It was in many ways an attempt to rein in Bush. Clinton had already gone to war without congressional approval in the Balkans so the precedent was there for Bush to use. Although the resolution did give Bush authority to act, it also attempted to impose some restraints, such as limiting the scope to Iraq, and although I agree the resolution was too weak, it did include the Presidential Determination clause which, Bush did not fulfill, because even if he sent a letter to Congress stating:
"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686 as is required in the resolution, that statement would be a lie. Iraq actually was complying and allowing inspections when Bush launched the war. So Bush is in clear violation of the resolution. This leaves Bush vulnerable to prosecution once out of office? Will we get to see him in handcuffs like Micheal Jackson? I think Kerry was just doing his best to wield whatever power he had as a Senator in the minority party. To tell you the truth, in hindsight I'm pretty sure Bush would've gone to war even without the resolution. And the other thing is that Kerry has been pretty hawkish on disarming Saddam all along. I think he urged Clinton to take a more aggressive stance back in '98. Well, it turns out Saddam had absolutely no WMD whatsoever, it was basically a suicidal bluff -- I didn't expect that - did you? I mean I thought they'd have a test tube or two of mustard gas or something!
I also think it is a false argument to accuse Kerry of political expediency on this vote for the simple reason that as someone who has been in politics most of his adult life, Kerry was fully aware that in both the liberal, activist community that votes most heavily in the primaries, and in liberal MA where he'll have to run for reelection someday if he doesn't become Prez, the popular vote would be against the resolution. I don't buy the idea that Kerry thought the primaries would be a walk and he only had to worry about the GE -- to me it seems like elementary political calculus that any supposed advantage gained in the GE by voting for IWR would be heavily outweighed by the disadvantage in the primaries. And not only do I think Kerry is smart enough to realize that, I think it does him a disservice to assume only the basest motives prompted him on something that I'm sure was an enormously conflicted and difficult decision for him.
What did John Kerry have to say about his vote on October 9, 2002? I will quote a small portion here:
" Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. 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 and 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 as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.
And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq 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 only Iraq, 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.
Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all 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 (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.
American success in the Persian Gulf War was enhanced by the creation of a multinational coalition. Our coalition partners -- I'd add -- picked up the overwhelming burden of the costs of that war. It is imperative that the Administration continue to work to multilateralize its current effort against Iraq. If the Administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense inspection regime, or if necessary through the use of force. The United States without question has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally, but we need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, and overflight rights from allies in the region. That support 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 to stop the United States from doing what it must to protect its citizens, but it is in our interests to act with our allies if that is at all possible - and it should be: the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's hands is not ours alone. "
You can read the whole thing at
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html And the real bottom line on why I support Kerry even though I would have voted against the resolution? I think that all too often these congressional votes are treated as nothing but competing ways to frame the debate for the next election and create wedge issues. I have absolutely no doubt that with John Kerry as President we would not have pursued this reckless, illegal misadventure in Iraq, that Kerry is not going to be willing to spend American blood for low prices at the gas pump, that Kerry understands from his own bitter experience, from the loss of a close friend in Vietnam, from his own horror at the cost of war to the innocent, he understands how true it is that war must be an absolute last resort. But at the same time he is no pacifist. To tell you the truth I don't know if I could take a gun and chase down and kill somebody, even if they tried to fire a grenade at me. But I really like the idea of having somebody who is up to that task unequivocally on my side. John Kerry is unequivocally on my side. John Kerry has been unequivocally on my side fighting on the floor of the senate. He was on my side when he was on Nixon's enemies list for his anti-war efforts. He has spent his life fighting on my side of the issues, and I'm not going to ignore a lifetime of service over one symbolic Congressional vote, no matter how politically charged.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
