Dean, Kerry, Iraq, the War - a revelation

[ProfessorPlum]

For a while there I couldn't understand Kerry's position on the war. Had he "voted for it"? Did he "support it"? Why?

After a number of fruitful (and some not very helpful) discussions here, I think I've finally had an epiphany as to why Kerry's position never made sense to me. It was because of my underlying assumptions.

My assumption was that it was self-evident that the war in Iraq was costing us much more than we benefitted from it. In my view, the cost in treasure, in lives, in potential good will with Muslim peoples, our allies, the UN, etc., was way too high a price to pay for some very dubious benefits. Benefits such as safety from the imminent threat of WMDs (I never believed they were an imminent threat because of the suddenness of Bush's revelations about them, but I didn't put it past Saddam to have to be developing them). Benefits like "getting rid of Saddam". I would prefer to have Saddam in power rather than having a power vacuum in an incredibly screwed up country and have us be responsible for fixing it. Benefits like having the an American empire in the Middle East. Oops, did I say that out loud?

Now, starting from this assumption, that the war didn't benefit us and cost us much, I couldn't figure out why Kerry would support it, or at least not denounce it. He certainly has been against Bush's bumbling, which has made it cost us even more than it otherwise would have. But in the end, Kerry must believe that it is worth it to have Saddam, always a source of worry, out of power.

It explains what up until this point has been inexplicable to me. Kerry had listed a litany of complaints about Saddam in his address prior to the Iraq resolution vote, but I didn't really take them seriously - I didn't feel threatened by Saddam, based on Bush's evidence that I should, because Bush/Cheney had been telling boogey-man stories about all kinds of things prior to the lead up to war. But Kerry evidently did.

In the end, Kerry must feel that the benefits gained from this war outweigh the costs (or at least what he thought the costs would be at the outset). His gripe with Bush is that Bush keeps acting to make the costs more (by blowing our alliances and international good will, for example) or the perceived benefits less (lying about how dangerous Saddam's weapons are reduces the actual vs. the hoped-for benefits of the war).

For me, this shifts the debate into a more useful realm - not who voted for what, whether Biden-Lugar represents something more or less equivalent than the final resolution, etc. It shifts it into the realm of a cost/benefit argument. Kerry's statements and actions indicate that he believes the benefits are worthy of the costs invoked (something that hadn't even occured to me before), while my view is definitely that of Dean and other anti-war people, who believes that the benefits do not outweigh the costs.

Is this a more useful way to look at the debate (was the war worth it?) and one actual difference between the beliefs of Kerry and Dean?

[w13rd0]

1. costs - benefits calculation...

...with lives of civilians and US soldiers...without also considering the risks, especially considering whose hands this program was put in (namely Bush)...well...someone needs to work on their math...

[ProfessorPlum]

5. going to war is always a cost-benefit calculation,

even with human lives at stake. As cynical as that is, it has to be the case. I would be willing to kill some people to stop Hussein dropping an atomic bomb on the US mainland - if that threat were real.

And I don't begrudge someone coming to the conclusion that a war's benefit might outweigh its cost - I happen to disagree in this case, but that is Kerry's decision to make as he sees fit. He certainly has access to more information than I have about the situation on the ground there, and Saddam's past actions.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Your 'revelation' is based on a false premise

Your 'revelation' is based on a false premise - that Kerry supports or supported this war. Kerry supported disarming Iraq through the UN. Kerry did not support our unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and does not support our continued occupation of Iraq.

It's all just spin on your part.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. If that is truly the case,

then there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Kerry and Dean's position on anything about Iraq. Dean also supported disarming Iraq through the UN. Is it really true that there is no difference left between them on this issue?

Why didn't the press write stories 3-4 months ago about how Dean and Kerry BOTH were opposed to the war? Why are Kerry supporters always giving Dean shite about opposing the war? Why is Dean then labelled as a peacenik hippy, Saddam-lovin' America-hatin', unelectable liberal, and Kerry is not, when that basis is because of his position against the war?

Am I just dreaming that Dean spoke out forcefully against the war, but Kerry explicitly did not? I'm glad if Kerry has had a change of heart, but he hasn't said that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. You're right, there isn't a dimes worth of difference in their positions

You're right, there isn't a dimes worth of difference in their positions. Maybe a nickel or a penny or two.

"Why didn't the press write stories 3-4 months ago about how Dean and Kerry BOTH were opposed to the war?"

Because Dean was giving campaign speeches, and Kerry was doing his job as a Senator. It is easy to spin in a speech, avoid the difficult details, and get the media writing about you.

"Why are Kerry supporters always giving Dean shite about opposing the war?"

Who? Where? Is this real or are you just making it up? I've read people attacking Dean for what they perceive as his insincerity but I haven't seen anyone in the Kerry camp supporting the invasion or the occupation. If they do, well, I think they are wrong.

What you are doing is spinning, not dreaming.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. Come now.

At the time of the invasion, if Dean and Kerry's positions had been the same (strong, vocal opposition to the invasion), don't you think we would have heard about that? Wouldn't the press have remarked that the presumed Democratic front runner opposed the war?

I've read a lot of defenses about Kerry's position here, like he didn't want to demoralize the troops because he knows what it is like to be fighting an unpopular war, etc. All potentially quite valid reasons.

But I think it is disingenuous to pretend that they held exactly the same position when the bullets started flying.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. The spin continues

The spin continues - if someone wants to know what Kerry thinks, all they have to do is read his words, listen to his speeches.

Bottom line, if either Kerry or Dean were President, we wouldn't have in vaded and we wouldn't be occupying Iraq now. Do you really believe that statement is untrue?

[ProfessorPlum]

18. Well, after doing some research to find direct quotes

I'm a bit more confused now than ever before. I can find dozens of articles which say that Kerry supports the war.

And I find these direct quotes:

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20030324/FP_003.htm
(Kerry) refused to answer a question about whether the nation should be at war now, saying "that's not where the debate is right now." Yet he declared himself "impressed by the military strategy thus far," calling it "thoughtful and creative."

http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/2004/candidates/debates/dem_sc.asp
Kerry at the first Democratic debate:
"George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

I also found some articles which said that Kerry opposed the war. Not too much revealing there, either.

I think that the truth of the matter is (barring someone finding a large batch of quotes by Kerry from around March/April this year, with him taking a stand one way or the other) that he didn't say much of anything about the war itself. He did make some comments about Bush and his screw-ups.

So is this just another example of the press mixing up his vote for the resolution with support for the war itself? Articles always say, John Kerry, who voted to give Bush power . . blah blah blah, then have him quoted as saying something like "Based on the information we had, it was the right vote".

On the one hand, it appears like he is justifying the vote and conflating it with the subsequent war itself - and he never corrects the media when they do that either.

I have to say, I am honestly confused about where this guy stood.

[dajabr]

14. Prof. Here's a couple articles that may interest you...

Not specifically about Kerry, but they may give you some perspective on The Left's reaction...

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=nichols

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2002/46/we_192_01.html

[ProfessorPlum]

20. thank you for the links, dajabr

Again, they express frustration with Kerry's (and other congressional Democrats') positions, without providing actual quotes to back them up.

I'm starting to wonder if "Kerry supported the war" is one of the famous lazy-media myths, based on his vote for the resolution.

If that is the case, he didn't disabuse anyone of it, even though he had lots of chances to. I think it really is the case that he straddled the fence on this. That's his right, too, but it isn't real appealing to me in matters of war.

[dajabr]

22. The articles we offered to support the notion...

That these votes were part of an overall strategy by many Dems. A strategy that did not pay off in 2002. And Dean is right to call them on it, because it won't work in 2004.

Kerry appears to have bought into this strategy, which is scary in the first place. It was a POLITICAL decision at the worst possible time to preserve his candidacy. And, now he's trying to extricate himself from a situation he created.

Want to be clear about your opposition? Don't vote for it.

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Kerry Is Unlike Democrats That Hadn't Been Watching Iraq

Dajabr and Prof Plum, you are two voices I truly respect on this board. I sincerely urge you to check out this study the GOP made of Kerry's position on Iraq. They meant to show him as a hypocrite, because he supported disarmament for years - and now questions Bush's bungling of the job.

http://www.gop.com/Newsroom/RNCResearch/research061903.htm

“While we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if...we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” - Kerry, 1997.

I am saying from the bottom of my heart, if I felt that Kerry's vote was not out of conviction, I would not be able to support him in good conscience. I am a proud progressive with a very strong moral compass. I honestly believe that Kerry did the best that he felt he could with a lousy situation.

I realize that some people back candidates as kind of a political game, like following a sports team. But I support Kerry with a sincere conviction that he has the best plans and greatest leadership for this country. Even Kucinich - someone I consider even further Left - does not have the larger picture in his head like Kerry does. But even with fantastic plans and a great background, if I felt that he was insincere in a matter as important as war, I could never support him.

I like Dean as a person. Although he can be too negative at times, I think he is a sincere person. That matters greatly to me. I am much more willing to support a sincere person I disgree with, than a phony that mirrors my own beliefs. Between us, I think Gephardt is a phony. I suspect that Edwards is as well. But Dean seems like a good person. And I truly believe that Kerry is a genuinely decent person, as well. His reserved nature may make him seem calculating, but I have seen enough stories from enough sources to believe he is the real deal.

And that is the bottom line for me. You have to pass the decency test. Although I believe it tormented him, I think that Kerry really felt he was doing as close to the right thing as the situation allowed. I think that 45-minute speech was, in a strange way, the manifestation of that torment. Maybe it's the English major in me, but I have to respect his anguish. I honestly do not believe that speech could possibly be the fruit of political expediency.

[dajabr]

30. Damn, you beat me to it!

I was intending all day yesterday to tell you that I've appreciated your thoughtful posts about Kerry. And, now you've pre-empted (sorry) that with a nice compliment, from a fellow English major no less - thanks! :-)

These posts were needed months ago to temper the vitrol caused by Kerry's vote, and the dearth of positive threads explaining his position. Some Kerry supporters seemed more distracted by attacking Dean than explaining and promoting their own guy's position. :-(

My hardline view of Kerry's actions is not likely to change. But, should he wipe the floor with Dean and get the nomination, I'll re-read your posts and maybe I won't hold my nose so tightly.

Your endorsement "from the heart" is inspiring. It's great to see the Kerry camp is grabbing some hearts - as well as minds.

Here's what I feel in my heart. There will be a time, maybe right before the convention, when the likely nominee will enter a smoke filled room full of old men and be asked to compromise part of their soul, to play "The Game," to say they are with the Program. I want Dean in that room. Why? Because right now I'm convinced that he's the only top-flight "outsider" who will tell those old men to f*ck off, no matter what the outcome, even if it means the end of his run.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. Missed this post earlier,

Thanks Dr. F, and the same goes to you and dajabr. Through your honest posts you really have made me feel much better about Kerry as a candidate and potential president, and cleared up a lot of confusion on my part.

From another progressive, here is thanks and hoping that one of these two men ends up with the nomination, and kicks Bush's butt. He will be the only person since Ford to serve as President never having been elected to the Presidency or Vice-Presidency. (Who else does that apply to? Maybe only Harrison?)

I really appreciate the dialog and apologize if I seem a little thick sometimes - politics is not my chosen profession.

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Check out this thread -

Wouldn't "Centrist Democrats" also be worried about a Kerry candidacy based on your claims? If Kerry's war position were so like Dean's, why doesn't anyone know it? Is he keeping it a secret?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=7706&mesg_id=7706&page=

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. I feel like a broken record:

I feel like a broken record: if you want to know what Kerry thinks, listen to Kerry. You just keep trying to point everyone everywhere but to Kerry's own words.

[DrFunkenstein]

25. Quick Comment On The Press

The press didn't lump Dean and Kerry together for a reason. The articles at the time said Dean opposed the war, and Kerry was ambivalent, waffling, and trying to have it both ways. The press eventually got it mostly right - Kerry voted for the resolution, but strongly criticized the prosecution - but Dean continues to harp on the press's old line to try to silence Kerry's criticism.

Personally, I have always been clear that Dean is a centrist, and hardly a pacifist. I'm not sure if the press is picking up on Dean as eccentric or something, but it certainly has the effect of polarizing him. That's Dean's gamble - will general audiences want the polar opposite of Bush. It makes Kerry, ironically, seem moderate. Honestly, I'm not complaining. I'll take a moderate-seeming progressive over a progressive-seeming moderate any day.

[DrFunkenstein]

4. You Could Have Waited For A Response

I'll just re-post my response here then:

You are suggesting that Kerry's position is for regime change, but again, Kerry calls on this as the final, exhausted step of a failure to peacefully disarm him. The danger was not so much WMDs (lots of countries have them), but that Saddam was a total loose cannon with WMDs that refused to cooperate with the terms which signalled the end of the Gulf War.

By the end of the 90's Kerry realized that the sanctions process was a failure that punished the Iraqis and actually bolstered Saddam's position. Saddam had screwed around to the point were Clinton withdrew inspectors to launch a brief attack on suspected sites. It was clear that Saddam had no intentions of voluntarily cooperating. Kerry's assessment in 1997 was the same it was in 2003 - Saddam would submit to disarmament only at the barrel of a gun. And, Kerry said, if Saddam did not submit, we would have to pull the trigger.

However, Kerry also said that Saddam would have less room to screw around if the weight the world was upon him, not just imperial yankee dogs. Kerry argued that few in the UN would fail to back up disarmament. Unfortunately, the Bush administration went about it ass-backwards - from talk of pre-emptive, unilateral invasion and regime change to multilateral invasion to disarmament to inspections. In that order!

Where Kerry suggested regime change as the "ultimate" (meaning final) disarmament tool in the shed, the Bush administration talked about it as a matter of policy. By doing so, the Bush administration (rightly) scared the crap out of the whole world. Instead of a tough, but fair choice to disarm Saddam, the world was confronted with the choice to give legitimacy to a superpower on steroids hell-bent on an elaborate assassination attempt. The world (rightly) decided not to give that legitimacy.

With Saddam gone, disarmament is a reality. But at a cost we never should have had to pay - in blood or treasure. Kerry said the burden was upon Saddam to live up to the agreement he signed to dispose of his weapons and give unfettered access to proof. Saddam paid the price for that failure, but it is squarely Bush that set the cost. We could have had disarmament without a single drop of blood - if! - if disarmament had truly been Bush's goal.

Saddam's demise is welcome, but it was never Kerry's true goal. And this is where I think you are mistaken. Kerry is shouting from the rooftops (in his reserved manner) that the cost of this war has been too high. Like most Americans, Kerry is glad Saddam is gone, but the ends do not justify the means. Here he agrees with Dean, although he doesn't use it as a snipe when major resistance figures are killed.

Kerry has questioned both ends and means. The ends for Bush are reshaping the Middle East in America's image, only, you know, more submissive. Reshaping Iraq's political structure has never been an sought-for end by Kerry. He does (rightly) feel compelled to help rebuild Iraq, but his major campaign theme is energy independence so we don't have to worry so much about Middle Eastern internal politics. And, of course, Kerry has complained since day one about the means by which Bush has brought us to the state of things today. It is hard to think of a more inept, wrong-headed, and dangerous course as Bush has laid out. And, in Kerry's belief, unnecessary.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. I know that regime change was not what Kerry was looking for

but rather disarmament.

Am I missing something here? Why did/do I have the impression that Dean opposed the war and that Kerry's opposition to it was somehow less - it would seem from the things people are saying now that Dean and Kerry had very similar positions prior to the war, and that they had very similar positions during and after the war as well.

What are they arguing about again?

[Dr_Strangelove]

9. Kerry & Dean - a Question

If Kerry had a problem with the war in Iraq the way Bush wanted it, then why did he vote for unilateral presidential powers in dealing with Iraq? And if Howard Dean has a problem with Bush's inept use of presidential powers, what is wrong with expressing that opinion?

[ProfessorPlum]

13. the way this has been presented to me

is that Bush (and all presidents) already HAVE unilateral presidential powers in military actions. The resolution set limits to what Bush could do and still get Congressional approval for his actions (which has some consequences for funding, etc. down the line). You have to also remember that both houses of Congress are controlled by Republicans, so that the content of the resolution which Kerry signed was not under his complete control. (In fact, certain Democratic house members, like Gephardt, undermined an effort to make the resolution more restrictive on Bush by agreeing to an even more lax version right away). The vote for the war resolution placed some limits on Bush, forced him to at least make a token appearance to the UN, and so in the end was a good thing, without which there would have been no limits to what Bush could have done at all.

As far as Dean, there is nothing wrong with him hammering Bush, especially if now we are being told Kerry's position was exactly like Dean's. This I don't get.

[DrFunkenstein]

28. You Missed One Point

You did a pretty good job overall, but you forgot one important point - that Kerry felt that an unaccountable Saddam was unacceptable. Although Dean is now saying he was never fooled about the WMDs, Kerry stands by his vote because he felt the issue was accountability.

Saddam needed to be certifiably disarmed through a peaceful, unfettered, lengthy inspections process. Saddam's shenanigans needed to end.

Even though WMDs have not been found, the real issue was unfettered proof of disarmament. This is where Dean mis-steps, IMO. Not because he is on record repeatedly as saying the WMDs existed, but because he is ignoring the larger issue.

“Saddam Hussein cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” - John Kerry, 1997.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. an end to an unaccountable Saddam is definitely desirable

but at what cost? Both Kerry and Dean would have been willing to "pay" for that with a peaceful, unfettered, lengthy inspections process. Who wouldn't? That's a relatively small price to pay for a desirable end.

But Dean drew a line about what he was willing to pay to make Saddam accountable. Like him, I believe that the way Bush has gone about it has made the process hurt us more than it benefits us. We've "disarmed" Saddam, not to our benefit, but to our loss (in my opinion). And I believe that on the eve of the invasion, it was pretty obvious that that was going to be the case, with all of Bush's mishandling of our allies, and his easy-to-predict mishandling of the peace. Even had WMDs been found this would have been a war, in its totality, which was not an overall benefit to us (again in my estimation).

But I'm slipping down into the cost/benefit analysis, which I don't really want to get caught up in right now. My main questions are:

1. Do you think debating the cost/benefit ratio of the war is a fruitful way to look at the question, and a way to gauge Dean and Kerry's (and other candidate's) varied responses to it?

2. Do you think that Kerry thinks now or thought this spring that the benefits of what Bush was doing would outweigh the costs? As I've said, I've tried to find direct statements from Kerry at the time which either support or refute this, and I can't really find many. (Apart from his unequivocal answer to a question in the South Carolina debate, but that is only one). There are many articles on both sides which feel free to state his opinion, but without clear quotes from him to back it up.

Obviously, no one could know going into it whether this war would be a net gain or loss for the US. That will be for historians to decide. But people can make educated guesses. Dean seems to have guessed that it would be a net loss. Kerry doesn't seem to have wanted to guess, but seemed to be hoping that it would be a net gain. Is that a fair characterization?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

15. the resolution

Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the president "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

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;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";


Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the president to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the president and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the president has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40);

and Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE. This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the president to (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b)PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION. In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the president shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate his determination that (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.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. (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. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The president shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

[dfong63]

16. he may have questioned, but

Kerry has questioned both ends and means.

Kerry may have questioned the ends and means, but he voted to give the means to Bush*.

he was snookered, and now he's trying to boast about his "foreign policy credentials".

sheesh.

[GreenArrow]

26. Snookered schmookered...

he knew EXACTLY what he was doing.

[blm]

17. Consider that regime change was policy during Clinton's years

because Saddam was also a main target for overthrow by Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and that it was MOST critical to stabilize Iraq afterwards and win the peace, which required the help of our UN and NATO allies.

[ProfessorPlum]

19. Huh?

whose policy was it during the Clinton years? Clinton worked within a framework of containment.

[sandnsea]

24. Yes, it was 1998

An Executive Order if memory serves, maybe a Resolution, something like that. Regime change became policy. Now that doesn't mean they were supporting a military regime change like Bush, just ousting Saddam one way or other. Seems I've even read about failed CIA plans to oust him. But anyway, it's true.

[SGrande]

21. BRAVO!

BRAVO!

Thank you, that was an eloquante piece.


:party:

[gottaB]

23. well said, Prof

I do think this a more useful distillation of the differences on the war.

One thing I would add is consideration for Kerry's position as Senator. Because any of us can do a cost/benefit, but we're not all in a position to have our analyses matter. So, imagine yourself in Kerry's shoes. Let's say you were skeptical of the immediacy of the threat posed by Iraq, but you were presented with evidence from trusted sources that gave you pause. Meanwhile Bushco was amassing troops in Kuwait and was undoubtedly preparing for an invasion. You believed it might be worth the costs, but you were not fully convinced. What would you do to pull in the reins? What could you do?

Had Kerry chosen to speak out unequivocally against the pending invasion, there is a strong possibility that others would not have followed him, and the invasion would have proceeded with no resolution or with a less constraining resolution. Worse, from his perspective, outright opposition could have taken away Kerry's credibility on criticizing the administration and moving the country towards a multilateral foreign policy. (Some Kerry critics would fault him for this aspect of the equation--albiet it's just speculation--on the grounds that others like Dean or Clark are equally capable of assuming the leadership role, without giving anything to Bushco. Whatever.)

Anyhow, it seems extremely unlikely that the Congress would have voted, say, to cut the purse strings on the Pentagon, or called for the troops to be restationed. In that light, it's fair to say that Kerry did the best he could to minimize the harm done to the US and its soldiers based on his beliefs at the time.

Another cost or risk associated with Kerry's position is that he had to consider the negotiations that were ongoing with our allies, and the perception of the United State's political will to disarm Iraq of certain weapons. Recall the statements on the floor of the Senate about Saddam Hussein miscalculating this, miscalculating that. Insofar as Kerry viewed Iraq as a threat, and inasmuch as Saddam Hussein's political "weirdness" contributed to the sense of danger Kerry saw us in, he wanted to ensure that as negotiations progressed, Hussein understood that the US was dead serious about disarmament. That's not something Dean, for instance, had to be as concerned about. That's pretty clearly reflected in their respective rhetorical postures.

With that in mind, it may be more constructive to consider Kerry's position alongside that of for instance Graham or Biden, before seeing how it differs from Dean, Sharpton and Moseley Braun, who were not in a similar position. In comparing Kerry to Graham, it seems clear in my mind that Kerry was taking a more forceful leadership role, which suits his personality and his standing in the Democratic Party and the Senate. Of course, it may simply be the case that Graham was more sceptical of the evidence presented against Iraq. That's a common argument against Kerry's vote. But I'm not myself persuaded that their assessments weren't quite similar and that Graham wasn't willing to resign himself to standing aside while Bushco did whatever it wanted with the military. To a degree, I'd say.

In my estimation, Kerry couldn't resign himself to sitting this one out and offering criticism from the sidelines. That may be like a tragic flaw, but it's the kind of thing you expect from heroes. In my book, Kerry is heroically flawed, but not necessarily unfit to lead, and certainly not a coward. As for the others, the critics of the war, well, maybe they have sound judgement, and prudence is a virtue, as is the courage to voice opposition, but I don't see their strengths as diminishing Kerry's. Not much anyway.

Peace out.

[CWebster]

32. Gees Prof Plum

You really had to contort to scratch that one out of the bottom of the barrel.

Sorry-- that's pathetic, is all I can say.