JF, Is that what Kerry said, or is that the Ten revision 2.3 version?
intellectualconservative.com
Secondly, a recent report has revealed that Kerry, in 1997, actually supported unilateral military operations to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Appearing on CNN’s “Crossfire”, on Nov. 12, 1997, the great internationalist even declared that the same UN approval he now preaches for on campaign stops wouldn’t be necessary for then-President Bill Clinton to launch an offensive against Saddam’s regime. “The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material breach...so furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests.”
He went on to criticize Germany, France, and Russia, asking where their “backbone” was in standing against Hussein.
Kerry’s 1997 rhetoric sounds vaguely similar to someone from the present day. Who could that be? Why, President Bush, that’s who. So, the lesson is, if a Democrat is in office, Saddam is fair game, but if a Republican is in office, we’re going to war for Halliburton.
There is a very good reason why Kerry is keeping his mouth shut these days, and it all has to do with letting Moveon.org speak on his behalf. At least you know neither Kerry nor Moveon.org would ever flip in their views on President Bush.
<font color=brown>Its time to stop this nonsense now. I am going to assume that you hadn't read the whole interview and didn't realize that you were being mislead and the JFK quotes were taken out of context.
Now here is the whole interview as it pertains to Iraq where the statements are not taken out of context:<font color=black>
"JOHN SUNUNU, CROSSFIRE: Senator Kerry, in fact, in spite of the administration claiming it has restored unanimity, that has not occurred. All the strength of this resolution had to be pulled out of it get any votes at all other than our own. Isn't this exercise actually counterproductive in sending a signal to Iraq that the coalition still remains frayed?
SEN. JOHN KERRY, (D), MASSACHUSETTS, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, John, you're correct that this resolution is less than we would have liked. I don't think anybody can deny that we would have liked it to have threatened force and we would have liked it to carry the term serious consequences will flow. On the other hand, the coalition is together. I mean the fact is there is a unanimous statement by the security council and the United Nations that there has to be immediate, unrestricted, unconditional access to the sites. That's very strong language. And it also references the underlying resolution on which the use of force is based. So clearly the allies may not like it, and I think that's our great concern -- where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity, but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.
...
KERRY: Well, John, there's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country. And obviously it's disappointing. It was disappointing a month ago not to have the French and the Russians understanding that they shouldn't give any signals of weakening on the sanctions and I think those signals would have helped bring about this crisis because they permitted Saddam Hussein to interpret that maybe the moment was right for him to make this challenge.
...
SUNUNU: But isn't what he has seen is a loss of U.S. leadership and an erosion under an administration that has failed to lead?
KERRY: On the contrary. The administration is leading. The administration is making it clear that they don't believe that they even need the U.N. Security Council to sign off on a material breach because the finding of material breach was made by Mr. Butler. So furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests. And clearly it is not just our best interests, it is in the best interests of the world to make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he's not going to get away with a breach of the '91 agreement that he's got to live up to, which is allowing inspections and dismantling his weapons and allowing us to know that he has dismantled his weapons. That's the price he pays for invading Kuwait and starting a war.
...
KERRY: Correct, absolutely correct, and I believe, and they stood with us today and I am saying to you that it is my judgment that by standing with us today and calling for the unrestricted, unconditional, unlimited, you know, access, they have now taken a stand that they are duty bound to enforce and if Saddam Hussein doesn't do that, the president, I think, has begun a process which you remember very well, John, was not done in one week, in one day, in one month. It took months to weave together the fabric to lead up to an understanding of what was at stake. I am convinced that many people have not yet even focused in full measure on what is at stake.
...
PRESS: Are you suggesting, are you calling for a military, U.S. military strike against Iran now before...
SUNUNU: Iraq.
PRESS: Iraq, I'm sorry, before any other United Nations action is taken?
KING: No, I'm saying is that very soon, though, we would have to use the threat of military force because as Bill Richardson said that this, these are delaying tactics brought about by the Iraqis and this is very serious. When you're talking about biological warfare and when you're talking about the fact that they've already adjusted the cameras, they've already fooled around with the equipment which gauges the air, they've already moved some of the devices away from the U.N. inspectors. This is a very, very serious situation and I'm saying that we would have to, I think, threaten very severe military action at an early date. Now exactly what that would be is obviously, we have to get more information on it, but based on I think what all of us know, it is very, very critical and not too much time more can be wasted."
<font color=brown>This conversation clearly doesn't sound anything like George Bush. It is clear throughout the interview that Kerry thought it was necessary to work closely with our allies and to encourage the support of the UN. However, he also reserved the right to "declare a material breach" if necessary. He also made clear that military intervention was something of a last resort.
I also should point out that this interview occurred during that difficult time when the weapons inspectors were trying to wrap up and Saddam was proving difficulty. In fact the interview took place in November and I think the weapon inspectors left Iraq in March,1998.
And finally, Kerry was speaking as a Senator, not the president........a very big difference.
Nonetheless, I like the thoughtful way he parsed his words. That's the way I want my president to speak, not the good ole country boy, space cadet way Bush speaks.
ted |
