WP headline- "Kerry Says Bush Mistakes in Iraq Could Lead to Unending War"

[Rose Siding]

NEW YORK -- Sen. John Kerry said Monday that mistakes by President Bush in invading Iraq could lead to unending war and that no responsible commander in chief would have begun the war knowing Saddam Hussein didn't possess weapons of mass destruction and wasn't an imminent threat to the United States.

"Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious?" the Democratic presidential candidate said at New York University.
.....
Kerry said Monday, "Is he really saying to Americans that if we had known there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is resoundingly no because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," Kerry said. "But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34964-2004Sep20.html?nav=rss_politics/elections/2004

Good coverage today.

[BootinUp]

1. Send the idiot back to Crawford TX!

From what I have read, the speech kicked ass!

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I just heard the speech AMAZING speech

now will the tele carry it this afternoon or will CBS memo kill it

Any odds from the gallery?

[Goldmund]

3. Well, it's time for Kerry to readress the question of...

...whether he would have, had he known what he knows now, voted for IWR.

[David Dunham]

4. Stupid Rather memos story get air time.

[IIgnoreNobody]

5. It's time for Bush to readdress the question of

whether he made the right choice in kicking the inspectors out and rushing to war in Iraq, without a plan, without a real coalition, and then declaring 'Bring it On'.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.” He said that military action wasn’t “unavoidable.”

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the “capability” to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

[Uzybone]

8. thank you for that post

Bush is the one who needs to answer questions. Kerry has explained his position again and again.

[Goldmund]

10. Yeah, and it's time for Osama to stop killing innocent people.

I'm not about to give any advice to Bush, since 1) He's a criminal and his only motive is acquisition of wealth, so any question that assumes Bush's good intentions is automatically hollow; 2) Bush is not my guy and I want him defeated, so why advise him and 3) No point in preaching to the choir on DU.

[Guaranteed]

6. He did, in the speech.

He said Congress did the right thing, but Bush did the wrong thing.

[Goldmund]

9. But that makes no sense.

Because the trustworthiness of the holder of the office of Presidency should also have been one of the factors to shape that decision. Kerry is addressing this in the abstract, not as a specific, real-world situation. Millions of us knew what Bush was going to do with that authorization and that he was going to use IWR as an equivalent of a declaration of war. Why didn't Kerry know that? Beyond that, he knows it now; so, the "new" information he has isn't just that Iraq had no WMDs, but also that Bush couldn't be trusted with a blank check to go to war -- so, knowing those two things, how could he possibly say that the Congress did the right thing?

IMO, the Congress never does the right thing when it hands power to the Executive Branch that the Executive Branch shouldn't hold. These "resolutions" that the US has grown accustomed to are plain and simple subversions of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly says that only the Congress should declare war, not the President. Voting for a resolution that places that decision in the hands of the President is in itself a sin in my book.

[Guaranteed]

11. That was Kerry's mistake, and Kerry should probably say that.

His mistake was trusting Bush.

[Goldmund]

12. Yes, I agree completely.

Just that one small thing would do wonders for the coherency of his position.

[drdigi420]

7. They aren't mistakes, perpetual war IS the goal

it's profitable