Philly: "Why I Supported The IWR." (Not Flamebait.)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

First, let me say that Bill Press did an outstanding job as forum moderator. Many of his questions were directed at the candidates perceived weaknesses. An excellent way for the candidates to repudiate the spin.

Secondly, anyone who has been at DU for more than ten minutes is aware of the controversy surrounding the Iraq War Resolution vote. As an admitted Dean supporter, and a mock Kerry-hater, I was interested in Kerry's response to Press' "Philly Cheesesteak Question" about his IWR support. In a nutshell, here are his reasons, in order:

1. Saddam tried to assasinate an American president.
2. Saddam lobbed 36 missiles into Israel.
3. Saddam invaded Kuwait.
4. WMD.
5. The US needed to maintain a "threat of force" re: UN resolutions.

Questions: Is this why we went to War? Do these reasons rise to the level of supporting pre-emption?


Numbers 1, 2, and 3 are all a decade old. 2 and 3 were addressed by GW1.
As for #4, Kerry indicated this:

Kerry said Bush made his case for war based on at least two pieces of U.S. intelligence that now appear to be wrong that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa and that Saddam's regime had aerial weapons capable of attacking the United States with biological material. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-09.htm We know about Yellocake-gate and aerial weapons (a reminder):


Not to mention that we've found no WMD. David Kay's "findings," notwithstanding.

That leaves #5. Question: Was "threat of force" sufficient reason to declare pre-emptive war?

(Disclaimer) Kerry strongly made the point that Shrub "didn't do the hard work of diplomacy." Impossible to disagree with and a favorable point re: Kerry's rationale.

Why did a handful of Senate and House Dems support the IWR? RUMMYisFROSTED and RUMMYisMYSTIFIED.

[AfricanDonkey]

1. I think its the disconnect D.C has from the people

I do not know the answer to this, but the average Congressional District is almost a 1\2 million and Senate seats are well the size of states. How can anyone really *represent* anyone. I think that you can only elect someone who you trust to study the issues and then make a decision that may not be your own. I speak on this in regards to Senator Kerry not Presidential hopefull Kerry. I think he made the decision in his heart and for some reason he believed the idiot and followed through with his heart-felt decision. Now as far as Dean, what attracts me to him is not his stance, but his philosophy on everything from the war to gun control to abortion

[CWebster]

5. Kerry is obligated to represent his constituients

who in that neck of the woods were far more likely to express reservations about supporting the Bush. Ask Kennedy.

[AfricanDonkey]

8. Kerry seemed to have reservations though. He was very leary about the

whole thing but then again I sure as heck would not want to be in his shoes, even with that paycheck, having to stand by your principles or face the possibility that 9.6 million people in NYC may die because of your principlies. Thank god it didnt come down to that but I think we need to respect that Kerry made a heart-felt decision like his other votes unlesss some tape or something came out having kerry talk about the politics of voting for it or not.

[chimpymustgo]

21. But when Edwards represents his constituency it's not okay?

Karl Rove is a genius. We are still divided and fighting about this nearly a year later.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. So the IWR Dem's are Rovian puppets?

[CWebster]

2. Why i dislike him more

everyday.

the lying sack of shit.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Not exactly what I was looking for, CeeDub.

[CWebster]

7. Yes, I know

but it makes my latin blood boil just to be reminded.

;-)

call it a "SKIDDLES" moment. LOL.

[blm]

3. Those points set up background.

And they were widely believed when Clinton was in office and he shared the intel with Kerry when they were making plans for Iraq in 98. In fact, it was Scott Ritter's 98 testimony that swayed Kerry to believe that they were still armed.

The overall result, though, of Kerry's effort during the resolution debate was to preserve the UN as part of the process.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. OK. What about Ritter's 2002/2003 statements

prior to war?

He wasn't vascillating at all about 98% destruction of WMD.

[blm]

10. And so war was a last resort.

That's how the resolution was framed. Bush didn't stick to the resolution. Blame Bush. Kerry does. That's where the blame belongs and there you and others are pointing the finger at Kerry just like Bush and Rove desire.

[dajabr]

11. What was written into the resolution...

To ensure Bush stuck to it?

(cue crickets...)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. I agree that Le Chimp is guilty. Not the point.

I stipulate that Booooosh short-circuited the process.


Let's get to the reasons for saying "Aye." Many of us know that Clinton assumed Saddam had WMD. And therefore Kerry. Was the evidence of WMD as sketchy as yellowcake and "aerial weapons" back then? This needs to be asked and answered.

Second. Take away your affiliation with Kerry. Do you, as an individual, support the IWR vote?



On edit: Ritter is on IEAmericaradio...right now!....11:10am PST/8/12/03

[blm]

23. No, I don't...I never did.

I am one who supports diplomacy until it absolutely leads to nothing else but war. Though I personally do NOT support it, I am able to understand the votes FOR the resolution from the more progressive members of the Senate and the real background for their vote.

I understand the dynamics of that entire region in regard to the growth of Islamic fundamentalism and the power of the Taliban led by Bin Laden, to know that Clinton was being pressured by groups like mine to interfere in the area to prevent its spread since 96. Saddam being a main target for overthrow by Bin Laden meant that he would have to go by forces greater than the Taliban to assure stability in the region.

I also know that the neocons had been gunning for the UN for many years. They would always point to the UN being ineffective in dealing with Saddam. Unfortunately, this put those in favor of preserving the UN in the awkward position of having to pressure the UN to enforce its own mandates.

Kerry, Clinton and Gephardt helped preserve the UN with their negotiations with the White House. Whether you admit it or not. I know its simpler and catchy to say "blank check" but that's a disingenuous piece of politically driven horseshit.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Interesting.

Ok. I just wanted to know. Thanks.

I think the "blank check" argument goes to purpose of the IWR. Going through the UN was undoubtedly a huge part of the resolution. Unfortuneately, those tracts had no mandates attached to them. The key sentence, or "blank check" part, that empowers Shrub is really the issue, imho.

Thanks again for answering honestly. I have a better understanding.

[lastliberalintexas]

9. But Scott Ritter

was opposed to us invading Iraq in 2003. Why did Kerry continue to buy into this?

I'm not bashing or trying to incite a flamefest here blm. I know you are a Kerry supporter, and I am legitimately looking for info. Kerry is my #2 choice, but this is my biggest problem with him. I can forgive his vote, but I can't understand WHY he voted that way. What were the reasons that justified his vote? He spoke so very eloquently against pre-emptive warfare prior to the vote, and I was so hopeful that we had truly found a voice for peace, only to be so bitterly disappointed later.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. You said it better than I could.

Ritter is on IEAmericaradio...right now!....11:00am PST/8/12/03

[blm]

24. It's in his floor speech.

I might also suggest you read what you can from all the info regarding Iraq and Clinton and even the Taliban's influence in the region from 96 on. You might come away with a different assessment.

[lastliberalintexas]

27. Well,

I'm not really interested in what weapons they had in 1996-1998. Considering that most of the weapons inspectors themselves felt the vast majority of the weapons (upwards of 90-95%) were destroyed by 1998, I don't think that intellligence should justify action 5 years later. What I want to know is what justified his vote on the IWR in 2003, not what Clinton knew 5 years before.

I do take it though from your comments that you agree with the notion that Hussein was somehow tied to the Taliban. Hussein was/is not a good person by any stretch of the imagination, but he was/is a secularist. There has never been any legitimate evidence linking him to the Taliban or to al Qaeda. If you believe otherwise, I guess this is just an issue we will have to agree to disagree on. Is that supposed tenuous connection what justified the IWR vote of Kerry?

And btw, I've had an active interest in that region since the 1980s, when my Congressman was wading through the Afghani mud with Miss World on his arm. I worked in his office and learned a great deal about the region from natives of the area. That still does NOT mean that I think that Hussein or his regime constituted an imminent threat so as to justify our invading a sovereign nation. And I've yet to be presented with anything showing that he was.

Let me repeat- Hussein was/is a SECULARIST. How the heck did the Taliban creep into your justification for Kerry's vote?

[blm]

30. Then I am surprised you are unaware

that Saddam was one of the main targets for assassination or overthrow by Bin Laden who hated Hussein as much as anyone. You can judge for yourself if Bin Laden would have been the better choice to overthrow Saddam than Clinton or the US.

[lastliberalintexas]

34. Eh?

Just because bin Laden wanted to overthrow the man you think it's appropriate for the US to do so first? What kind of argument is that?

If and when that looked like it could become a reality, we could have stepped in then. But I would have argued that we should have stepped in to defend Hussein from the fundamentalists, and allowed the UN to continue inspections and supervise Iraqi progress in the areas of human rights. Iraq was not a great place and had a long way to go under Hussein, and UN supervision/guidance could have improved many conditions in that country. Now however, we have created a cesspool from which it is almost certain that YET ANOTHER fundamentalist pseudo-Islamist state will emerge. Nice work there Shrubbie.

And you still have provided NO evidence that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US or his neighbors so as to justify our invasion of a sovereign nation. All that you have said is that the Taliban and bin Laden/al Qaeda were, but those groups are not one and the same for Hussein. I am not a pacifist, and I support the so-called war on terror- I just disagree with the Shrub administration's methods and approaches to same. But our invasion of Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror, nothing to do with making the US and world safer, and nothing to do with helping the Iraqi people.

[blm]

35. I am only saying it was one factor

to deal with. Most people are unaware of it's import in the region.

Although I agree with you 100% that Bush's way of doing it was a farce, the progressive Democrats who voted FOR the resolution and were FOR enforcing the UN mandate in 98, had different reasons to be concerned with what was happening in the region. They get unfairly lumped in with the imperialists.

[lastliberalintexas]

39. So what were those reasons?

That is what I am trying to learn, for goodness sakes.

And I don't lump them in with the imperialists- not even Gephardt, though maybe Lieberman if he comes out arguing that we should invade Syria or Iran.

[blm]

52. Many here do.

I didn't mean you specifically.

All the details are in his floor speech.

Edit: See goobergunch post below. I had posted the same.

[DrFunkenstein]

26. You Are Using Overly Vague Statements

Like "invading" and "buying into." Ritter supported unfettered inspections and argued that Iraq did not represent an imminent threat. That is the same argument Kerry made.

Kerry supported disarmament based on the history of Saddam's regime after he signed the peace agreement terms of the Gulf War that called for disarmament and unfettered inspections. Saddam jerked UNSCOM around until Operation Desert Fox, and left a four year hole in our intelligence since that point. Kerry was calling for an end to Saddam's shenanigans, exhausting every peaceful remedy but still backed with the threat of force. That has been his position since at least 1997.

The resolution was not a perfect one, and Kerry voiced his regret that Gephardt and Lieberman undercut negotiations for Biden-Lugar. But he still felt the need to call on Saddam's disarmament. Dean came around to Kerry's way of thinking by February, although he speaks almost entirely of "imminent threats" rather than "disarmament" - a much more complex moral issue to dwell on.

Kerry has been unfailingly advocating Dean's February position since 1997.

[lastliberalintexas]

31. Again

then why did he vote for the bill in its final form? If a pre-emptive action was not what he supported, WHY did he vote for it? I know he preferred Biden Lugar, but apparently that was not the only type of military intervention he thought was appropriate.

The IWR did not have a thing to do with disarmament, so please don't make that disengenous argument. While I won't call it a blank check, it gave Shrub Congressional authority to invade Iraq. WHY?

And I know that Kerry made the same statements as Scott Ritter BEFORE the vote. You have no idea how enthusiastic a supporter of Kerry's I would be if he had just voted against the IWR. But there was not any evidence presented between the time of his statements opposing this invasion and his vote authorizing Shrub to do so which justified his change of heart. Inspectors were in Iraq, so disarmament was possible without a regime change. So again, I ask why Kerry voted for the IWR when there was no evidence to establish a link between Hussein and al Qaeda or to establish that Hussein was an imminent threat to the US or even his neighbors?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. And we also know that Geppy and Lieberman "Rose-Gardened"

Kerry.

He got screwed. But all of that happened before his vote.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. Definitely

Which is why Lieberman is on my I don't Know if I Could Vote for Him List, and Gephardt is probably 5, 6 or 7 for me. I know they screwed Kerry and the other Dems in Congress. But that doesn't have anything to do with the vote that he cast. Kerry still had the opportunity to vote against the bill and show the others (esp Lieberman) what it means to have a backbone.

I don't resent Kerry's vote as much as the others, b/c I did get the feeling that he was conflicted about it. But I still don't understand it.

[DrFunkenstein]

41. I Share Your Feelings

As I've said before, my head understands why Kerry voted "yea," that doesn't stop my heart from aching. If I didn't feel that A)Kerry would have done things completely differently, B)Kerry will do things completely differently, and C)that he was sincere in his reasons for voting, I would never support him in a million years.

But, in the end, Kerry is a pretty sincere guy, in his dorky and long-winded way...

<>

He's definitely seen fire and rain, and sunny days he thought would never end.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. Actually, Disarmament Is Explicitly In The Resolution

The IWR seeks to "compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of WMDs and refusal or obstruction of UN weapon inspectors in violation of UNSC resolution 687 (1991)."

That is disarmament, and exactly what Kerry was addressing in his vote. Even if Saddam was not actively developing WMDs, he still failed to live up to the latter part - which Kerry felt was unacceptable.

And if Saddam had fully cooperated instead of screwing around about palaces and scientists, we would not have invaded. So although Bush is a prick, Saddam gave more than a little rope to hang himself with.

[lastliberalintexas]

40. I am not exonerating Hussein

But the UN had inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time. In fact, if you remember, they were basically evacuated so that we could invade.

"Even if Saddam was not actively developing WMDs, he still failed to live up to the latter part - which Kerry felt was unacceptable."

But did that justify us invading another sovereign nation?

I guess the Kerry vote smarts so badly for me b/c I felt betrayed by him. I didn't expect Lieberman, Bayh, or the more conservative Dems to show the backbone necessary to stand up to Shrub. But I had higher hopes for Kerry. It probably isn't fair to hold him to such a higher standard I know! :-)

[DrFunkenstein]

45. This Is Kerry On The Eve Of War

On eve of war, Kerry blasts Bush

http://www.primarymonitor.com/news/stories2003/031803kerry_2003.shtml

[sandnsea]

57. Because Congress knew what Scott Ritter said in 1998

Saddam Hussein could have biological or chemical weapons within 6 months of Saddam deciding to reimplement these programs. And he could have a nuclear weapon within a few years. That's what Scott Ritter said in his testimony to Congress.

He also said he felt that the inspections process was compromised in 1998 by mixed signals from the Administration, Britain and the Security Council. Ritter was pushing for complete access and continued inspections with real international support. But he didn't say in 1998 that Saddam couldn't be a threat if he chose to be, and that's just one thing that Congress knew about Scott Ritter that seems to be ignored.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Not flamebait - that's funny

Not flamebait - that's funny!

You listen to Kerry explain his IWR vote, and then try to get us to defend 'declaring pre-emptive war' which is what Bush did, not what Kerry did. Get real.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

15. Only if you want it to be, my friend.

Looking for answers. Not platitudes. Seriously not FB.

on edit: answer post #11 and get back to me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. You've moved the goalpost - again.

You've moved the goalpost - again. You started with:

Question: Was "threat of force" sufficient reason to declare pre-emptive war?

As I pointed out, that is an attempt to smear Kerry with Bush's actions.

Now, you want to go into the legalese of the wording of the resolution - sorry, I'm not going to play your game.

To say that this thread is not flamebait is a lie.

So let me ask you this: Why is Dean so confident in the rightness of state action that he would rather put innocent people to death than allow trial appeals?

"We had a case where a guy who was a rapist, a serial sex offender, was convicted, then was let out on what I would think and believe was a technicality, a new trial was ordered and the victim wouldn't come back and go through the second trial. And so the guy basically got time served, and he was the man who murdered a 15-year-old girl and raped her and then left her for dead and she was dead. So life without parole doesn't work either. If life without parole worked 100 percent of the time, there'd be no need for the death penalty because I agree with the bishop. Vengeance should never be a piece of this. As human beings, we all want to get revenge. That should never part of public policy, to get revenge, but the trouble is that life without parole is not perfect either and the victims in that case are 15- and 12-year-old girls. That is every bit as heinous as putting to death someone who didn't commit the crime."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp?cp1=1

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Er....

Now, you want to go into the legalese of the wording of the resolution - sorry, I'm not going to play your game.

Huh? I never asked that. Any fair reading of the IWR is clear. The first part of the IWR "suggests" the course that Shrub should take. The second part empowers the president to declare war at his discretion. It's very clear.

I'll move the goalposts back for you.(Although you're the one who moved them.)

Question: Was "threat of force" sufficient reason to declare pre-emptive war?

edit: punc

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. So now you've bait and switched back to your original bait and switch?

So now you've bait and switched back to your original bait and switch?

You post something Kerry actually said, a quote, with a reference to back it up so we know it's genuine, and I'll be happy to explain it to you.

But I think we all know that the statement in the title of this thread: 'Not Flamebait' is a lie. I think I've risen to the bait enough.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Er....watch the Philly forum for evidence.

The other info was linked at CommonDreams.

I took notes while watching the debate for the 3rd time. If I've mischaracterized it go ahead and point to it.

If you prefer not to participate in this thread, goodbye. It's not as if you've added anything to the discussion.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. IEAmerica radio. Ritter.

The Iraq policy was handed down to Clinton from Poppy. WMD intelligence, et. al.

As president you either accept that policy or start a cumbersome intelligence review. BC took the easy way out.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. Dean Supporters Have A Strange Sense Of Chronology

The Yellowcake statement was from the SOTU speech in January. The IWR vote was in October. Kerry was not saying that he looked into the future and was misled by Bush's future statements - which is what you are suggesting. (#4)

Kerry has come clearly and often about his opposition to the Bush doctrine of pre-emption and regime change. (#5)

Saddam had a long history of dangerous miscalculations, which is why Kerry said he must be held accountable in the post-9/11 era. Kerry said that Bush had NOT made the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but that the threat of future connections with terrorists was too great to leave to chance. Hence, inspections leading to disarmament. (#1,2, and 3).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

29. Uh...er....

The Niger story was known in March 2002, per Wilson.

The threat of future connections... Eeeek!

[DrFunkenstein]

33. You Are Changing Your Argument

And the Niger argument doesn't bear up to scrutiny. This is Kerry right before his vote on Iraq's nuclear capabilities:

"Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq had an advanced 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 US 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 one year. Absent a foreign supplier, the CIA estimates that Iraq would not be able to produce a weapon until the last half of this decade. Nevertheless, Saddam Hussein's quest for nuclear weapons and his proven willingness to use weapons of mass destruction underline the very serious threat that the Iraqi regime could pose to the United States and others in the international community if left unchecked."


This doesn't sound like a man who was fooled by too much. And it doesn't mention the Niger story at all. In fact, he seems to have either dismissed it or have been entirely unaware of it based on the last paragraph.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

36. No, I'm not. Let's look at it.

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.

That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material

If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad


If if was a skiff, we'd all go to war...

[DrFunkenstein]

46. Not Following You

That looks to me like Kerry doesn't believe the case has been made for Iraq's nuclear capabilities. Can you spell out what you mean?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Yes I can.

If he didn't believe it, why the vote?

If the assaination, the 36 missles into Israel and the Kuwait invasion were already dealt with (GW1 and Desert Fox), why the vote?

It comes back to the "threat of force" as per the UN maintaining it credibility. That's all I can figure.

:shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

48. Those Weren't Reasons, They Were Examples Of Saddam's Instability

"And he has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation: an eight year war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait, America's response to it, the result of setting oil rigs on fire, the impact of sending scuds into Israel, his own military might, the Arab world's response to his plight, in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States.

And all those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of his history: he is a brutal, oppressive dictator guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women and execution of political opponents. He is 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 which were intended by the international community to ease the burden of the Iraqi people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal and has given money to families of suicide bombers.

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 us a lot about the threat of 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 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, under international supervision," of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems and "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material."

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 or stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable, by use of force if necessary."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

50. got ya.

we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future...

Pre-emption. Got ya. Thanks.

[DrFunkenstein]

51. Oh Please, Frosty

It's below you. That's some pretty tortured logic, and I've seen you catch people on such "stretches" of the imagination, so you should know better.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Doesn't change with the full paragraph.

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 us a lot about the threat of 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.

Fortunetelling. The third eye. Precognition. Or pre-emption. His words.

I don't get it, Funk. I know you didn't support the resolution, so why the fight? I folded like a cheap K-Mart deck chair when Dean put his foot in his mouth over SS.

:shrug:

[goobergunch]

42. Here's what Kerry said back in October

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.

2002 Congressional Record, page S10174

[lastliberalintexas]

43. Thank you

Thanks for the info goobergunch.

[George_Bonanza]

54. Thanks for the article

"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."

I think Kerry's fulfilled his end of the bargain. He says that in return for his approval, he expected the president to fully work with the UN, act with our allies, and although it doesn't say it here, obviously work a good peace plan. Bush failed on all three, and Kerry has been very vocal about it, just like he said.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

55. "...I will be among the first to speak out."

Was he among the first? Debatable.

[Aaron]

44. Maybe someone can help me out with some questions/clarifications?

1. Saddam tried to assasinate an American president.

-> Wasn't that after the US response to 3?

2. Saddam lobbed 36 missiles into Israel.

-> Again after the US response to 3 - right?

3. Saddam invaded Kuwait.

-> To stop slant-drilling and various oil sale contract violations or something like that - after US official April Glaspie confirmed that the US didn't care if he did - right?

4. WMD.

-> :shrug:

[DrFunkenstein]

49. I Highly Recommend The Iraq War Reader

It is an absolutely invaluable book for presenting the history of US-Iraq relations, the buildup to war, the debates, and the war itself. It ends just after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," but addresses many, many questions about the future of Iraq.

The context of all your questions is fascinating, but too lengthy to go into here. Pick up the book, though!

<>

[Aaron]

56. Ty Doc :) (n/t)