Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: And Then Kerry Said... [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)118. Breitbart was good at that too. I mean
the clip cherry picks quotes to distort the context of his statements. For example, it cites this op-ed.
We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
By John F. Kerry
Published: September 6, 2002
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.
<...>
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html
By John F. Kerry
Published: September 6, 2002
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.
<...>
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-choice-on-iraq.html
I can cherry pick quotes too, but they do not distort the context of his overall point.
Kerry Says US Needs Its Own 'Regime Change'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0403-08.htm
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
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
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
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
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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
214 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
there are photos to take, wood to chop. life in the New Hampshire wilderness has its challenges
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#24
What was Kerry's position on Bush's illegal invasion based on trumped up lies?
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#174
It's so complex, that a decade later we still can't decide why we invaded.
progressoid
Mar 2014
#103
kerry voted for it. He knew more than me who sits in alaska with a modem yet he1
roguevalley
Mar 2014
#169
Are you seriously contending you don't understand the intent of the meme?
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#8
I think we all know you understand unwavering party allegiance pretty well.
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2014
#21
I trust Kerry is forwarding this President's position. That is his job. nt
babylonsister
Mar 2014
#6
Yes. We'll never know how much damage could have been undone or spared ourselves from altogether
Number23
Mar 2014
#45
Why? Try naming another person in DC who investigated and exposed more govt. corruption than Kerry
blm
Mar 2014
#158
With TeamBush and TeamClinton working against you, it's amazing that Bush STILL had to steal it,
blm
Mar 2014
#177
How does pointing out that the US cannot expect to be taken seriously when it says
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#210
Kerry never delivered this message-how was that relevant to begin with? nt
babylonsister
Mar 2014
#36
i just did a 3 word site search and picked one link.... i'm sure there's a ton more....
dionysus
Mar 2014
#31
i provided the link Will. pointing out your glaring hypocrisy trying to score points with the crowd
dionysus
Mar 2014
#87
Dean primary, Kerry in the general. but i'm not the one dissing the guy you were a hardcore
dionysus
Mar 2014
#98
i highly doubt kerry will make that mistake again, and i doubt you think so either. either way,
dionysus
Mar 2014
#111
Is your position that praising a politician in 2003 means you cannot criticize him in 2014?
merrily
Mar 2014
#56
I think the position is that OP praised even after Iraq vote, but is now mad at diplomacy.
JaneyVee
Mar 2014
#61
Did I respond to you? If you want to dismiss that fact, then ignore comments not directed at you. nt
ProSense
Mar 2014
#82
Make that a 30 year liberal voting record now. But yeah, lets just mock him instead.
JaneyVee
Mar 2014
#67
why is everyone acting like Kerry was a mouth piece fore Bush? Seems in 2004 Kerry was
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#48
saddam was an asshole, but not a danger to us. putin is an asshole, but not dangerous to us.
dionysus
Mar 2014
#119
23 Senators voted against authorizing Bush to invade Iraq, they were right.
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#142
And, he was briefed on these concerns and believe he was being told the truth in good faith.
wisteria
Mar 2014
#90
A lot of people believe the reason Kerry lost to Bush was he because was too much like him.
QuestForSense
Mar 2014
#71
then its on all of us for allowing that little motherfucker to stride past Gore into the WH
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#59
Loaded with irony, at least, since Kerry is now the mouthpiece for foreign policy.
Orsino
Mar 2014
#143
God forbid Will Pitt discuss this, given the evidence he published at the time
Hissyspit
Mar 2014
#126
Thanks, Will. It is interesting to watch heads exploding on both sides of the aisle.
madinmaryland
Mar 2014
#74
not backing away. clarifying for the dunderheads who didn't listen closely the first time.
Pretzel_Warrior
Mar 2014
#95
In politics, a 'dunderhead' is anyone who thinks folks listen closely and because of that
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2014
#146
You are right. If we cannot call out the hypocrisy of our party members, then we
madinmaryland
Mar 2014
#194
Hillary needs to "retire" and not run in 2016. Kerry has no plans to run for elected office. n/t
ProSense
Mar 2014
#140
He is no longer an elected official, and he represents the President and the US
wisteria
Mar 2014
#205
Reading the replies in this thread...you would think it was Kerry who invaded Iraq and not Bush
Cali_Democrat
Mar 2014
#197
yes they are ridiculus. I just opened a protest tread. About those often personal critics
mylye2222
Mar 2014
#198