Another Day Another Position

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Another Day Another Position
30
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 7:08pm

Renee ~~~

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 8:50pm
There is a famous quote that goes like this... "Desperate times call for desperate measures". I find it fitting right about now.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 9:03pm
Here's another,

Pride before the fall.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 9:20pm
But on a serious note,

Kerry's absolutly right in this statement.

"the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"

the wrong war: Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan harboured al quada.

the wrong place: Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, then weakened their presence in order to help the neo-con agenda by invading Iraq.

the wrong time: Saddam was a cruel dictator, but he was no immediate threat.He was contained. UN inspectors were not allowed to fulfill their mandate because they were ordered out by the UN to make way for Bush's invasion.



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-06-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 9:30pm
Doesn't look to me like his position has changed. He's said all along that he didn't vote FOR the war; Mr. Kerry voted in favor of the Senate resolution authorizing GWB to invade Iraq as an absolute LAST resort, when all other avenues were exhausted. Nor did he vote against funding the troops, he voted against funding the troops with NO OVERSIGHT whatsoever....didn't believe (and neither do I) that a blank check should be issued for BILLIONS. And anyway, regardless of Kerry's vote, GWB got his funding......and it's been mismanaged, money is unaccounted for, and the troops STILL do not have their body armor!

I know I'm changing anyone's mind here, nor will mine be changed, just my two cents!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 10:24pm
There's nothing new about Kerry's position. Here's an article from May:

I'll pull the troops out: Kerry

May 20, 2004 - 12:24PM

United States Democrat John Kerry promised that, if elected president of the United States, he would pull virtually all American combat troops out of Iraq - away from the "death zone" - by the end of his first term.

In an interview yesterday with AP reporters and editors, he also criticised President George W Bush for damaging relations with allies. There is so much strain in those relationships now, he said, that only a new president can repair them.

"Every president of the last century, Republican and Democrat alike, worked differently from this administration, reached out to other countries and worked with greater respect through international structures," Kerry said.

"This has been a terrible period of loss of American influence, respect and prestige, and it costs us all across the globe."

The problem is most evident in Iraq, said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He promised to avert a quagmire, saying "it will not take long to do what is necessary" there.

Advertisement



Advertisement

"It will not be like Vietnam," Kerry said. "I will get our troops home from Iraq with honour and with the interests of our country properly protected."

Republican Richard M Nixon used similar language during the 1968 presidential race, but the war in Vietnam dragged on for years after his election.

Saying his goal would be achieved in his first term, Kerry explained: "Look, you may have some deployments of people for a long period of time in the Middle East depending on what the overall approach to the Middle East is. I'm not going to tell you we won't shift deployments from one place to another, but we're not going to be engaged in an active kind of death zone the way we are today."

Kerry also said he is confident that if he becomes president, he could persuade countries that sat out the Iraq war to contribute peacekeepers. But he said he would not place US soldiers in Iraq under UN command, or under the command of another country.

AP

http://smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/20/1084917700351.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 10:36pm
In the same Kerry speech you linked to he goes on to say ""I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq."

Here he is, on September 6th 2002 - before the war and before he was even a Presidential candidate - outlining exactly what he thinks should be done to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think you'll find that Kerry's statement today is true to his statement exactly two years ago - he would have done everything differently then Bush.


We Still Have a Choice on Iraq

Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.

New York Times

September 6, 2002

WASHINGTON -- It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to -- not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war -- that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs -- on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war.

The question is not whether we should care if Saddam Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community -- institutions American presidents from across the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to global security.

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from Massachusetts.

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5596/kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 2:05am

Come on folks! This is the guy who

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 3:24am
<<"Kerry's absolutly right in this statement. "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" ">>

<<"the wrong war: Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan harboured al quada.">>....for the nth. time: it was never said there was a direct link between SH and 9/11. What wás said, is that there are links between SH and international terrorism (he was the self-proclaimed and proud sponsor to e.g. families of suicide bombers in Israël).

<<"the wrong place: Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, then weakened their presence in order to help the neo-con agenda by invading Iraq.">>.... the US is part of a coalition in Afghanistan, several partners who didn't support invading Iraq did agree to send more troops to Afghanistan.

<<"the wrong time: Saddam was a cruel dictator, but he was no immediate threat. He was contained. UN inspectors were not allowed to fulfill their mandate because they were ordered out by the UN to make way for Bush's invasion.">> ..... please read UN/SC resolution 1441.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 10:05am
You're not listening...people have explained this over and over. Kerry did not vote in favor of the war (and if he did, it wasn't in favor of the irresponsible way Bush waged war.) He voted to authorize force. I've posted on this before, giving an analogy to business - you've got to give the guy making the deal the power to make the deal. Congress gave Bush the power to deal most effectively with the situation, and instead, Bush thought they handed him the keys to the Porshe. He rode off at high speed and crashed it.

Maybe someone should phrase the question to Kerry this way: "Knowing what you now know about how President Bush would take us to war, would you still have voted to give him the authoirty to do so?" I'm betting you'd hear a resounding "NO" from Kerry.

And the Repblicans would continue their willfull misunderstanding of the world around them (are they all on laughing gas?) and call it another flip-flop.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Tue, 09-07-2004 - 10:43am

This post clarifies it for you best. Please read it. He did not vote "for the war" and then "against the war":


Doesn't look to me like his position has changed. He's said all along that he didn't vote FOR the war; Mr. Kerry voted in favor of the Senate resolution authorizing GWB to invade Iraq as an absolute LAST resort, when all other avenues were exhausted. Nor did he vote against funding the troops, he voted against funding the troops with NO OVERSIGHT whatsoever....didn't believe (and neither do I) that a blank check should be issued for BILLIONS. And anyway, regardless of Kerry's vote, GWB got his funding......and it's been mismanaged, money is unaccounted for, and the troops STILL do not have their body armor!

Donna
Donna

Pages