Kerry Wants An Imperial Presidency! Explaining Kerry's IWR answer?

WiseMen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-17-04 06:18 PM
Original message

Kerry Wants An Imperial Presidency! Explaining Kerry's IWR answer?

Edited on Tue Aug-17-04 06:54 PM by WiseMen

Only one good explanation exists for John Kerry�s controversial answer to the �knowing what we now know� question. It is Kerry�s belated, perhaps self-serving, support for an �Imperial Presidency.�
John Forbes Kerry would clearly prefer the role of the Roman �Caesar� to that of a senate-hamstrung �Consul.�

FDR created the imperial presidency taking to the executive branch an active role in the economy. He made it business of the president to take care of the U.S. public as well as lead in establishing foreign policy.

Kerry aspires to be an FDR caliber President and knows that the President cannot achieve fundamental change in the direction the country, in the reform of our political process or long-term environmental and energy policy without strong executive authority.

Having followed Kerry and the IWR from the beginning, I strongly disagree with his decision to answer Bush�s provocative hypothetical question. However, below is how I believe Kerry has begun to and will continue to explain his answer:

____________

In a post 9/11 world it is more important than ever for a President to have unfettered command of the armed forces to protect our national security. I voted for Presidential authority because that is the authority I personally would wish to exercise as President.

I know that many of my Democratic colleagues don�t share my support for greater executive power at this time, but for me it is as matter of principle. I supported Bill Clinton�s use of executive authority to deploy military force in Bosnia and Kosovo even in the face of congressional opposition, and would have given him the same authority contained in the IWR to hold Sadaam accountable in the late 90�s had it had been requested.

Now, after a devastating attack on New York and our nation�s Capital, I could not but vote to authorize full presidential authority to execute what was obviously a difficult foreign policy initiative against the dangerous regime of Sadaam Hussein. In my vote, I conditioned my support for Presidential action on promises made by the President to the Senate that he would act under U.N. mandate, and I still believe I did that correctly.

Now it is clear that the intelligence we had on WMD�s in Iraq was way off the mark. But even knowing what I know now about Sadaam incompetence, deceptions and braggadocio does would not make me withdraw my vote. Sadaam was still a threat that sooner or later had to be confronted.

What gives me much greater pause is what we now know about the incompetence, deceptions and braggadocio of George Bush. Knowing what we now know about George Bush few if any Democrats would have voted for the resolution - he likely would not have been gained the Presidency in the first place � but that is what my campaign is all about.

______________

Remember, I am not expressing my opinion above. See my "Kerry Blew It." post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=607751

And, my "Kerry IWR Vote Was Right" (For Kerry):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=157220