Is our policy simply a failure? Are we frightened? Is there something that has changed in the nature of this threat? Because I really don't understand it. And it seems to me that for the cause of proliferation, whether it's with respect to Iraq or any other number of countries about which we have enormous concerns, the message that comes out of this is that maybe the forces aligned to try to hold people accountable are, in fact, paper tigers and not serious about it.

...........

SEN. KERRY: Sure.

Well, I thank the chair. And I thank you again.

I just have -- as a parting comment -- I mean, the strategic exigencies that brought us to understand that it was unacceptable to have the invasion of Kuwait, which was cloaked in a certain amount of rhetoric, was far more oriented towards longer-term implications of the potential of his moving further south -- oilfields, economy. As Jim Baker said back then, "This is about jobs." And then they found other rhetoric to couch it in. But that was a code word for those oil fields and, I think, the longer-term strategic implications of the Middle East. Now, that was sufficient to bring all of us to believe, though timing was questioned, that we had to be prepared to use force, and we ultimately did.

It seems to me that a Saddam Hussein who has the ability to develop potentially more threatening weapons of mass destruction -- and notwithstanding -- I mean, it was the show of force and the determination of the United States that really took away from him that option, previously. If the determination is not there, then the use that he put it to previously, in other circumstances, could become far more attractive again in the future, which I think is the bottom line of what you are saying.

So I think we're -- and I thank the chair for having this hearing. I mean, I think we're talking about a very significant, large strategic interest of the United States that for various reasons has been second-tiered to sometimes more emotional and certainly of-the-moment perceptions of other issues that don't rise to the same strategic, longer-term interests of our country. So I think it's important for us to be thinking about where we go, because I've said, and I think you and others have said, there's an ultimate time -- as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.

<<<end>>>

The Iraq war has been a favored policy for Mr. Kerry since at least 1998, if not earlier.

To Kerry's mind, per his own words, the Iraq matter was:

Bigger than could be dealt with by successful inspections.

Was underestimated and poorly handled by the Clinton Administration (paper tigers).

Required US military strikes targeting the Regime.

And, finally that action against Iraq was inevitable would be better if taken sooner rather than later.

This record indicates that Mr. Kerry's vote on IWR was entirely consistent with the policy he had been pursuing as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the prior 4 to 5 years. He has more credibility on the record in support of this war than Joe Lieberman.

There is lots more stuff on the record in regard to national missile defense, military funding for weapons systems so on.

[blm]

1. I told you he has been consistent since 98...but where he WAS misled was

by this WH saying that they WOULD exhaust all diplomatic means FIRST and allow weapons inspections to root out any WMDs before using force.

In 1998 Kerry believed Scott Ritter's testimony. He also supported Clinton's policy of regime change in Iraq so the sanctions against Iraq could be lifted and the region stabilized so Islamic fundamentalism could be dealt with BEFORE Bin Laden's influence could grow.

Too bad more people don't listen to the REAL thoughtful statesmen in this country because they just aren't entertaining enough.

[Skittles]

2. UM

THESE F***ERS *STOLE THE ELECTION*. CLUE #1 INDICATING YOU CANNOT BELIEVE A G.D. THING THEY SAY.

[quaker bill]

12. This was not a call for more diplomacy

'Kerry took issue with Biden, saying that the matter was much bigger than whether Scott Ritter or his team could get into a site or not.'

Joe Biden was no anti-war liberal in this matter.

'He explained that Saddam's aim was not to lift sanctions, but to build weapons of mass destruction. That is the point which the Clinton administration stubbornly refuses to acknowledge.'

Again Clinton was arguing for more diplomacy and inspections, Kerry was not.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quaker bill]

31. Again from the source documents

'...as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.'

'as long as he's there...that threat remains and it's real'

There is nothing intellectually dishonest about this. Saddam was still there, Kerry still thought the threat was real. 'He also suggested that any US military strike on Iraq should involve sustained targeting of the regime.'

His recent actions were entirely consistent with this world view. Were it otherwise, I would have not brought it up.

[blm]

36. But he still wanted Bush to show diplomatic efforts FIRST

and especially if there were reports that the 98 bombing had eliminated much of Saddam's WMDs.

There's a forest and trees, you see what you want.

[quaker bill]

39. Then he could have voted for a different resolution.

He is a Senator. He could have offered an ammendment and refused to support IWR without it. This action would clearly have been within his perogative.

Bush* complied with the terms and conditions of IWR exactly as approved.

The art of writing good legislation is to require specific performance in line with your objectives. If this was actually his objective, then he failed to write or vote for legislation that would accomplish it.

I have seen the forest, it is full of dead people in this case.

[WiseMen]

43. Anyone Familiar with U.S. Iraq Policy knows of Kerry's Consistent Position

Kerry argued strongly against U.S. support of Iraq in Iran/Irac dispute which cost more than a 1 million lives. Kerry argued against U.S. war against Iraq and occupation of Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War.

Since the Gulf War, Kerry as argued for quickly resolving the Iraqi tragedy via an acceleration of U.N. Inspections and WMD destruction regime and a lifting of sanctions, or if absolutely necessary, the use of covert action to remove the Saddam regime and restore normal relations.

Kerry has never argued for full-scale war. In 1998 he and John McCain are believed to have promoted top-secret covert operations in Iraq to accertain WMD destruction and penetrate the Saddam regime.

No one is denying this. With Kerry as President Iraq would likely have been brought into full compliance with U.N. resolutions without war and the full world comunity would have been together.

[Scott Lee]

17. It looks like Kerry's been dishonest about this for a long time

Or should I say "On again Off again John Kerry" has been playing both ends of this against the middle.

At some point you have to get off the fence and commit. Where does Kerry commit? He won't. He is an "experienced insider" yet he was "misled" by Bush.

Well the truth comes out. Kerry is a fibber. And he poorly tries to craft arguments that he thinks the public will buy, to gloss over his mistakes and make him more popular.

Judging from his lagging support and near nonexistent fundraising, it's not working. Hang it up, John.

[IndianaGreen]

25. If Kerry thought Ritter was credible in 1998, why wasn't Ritter credible..

If Kerry thought Ritter was credible in 1998, why wasn't Ritter credible in 2002? There was the Ritter interview by Will Pitt, which was published as a book. There were the many warnings about this war that Ritter and Butler made throughout 2002 and until the war began in 2003. There was the warning by General Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, that the war would result in a 10-year occupation with no guaranteed results.

The one that lacks credibility is Kerry. A man of such poor judgment should not be rewarded with the Presidency.

Scorned general's tactics proved right

Profile of the army chief sidelined by Rumsfeld

Matthew Engel in Washington
Saturday March 29, 2003
The Guardian

This has been a terrible week at the Pentagon: the worst since the building itself was attacked more than 18 months ago. But as his limo drew up to fetch him last night, one of the most senior figures in the building might just have permitted himself the thin smile of a vindicated man.

His name in General Eric Shinseki. And at a time when generals - whether on active or pundit duty - are the hottest showbiz properties in the world, hardly anyone knows who he is.

Officially, he is Tommy Franks's superior, head of the United States army, a member of the mighty joint chiefs, and two months away from what ought to be honoured retirement at the end of a military career stretching back to the Vietnam war.

But for the past two years Gen Shinseki has been in total eclipse after what appears to have been the most spectacular bust-up with his civilian bosses, in particular Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925140,00.html

[blm]

26. Not when the vote was happening, that's why

inspections were part of the package when Bush never wanted more inspections. That's something you REFUSE to give credit for.

Kerry thought it would be up to weapons inspections to prove whether disarming was necessary and that's why he criticized Bush for not allowing for proper, thorough inspections before he used force.

[JI7]

27. hans blix said same thing

said saddam would not have been as cooperative if not for threat of force. doesn't mean blix wanted to attack as bush did, but he did support using the threat to enforce inspections.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Independent Voices Confirm John Kerry’s Consistency on Iraq

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/iraq/quotes.html

I especially like this one from the liberal American Prospect.

Kerry’s Position Was not an Endorsement of Bush’s “Rush to War” – “Democrats in Congress running for president, such as John Kerry, are now getting slammed as inconsistent for criticizing the war after voting to authorize force against Iraq. But Congress voted on the Iraq resolution as Bush was requesting that the United Nations Security Council issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. The timing made it appear that anyone voting against the resolution was undermining the president's chance of obtaining a last-minute diplomatic solution. A vote for the resolution did not imply an endorsement of Bush's rush to war, though Kerry's vote is being represented that way.” 


Hi, blm. Great to have you back!

[killbotfactory]

4. Kerry seems to have been paranoid about Iraq

And he made the assumption that since we didn't know exactly what Saddam was doing after Operation Desert Fox, he must have been rebuilding a dangerous stockpile of weapons.

But, as we have found out, Sanctions and inspections worked, and effectively crippled Saddam.

I'm sure he's glad to know that his fears were unfounded.

[JI7]

5. sanctions were killing innocent

sanctions were killing innocent iraqi people. so were the almost daily bombings over a decade. and inspections were not going on at the time of the october 2002 vote. they only started after that vote.

[killbotfactory]

7. So I guess it's a good thing

We invaded Iraq, killed more innocents, and are almost certainly going to pull most of our forces out and watch the country devolve into civil war.

Inspections were stopped, because, basically, a decade of inspections and sanctions castrated Saddam, and we destroyed whatever was left of his WMD capability when we bombed him in 98.

I don't see how he could become a bigger threat, after all of that, unlike Kerry.

But hey, Kerry's the expert here. I'm sure he's be glad to know we weren't in danger from Iraq and we invaded prematurely for nothing.

[JI7]

10. so why were there bombings and sanctions ?

there were still almost daily bombings for over a decade and sanctions. if there was no threat, why continue with those things ?

[killbotfactory]

16. There were still bombings because...

Every once in a while Saddam would have an anti-aircraft missle target and American jet. We would destroy the missle battery, and then Saddam would get to go on Iraqi TV and say the Americans are evil oppressors who are bombing a defenseless country, etc...

There are sanctions because Saddam is a jerk and didn't like to show any weakness by complying fully with inspections and rightfully feared beign spied on by a country who's stated mission is regime change(and of course, we did use inspectors to spy on them).

Could Saddam have been doing something nasty in some underground lab in Iraq? Sure. But unless we have good proof that such is happening there is no reason to attack.

And as we have found out, Saddam wasn't much of a threat to anybody. There were no WMD's or UAV's or terrorists or even much of an army.

[JI7]

21. yeah, so there shouldn't have been bombings

and sanctions.

[killbotfactory]

24. And we shouldn't have invaded Iraq

I think Powell wanted to switch to "smart sanctions" against Iraq, but was shot down by the neocons in the administration who had this great idea of an Iraq invasion.

[KoKo]

6. Yes, this transcript is pretty clear. Kerry was in favor of Iraq Invasion

sooner rather than later. He isn't talking about "diplomacy" in this statement. It's "sooner rather than later," meaning get in there and take care of it.

Can't see how it could be interpreted differently. I think his policy would be closer to Bush's. I couldn't support that in a candidate. And, that he backtracked makes it worse.

[blm]

9. Man have you misread what this was about.

SCOTT RITTER was testifying to Kerry at the time that WMDs were still there and that Saddam needed to be dealt with. Kerry was on board with CLINTON'S strategy to go into Iraq and remove Saddam so sanctions could be lifted and the region stabilized from the expected rise of Islamic fundamentalism.

Kerry was consistent and NEVER backtracked. He stood firmly AGAINST the way Bush went about it, as any sane person would. Clinton gave Kerry REASON to trust his plan because Kerry worked on it WITH him and it included a post Saddam Iraq whose oil fields WEREN'T treated as a prize. Their plan was set up to PREVENT the influence of fundamentalism by pouring money into secular education and health services.


But that never seems to matter to those who WANT to see the worst in Kerry no matter what.

[quaker bill]

14. one more time

"He explained that Saddam's aim was not to lift sanctions, but to build weapons of mass destruction. That is the point which the Clinton administration stubbornly refuses to acknowledge."

He was at odds with Clinton's call for more diplomacy.

[blm]

20. I know exactly what Kerry was doing at the time

because I was paying attention to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in that entire region since 96 and was one of the people working on the Clinton administration to deal with it through the Feminist Majority Foundation.

To achieve that stability they felt they had to deal with Saddam first.

Kerry was working WITH Clinton, and promoting the tougher route in an effort to achieve their common goal. Clinton wanted it all on the table at the time.

[quaker bill]

33. From the recent photos

I would say he has helped authorize a policy to deal with Saddam. 'Mission accomplished?'

[blm]

35. Sorry you have no recollection of what was happening at the time

in 98. I can't school someone retroactively, especially when they prefer to stick to their partisan agenda.

[quaker bill]

42. Note the date, it is why I included it.

10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999.

"But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve."

In 1998 inspectors were comming out to allow for Desert Fox.

[blm]

51. At that point the GOP was making a case against the UN

and its failures to enforce their own measures against Iraq. They wanted to work towards dissolving the UN.

Kerry and Clinton wanted the UN to be part of forcing regime change in Iraq because it was necessary for the stabilization of the region and to deal with rising fundamentalism. Preserving the UN was always a factor as well.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Lieberman was right! Kerry wanted war as much as he did!

The thing about Kerry is that he wanted it both ways: He wanted to pursue a PNAC agenda for Iraq and the Middle East while at the same time portraying himself as the John Kerry that opposed the war in Vietnam and the Nixon Administration.

Thank you very much, quaker bill, for once and for all burying the myth of Kerry the antiwar and anti-BFEE champion.

When it is all said and done, Kerry is as much of a warmonger as the rest of the PNAC cabal.

As far as I am concerned, Kerry is finished as a Presidential candidate!

[blm]

13. And I think too many are suffering from poor comprehension skills.

Too bad.

Or maybe it's more purposeful to PRETEND one can't understand.

[IndianaGreen]

18. I think we understand too well how alike the Skull & Bones people are!

There is no daylight in the way Kerry thinks about foreign policy and the way that his fellow Bonesmen George Herbert Walker Bush and George W. Bush think.

What a sad end to an otherwise splendid career!

If Kerry had any honor left, he should withdraw at once and endorse Wes Clark.

[blm]

23. That's absurd and said purposefully

to create a false impression of someone you despise for NO GOOD REASON so you have to exaggerate everything AGAINST him.

[IndianaGreen]

30. I invite you to join the Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, or Sharpton

The IWR vote, and the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq, are the albatross around John Kerry's neck. Nothing short of a 180-degree turn and calls for impeaching Bush for lying about WMDs will redeem Kerry for his moral cowardice at a time this country needed him most.

I invite you to join the Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, or Sharpton's campaigns. None of these candidates are tainted by the IWR vote. All of them will make a better President than the current occupant in the White House. One of them will be the 2004 Democratic nominee for President!

[JI7]

32. no thanks

i like kerry and will continue supporting him and will vote for him. i am not basing my vote on iwr. for those who are voting based on it alone, you don't have to vote for kerry . but i will vote for him.

[blm]

38. I invite you to stop calling Dean antiwar

because YOU know better. Please stop perpetuating an untruth.

Dishonesty disgusts me.

[Scott Lee]

19. At least Lieberman seems honest about it

and thats about the extent of the praise I'll give Joe Lieberman.

You know it's really sick that Kerry can't just own this mess. It's his, he created it. He can't own up to it.

Does this sound like a good Commander in Chief to you?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scott Lee]

22. er.....I mean.....I WAS misled....rather, not misled but misdirected...

Another CYA day for John Kerry.

[oasis]

28. Bush lied about exhausting all diplomatic means FIRST. It's clear unless

one's thinking is clouded by a bias for another candidate.

[Scott Lee]

29. Any congressperson who thought Warchimp wouldn't make

war if given half the chance (authorization) is either lying or completely incompetent.

Would you want a liar or a fool to be your president (barring of course the fact that we have both right now)?

[oasis]

34. Congress persons sometimes are not the best mind readers but that

hardly make them incompetant.

[Scott Lee]

37. It would make them, at very least, unfit for office.

Making war on another nation is the most serious matter. People die. Lots and lots of them. This isn't a vote on trimming the Capitol Rotunda redecoration budget or anything like that.

Such grave issues carry a grave responsibility. If congresspeople can't handle that, or are so easily duped by a fascistic president, then such congresspeople need to step off and make way for those who can.

[WiseMen]

40. Post not Honest. Falsely attacks Kerry using 1998 Debate in Clinton Admin

Kerry argued in support of Clinton's consideration of action, covert or otherwise to forestall the danger of WMD development under Saddam.

Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox (I believe that was the name) with targetted elimination of all suspected WMD stockpiles or facilities.

The grand deception of the Bush Regime was to dismiss any data on the success of Desert Fox and create the illusion that Saddam's WMD threat remained the same as before 1998.

In reality, little was certain but the likelihood, as Ritter argued, was that there was no meaningfull capability left and any stockpiles that were not destroyed by Clinton's strike would have degraded by now and have been disposed of by the Iraqis.

[quaker bill]

41. Post honest uses post desert fox September 1999 quotes

Read em and weep. 10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[quaker bill]

46. There is no deception on my part

The quotes stand for themselves and are taken directly from federal source documents. Links are provided.

I am not responsible for the extent that the Senator's statements do not agree with his campaign rhetoric.

[WiseMen]

48. Deceit is in USING 1999 RECORD to Claim Kerry Not Misled by Bush

There is a logical falacy here. If you can't see it I must conclude
that you are a Dean supporter.

[quaker bill]

49. It is a larger logical falacy and greater deception

To state that the Senator was mislead into voting for a policy that he stated on the record to be appropriate and even inevitable given Saddam remained in control of Iraq.

There is nothing wrong, per se, in believing that Saddam was evil and threat to the US. If the Senator held these convictions then his vote for IWR was in good accord with his convictions and entirely appropriate. His comments since Saddam's capture suggest that he believes that the IWR vote was the appropriate course of action. These comments from 1998 and 1999 show consistency with his recent statements in this regard.

This record could easily have been interpreted as evidence that the Senator has consistently held the 'maturity of judgement on Saddam' that uniquely qualifies him for the role of Commander in Chief.

A problem only arises only if his supporters or others believe that this course of action was an error.

The attempts to deny the record and misdirect the argument toward assisination of the messenger suggests that some of his supporters here have a problem with this course of action.

[polpilot]

50. Could we get someone NOT so easily led. Airing his limited mental

abilities and claiming addled perceptions is hardly what is needed? Do you really WANT someone who can't figure it out.

Dean '04...

[KC21304]

45. This Kerry supporter, being of sound mind,

vows to never again participate in a vicious Kerry hating thread, even in defense of Kerry, because to do so contributes to the detriment of the Democratic Party and only gives the haters more exposure. Answering these vicious attacks does not change any minds.

Since I have never said one word against another candidate on this forum, I do not expect anyone to accuse me of duplicity. Of course I will neither participate in other candidate bashing threads.

[quaker bill]

47. This is not a bash

The quotes are presented accurately from the federal record. Links are provided.

Further the quotes comport well with his actions.

There is nothing wrong with his having these opinions, unless you disagree with them.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

52. You're emphasizing unilateral aggression

which is far from what Kerry or any other Senator who voted 'Yes' wanted.
The scare tactics used by Bush indeed rushed passage of a faulty resolution- one which Kerry said on the day of the vote he reluctantly yet necessarily supported. And the diplomacy following the vote was also rushed and less than genuine.

So Kerry was indeed mislead.