Nomorelies
Vice Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 977
Location: Texas
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:24 am Post subject: Kerry then and now: Antiwar |
 |
|
I came across some great information on Kerry's position prior to Gulf War I when he voted against the war. Read this and see whether you think that Kerry is tragically flawed by his experience in Vietnam or simply unconstitutionally capable of making a commitment to use military force for any reason.
| Quote: |
From the outset, Kerry argued for a diplomatic solution. Three weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait, Kerry said he supported President Bush’s swift deployment of troops to the region and the administration’s insistence that Hussein pull out. But he said Hussein should be given more diplomatic wiggle room for withdrawal. “My greatest fear is this issue is too much box and not enough capacity to move out,” Kerry told editors and reporters at the Boston Globe on August 27, 1990. “That line is pointing in a very dangerous direction.”
Instead, Kerry said, the White House should use back channels to Baghdad to signal a willingness to see Iraq’s claim on specific Kuwaiti territory adjudicated in an international forum. He added that the Bush administration should also indicate possible support for new initiatives to settle the Arab-Israeli stalemate over the occupied West Bank. These options, Kerry said, could produce a diplomatic opening for Hussein’s withdrawal. He was worried about “saber rattling” from Washington, but he insisted that Iraq’s nuclear program must be dismantled by “diplomatic, covert, or overt measures.” |
| Quote: | Since Vietnam, Kerry said, the American public had been “reaching for a set of ruling principles about when we go to war,” with the consensus arriving that “we should go to war when our vital interests are at stake in a way that the majority of Americans have identified and are agreed upon, and when we have exhausted all peaceful alternatives.”
That was not the case in the Persian Gulf, Kerry argued. “There is a rush to war here. [Because we think our military force can overwhelm Iraq], we are willing to act . . . with more bravado than patience.”
Pressure on Congress to rally around the president was wrongheaded, Kerry said, as it had been years earlier when “it cost us thousands of lives” in Vietnam. “It look to me like backing up the President’s decision has become the new vital interest, not the immediate liberation of Kuwait . . . It sounds like we are risking war for pride, not vital interests!” He also rejected the argument that supporting Bush’s resolution would give the administration leverage to force Hussein out of Kuwait. . . “That thinking is dangerous and flawed,” Kerry said, “This is not a vote about sending a message. It is a vote about war.”
In his lengthy speech . . . he repeatedly criticized Bush and his “unilateral” rush to war. “We are in this position today because the president of the United States made a series of decisions that have put us in this position.” With economic sanctions tightening their grip on Iraq, “there is no one who suggests that Saddam Hussein is winning anything today,” Kerry said.
In contrast to Kerry’s detailed condemnation of Bush, his references to the dangers posed by Hussein were brief and dismissive. Kerry acceded he was “well aware of the long-term danger of his arsenal – of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons.” But, he said, if the United States killed Hussein, another despot would take his place – unless the United States were to pursue “real peacemaking in the region.”
Kerry condemned “our impatience with sanctions and diplomacy,” noting that the country was not ready for the horrors of war, “for what it will witness and bear if we go to war.” |
For the complete story go to:
http://americanfuture.typepad.com/american_future/2004/10/kerry_on_the_gu.html#more
_________________
Nomorelies Make a donation HERE |
|
Anker-Klanker
Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 1033
Location: Richardson, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Amazing! He's using the exact same rhetoric and rationalization. I had to re-read carefully to be sure that it really was talking about the first Gulf War.
And BTW, he can't be "constitutionaly incapable" since he doesn't believe in the Constitution. |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
