TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR

[Khephra]

TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

Obviously, with respect to an issue that might take Americans to war, we deserve time, and there is no more important debate to be had on the floor of the Senate. It is in the greatest traditions of this institution, and I am proud to take part in that debate now.

This is a debate that should be conducted without regard to parties, to politics, to labels. It is a debate that has to come from the gut of each and every Member, and I am confident that it does. I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now.

I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that.

We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past.



Most importantly, it is a time when international institutions must rise to the occasion and seek new authority and a new measure of respect.

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

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

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.

Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation's Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.

It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq--seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms--and there are many in this body and beyond--can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq. The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections--and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections--is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That is the way in which you make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war's sake, and not to accomplish goals that don't meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves.

I am pleased that the Bush administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq. That shift has made it possible, in my judgment, for the Senate to move forward with greater unity, having asked and begun to answer the questions that best defend our troops and protect our national security. The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question--not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.

I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.

He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.

Absent a foreign supplier, it might be longer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President's resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force. So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

The President has challenged the United Nations, as he should, and as all of us in the Senate should, to enforce its own resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq. And his administration is now working aggressively with the Perm 5 members on the Security Council to reach a consensus. As he told the American people Monday night: "America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm."

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.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

American success in the Persian Gulf war was enhanced by the creation of an international coalition. Our coalition partners picked up the overwhelming burden of the cost of that war. It is imperative that the administration continue to work to multilateralize the current effort against Iraq. If the administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to invest, to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense program of inspection, or if necessary, through the use of force. That is the best way to proceed.

The United States, without question, has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally. But we do need friends. We need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, overflight rights from allies in the region. And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends more than anything else on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged.

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

The challenge is great: An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.

The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity. It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested sometime in the next days. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends ultimately on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.

He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power.

By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this.

It is through constant questioning we will stay the course, and that is a course that will ultimately defend our troops and protect our national security.

President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:

"The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are... The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.

I yield the floor.

http://www.independentsforkerry.com/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

[sfecap]

1. "I yield the floor"

What exactly does he mean by this?

Is this some secret "code"? Shouldn't he clarify this remark?

[janx]

2. I demand an explanation. Now.

.

I want to know exactly what he meant by that.

[Clete]

3. Isn't it protocol to say he's finished and giving the floor

back to the speaker.

[Khephra]

6. yes it is

that was just a part of senate speech bs.

[Uzybone]

56. they are joking

making fun of the loony S&B conspiracists who wonder if Kerry blowing his nose is a secret code.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. "Having the Floor" means being the one whose turn it is to speak

3. Obtaining the Floor. Before a member call make a motion, or address the assembly in debate, it is necessary that he should obtain the floor -- that is, he must rise after the floor has been yielded, ...
Roberts Rules of Order

When you are done speaking, you indicate so by yielding the floor.

More on Roberts: http://fnnc.org/robertsrules.html

[virtualobserver]

4. apparently his uniform no longer fit.............

"I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that. "

I am appalled by this broken promise, but I am even more shocked that Kerry reminds us that he is breaking his solemn word.

[Old and In the Way]

5. Should never trust a liar John, even if he is pResident.

"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."

Obviously, Bush never gave the UN inspectors a chance to continue their inspections...if he had, 30,000+ people would be alive and well, we'd be about $250BB richer, and we'd still be wondering where Saddam had hidden those weapons, albeit we'd be less inclined to think that Iraq was a serious threat.

You got snookered, John.

[MrPrax]

7. What a Phoney

He did more to 'sheepdip' and 'spin' his own principles...

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.

Kudos to Byrd, Kucinch, McKinney ( and the rest of the dirty little secret in the democratic party) to at least show intregrity as opposed to a Punk

"The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security."

but we should TRY to keep the UN in it

But if the GOP and their cabal fails,

"If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war."
Aw...that's nice

And we should still bribe the UN to support an illegal war based on crap and denounce anything that doesn't meet our 'security'

Kerry stickhandles

[IndianaGreen]

27. Kerry is a liar, or worse, a fool

As Bob Graham said when he read the Iraq resolution during last week's debate, Kerry and others voted to give Bush a carte blanche to invade Iraq. The language of the resolution is an inescapable truth that the Kerry spinsmeisters cannot wiggle out of.

Kerry's vote endorsed the Bush lies about Iraq, including the one about a Saddam/Al-Qaeda alliance:

IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

<snip>

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

This is the resolution that Kerry voted for. The resolution is a pack of lies. Kerry is a liar!

[oasis]

9. "I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, IF we

exhaust those other options, as the President has PROMISED."

Yes Chimpy lied. He clearly decieved the UN, the congress, America, Kerry and Tony Blair.

He let down Tony Blair, by withdrawing the second resolution to the Security Council when is was apparent that the votes weren't there. Chimpy had dared the council members to "show your cards".

"Let's see what the whip count is" he told the staged press conference that night.

I blame Bush and the whoremedia, not Kerry.

[Pastiche423]

10. Kerry was a big boy

He had all of the information that DUers and many other USians had.

He was either gullible, voted to protect his political ass, or wanted to kiss whistle's ass.

None of the above lends itself to be what it takes to be the leader of our country.

He fucked up and is not apologetic about it.

[Khephra]

11. ""He fucked up and is not apologetic about it.

thats it!!!!

[Khephra]

12. What a second....I don't think I typed the above msg

.

[KoKo]

18. Yes..........that's it.......

But, does he even know he fucked up......maybe to him it isn't a fuck up.....and that's worse, imho...

[Old and In the Way]

13. Should our elected people be second guessing intelligence?

Something is very wrong when we need to have our Congresspeople discount intel in favor of their gut. The damage that Bush has done is greater than just Iraq, I think. Can anyone trust the information that is presented to COngress now?

If he was wrong with his gut, would we hold him responsible for not protecting our interests?

Personally, for all the flowery rhetoric, I think the Democrats were afraid of being set-up by this administratiion. A solid "anti-war" vote would have exposed us to another "event" and that would have been it for the Democrats. Think about it, who really knows what happened on 9/11? Who benefited? Who got anthraxed? Tell me that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Democrats were being forced to choose between their natural inclination to oppose unilateral action to invade/occupy Iraq and the reality that such a vote could brand the whole party as "the enablers of terrorism" when another "event" occurred.

Could any Democrat make this case in Congress? Obviously not...see what happened to McKinney when she questioned the administration's role in 9/11. But I'm cynical enough to think it was a distinct possiblity.

[Terwilliger]

14. Who else will look after intelligence failures...John Ashcroft?

The NSA? Some other clearance-level agency?

Or should we expect our elected representatives to know a lot more?

[Old and In the Way]

34. Exactly, who does Congress turn to?

Our intelligence must be apolitical. It is of paramount importance that objective facts be available on which Congress can make an informed decision. By politicizing/warping the intel to fit their particular worldview and agenda, this administration has done a great disservice to this country as evidenced by the sinkhole that we are now stuck in.

"should we expect our elected representatives to know a lot more?"

From where does this knowledge come from? Should all 535 members of Congress have their own private intelligence agencies? Will that bring clarity to the issues? Doubtful.

We, on the outside, can speculate and believe what we think....but is that a basis for making foreign policy? I have to give COngress the benefit of doubt that they acted on the best interests of this country, based on the intel they were fed. Unfortunately, we have a Republican majority who are willing to let this administration get away with what we now know was a total intent to deceive Congress for their own crass political/economic agenda....at the expense of US national security.

If this had been a Democratic President doing this, you and I know that the Republicans would have concluded the Impeachment and trial and the only debate would be whether to televise the execution.

[Pastiche423]

53. One hundred and thirty three

lawmakers voted nay on the Iraq War Resolution. Did they and millions of others around the world (*we*) know something that the yea voters din't? Or were *we* simply just paying attention.

After thousands of phones calls, emails, faxes and snail mail were sent to Congress begging our lawmakers to vote nay, how can anyone possibly say it was the right thing to do for our country? How can they say it is what our country wanted?

I listened, along w/many DUers to the Senate floor, every work day, for six weeks leading up to the vote. More importantly, I listened to Senator Robert C. Byrd quote from our Constitution. Pre-emptively striking another sovereign nation goes against what our forefathers wrote in our Constitution.

The four candidates that voted for the pre-emptive invasion fucked up, are unapologetic and do not deserve to lead our country.

Period.

[oasis]

16. Not apologetic? I believe Kerry's recent statements are the basis

of the "waffling" charges made by Joe Lieberman. Joe's upset with JK because of his acknowledgement and admission that he'd made a mistake in trusting the Chimperor.

Kerry's not one to kowtow and he is not the gullible type. His leadership qualities are very much his strong point and that will become more and more evident when he's president. After Kerry take office he will not have to rely on the word of a duplicitous Bush or Colin Powell.

[Cheswick2.0]

21. of course he is not apologetic

people like Kerry are never apologetic. "I wasn't asked to go to florida during the recount, but I wouldn't have gone if I had been". "Get over it".

I don't know if Kerry doesn't "get it" or if he just doesn't care. Either way he is not on my short list.

[KoKo]

20. "The Hutton Report" seems to be putting Blair more in Bush's Camp than we

thought, it seems. Many DU'ers felt Blair was trying to push Bush to go to the UN so that he could be stopped from unilateral invasion. My reading of what's coming out about Blair's Govt. is that he had his own PNAC/Shadow Govt. and he was very much aligned with Bush to go into Iraq with or without UN approval. Blair had much more pressure from "anti-Invasion protests" in GB tha Bush did here in the US. Our protests were not covered by the Media (except in a minimal unfavorable way) whereas Britain still has a press that reports. Blair was under pressure not to look like Bush's Poodle when in effect he was Bush's Poodle.

Fortunately Blair's "Shadow Group" is being forced to resign one by one.......Bush's isn't.

[HPLeft]

59. Kerry has also said...

...that the President did not even need the endorsement of the Senate to go to war in Iraq. Clinton did not get one to attack Serbia, or to occupy Haiti. He has argued that if the Senate had refused him the authority, then the President would have that much less leverage with the United Nations.

I think one of the real problems with this entire process is the fact that while only Congress can "declare war", Presidents can apparently conduct military operations as they see fit - at least up to a point. It strikes me that this is a major contradiction. I know that the "war powers" act fits in here, but I don't quite remember the provisions of it at the moment.

[Mechatanketra]

62. I hope Kerry wasn't stupid enough to have said that.

Kerry has also said that the President did not even need the endorsement of the Senate to go to war in Iraq. Clinton did not get one to attack Serbia, or to occupy Haiti. He has argued that if the Senate had refused him the authority, then the President would have that much less leverage with the United Nations.

If he said this, Kerry is equivocating. I don't physically need your permission to drive your car, but legally, without that permission we call it "theft". (Not to knock the Big Dog in front of his fans, but as far as I can tell, Clinton's actions in Serbia were illegal; the Republicans didn't impeach him for that, of course, because they're generally in favor of military adventurism, when they can be the ones doing it. No sense ruining your own alibi.)

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. -- War Powers Resolution (P.L. 93-148), 1973.

So, for instance, the President wouldn't have needed Congressional authorization to (as hypothetical examples) retaliate against Israel when they fired on the Liberty, or if Saddam had openly claimed responsibility for the WTC attack the next day -- but Bush did need authorization to attack Iraq for mere suspicion of posing a threat.

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. Section 3.c of the Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (a.k.a. "The War Vote").

This is where I'm forced to call Kerry either grossly dishonest, or just plain stupid (if he did, in fact, state that Bush doesn't need authorization). Not only does the War Powers act require Congressional approval in cases other than a direct response to a previous attack, but it mentions this right in the war resolution. If Kerry had actually read the damn paper he was voting for, it refers him right to the relevant section of the War Powers act. (And, incidentally, he might have also noticed that the bill was, in fact, the blank check he claimed he didn't want to give Bush, since it doesn't actually set any limiting conditions on the war powers it activated).

[ShaneGR]

15. I'm not a Kerry supporter but you're forgetting what Karl Rove was pushing

This was days after Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld started there whole "mushroom cloud" stuff and how they "knew" where the weapons were and America was in "immininent" danger.

Which part of "Bush lied" to them don't you understand??

[virtualobserver]

17. The part where Kerry went along with it........

and Dean, Kucinich and the rest of us didn't.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. I didn't believe it BUT I don't know what false info was given to

Kerry and others in Congress. Kerry has the clout and connections to talk to a lot of people and I seem to remember reading that he did talk to others to get more info on what was going on in Iraq. According to what I read, he sought out specific people, people he thought were more informed than he, to question.

It's foolish to argue that Kerry is stupid as there is evidence to the contrary, so whatever he was told must have been pretty compelling.

And it's not about him "believing Bush*," it's about other people who were believed.

I could say "I don't care, he should have known better" but I didn't have to vote on this issue and I don't know what info those who did vote had that I didn't, and still don't, have.

Initially, I didn't think I could vote for Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, or Graham because of their votes on the war, but that could leave me with only Bush* to vote for and I KNOW I'm not doing that.

I am supporting the one man in the race who voted against the war in Congress, Dennis Kucinich. He got it right.

But if he doesn't get the nomination, I may have to support someone who got it wrong. It's either that or the man who started the war, isn't it?

[virtualobserver]

24. of course, but now is the time to support someone who got it right.

Voting for the war resolution and the patriot act were huge mistakes and Kerry won't even admit that they were mistakes.

In various ways Lieberman and Kerry are touting their experience and in not so subtle ways implying that Dean and Kucinich are too naive and wimpy for the job.

But it is Kerry and Lieberman who went along with this nonsense....who are the naive ones here?

Don't worry about having to support someone who got it wrong, because they won't win.

[KoKo]

26. DemBones......surprisingly......Graham voted against the Invasion, also!

So, there's another choice out there.....but he doesn't seem to be getting much attention. I've never warmed up to him.......don't know why.

[seventhson]

29. You could support Dean, Braun or Clark or even Sharpton. NONE of them

voted with Kerry to HELP Bush promote global fascism in Iraq.

Ask the Iraqis: Are you better off under Bush?

Ask the Israelis: Are you better of under Sharon?

These two fascists alone are making a shitstorm of death and guts out of small children and everything that moves over there.

Until we repeat this loud and clear over and over we will be doomed to perpetual war.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. bush lied to all of us....my lie-o-meter went off as did those of millions

of americans and people all over the world. What is wrong with Kerry and the others that voted to give bush all that power? Robert Byrd knew it was bullshit, as did many others including Kucinich.

DRAFT BYRD

[gottaB]

25. Not only that, but this speech was made to quiet Byrd

When Kerry says "Obviously, with respect to an issue that might take Americans to war, we deserve time..." there's an implied "but..." because he is responding to Byrd's protest against cloture being invoked and the vote rushed through. Byrd had said moments before:

At this moment I appeal, I appeal to the Members of the Senate to find a way to give unanimous consent to put aside this vote on tomorrow and delay it so as to give this Senate more time to debate and to act upon this resolution, which is so weighty, involving, as it does, the most serious, the most solemn question that can ever face this Senate, the question of peace or war. We are being hurried by the rules of the Senate, we are being hurried into reaching a decision that is premature.

I appeal to my colleagues. I appeal to my colleagues. The people out there in the country deserve better than this. They deserve a decision taken after due time, due consideration, ample consideration, ample opportunities to offer amendments and to have them decided.

As it is under the rules of the Senate, we will be forced tomorrow at 10:15 a.m. to vote on cloture. If enough Senators voted against cloture, that would be one thing. If 41 Senators opposed it--or put it this way: If those who support this resolution cannot get 60 votes tomorrow, then we would automatically have additional time.

I am concerned the way this Senate is being stampeded, stampeded. I don't blame any Senator in particular. Every Senator here is acting in accordance with the rules. I am asking that in this peculiar, unique situation involving so much of the country's treasury, in blood and in dollars, I am asking the Senators join with me in putting off this decision. It can be done. It can be done by unanimous consent. That is not asking too much. That is not asking too much.

We are talking about people who are in the military of this country who may have to go to war in a foreign country, depending on this vote tomorrow.

All of Kerry's claims about the meaning of his vote ring hollow to me when I realize what the true alternatives were, and how Kerry acted to direct the Senate's stampede to war. Not even taking the Byrd amendment seriously. But that was a way for Congress to retain some control. Now they're asked to shell out another $87,000,000,000, of which, if I understand correctly, some $35,000,000,000 will go to the Halliburton bunch. No doubt the money is needed--even the Cheney fund money, some itty bitty fraction of it will go to supplying the troops--but it's an outrage, and the congress has no control.

What can they do now? Say "Pretty please, Mr. Bush, please negotiate with our allies. Eat some crow, please?"

[KoKo]

28. What you say is true. Those of us who watched the hearings were surprised

when Kerry seemed so opposite to Byrd........Many of us started to back off Kerry as a candidate....from watching those hearings....the same as we did with Gephardt. There were amendments proposed which would have slowed Bush down. And day after day those of us who watched them kept hoping.....but they didn't get the support. Neither Kerry nor Gephardt voted for any of the amendments........that left those who did looking unpatriotic and open to criticism as a "fringe" of the Democratic party.....

Now it all looks different. But, many Dems knew this wasn't going to be Gulf War I......a quick in and out. How could Graham and Kerry who have served so long in the House and Senate respectively have trusted Bush or his infomation.

They both are privy to "insider information." If Byrd knew it was a "Rush Job" they had to know it too. Their political ambitions to run for President overtook their their moral beliefs... I don't want a President whose ambitions over-rides his conscience.

[blm]

46. Baloney...Kerry and Byrd are very respectful of each other.

Byrd knows that Kerry was a negotiating lawmaker, and would not hold that vote against him because he knows they got the better deal than what Bush wanted.

Byrd knows how that works. Pity that most Americans have little understanding of that process.

[gottaB]

55. Of Course Byrd said it wasn't personal, but....

Kerry was part of the stampede, and that speech of his was an argument against furthering the debate that Byrd wanted.

Byrd disapproved of the resolution. He disapproved of rushing that vote. From the 10th (Page S10347):

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator Byrd rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding whether or not America should go to war with Iraq.

Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature decision to go to war. Many of us agree with Senator Byrd, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.

We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator Byrd's article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

{From the New York Times, Oct. 10, 2002}

Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

(By Robert C. Byrd)

Washington.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.

How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term "self-defense"? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.

I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.

Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posted by Iraq." This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, "National Security Strategy of the United States"--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat. We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.

Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step. Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear form the American people, to answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.

Kerry did not vote for the Byrd amendment (4868), and on cloture, he voted yea, and that was the issue at hand. For all I know they are the best of friends, and Byrd will happily be endorsing Kerry during the primaries. That does not change the fact when the Iraq War Resolution was being debated in the Senate, they took very different views, voted differently, and that Kerry was speaking in favor of cloture when he made his speech.

So what's baloney, exactly?

[blm]

58. Byrd knows the process.

Kerry wasn't trying to shut him down. Byrd knows what Kerry got. They all have their parts to play. ALL for the greater good. Byrd's and Kerry's. They know it. Watch how Byrd graciously allows Hillary to have time for her speech. He knew full well that she was voting for the IWR. He understood the process. If Dems like Gephardt, Clinton and Kerry hadn't been part of the negotiations, it would have been a much uglier bill that Byrd would have gone apoplectic, and rightfully so.

[KoKo]

19. Twice in the speech returning Kuwati property is mentioned. Odd...

In the beginning of the speech he say: The administration which once
seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began
building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this
process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return
Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we
would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

And then again towards the end of the speech:

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf
war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime
change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.


I've not heard anyone talk about Gulf war prisoners or Kuwati property before...It's always been WMD and Regime change. I heard him give most of this speech on the Senate floor at the time.....and my mind started to drift listening.........Reading this speech I see how many conflicting bits of information are in this speech and that it seems to cover everything imaginable......every excuse possible for either going to war or not going to war.....

[seventhson]

30. Yep - Kerry's a Prevaricating Fascist. Anyone seen Kurosawa's "Dreams"?

One of my all time favortite films but very disturbing hyperreality and sureality all mixed together. Very Vivid.

One of the stories told is of a Captain in the army confronting the dead soldiers he has sent to war.

The confrontation is on the march to hell or wherever and takes place on a road in a tunnel where the dead keep marching out and onward in droves.

The piles of Americn bodies are now higher for this Iraq "adventure" than in the first Gulf War.

Kerry is one of those responsible for this horror and this genocide.

Iraq would be better off with us GONE and so would WE.

The US troops shopuld be returned home NOW. If the Iraqis want our help via the UN let THEM ask for it.

[Dude_CalmDown]

57. "Kurosawa's Dreams" is starting right now on PBS

for anyone who wants to know what seventhson is talking about and has not seen that movie

[blm]

31. It's from the ORIGINAL UN Resolution that was supposed to be enforced.

I swear some people have absolutely NO sense of what actually went down over the last twenty years in Iraq, and now there's a whole bunch of year old "experts."

[KoKo]

37. BLM: If we went to war to restore Kuwati property....which is what Kerry

implies....then what about the WMD...it sounds like WMD was the "secondary" issue and not the WMD that you say was in the original resolution. I would have liked to see the list of "property" that the Iraqi's stole from the Kuwati's the way the WMD were documented. Did Condi or Cheney ever mention what the property was? Did they make it an issue, or was it the WMD that was decided would get us in there?

Here's a link to the Property Dispute:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for missing property, Kuwait says Iraq seized large archives belonging to its foreign ministry. The Secretary-General's report
says these archives includes files containing tens of thousands of communications, among them confidential and regular
documents, including agreements between Kuwait and other countries. Kuwait says that during the occupation in 1990, the
archives were loaded onto Iraqi army trucks and carried to Iraq.

Kuwait also provides a detailed description of military material, including eight Mirage fighter planes, more than 3,700 TOW
anti-tank missiles, nearly 700 SAM surface-to-air missiles and hundreds of armored personnel carriers.

In addition, Kuwait says Iraq took valuable pieces from the Islamic and National Museums.

Annan's report said Iraq had returned a substantial amount of Kuwaiti property between 1991 and 1994 just as it returned the
majority of unaccounted for persons in the early 1990s. But the Secretary-General stressed that Iraq has an obligation to
resolve the outstanding claims by Kuwait.


The Security Council resolution last December that created a new arms inspection agency also reaffirmed Iraq's obligation to
return Kuwaiti property and account for the missing Kuwaitis.

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/06/F.RU.000619153805.html

[blm]

38. He only knew what Clinton was shown...and it must

have been bad intel that intel insiders were pushing that Clinton shared with him. Even Scott Ritter testified TO Kerry in 98 that there were still capabilities.

[blm]

32. OMG. DEAN'S POSITION WAS ONLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT!

He supported the Biden-Lugar bill which had the same purpose to authorize use of force to disarm Iraq. OMG!!!! WHAT WILL WE TELL THE CHILDREN????

If you were completely honest and sincere in this, kef, you would be supporting Kucinich. This heightened outrage for today is sanctimony for political posturing. But, you know this.


http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/20626605.html/

>>>
But the Democratic candidates aren't that far apart on the Iraq issue, a professor says.

Anti-war Democrats have cheered presidential candidate Howard Dean, but some campaign observers say the former Vermont governor's position on Iraq isn't that different from the rivals he criticizes.

"The positions of the Democratic candidates are not really that far apart," said University of Iowa political science professor Peverill Squire, referring to Dean, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, and Sens. John Edwards, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman. "Most leave themselves a good deal of wiggle room."<<<<

[seventhson]

33. Only the Vote counts. Dean did NOT vote for it. KERRY DID!!! So...

While his opinion is important to some degree it is NOT the same thing as actually having to VOTE on the issue.


Not only that, but Dean was NOT in the same position as Kerry to have the inside intelligence data to prove that Bush was a lying sack of merde.

Kerry voted WITH BUSH to send our children to their deaths for LIES and PROFITS!!!!

Dean did NOT!!!

[Old and In the Way]

35. In spite of your foul representation of Dean,

I will be happy to vote for him if he wins the nomination.

I suspect that if Dean were reading these threads, he'd ask you to stop slandering his opponent with your baseless conjecture.

[seventhson]

36. I do NOT represent Dean and if Dean were to say BOO to me about

muckraking Kerry's scandalous background and trying to help Dean win i would tell him this is a free country and to leave me alone.

The first amendment protects such speech.

Not only that but one of the reasons that Gore did not achieve the White House was that he was unable to get the sirt out on his opponents: especially the dirty Bush-Nazi information. His own advisors did not want him to TOUCH it (I KNOW because I tried to get his campaign to look into it and they would not even let Gore KNOW about the Bush-Nazi-Skull history.

Kerrys skul background makes him unfit to serve as our president because he is TOOCLOSE to the Bushes.

Like it or not even DEAN needs to be aware of it.

He may not say a damn thing about it. But I sure as hell will.

[blm]

39. Dean said he would have VOTED FOR it, if he could.

Same thing if you declare what your vote would be and you're running for the same office. Dean was disingenuous to declare himself an antiwar candidate and the press disingenuously ran with it.

[goobergunch]

40. That calls for a link (n/t)

[blm]

45. Here ya go....

Plus a few bonus misrepresentations by Dean. Like the fact that NONE of the candidates voted for Bush's taxcut and that NONE of them backed off their resolution vote.


http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/012303dean_2002.shtml

I can't wait for those four guys from Congress to come up here and explain to us why they wanted to raise your property taxes after they supported a tax cut for the wealthiest people in America," he said.

Dean also criticized his opponents for voting to give Bush a "blank check" on military intervention in Iraq - and, now, changing their tune on the issue.

"Today, they're running around telling you folks they're all anti-war," he said. (Later, he acknowledged that Lieberman's vote was consistent with the senator's comparatively "hawkish" position on Iraq.) "We're never going to elect a president that does those things. If I voted for the Iraq resolution, I'd be standing in favor, supporting it right now in front of you."

Dean said he would have voted instead for the Biden-Lugar resolution, which he said supported disarming Saddam using multilateral action, and which did not call for a "regime change."

[goobergunch]

47. I interpret this...

as saying he would have voted NO on H.J. Res. 114 and YES on Biden-Lugar (which never came to the floor).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

48. Probably because that is what it says.

And B-L and the IWR were two totally different animals. Notwithstanding that B-L is a phantom.

That link actually undermines her position.

[blm]

51. It does not.

If we are talking REASONS to disarm in this thread, then the REASONS were the same for the B-L as they were for the IWR. So, Dean's REASONS for supporting B-L were the same as Kerry's REASONS for supporting IWR.

[blm]

49. Yes...Biden-Lugar was authorization of force to disarm Iraq

and just slightly different from the resolution that passed. The REASONS, however, for the two remain the same. Disarm Iraq and enforce UN policy.

[wuushew]

60. Bush took issue with those slight differences.....

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
October 1, 2002
Press Briefing By Ari Fleischer
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:28 P.M. EDT

Mr. Fleischer: Good morning. I have no opening statement to begin, so we can start right away with questions.

John.

Q: Can you tell us how the Biden-Lugar resolution is weaker than the resolution that was passed in 1998, specifically? Mr. Fleischer: The President appreciates Senator Lugar and Senator Biden's efforts in this regard. The President appreciates all members of Congress for their thoughts and their suggestions. Specifically, on your question, the President believes that the Biden-Lugar draft ties his hands because it pulls back from many of the provisions that Congress itself cited in 1998, such as requiring or asking or demanding of Iraq to cease their support for terror, to stop repression of his own people, to cease threatening his neighbors. Those are three of the specifics that have been in previous contained bipartisan drafts of what the Congress passed, and also what the United Nations has spoken to and supported. That would not be found in the too narrow Biden-Lugar proposal.

Q: But the Biden-Lugar proposal does allude to Iraq being on the list of known state sponsors of terrorism, and the 1998 resolution didn't authorize the use of force to address any of what you just talked about. So how could it be that this resolution is weaker?

Mr. Fleischer: Because it omits those key provisions that I just cited that the President thinks --

Q: But it provides for the use of force, which the 1998 resolution didn't.

Mr. Fleischer: Sure. And on that point, the President is grateful, for the fact that still the fundamental issue that Congress is focused on is the authorization of force. And as Congress debates the various "whereas" clauses, we're going to continue to listen to the Congress and work with the Congress. Dr. Rice met earlier today with Senator Lugar. And so we're going to continue the process. It's been a healthy one.

Q: Is this resolution gaining any traction on Capitol Hill, Ari?

Mr. Fleischer: Oh, I don't think I'm in a position to handicap --

Q: Is it unacceptable?

Mr. Fleischer: The President earlier today said it ties his hands, and that it's too narrow, too narrowly focused. And so we'll continue to work with Congress. I think what you're seeing in Congress, frankly, has been a real strong, bipartisan effort to support what the President has asked for. And the President has shown a real willingness to work with Congress. This has been a healthy process so far. I think it's winding down, coming to a conclusion. And the President tomorrow morning will meet with the four leaders of the Congress, a bipartisan meeting, House and Senate leaders. And I think that the Congress itself wants to be able to soon resolve this and speak with one voice.

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/usandun/02100107.htm

[blm]

61. Yes...but the REASONS and the results would have been the same.

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. LOL did Dean get to vote on this?

oh wait...as I hallucinate correctly ..he did and voted no.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. I guess this means Dean never voted against the tax cuts either...

Hell, he's never voted for a single piece of decent legislature for widows and orphans in Congress, EVER. Worse than that, his voting record in Congress is consistently against ALL legislation for cute cuddly little kitties.

And of course, everyone knows that had he been in the Senate, he would have been the only one to stand with Feingold against the Patriot Act, unlike that Bush-lite trollop Boxer and those fiends Wellstone, Levin and Kennedy.

[goobergunch]

42. Text of Biden-Lugar Substitute

A RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the United States Armed Forces pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council seeking to enforce the destruction and dismantlement of Iraq’s weapons of mass
destruction program and prohibited ballistic missiles program or pursuant to the United States right of individual or collective self-defense if the Security Council fails to act.

Whereas under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991),
which effected a formal cease-fire following the Persian Gulf War, Iraq agreed to destroy or dismantle, under international supervision,
its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction program”), as well as its program to develop or acquire ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers (hereafter in this joint resolution referred to as Iraq’s “prohibited ballistic missile program”), and undertook unconditionally not to develop any such weapons thereafter;

Whereas since 1990, the United States has considered Iraq to be a state sponsor of terrorism;

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United Nations Security
Council has reaffirmed Resolution 687, most recently in Resolution 1284, which established a new weapons inspection regime to ensure Iraqi compliance with its obligations under Resolution 687;

Whereas on numerous occasions since 1991, the United States and the
United Nations Security Council have condemned Iraq’s failure to fulfill its obligations under Resolution 687 to destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic
missile program;

Whereas Iraq under Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in its
war with Iran in the 1980s and against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988;

Whereas Iraq’s failure to comply with its international obligations to
destroy or dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program and its
prohibited ballistic missile program, its record of using force against neighboring states, and its support for international terrorism require a strong diplomatic, and if necessary, military
response by the international community, led by the United States;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.”

Section 2. Authorization for the Use of United States Armed Forces.

(a) Authorization for the Use of Force.– The President, subject to
subsection (b), is authorized to use United States Armed Forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate–

(1) to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, and other resolutions approved by the Council which govern Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, in order to secure the dismantlement
or destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program; or

(2) in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense, to defend the United States or allied nations against a grave threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and its prohibited ballistic missile program.

(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary.–Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that-

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or

(2) that the threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2), notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution described in paragraph (1).

Section 3. Consultation and Reports.

(a) Consultation.–The President shall keep Congress fully and currently informed on matters relevant to this joint resolution.

(b) Initial Report.–

(1) As soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days after exercising the authority under subsection 2(a), the President shall submit to Congress a report setting forth information–

(A) about the degree to which other nations will assist the United States in the use of force in Iraq;

(B) regarding measures the United States is taking, or preparing to take, to protect key allies in the region from armed attack by Iraq; and

(C) on planning to establish a secure environment in the
immediate aftermath of the use of force (including estimated expenditures by the United States and allied nations), and, if necessary, prepare for the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq following the use of force.

(2) Classification of report.–The report required by paragraph (1) may be submitted in classified form.

(c) Subsequent Reports.– Following transmittal of the report required by subsection (b), the President shall submit a report to Congress every 60 days thereafter on the status of United States diplomatic, military and reconstruction operations with respect to Iraq.

Section 4. War Powers Resolution Requirements.

(a) Specific Statutory Authorization.–Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that section 2 is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(b) Applicability of Other Requirements.– Nothing in this resolution
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/Files/RL31596.pdf

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. Remember "Make 'em show their cards?"

Chimp wouldn't have been able to squirm out from underneath that vote if B-L had been in place of the IWR. Two different beasts.



(b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary.–Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that-

(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or

[blm]

52. Bush would have shown the minimum requirement

no matter which bill passed. Be realistic. Do you think Biden and Lugar would have made their bill insurmountable for Bush? Puhleeze.

[goobergunch]

41. Thanks Keph for posting this!

:loveya:

Of course, Saddam did not possess WMDs when this speech was given...and it turns out that he did comply with UN SC Res. 1441. :shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

43. Kerry Voted To Disarm Iraq, Not To Support Incompetence

Bush dropped the ball at every level of the game. There was no way that Kerry could have known that Powell's State Department would have been summarily ignored and Rumsfeld's Pentagon given full control of the show.

Secondly, Kerry made the argument based on Saddam's long-term threat, not on anything imminent:

"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."

Kerry's argument was that Saddam was a loose cannon, and after 9/11 we could not afford to have loose cannons running around. Kerry's position is absolutely consistent with what he was saying back in 1998. And also with what Bill Clinton was saying back then:

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war.

Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

...

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites...Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence...It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions...Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment...Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

...

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

...

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Irak/clinton.html