Senator Kerry's stealth visit on November 2, 2002,
9 AM at Western New England College
I thought you might like to hear about a little democracy in action, but just barely.
I went to hear what Kerry had to say for himself when he showed up, nearly unannounced, in western MA in response to constituents requests to be heard on war in Iraq.
At the entrance, my bag was checked by policemen, who asked me what was in my folders. I told them it was voter information and materials concerning war with Iraq that I wanted to use to make my questions to Kerry clear. The policemen wanted me to leave the entire bag with them because it contained political material (Forsberg signs, etc., and a Regime change starts at home sign). Instead, I put the bag back in my car, but took a moment to cut up a batch of Forsberg palm cards and stuff them in my pocket. Kerry spoke for 45 minutes.
He very often used Bush's own phrases when describing the threat he claimed Iraq posed to the U.S. and Iraqi neighbors. He recited the litany of how many times Saddam Hussein had "miscalculated the U.S." (where have you heard that before?). He said we were going to "drain the swamp where the terrorists are hiding". Sound familiar? He said several times that the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were " summarily kicked out of Iraq".
He said the war powers act gives the president the power to wage war and not tell congress for 60 days, so the Iraq resolution vote was meaningless anyway. He argued that it was not unconstitutional of the Senate to relinquish responsibility to declare war because they had voted. He said it was unnecessary to give the president authority anyway, since war with Iraq has never stopped since in began in 1991. (Did congress declare it then? hmmm...and where have you heard that argument before?)
He said he was concerned 1) about the nuclear threat Iraq posed, and 2) about "slide off" (when fissionable materials slide off the black market ships, into Iraq, I guess) though he allowed we were spending no money to assist in controlled dismantlement of Soviet nuclear weapons.
He admitted in answer to a question from the panelists (3 people--Michael Klare, Sue Root, and one other) that the U.S. relationship with the rest of the world is in the worst shape it has ever been since he was in office. (What does that tell you about his effectiveness?) And he said that though it was an unpopular rationale for war, regime change may be the end of enforcement if Saddam Hussein doesn't comply with the UN. In response to another question from the panel, he said the word "betrayal" and there was loud applause from the audience, approving his inadvertent choice of words.
After parroting President Bush for 45 minutes, at long last he allowed questions from the audience. There were about 100 people. The hall was half empty. (No wonder, as the talk was totally unpublicized. I heard about it by email at 11 PM last night.)
I was the second or third to speak, and stood up and said:
Mr. Kerry, Sir:
You said you would hold the Bush Administration accountable and would strongly object if he tried to interfere or "Dis" the UN and the weapons inspectors in their efforts to find a peaceful way to disarm Saddam Hussein. But how can we be confident that you will do that when you said just a few moments before that the former UNSCOM inspectors were kicked out by Iraq. I know that is not true and I feel that I am being lied to.
It is my understanding that the U.S. withdrew the weapons inspectors in advance of Operation Desert Fox, before they bombed Baghdad in hopes of killing Saddam Hussein. According to Scott Ritter, they chose their targets based on information obtained from spies among the weapons inspectors, in direct violation of the UN resolution that authorized the inspections. The U.S. corrupted the weapons inspectors' mission when it was 90-95% complete.
You are continuing to cover up the truth. How can we trust you to hold Bush accountable this time?
Kerry did not answer my question. Instead he said mine were "strong words," and "inappropriate." He said that he did not take Scott Ritter at face value because he has changed his story, and he was sorry I believed Scott instead of him. I said I was a taxpaying Massachusetts resident who voted for him, that as far as I see it he works for me, and needs to hear my feelings about his words and actions and that I was sorry he found my comments inappropriate as I was trying to be as respectful as I possibly could under the circumstances.
Then he turned to another question, but whispered to an aide to bring him info on Scott Ritter, which the aide dug out of his bag.(Funny that the aide was allowed to bring in notes and documentation, but I wasn't.) When he finished with the other question, he came back to my question re Scott Ritter, and read from Ritter's 1998 testimony before the Senate Intelligence committee in which Ritter said Iraq retained chemical and biological weapons and still posed a threat to the U.S., and his neighbors. Kerry said this contradicted his recent statements.
I replied (without a microphone this time, but loudly) that I did not see this as a contradiction, as Scott Ritter is a perfectionist who was asking to be allowed to complete his mission in 1998. He was only 90-95% finished and wanted to be 100% finished. When his direct bosses told him he could not finish the job (for domestic political reasons), he went to his bosses' bosses, i.e. We, the American people. These are Scott Ritter's own words in answer to my question back in April about why he would turn against the authority he was sworn to serve. Ritter said his job was to tell the truth about what he found in Iraq and he was continuing to do just that.
So, folks, my evaluation is that though he denies it, Kerry has changed, or perhaps by seeing him in person, I was finally able to see the real Kerry. When Democrat Kerry shamelessly parrots the unelected Resident, a cowboy known for his malapropisms, by way of explaining his vote to give carte blanche for pre-emptive first strikes with or without UN backing, it is clear that a) he thinks we are really stupid, or b) he thinks such rhetoric worked for Bush, maybe it will work for him.
As the meeting ended, I stood up and loudly said that there was a write-in candidate for Kerry's Senate seat, Randall Forsberg, who is a disarmament and non-proliferation expert who represents those of us who disagree with Kerry's vote and that I would be happy to share information with anyone interested on the way out. Then I stood at the door and handed out approximately 50 of Melinda's Forsberg-for-Senate palm cards which I had smuggled in. All but a handful of people took them, gratefully, thanking me for speaking out and representing their opinions. One person said I was rude and arrogant and only damaged my cause. Oh well. You can't please everybody. |
