Replies

Senate Democrats are attempting to stop the President from prosecuting the Iraq War to a successful outcome. Its useful to look back at the arguments Democrats made in support of removing Sadaam Hussien and justifying their vote to authorize U.S. military action. Many of those who voted in support of the resolution on Oct 10, 2002, have been seeking to disavow their choice ever since the war proved difficult and costly. As President Bush seeks to complete successfully that which the Senate approved, its worth reviewing the reasons (as Kerry set forth here) Congress authorized this action.

"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq
March 20, 2003
http://kerry.senate.gov/high/record.cfm?id=191582

---

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)
Speech at Drake University in Iowa
December 16, 2003
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec03/193182.asp?format=print

---

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

“Even after the overwhelming defeat that the coalition forces visited upon Iraq in and near Kuwait in the Desert Storm conflict, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's truculence has continued unabated. In the final days of that conflict, a fateful decision was made not to utterly vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces, on the grounds that to do so would leave a risky vacuum, as some then referred to it, in the Middle East which Iran or Syria or other destabilizing elements might move to fill.”

Kerry opposed the first Gulf War, incidentally.

“Saddam Hussein, who unquestionably has demonstrated a kind of perverse personal resiliency, may be looking at the international landscape and concluding that, just perhaps, support may be waning for the United States's determination to keep him on a short leash via multilateral sanctions and weapons inspections.”

“We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. .. “

“In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior."

"This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.”

“Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted--which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun--the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.”

Excerpts from the speech, We Must Be Firm With Saddam Hussein, Congressional Record: November 9, 1997 (Senate)[Page S12254-S12256] by John 'F'in Kerry.

I keep these on my homepage:

Kerry says it was not because of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Click on Image to Watch 2 Mb .wmv Video of Kerry saying the reason for invading Iraq was 'Not Weapons of Mass Destruction'

click the Image to watch the video

Transcript: (John Kerry on "Face the Nation" 9/15/02")

I would disagree with John McCain, that it's actual weapons of mass destruction that may be used against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that uh, I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups and invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.

(John Kerry on "Hardball 9/17/02")

But the President, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interest of our country.

If you have the bandwidth, here is the LINK to the better, longer and larger video. This is a 3:35 long, 4 Mb .wmv Video.

If you want the entire video, it is over 12 minutes long and is good quality, so it is 24.7 Mb in .wmv format. Click HERE. This is good stuff.

Senate Democrats are attempting to stop the President from prosecuting the Iraq War to a successful outcome.

Clawing thru the rhetoric, I've concluded that the Dems actually do support the war. Every time they are seriously called on it, every time there is a "for real: stay in or pull out?" vote that would actually do so, every time there is meaningful opportunity to say whether it should or should not be done, the vast majority of Dems who actually influence the reality of the war say an emphatic "YES!"

Whenever the vote or soapbox really doesn't matter (which is most of the time), that's when they say "no."

Tonight, Bush needs to point out "every time Congress has been asked to do or continue doing this, everytime the answer to the question will actually have real-world results, Congress has _almost_unanimously_ approved."

Ignore the chattering classes. Pay attention to what those who matter say, when it matters that they've said it.