On the excuse that Kerry really hated the Iraq invasion because he wanted diplomacy

[ProSense]

7. Well,

On the excuse that Kerry really hated the Iraq invasion because he wanted diplomacy

The issue of Kerry and the Iraq War has come up recently as he tells Putin to stop invading other countries. Those who defend John Kerry's vote in 2002 for the authorization to invade Iraq argue the following:

That Kerry really disagreed with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 because Kerry wanted diplomacy first.

But this argument falls flat when we see what Kerry said in a debate during Howard Dean two months after the invasion (May, 2003), even after stating in the same sentence he thought diplomacy was important:

"KERRY: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Dems_Columbia_SC_John_Kerry.htm

...using a statement about disarming Saddam to refute that Kerry wasn't opposed to Bush's invasion is pure BS.

Every Senator supported disarming Saddam.

Feingold on the Senate floor, September 26, 2002:

<...>

The threat we know is real--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction or WMD--is unquestionably a very serious issue. What is the mission? Is the mission on the table disarmament or is it regime change? Has anyone heard a credible plan for securing the weapons of mass destruction sites as part of a military operation in Iraq ? Has anyone heard any credible plan for what steps the United States intends to take to ensure that weapons of mass destruction do not remain a problem in Iraq beyond the facile ``get rid of Saddam Hussein'' rallying cry?

Saddam Hussein is a vile man with a reckless and brutal history, and I have no problem agreeing that the United States should support regime change. I agree with those who assert that Americans, Iraqis, and the people of the Middle East would be much better off if he were no longer in power. But he is not the sole personification of a destabilizing WMD program. Once Hussein's control is absent, we have either a group of independent, self-interested actors with access to WMD or an unknown quantity of a new regime. We may face a period of some chaos, wherein a violent power struggle ensues as actors maneuver to succeed Saddam.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9412-2.pdf#page=1
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2002-09-26/pdf/CREC-2002-09-26-pt1-PgS9413.pdf#page=1

Here is Russ Feingold on October 11, 2002:

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

And I agree, therefore, Mr. President, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Also the Kerry statement you cited is May 2003, weeks after this:

Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm

It was also during a debate with Dean. Here is Dean after Saddam was captured.

Video: Dean reacts to capture news
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/3710796#3710796

Speaking to reporters Sunday, Dean said, "This is a great day of pride in the American military, a great day for the Iraqis and a great day for the American people and, frankly, a great day for the administration. I think President Bush deserves a day of celebration. We have our policy differences, but we won't be discussing those today. I think he deserves a day to celebrate as well."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3710459/

More statements by Kerry during that time.

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html

KERRY, A SENATOR from Massachusetts, first said Thursday that Rumsfeld should step down, saying he proceeded in Iraq “in an arrogant, inappropriate way that has frankly put America at jeopardy.”

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3087318

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

<...>

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.
<...>

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. "Last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter."

I don't believe the United States did that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/debatereferee/debate_0930.html