Bush Says Public Ratified Iraq Approach.

Bush Says Public Ratified Iraq Approach

Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:37 PM ET

www.reuters.com

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said the public's decision to re-elect him ratified his approach toward Iraq, The Washington Post reported.

 

There was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the aftermath, Bush said. :burn:

 

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview published in the newspaper's Sunday edition.

 

"The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me," Bush said.

 

With Iraqi elections two weeks away and no signs of the violent insurgency there abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops, the Post said.

 

He twice declined to endorse outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end.

 

He said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.

 

In the wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans.

 

He said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups.

 

He said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization of the system.

 

The president urged Americans to show patience as Iraq moves slowly toward creating a democratic nation where a dictatorship once stood.

 

But the relentless optimism that dominated Bush's speeches before the U.S. election was sometimes replaced by pragmatism and caution, the Post said.

 

"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy ... I am more patient than some."

Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009.

 

"The sooner the Iraqis are ... better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said.

 

A report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that."

 

Asked why the administration has so far failed to locate Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said, "Because he's hiding."

 

© Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.

So this is something that someone from The Onion wrote that Reuters accidently thought was real, right?

how twisted is that?

 

what % of the american population if polled would say Iraq is going well?

What % think Iraq is a freakin' disaster that should never have happened?

 

and what % of the total population actually vote for Bush?

its regrettable, but i have family and friends who have family that voted for bush.

 

reason? they live in the predominatley white, and very segregated midwest. no large international cultural communitys, lots of all american war vets, tax breaks, fear, the media is pretty much run by the white house and tax breaks.

 

i mean you cant front... this admin. lies really fucking good. its really much easier to believe them then deal with the mental torment of knowing our country has been taken over by criminals, destabalized the world, started world war 3...you hear hersh or whatever his name is pretty much predicting the war spreading to iran, syria..etc...i mean...our treasury is bankrupted, education and social infrastructure are going down the tubes, our military has been hijacked and thrown into a over budget under equipped war while haliburton makes billions on top of the fact that most evidence points to 9/11 being an inside job.

 

if people in the midwest that voted for bush, and there is no way that fool really won, he didnt win the first time...you think hes just gonna be like...ok lets have a fair election...naww...if those people that support bush could grasp what is really going on it would probably drive them crazy.

 

anyway.

 

did i mention im going to a rally to yell shit at people today?

i don't think they lie very well at all, but it's true people would

rather appropriate the state syntax than deal with the brutal reality

of their own countries external behaviour and the people who

engineer and manage it.

your right...they lie horribly to our faces.

thats why they are good at it. they got everbody all scared and its less scary to believe their lies than it is to know their lying and have your entire safe secure american, we kick ass and kill people while eating apple pie driving our cars god bless the usa we are the best lifestyle mental mindset compromised.

 

ok, im out to go yell shit.

 

peace.

Originally posted by Jimmy Jump@Jan 16 2005, 11:31 PM

A report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen.

 

Asked why the administration has so far failed to locate Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush said, "Because he's hiding."

Quoted post

 

Somewhat speculative?

what a douche bag. at least it acknowledged it could happen.

 

Because he's hiding.

damn, I really hate to give that to him...but thats fucking funny.

I chilled with this Brit wacko this weekend.

His whole family are military and some are way up

in the SAS. According to him, whenever there's UK

involvement in a 'situation' like Iraq, the SAS guys

will be there weeks in advance scoping the place out.

 

according to him, and this could just be his own UK pride talking,

the US made it clear that they wanted to find Bin Ladden and

capture him themselves. He says that the SAS hasn't been put

on the tack of finding him, but if they had, it would have been done years ago.

 

I cant say he's correct in his statement,

but it's interesting to think that the US

might not be accepting obvious help just

so they can claim responsibility for finding him.

interesting but not all that surprising...especially when you consider Bush and the Texas mentality.

Originally posted by <KEY3>@Jan 17 2005, 11:35 AM

how twisted is that?

 

what % of the american population if polled would say Iraq is going well?

What % think Iraq is a freakin' disaster that should never have happened?

 

and what % of the total population actually vote for Bush?

Quoted post

 

if you were to ask faux news, they'd say it's going damn well...in fact, they'd say president bush was very popular...they'd say he was just as popular now as he was when he first got elected...before september 11, before iraq war,......fuck i hate faux.

According to another reporter Bush and the cronies are also using the election as a sign that they must continue the war on terror elsewhere.

 

quote form article: (speaking on invading Iran)

 

"Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

 

Complete article here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/...iran/index.html

 

 

one mess is not enough.

hahaha... 'faux' news.

 

I just followed a google news link to 'the political highs and lows of 2004'

without checking to see the source. So If I told you that the high of the

year was the hugely successful RNC in NewYork and the big loser:

• Pinkerton said the clear loser in 2004 was “unreconstructed blue-state liberalism.” He said the left-leaning intellectual elite and Hollywood culturalists missed their chance to reshape the party before it was too late. In the end, they lost seats in Congress and they lost the White House.
   
  Hall said inarticulate Democrats will continue to lose big, until “it figures out how to speak more clearly on what it stands for and what it will do in 2008.”

which 'news' network would you guess deserves credit?

I hate it here.

delusional

let me first say i move more libertarian/constitutional party everday, but lets get a clue here guys. everyone on here bashing bush, talk about how bad iraq is, why we shouldnt be there, blah blah blah, and yet you all voted for KERRY! he voted to GO TO WAR. So did his lib buddies, clinton preached about saddam being a threat and harbored ideas of war. i dont see a difference. while your right, alot of people hate bush, you cant deny the fucking numbers. he won both popular and electoral votes. by a good amount, the most majority in a damn long time some say ever. then you have some saying, we should can the electoral college. I have to side with Ron Paul on the issue.

The DNC is in bad shape. if they want to win, they must either come up with a gimmick or move to the center. liberal candidates dont swing in most of america. face it guys, there is a world outside the liberal bastions of your cities you all live in. look even at clinton atleast he ran as a more conservative democrat, (though he didnt govern the way he ran)and not john kerry, so limp wristed till about 4 months before the election, he tried to be pro gun, neutral on gay marriage, changed his mind like 10 times on iraq, etc etc etc. I see american politics as this:

to get elected you cant be extreme or either side. look at how popular moderate republicans are. look at the small popularity with the public of pro life, and/or pro gun democrats. (the few they are) yet the bulk of democrats are liberals through and through, and only use the more conservative dems when they need too, to prove something, and then toss them to the side.

One funny thing about all this is, when it comes to ideology. ever notice how when someone calls a liberal a liberal, they take great offense and deny it, and point out how they are central or more conservative? never fails every time. when someone calls them a conservative they take pride.

someone once said, the easiest way to convert a liberal was to have them move out of there parents house and get a job and if that doesnt work you might have to talk to them...

I apologize for my brevity but it's getting late and I get up early and I've had a long day but I will try to address this completely. Kerry authorized the use of force on Iraq under certain conditions. Which were not met. Kerry has a very long speech he gave that was quite articulate and elegant that laid out the main points of the conditions which were given to justify use of force in Iraq. And Bush practically threatening inspectors to get out or face the consequences weren't one of the conditions, trust.

 

As far as I'm concerned Bush stole this election as well as the last one. And there is plenty of evidence for that.

 

I don't know what canning the electoral college will solve. It was established to protect the interests of less populated states.

 

As for all the party posturing I'm not really concerned with that at all. I'm not nearly as concerned with how a candidate sells himself as I am with the product he or she is selling. I'm not really influenced by the circus of campaigning at all other than how it is going to influence other people (which is unfortunately alot). Let their actions speak for them. Not this sideshow of surrealpolitik that is very much a farce in the first place.

 

Oh and I'm not a liberal. I'm an anarchist. Always been one. Always will be. I can't always say that but that's what I am... and when I say I'm not a liberal, I mean it.

 

And I hope you are not telling me to leave my parents and get a job etc.. etc...

A closer look at the left wing will show you that it's very worker oriented, proletariat, advocate of the downtrodden. So if you think that liberals are a bunch of pot smoking hippie college kids I would like for you to see this article. Ever wonder why scientists are liberals and economists are conservatives? I thought this article was a very striking psychological analysis of that phenomenon...

 

http://www.dieoff.org/page141.htm

 

LUNATIC POLITICS

by Jay Hanson, June 6, 1998

 

What the scientist's and the lunatic's theories have in common is that both belong to conjectural knowledge. But some conjectures are much better than others...

-- Sir Karl Popper, THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

 

Once one gets the scorecard straight, then it will become apparent that twentieth-century neoclassical theory resembles nothing so much as the child's game of Mr. Potatohead -- the fun comes in mixing and matching components with little or no concern for the coherence of the final profile.

-- Mirowski, MORE HEAT THAN LIGHT

 

When it comes to public policy, lunatics have a clear advantage over scientists for two fundamental reasons: (1) lunatic knowledge is always certain, but the scientists' epistemology (theory of knowledge) is inherently uncertain; (2) lunatic cosmology (worldview) is always normative (i.e. "political"), but the scientists' cosmology leads to moral and political ambiguity.

 

I divide knowledge into two categories: "scientific" and "lunatic." The differences between the two categories concern the methods used to obtain the knowledge.

 

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD: WORK TO FALSIFY

Scientific knowledge is "empirical" (based on observation or experiment) and is not inherently normative. Scientists formulate statements that can be tested (hypotheses), and then try to "falsify" them by experiment. If a statement can't be tested, then it's not scientific. Moreover, all scientific knowledge is "provisional" -- scientists assume that subsequent experiments may disprove any hypothesis.

 

Scientific knowledge is that knowledge which can be disproved, but has not yet been disproved. Thus, scientific knowledge is inherently uncertain.

 

THE LUNATIC METHOD: FAITH AND DECEPTION

Lunatic knowledge is based on a certain "faith" and is inherently "political." Milton Friedman is probably the best known and most widely respected free-market economist in the world. Friedman won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976. In 1989, Friedman's FREE TO CHOOSE was the best selling nonfiction book in the United States and it was translated into most major languages.

 

Here Friedman identifies the origin of his free-market political crusade:

 

"Adam Smith's key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit." [1]

 

Since economists do not explicitly define "benefit" -- let alone measure it -- one might ask how Friedman could possibly know? In fact, he doesn't -- Friedman is imposing his personal values on others. Here George Brockway compares the vocabulary of physics with that of value-laden economics:

 

"The vocabulary of physics is amoral -- not antimoral, but amoral. Mass, force, and velocity have no moral implications because the laws describing them have no alternatives. The vocabulary of economics, in contrast, abounds in ethical terms. It is impossible to define 'good,' 'service,' or even 'utility' without making ethical judgments. Every object has mass, but not every object has utility. Moreover, some people may consider a certain object a good while others do not, but there can be no disagreement about the equivalence and direction of action and reaction. There is no other or better way for a body to fall in a vacuum than s=½gt2; this is not because physicists don't happen to be interested in making this a better world. There is no unchanging price for a bushel of wheat; and this is not because economists don't happen to be interested in a stable universe. The price of wheat depends upon what people do, but bodies fall as they do regardless of what people do or think.

 

"Economics is not value free, and no amount of abstraction can make it value free. The econometricians' search for equations that will explain the economy is forever doomed to frustration. It is often said that their models don't work, because, on the one hand, the variables are too many and, on the other, the statistical data are too sparse. But the physical universe is as various as the economic universe (they are, to repeat, both infinite), and Newton had fewer data and less powerful means of calculation than are at the disposal of Jan Tinbergen and his econometrician followers. The difference is fundamental, and the failure to understand it reduces much of modern economics to a game that unfortunately has serious consequences." [2]

 

Upon closer examination, one discovers that the economist's crusade has nothing to do with science, it's a religious crusade! Adam Smith believed that God's divine plan was revealed in a free market: "the divine being, ... contrived and conducted the immense machine of the universe, so as to at all times to produce the greatest possible quantity of happiness."

 

Economic historian Deborah Redman explains: "Because the order of nature is providential, the free market that reflects natural order also reflects the workings of providence. In this way the spheres of morality, theology, jurisprudence, and economics become hostages to nature, so to speak." [3]

 

Smith's free market commandment: "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interests in his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men." (Did Smith know that these "laws of justice" would be authored by the same monsters we need to be protected from?)

 

One of the pioneers of modern economics, Hermann Gossen, argues for free markets by not only telling us that the maximization of individual pleasure is God's will, it is "life's ultimate purpose." Gossen maintains that any moral restraint would inhibit God's master plan. As Gossen puts it, "It would only frustrate totally or in part the purpose of the Creator were we to attempt to neutralize this force in total or in part, as is the intention of some moral codes promulgated by men." And he asks with moral indignation: "How can a creature be so arrogant as to frustrate totally or partly the purpose of his creator?" [4]

 

These days, disciples of the free market God rarely invoke His name in public debate. These days, His disciples disguise their religious and political agendas in circular (logically meaningless) argument. Robert Kuttner describes the economist's basic premise:

 

"Those who believe society can best be understood as a series of markets begin by positing a rational, calculating individual whose goal is to maximize 'utility.' This premise says everything and nothing, since it is true by definition in all cases. But it is a key aspect of the market model, since it is the behavioral part of the logical argument that whatever the market decides must be optimal." [5]

 

Economists assume people that people make "rational" [6] decisions but abstain from testing that assumption. Instead of testing, economists invoke "revealed preferences theory" which states that choices are rational because they are based on preferences that are known through the choices that are made [7]. In other words, economists resort to meaningless, circular arguments and mathematical conjuring tricks to justify their normative claims.

 

If one accepts the first circular argument, then one is conditioned to accept all the rest of the economist's circular arguments:

 

"There is at the core of the celebration of markets a relentless tautology. If we begin, by assumption, with the premise that nearly everything can be understood as a market and that markets optimize outcomes, then everything else leads back to the same conclusion -- marketize! If, in the event, a particular market doesn't optimize, there is only one possible inference: it must be insufficiently marketlike. This epistemological sleight of hand is an astonishing blend that blurs the descriptive with the normative. It is a no-fail system for guaranteeing that theory trumps evidence. Should some human activity not, in fact, behave like an efficient market, it must be the result of some interference that should be removed or a stubborn human refusal to appreciate markets. It cannot possibly be that the theory fails to specify accurately how human behavior works." [8]

 

Researchers who actuality observe humans making decisions, find that economists are wrong. Humans give undue importance to recently presented information.

 

What does this mean? Simply put, people are manipulated by information providers -- the last commercial has the most influence. Change the order of the messages, and one changes the choices made (no need to change the prices -- or the content).

 

What are the implications? If people are not "rational", the economist's normative claim for market outcomes can not be defended -- can not be used to rationalize the ongoing destruction of the planet. Unfortunately, formal education seems to immunize economists against logic.

 

Knowledge derived from "revelation" and circular argument certainly belongs in the lunatic category. Moreover, economics students rarely detect the deception and usually leave school with lifelong political missions -- probably incurable.

 

SCIENTIFIC COSMOLOGY

In BEYOND GROWTH, Herman Daly notes that the scientific cosmology is "mechanical" (amoral):

 

"... that Sagan, Wilson, and Gould proclaim the cosmology of scientific materialism, which considers the cosmos an absurd accident, and life within it to be no more than another accident ultimately reducible to dead matter in motion. In their view there is no such thing as value in any objective sense, or purpose, beyond short-term survival and reproduction, which are purely instinctual and thus ultimately mechanical."

 

Someone with a scientific cosmology is morally ambiguous:

 

"Calling for a moral compass in such a world is as absurd as calling for a magnetic compass in a world in which you proclaim that there is no such thing as magnetic north. A sensitive compass needle is worthless if there is no external lure toward which it is pulled. A morally sensitive person in a world in which there is no lure of objective value to pull and persuade this sensitized person toward itself is like the compass needle with no external magnetic force to act on it." [9]

 

Burdened with uncertainty and a world without purpose, scientists simply can not compete with lunatics in matters of public policy.

 

LUNATIC COSMOLOGY

In the 1870s, William Stanley Jevons explicitly defined the cosmology of economics as normative (moral):

 

"... the mechanics of utility and self-interest ... to satisfy our wants to the utmost with the least effort -- to procure the greatest amount of what is desirable at the expense of the least desirable -- in other words, to maximize pleasure, is the problem of economics." [10]

 

In THE ECONOMIC WAY OF THINKING, economist Paul Heyne tells us that we really don't "need" things like clean water, because there are no "needs." There are only "wants", and these are backed up by purchasing power, or "demand." Demand can always find substitutes, says Heyne, for there are "substitutes everywhere." [11]

 

In his 1974 lecture to the American Economic Association, Robert Solow defended his illusion of unlimited economic growth: "the world can, in effect, get along without natural resources." Like an alchemist who claims that he can change lead into gold, Solow is claiming that he can change money into any exhaustible resource: "at some finite cost, production can be freed of dependence on exhaustible resources altogether." [12] (In 1987, Solow won the Nobel Prize for economics.)

 

How would a Nobel Prize-winning economist solve our global environmental crisis? Friedman:

 

"Ecological values can find their natural space in the market, like any other consumer demand. The problems of the environment, like any other problem, can be resolved through price mechanisms, through transactions between producer and consumer, each with his own interests." [13]

 

So with a boundless faith in the market founded on "revelation" and circular argument, promises of endless material growth, and a product endorsed by God himself, lunatics lead humanity into a new Dark Age from which it will never emerge...

 

No other discipline attempts to make the world act as it thinks the world should act. But of course what Homo sapiens does and what Homo oeconomicus should do are often quite different. That, however, does not make the basic model wrong, as it would in every other discipline. It just means that actions must be taken to bend Homo sapiens into conformity with Homo economicus. So, instead of adjusting theory to reality, reality is adjusted to theory.

-- Lester Thurow

 

We must stop crying to the growing economy, "Deliver me,

for thou are my god!" Instead, we must have the courage

to ask with Isaiah, "Is there not a lie in my right hand?"

-- Herman Daly

 

References:

[1] pp. 1-2, FREE TO CHOOSE, Milton and Rose Friedman; Harvest, 1980 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156334607

[2] pp. 38-39, THE END OF ECONOMIC MAN, George Brockway; Norton, 1995 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393313522

[3] p. 237, THE RISE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AS A SCIENCE, Deborah Redman; MIT, 1997 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262181797

[4] p. 45, HUMANIST ECONOMICS, Mark Lutz and Kenneth Lux; Bootstrap Press, 1988

[5] p. 41, EVERYTHING FOR SALE, Robert Kuttner; Knopf, 1997 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394583922

[6] "The social sciences have a long, rich history of writings on rationality. In the tradition of neoclassical economic science, as in the writings of Pareto (1935), an action is rational when it corresponds with the ends or goals sought. Rationality means the adaptation of means to ends. The more congruent the means to the ends, the more efficient the decision and, therefore, the more rational the organization (Weber 1947). Economists abstain from applying the test of rationality to ends." [p.16, DECISION MAKING: ALTERNATIVES TO RATIONAL CHOICE MODELS, Mary Zey; Sage, 1992] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0803947518

[7] p. 31, RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY AND ORGANIZATIONAL THEORY: A CRITIQUE, Zey; Sage, 1998 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0803951361

[8] p. 6, Kuttner.

[9] p. 20, BEYOND GROWTH, Herman Daly; Beacon, 1996 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807047090

[10] p. 25, ADAM SMITH'S MISTAKE, Kenneth Lux; Shambhala, 1990 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087773593X

[11] pp. 84-85, Ibid.

[12] p. 117, STEADY-STATE ECONOMICS, Herman Daly; Island Press, 1991 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1559630728

[13] p. 32, ECONOMISTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, Carla Ravaioli; Zed, 1995 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1856492788

if your an anarchist then you should be the last one voting for kerry. both bush and kerry want big government.

perhaps we need a refresher course.

 

 

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to

develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That

is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We

want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass

destruction program."

- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal

here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,

chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest

security

threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times

since 1983." S

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.

Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,

air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to

the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction

programs."

- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John

Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass

destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he

has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

"Hussein has . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass

destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of St ate, Nov. 10, 1999

 

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons

programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs

continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam

continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a

licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten

the United

States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,

December 5, 2001

 

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a

threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the

mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction

and the means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

 

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical

weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept.. 23, 2002

 

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to

deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in

power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

 

"We have known for many years that Saddam H ussein is seeking and developing

weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

 

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are

confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and

biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to

build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence

reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

 

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority

to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe

that a deadly arsenal o f weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real

and

grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

 

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively

to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the

next five y ears ... We also should remember we have always underestimated

the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

 

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every

significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his

chemical and biologica l weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has

refused to do" Rep.

- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

 

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that

Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons

stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has

also

given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members

. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will

continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,

and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

 

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam

Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for

the pr oduction and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

 

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,

murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a

particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to

miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his

continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction

.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real

.."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

How many times do I have to see this list of quotes?

Sanctions were put in place and reenforced by Clinton to prevent Saddam from furthering his WMD capability. The first gulf war and then missle strikes in the late 90s took care of the rest of his stockpiles. Sanctions continually degraded his capability. If by some off chance that he did have WMDs stowed away in his shoes or something we were going to make sure he didn't.

There is a very clear, and lucid speech by John Kerry deliniating what would constitute authority for going to war, as I've said to you before... I don't like running in circles but since you didn't read it as I suggested I will present it here for you.

And yes I'm an anarchist but it's pointless to vote for yourself. I might be an idealist but I apply it in a realistic manner. John Kerry in this election was the closest to realizing the goals for america I would like to see. Surely you should know this and I shouldn't have to defend myself to you. Why did Greens vote for Kerry? Same thing. Please stop posting that list of quotes as your modus operandi for your (what you should be realizing) weak argument. You have no idea I see republicans regurgitate this stuff over and over and over again. What? Saddam Hussein was never our enemy before or something? Saddam never had WMD before? Of course he did! The point is he didn't now, we had inspectors and we had sanctions and that was doing just fine as the Duelfer Report has concluded what those who are not copy/pasting talking points already know. We had inspectors there.... we did not have justification for war. End of story, I'm tired of arguing about it really. I'm in the military, I deal with this crap every day.

Here it is:

 

 

Kerry Info Center : John Kerry News Archive - 2004 Presidential Race : John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War

 

TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR

October 9, 2002

 

Obviously, with respect to an issue that might take Americans to war, we deserve time, and there is no more important debate to be had on the floor of the Senate. It is in the greatest traditions of this institution, and I am proud to take part in that debate now.

 

This is a debate that should be conducted without regard to parties, to politics, to labels. It is a debate that has to come from the gut of each and every Member, and I am confident that it does. I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now.

 

I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that.

 

We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past.

 

Most importantly, it is a time when international institutions must rise to the occasion and seek new authority and a new measure of respect.

 

In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.

 

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

 

Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him?

 

It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

 

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

 

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material.

 

Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them.

 

I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

 

He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.

 

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

 

Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case.

 

By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best.

 

Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation's Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like CHUCK HAGEL and DICK LUGAR, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy.

 

It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq--seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

 

Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms--and there are many in this body and beyond--can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq. The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq.

 

The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections--and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections--is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That is the way in which you make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war's sake, and not to accomplish goals that don't meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves.

 

I am pleased that the Bush administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq. That shift has made it possible, in my judgment, for the Senate to move forward with greater unity, having asked and begun to answer the questions that best defend our troops and protect our national security. The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question--not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.

 

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.

 

I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure.

 

He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.

 

It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf.

 

Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime.

 

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year.

 

Absent a foreign supplier, it might be longer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President's resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force. So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it.

 

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

 

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

 

As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons?

 

And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance?

 

That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past.

 

The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat.

 

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

 

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

 

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

 

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

 

When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction.

 

In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: "Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

 

This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction.

 

I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

 

The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has.

 

I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for.

 

The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text.

 

The President has challenged the United Nations, as he should, and as all of us in the Senate should, to enforce its own resolutions vis-a-vis Iraq. And his administration is now working aggressively with the Perm 5 members on the Security Council to reach a consensus. As he told the American people Monday night: "America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm."

 

 

And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them--will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond.

 

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.

 

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

 

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

 

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is 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 joint concert with our allies.

 

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 and immediate inspection 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 among the first to speak out.

 

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

 

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

 

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

 

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

 

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

 

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

 

Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort.

 

American success in the Persian Gulf war was enhanced by the creation of an international coalition. Our coalition partners picked up the overwhelming burden of the cost of that war. It is imperative that the administration continue to work to multilateralize the current effort against Iraq. If the administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to invest, to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense program of inspection, or if necessary, through the use of force. That is the best way to proceed.

 

The United States, without question, has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally. But we do need friends. We need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, overflight rights from allies in the region. And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends more than anything else on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged.

 

I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone.

 

If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right.

 

The challenge is great: An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.

 

The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity. It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested sometime in the next days. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends ultimately on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation.

 

He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power.

 

By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate.

 

I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this.

 

It is through constant questioning we will stay the course, and that is a course that will ultimately defend our troops and protect our national security.

 

President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time:

 

"The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are... The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission."

 

So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator.

 

I yield the floor.

©2005 Independents For Kerry

Here is an article, about the eve of war in Iraq, the weapons inspectors finding no smoking gun, Saddam himself insisting he has no WMD....

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/wbr.wmds.question/

 

You see... there was no justification for war because democrats, and even some republicans, not to mention the rest of the world wanted to see all ends exhausted before declaring war WHICH IS AN ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT.................................

 

"And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein." - John Kerry....

 

Man everything pisses me off..... :hatred:

 

I saw a BBC report the other day showing that the majority of the world does not feel safer now that Bush is reelected.

i don't know any liberals that are in denial.

and i've found that people that bitch about liberals

aren't very good at articulating what exactly

is so bad about either being a liberal or even

what exactly a liberal is.

Originally posted by nomadawhat@Jan 17 2005, 02:38 PM

According to another reporter Bush and the cronies are also using the election as a sign that they must continue the war on terror elsewhere.

 

quote form article: (speaking on invading Iran)

 

"Hersh said Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld view Bush's re-election as "a mandate to continue the war on terrorism," despite problems with the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

 

Complete article here:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/16/...iran/index.html

 

 

one mess is not enough.

Quoted post

 

 

I think that charging headlong into Iran would be the death of us and extremely stupid. They talk of precision airstrikes and commando attacks... it will never happen. Isreal has been trying to do this for years, Iran learned it's lesson with the Osirak incident and it has since scattered it's programs and built them deep underground in secret locations.

Fuck you Bush if you drag us into nuclear war....

Originally posted by <KEY3>@Jan 17 2005, 02:24 PM

I chilled with this Brit wacko this weekend.

His whole family are military and some are way up

in the SAS. According to him, whenever there's UK

involvement in a 'situation' like Iraq, the SAS guys

will be there weeks in advance scoping the place out.

 

according to him, and this could just be his own UK pride talking,

the US made it clear that they wanted to find Bin Ladden and

capture him themselves. He says that the SAS hasn't been put

on the tack of finding him, but if they had, it would have been done years ago.

 

I cant say he's correct in his statement,

but it's interesting to think that the US

might not be accepting obvious help just

so they can claim responsibility for finding him.

Quoted post

 

 

There are always special operations advance teams to do recon. As for not accepting SAS help in capturing Bin Laden sounds like a foolhearty and self absorbed bush tactic to me.

well, from what i've read, apparently iran could be no joke militarily either.

Originally posted by BROWNer@Jan 19 2005, 09:50 PM

well, from what i've read, apparently iran could be no joke militarily either.

Quoted post

 

 

I don't doubt it... in fact I'm going to check periscope and see just how powerful a conventional military they have.

 

*Okay I've been reading up on them and it would be absolutely foolhardy to even think this will be some easy knockover job (just look at Iraq). Not only do they have stockpiles into 10s of thousands of pounds of chemical weapons of all sorts, they have a biological program which is in the advanced R&D stage and deployment in the near term, they have nuclear facilities galore and many unknown ones and suspected ones, they have an army of 500,000 or so troops, not to mention organized paramilitary forces fully equipped numbering almost 2 MILLION! That's like, more than china..... :shook:

Airforce, navy, army, marines, special forces... you name it....

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Jan 18 2005, 05:02 PM

..you cant deny the fucking numbers. he won both popular and electoral votes. by a good amount, the most majority in a damn long time some say ever. then you have some saying, we should can the electoral college.

Quoted post

Bush won the popular vote by about 3 million votes.

1996, Clinton won popular vote by about 8 million votes (electoral 379 to 159).

Most elections since 1900 where decided by more than 3 million votes. Bush received the most popular votes by a candidate, but was far from setting records in terms of majority.

http://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/

 

iran is no joke suckas. Bush better have an exit plan this time.

 

Published on Monday, January 17, 2005 by The New Yorker

The Coming Wars

What the Pentagon Can Now Do in Secret

 

by Seymour Hersh*

 

George W. Bush’s reëlection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term. The C.I.A. will continue to be downgraded, and the agency will increasingly serve, as one government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon put it, as “facilitators” of policy emanating from President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. This process is well under way.

 

Despite the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the Bush Administration has not reconsidered its basic long-range policy goal in the Middle East: the establishment of democracy throughout the region. Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing... (continued)

 

 

*The report, written by Seymour Hersh, who broke the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal, said Washington has been "conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since last summer" for the purpose of gathering intelligence and for targeting information.

(another article)

How Iran will fight back

Originally posted by <KEY3>@Jan 17 2005, 07:24 PM

I chilled with this Brit wacko this weekend.

His whole family are military and some are way up

in the SAS. According to him, whenever there's UK

involvement in a 'situation' like Iraq, the SAS guys

will be there weeks in advance scoping the place out.

 

according to him, and this could just be his own UK pride talking,

the US made it clear that they wanted to find Bin Ladden and

capture him themselves. He says that the SAS hasn't been put

on the tack of finding him, but if they had, it would have been done years ago.

 

I cant say he's correct in his statement,

but it's interesting to think that the US

might not be accepting obvious help just

so they can claim responsibility for finding him.

Quoted post

I worked with a guy who married a brit. while on vacation in the UK he was talking with one of her relative who was high up there in the UK military., i dont know SAS or MI5 or whatever. However he was telling this guy that the UK service men found Sadam and just let the US take the glory in the media. So it would be no surprise to me !!!

"i don't know any liberals that are in denial.

and i've found that people that bitch about liberals

aren't very good at articulating what exactly

is so bad about either being a liberal or even

what exactly a liberal is."

 

i dunno man, i watch atleast an hour of news at night, (a bunch of different networks too so dont say fox) and all i see is liberal democrats pretending to be moderates. for shits sake about 2 months ago HILLARY was saying she is a really a christian conservative.

 

as to all the john kerry mumbo, it boils down to this guys, if you are anti iraq atleast back someone who wants nothing to do with it or didnt want anything to do with it. most libs in congress supported action in iraq if necessary. everyone says, it was done the wrong way, and bush is a war monger, which very well might be true, but the key here is no one should of gave him authority to go. end of story. everyone approved, then as soon as a war started looking like a war, and EVERYONES intellegence was wrong, everyone threw the finger right on one guy, and it was just another reason why to hate republicans. when in fact it was a majority in our lovely wonderful big huge happy central government that approved.

okay, well i'm talking about your average working class

persons. i'm not talking about the spectacle of american political PR.

talking about that, of course, there are plenty of

spineless politicians on BOTH sides(if there is such a thing).

i don't really find it particularly commendable that conservatives in

their current state support such obviously ill conceived and self interested policies, nor should anybody else. the fact they have their shit together organizationally doesn't by default mean

their collective support of each other is indicative of good policy(s), nor does it mean

the public has 'ratified' everything bush's policies embody.

i personally never said kerry was mr. awesomepants on anything. on the contrary, i dissed

him repeatedly. i admit i would have preferred kerry, but never was i

under any illusions that america would really be on a better path with him as

c.i.c. generally he would have continued the foreign policy status quo, which

in my view is a largely pertinent component of the 'gathering dangers' america and it's allies face.

i see where you're going with this and i agree to some extent, i just don't think it's particularly fruitful. or maybe it is.

.