SwiftVets.com

[The bandit]

by The Bandit

Sen. Kerry appeared on ABC's "This Week" on February 22, 1998 to talk about his feelings and own plans for dealing with Saddam Hussein. As you listen to him you find this is an entirely different John F. Kerry that had voted against liberating Kuwait in 1991 who voted against the liberation by international troops on a number of grounds - such as in his words - the coalition consisted only of "battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." (Fortunately for Kerry German and French media missed his remark.)

Sen. Kerry argued on "This Week" that the United States should use ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein once and for all if he does not comply with international demands to give up chemical and biological weapons.

Kerry said sending US troops into Iraq should be "the last option, but it is a legitimate option." He said the United States should aim to remove Hussein only "within the framework of international law - in other words, if he remains obdurate and in violation of the United Nations resolutions, and in a position of threat to the world community."

If you are wondering just what he means by "framework of international law" then consider what he wrote in an Op-Ed in the New York Times on September 5, 2002:

"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."

So here Kerry clarifies his position: He sees the United States right to act on it's own under international law even if Security Council fails to act. A position Bill Clinton came out with after the second Gulf War to respond to charges George W. Bush violated international law. After all, the French were accusing Clinton of international law violations every time he bombed Iraq.

When Kerry was speaking on "This Week" in 1998 the Clinton Administration was in the process of drawing up plans for a massive air strike campaign against Iraq. Sen. Kerry clearly felt this was too little and required significant military force to remove Saddam. Here is what Kerry felt about air strikes alone:

"I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world, and what we are at the moment talking about doing [air strikes]." Because Iraq will try to rebuild its chemical and biological weaponry after a US air attack, "we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack," Kerry argued.

Kerry is being very clear that air strikes alone is not going to do the job because as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power he will just rebuild and continue being a threat. It is rather remarkable once Kerry's positions are closely analyzed to just how much resemblance there is between him and George W. Bush on dealing with Iraq.

Bush's debate words still ring true: "He can run, but he cannot hide."
_________________

[Anker-Klanker]

Bandit, thanks for those additional factoids. I don't think I have ever seen those before.

sKerry is like the amorphous blob. Try to define his position on anything, and he's sure to have a record of another postion at another time and place - he's literally all over the place; whatever works for his audience of the moment. I've never seen anything like it, and I'm absolutely certain there's never been so undefinable a person who has run for the nation's highest office. It has to be extremely frustrating for the Bush/Cheney campaign to counter him on anything. He even tries to make a virtue of his changing position by stating that it's good he can change his mind with changing circumstances (including audience?)...