Kerry's position, no matter how you feel about it, was that he was committed since the Clinton administration was in office to the removal of Saddam Hussein. He felt that we should use several means, including the use of force if necessary, but only as a last resort, after we had exhausted all other options.
The original initiative concerning the removal of Hussein, the Iraqi Liberation Act, passed during the Clinton presidency, did not contain an authorization of force. It did not proscribe that we go to war to remove Hussein. Provisions:
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS REGARDING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD IRAQ.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.
(a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:
(1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE
(A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.
(B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.
(2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE
(A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.President Bush diverted from the pursuit of bin Laden to prod the U.N. into acting against Saddam Hussein and obtained an initiative that pressured Iraq to come clean on whether or not it still possessed WMD's as the Bush White House had charged.
The U.N. resolution, 1441, called for
"strengthening the weapons inspection regime for Iraq and giving Baghdad, in the words of the resolution, "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
The resolution, number 1441, establishes an enhanced inspection regime for Iraq's disarmament, which will be carried out by the U.N. Monitoring."
The resolution states that Iraq remains in material breach of council resolutions relating to Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and requires that Baghdad give UNMOVIC and IAEA a complete and accurate declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and ballistic missiles systems, as well as information on other chemical, biological, and nuclear programs that are supposed to be for civilian purposes, within 30 days.
It gives UNMOVIC and IAEA, among other things, unrestricted rights of entry and travel into and throughout Iraq; provides for U.N. security for the inspectors; gives the inspectors the right to freeze sites and declare exclusion zones; and gives them the right to conduct interviews, either inside or outside the country, without the presence of Iraqi officials. Most importantly, it gives the inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq, including so-called presidential sites.
The resolution directs Hans Blix, executive chairman of UNMOVIC, and Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA director general, to "report immediately to the council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations." The council will then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security," it says.
Finally, it warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution. (This is from the State Dept. website)'Serious consequences' was code for the use of force which would have to come from the American military. In voting for the resulting Iraq War Resolution, Sen. Kerry understood that he was authorizing the president to back up the U.N. resolution with the use of force if it continued 'to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution.'
Even in the IWR , the resolution states that the president was to use force
only if:
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; andth president was to:
obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that Kerry maintains is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?
This is the foremost provision of the resolution that I believe involves the president and his word.
1.Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?
That is what Kerry is arguing when he says the president misled the country in his rush to war with Iraq. U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't.
You can see in John Kerry's floor statement,(
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html)that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.
But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.
The authority to commit forces is not inherent in the IWR. That authority is contained in the War Powers Act which decades of presidents have used to commit forces for 60 days without congressional approval. I believe that Congress would be loath to remove forces after they were committed.
Some Democrats saw the resolution as a way to restrain Bush and send him back to the U.N. My candidate was desperate to stifle Bush's argument for immediate invasion and sought to mandate a return to the international table by limiting Bush's authority in the resolution.
Whether or not the resolution had passed, Bush was intent on invading and occupying Iraq. He had gone around for days proclaiming that 1441 gave him the authority to do whatever he wanted.
If the resolution had failed, the president I think, would have committed forces anyway as decades of presidents had also put troops in the field for 60 days without congressional approval. In that event, I believe, the Congress would be loath to retreat and remove forces. Then, by law a resolution would have been drawn up, likely resembling the one we have now; urging Bush back to the U.N. and calling for internationalization of the conflict.
That is how determined presidents get us into war. Check and checkmate. It's democracy-lite. It stinks, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to restrain a president from committing forces because of the loopholed prerogative inherent in the War Powers Act, which is referenced in the IWR. I believe that the only way to effectively direct him is through some sort of resolution passed by Congress.
It is possible that a unified front of opposition to the resolution could have turned the public against the plan to invade. But I don't think that was at all possible with the republican majority in the Senate, and in view of Bush's plan to invade with or without congressional approval. Sen. Kerry and other Democrats didn't feel that the president would be restrained with a 'no' vote. They sought to influence his behavior through the resolution.
Bush's position before, during and after invasion was that 1441 gave him authority to do any thing he wanted to in that region. He wanted cover, but the IWR doesn't give him cover for his unilateral, preemptive invasion. Nowhere in the bill does it mandate what he did. Bush disregarded the restraint implied in the resolution and pushed past Congress, the American people, and the world community in his predisposed zeal to invade and occupy Iraq.
I am defending John Kerry in this because he gave an informed (misinformed) rational for his vote. Maybe I wouldn't have made that vote. I don't know what lies the administration put before the U.N. and Congress. I do know that John Kerry opposed what the president ultimately did, before and after the vote. He didn't hide behind clipped rhetoric. He was effusive in his complaints. He was clear in his opposition to unilateral invasion and occupation.
From John Kerry's Floor Speech Before The Vote:
"I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out."
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry... His presidential bid is a natural extension of his promise. He has been consistent in his aim to remove Saddam with international support. He has deeper knowledge than I as to the true nature of the threat posed. Sen. Kerry is no stranger to the debate over our support of Saddam's regime and the corrupting violence proliferated by Hussein. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act supported by Clinton which called for regime change. He has been consistent in his concern for the security of the region and for the potential transfer of bio or chem weapons by an unchecked Iraq. His IWR vote was an extension of that concern.
Congress can act, but the president holds ultimate responsibility to follow the mandate of the people as expressed by their representatives. Congress didn't give Bush permission for his preconceived invasion. They acted in accordance with their obligations under the Constitution and the War Powers Act and did not give a blank check, at least according to the ACLU, who had opposed Bush's first draft of the resolution.
Congress doesn't seem to have the will to collectively stop this war, even in the face of the evidence that Bush inflated the threat. Two massive funding bills have ratified our mostly unilateral occupation there. I must note that my candidate voted against the $87 billion.
I think this fish rots at the head. Bush must go. John Kerry is consistent in seeking the presidency to ensure that the will of Congress, the American people, and the concerns of the international community are not disregarded in the future.
Wishy-washy? Give me a break!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
