It is a common perception that Kerry can't make up his mind, thinking one thing one day and something else the next. One of the points used to illustrate this is his voting on Iraq, where he voted to give Bush his initially requested authority, but then voted against a bill approving more money in Iraq. It should be noted that he voted FOR a bill approving the same money that also included a provision paying for it by rolling back some of Bush's tax cuts, but, when that failed, voted against one lacking any provision to pay for it.
In any case, I think that Kerry's position on Iraq is consistent and strong, and the only reason that people believe he is inconstant is because they don't know anything about it.
Here are exerpts from what he said to the senate on the war in Iraq before the initial vote to give Bush his requested authority:
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.
Quote: By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.
So, that's what Kerry thought he was voting for, and how he felt about the war before it happened. What does he think we should do now?
from the John Kerry for President website:
Quote: A Strategy to Win the Peace in Iraq Level with the American People. Kerry recognizes that the security situation is deteriorating and dangerous. He believes we should stop sugar-coating what?s going on in Iraq. Our troops know how bad it is there. It doesn?t help them for the White House to suggest we are making so much progress when we are not.
Supply Our Military Commanders with the Additional Troops Requested. We have to succeed in Iraq. We simply can?t allow it to become a failed state. That would mean a victory for extremism, new dangers in the Middle East and a breeding ground for anti-American terrorism. To succeed, we are going to need more forces on a temporary basis. Our commanders on the ground have requested it. We should provide it.
Launch a Diplomatic Strategy that will Work. Kerry supports the plan outlined by UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi. The US should immediately seek a UN Security Council resolution authorizing a mission with responsibility for the transition and elections. Kerry believes that we need to get the Iraqi Governing Council to accept the Brahimi Plan.
Establish An International Mission to Ensure Stability and Set up Elections. Kerry believes we need a plan for the period after June 30 when the interim government takes control. We should establish an international mission authorized by the UN to work with the interim government on governance issues, including elections and the reconstruction of Iraq and rebuilding the Iraqi economy. A respected non-American who has the confidence of the UN Security Council should then be asked to run the mission in order to decrease the perception of an American occupation.
Transform U.S. Force into a NATO Security Force Commanded by an American, and Bring in Other Countries. Kerry believes it is possible to transform the U.S. force into a NATO force, commanded by an American. We should send a high-level mission to consult with our NATO partners to encourage their participation and get other countries to participate so that American soldiers and the American people are not bearing nearly all the burden and all the risk. The whole world has an interest in a stable Iraq, but the White House hasn?t demonstrated the ability to bring in our friends and allies in a substantial way.
So, let me see here: Kerry wants an international approach. Kerry wants to devote the necessary resources to fight the war in Iraq long term, just doens't want to pay for it with borrowed money - in other words, he wants to eliminate some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for Bush's war.
These positions are entirely consistent from begining to end.
So, is Kerry a waffle on this issue, or does he have a realistic, sophisticated approach that is consistent through time?
|