John Kerry: "I'm all for strength, when appropriate" (illuminating interview)

Time magazine ^ | 3/7/2004 | PERRY BACON JR., LISA BEYER, KAREN TUMULTY and JOHN KERRY

[Utah Girl]

As he flew to Florida the morning after Super Tuesday, Senator John Kerry spoke to TIME's Perry Bacon Jr., Lisa Beyer and Karen Tumulty:

TIME: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President?
KERRY: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to—because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament.

TIME: But it turns out there was nothing to disarm.
KERRY: Well, if we had kept on inspecting properly and gone through the process appropriately, we might have avoided almost a $200 billion expenditure, the loss of lives and the scorn of the world and the breaking of so many relationships.

TIME: Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank?
KERRY: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively.

TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?
KERRY: I didn't say that.

TIME: I'm asking.
KERRY: I can't tell you.

TIME: Might the war have been avoided?
KERRY: Yes.

TIME: Through inspections?

KERRY: It's possible. It's not a certainty, but it's possible. I'm not going to tell you hypothetically when you've reached the point of exhaustion that you have to [use force] and your intelligence is good enough that it tells you you've reached that moment. But I can tell you this: I would have asked a lot of questions they didn't. I would have tried to do a lot of diplomacy they didn't.

TIME: You would have asked more questions about the quality of the intelligence?
KERRY: Yes. If I had known that [Iraqi exile leader Ahmed] Chalabi was somebody they were relying on, I would have had serious doubts. And the fact that we learn after the fact that that is one of their sources disturbs me enormously.

TIME: As a Senator, could you not have asked that question?
KERRY: We asked. They said, Well, we can't tell you who the sources are. They give you this gobbledygook. I went over to the Pentagon. I saw the photographs. They told us specifically what was happening in certain buildings. It wasn't.

TIME: You were misled?
KERRY: Certainly by somebody. The intelligence clearly was wrong, fundamentally flawed. Look, the British were able to do a two-month analysis of what happened to their intelligence. This Administration wants to put it off to 2005. It's a national-security issue to know what happened to our intelligence. We ought to know now.

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?
KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

TIME: You've said the foreign policy of triumphalism fuels the fire of jihadists. Is it possible the U.S. show of force in Iraq tempers the fire of jihadists?
KERRY: I'm all for strength when appropriate, and, you bet, there are a lot of countries in the Middle East that understand strength, and it's a very important message. But in my judgment, the way it was applied this time, it has encouraged street-level anger, and I have been told by people it encourages the recruitment of terrorists. I mean, look, even Rumsfeld's own memo underscores that they haven't discovered how to stem the tide of recruitment.

TIME: Why would internationalizing the occupation of Iraq be a more effective strategy for stabilizing the country?
KERRY: The legitimacy of the governing process that emerges from an essentially American process is always subject to greater questioning than one that is developed with broader, global consent.

TIME: How do you bring in others?
KERRY: I spent the time to go to the U.N. and sit with the Security Council before the vote, because I wanted to ascertain what their real state of mind was and whether or not they would be prepared to enforce the resolution, provide troops, whether or not they took it seriously, whether or not they would share costs and burden, and I came away convinced after a two-hour conversation, a lot of questions, that they would.

TIME: You've criticized the pre-emptive nature of the Bush doctrine.
KERRY: Let me emphasize: I'll pre-empt where necessary. We are always entitled to do that under the Charter of the U.N., which gives the right of self-defense of a nation. We've always had a doctrine of pre-emption contained in first strike throughout the cold war. So I understand that. It's the extension of it by the Bush Administration to remove a person they don't like that contravenes that.

[ItsForTheChildren]

But... but... it's nuanced thinking. No really, it is. Really.

[bushfamfan]

Great post. These polls are amazing. I'm only hoping people actually give a listen to what Kerry says, take the time to actually know what he looks like and who he is. He is completely insane and this interview and any interview or speech he gives will show you that.

[MrConfettiMan]

It's clear from this interview that John Kerry is running for President. Then again, perhaps not. Hard to tell.

Funny, I thought I heard he was in the Korean War? Surprised he didn't bring it up.

[cyncooper]

Bumping

I just heard Brit discuss this interview on his roundtable. Actually the other day my attention was drawn to a discussion over on The Corner regarding the WMD's "we still might find them" (Does he realize the implications of what he is saying there? Evidently not) comment.

Will go highlight a couple more passages that are eyebrow raising, to say the least.

[cyncooper]

TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?
KERRY: I didn't say that.


TIME: I'm asking.
KERRY: I can't tell you.

TIME: Might the war have been avoided?
KERRY: Yes.

TIME: Through inspections?


KERRY: It's possible. It's not a certainty, but it's possible.

[cyncooper]

Ping to that TIME interview with Flipper:

TIME: You were misled?
KERRY: Certainly by somebody. The intelligence clearly was wrong, fundamentally flawed. Look, the British were able to do a two-month analysis of what happened to their intelligence. This Administration wants to put it off to 2005. It's a national-security issue to know what happened to our intelligence. We ought to know now.

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?
KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.


TIME: So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes?
KERRY: No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction.

[EllaMinnow]

"No, I think you can still—wait, no. You can't—that's not a fair question..."

Sheesh...

[Spotsy]

Kerry's use of the term all in his statement "I'm all for strength . . . " is indicative of how little appreciation or respect he has for strength.

"I'm all for" is politico-speak for "I don't care" or "I'm opposed."

[Carolinamom]

Does anyone know of published info about WHEN (and if) Kerry went and sat w/the Security Council before the vote as he claims?

I'm sceptical of everything this liar utters.

[mcspur]

Does John Kerry have a stand on anything at all?



That depends on what you want it to be!!! He seems to have a stand to fit whoever he is talking to at the time.

[McGavin999]

Well, considering there are some people who won't even know or care who the canidate is and will just look for the D on the ballot, he stands about a 30% chance.

[cyncooper]

Does anyone know of published info about WHEN (and if) Kerry went and sat w/the Security Council before the vote as he claims?

Good question. I don't, but wouldn't be surprised if your suspicion his account turns out to be less than accurate or, shall I say, honest.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

bump

[VadeRetro]

KERRY: Let me emphasize: I'll pre-empt where necessary.

But I'm going to have a standard of proof that essentially cannot be met before I decide there will be any need for violence.

[230FMJ]

Don't the FLOWERS to stick in the enemy's gun barrels!

[timydnuc]

OK Johnny boy, and anybody else that's listening out there. Today, a country descended into socialism because they were attacked. Today, a people decided not to fight. That's fine, that's their choice. Today, I decided to stand two fold, as always, against the enemy that WILL kill us. Today, the light shines brighter in these United States of America, today we may stand lonelier, but we stand for freedom. The watch that we have always chosen is a lonely one. Free men are not that abundant in this world. Most live under the jackboot of a dictator, or an oligarchy. None have the self government that we do, and they hate it. Envy, self disgust, lack of self respect, I don't know what it is, and I don't care. But, I do know this: when the war is over and the enemy lays dead on the battlefield, we will walk away and give the freedom of God to the people of the world. We will ask for enough land to bury our dead, and we will leave. And for that, we are attacked and despised. I will never understand this world, but I will try to change it.