Kerry’s Deceptions on Iraq Threaten His Presidential Hopes

[Larkspur]

from CommonDreams.org http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0826-03.htm

<SNIP>
...John Kerry is one of the most intelligent, well-studied and hard-working members of the U.S. Senate. One did not have to be a genius to have been able to recognize that the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraqi military capabilities were phony from the beginning. Nor was it a secret that most independent strategic analysts observed how administration statements on Iraq’s threat were inaccurate and misleading. Indeed, a number of such researchers and scholars myself included had provided the senator’s office with more balanced assessments regarding Iraqi armaments and military capabilities.

Senator Kerry could still have supported the war without being so categorical about Iraq’s alleged threat. He could have said, “I don’t know if Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction, but given the regime’s pattern of deception and what is at stake, I believe the risks of not going to war are greater than going to war.” While this would not have placated many anti-war activists, at least he would not have been caught lying.

As a result, it should not be surprising that anti-war presidential candidate Howard Dean despite his calls for increased military spending and his strident support for the right-wing Israeli government has gained the support of so many liberal Democrats who would have otherwise supported the Massachusetts senator. Much to the surprise of the pundits, the former Vermont governor has recently surpassed Senator Kerry in fundraising and in some public opinion polls.

Kerry’s vote in support for what most legal scholars see as an illegitimate war has raised serious questions regarding his commitment to international law and the U.S. Constitution. Given his apparent dishonesty in justifying the war, it also raises questions should he actually become president as to what additional lies John Kerry would be willing to tell the American people in order to justify possible future U.S. invasions of other countries.

Democrats have to wonder whether it makes sense to throw out the dishonest warmonger currently in the White House only to replace him with what many now see as a dishonest warmonger from their own ranks. As a result, it is likely that by the time the primaries come around, the voters will opt not for the former front-runner Kerry, but a candidate who will not abuse the trust of the American people in order to pursue his militarist agenda.

Will Kerry respond to this article like Dean did to one back in April about his anti-war views?

[molly]

1. Dean's not anti-war

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=24284&mesg_id=24451

[Larkspur]

3. I know that

And I'm not a pacifist either.

It's how our military force is used and for what purposes that are the questions, not whether a Presidential candidate is not pacifist enough.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Demobrat]

4. I certainly hope he does.

I'm a Deanie, but I don't like the tone of this. Dishonest warmonger? Please. Kerry may have been afraid to buck Bush at the time, much to his detriment, but I sure don't see him as somebody who would abuse the trust of the American people to take us to war for oil.

[polpilot]

6. or take us to war for his own political gain.

Dean '04

[papau]

5. Where is the problem?

This fellow is upset because Kerry, despite this fellows emails, did not challenge "the lies of the Bush Administration" and instead said in an October Speech that "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."


Now Senator Kerry insists that he did not knowingly lie to the American people, but was fooled by exaggerated claims of Iraq’s alleged military prowess by Bush Administration officials.

Where is the problem?

[Sagan]

7. I don't think that's fair to Kerry...

"dishonest warmonger"?? Please. That's as bad as calling Dean a fringe leftie. Neither are true.

Kerry is a dedicated public servant with a lot of good views. I personally think that he was mistaken in putting too much faith in the Administration to behave honorably, but to constantly flog him for that mistake is out of line, especially when he has pretty much atoned for it.

Of course, one must look at the entire political puzzle in this regard, too. Everyone had a chance to stake out their territory on the Iraq war. Kerry chose, at the time, to support it by voting in favor of giving Bush Congress' power to declare war.

[CWebster]

25. He hasn't atoned for it

He can't--it will make him out to be the fool that he was. he can complain that he was misled, but no one is buying it, and if he was misled, than that ain't quite the measure of presentential bearing.

[dsc]

8. These people lie about all Democrats

so I can't trust what they say about Kerry any more than I would what they say about Dean. In point of fact they exaggerate in at least one point about Dean in what you chose to quote. Dean is against cutting the military but not in favor of increasing it either.

[George_Bonanza]

9. I'm afraid there's some truth in this

Although calling Kerry a "dishonest warmonger" is as accurate as calling Dean a Republican or a fringe liberal, I have no doubt in my mind that if Kerry voted against the IWR, he'd easily be the clear number one candidate right now. Basically, the only thing Dean has on him is his IWR stance, and that's the thing that energizes voters. If that's neutralized, then no fervent support for Dean, and all would go to Kerry, the more accomplished and decorated candidate.

However, Kerry is still a great candidate, the best of the bunch, and his stalwart history on Iraq should clear the smoke on his IWR, which was not a sucking-up-to-Bush vote. Only the uninformed think that, which seems to be the large majority of would-be voters who have yet to take deep interest in the 04 race. Time to get them aware!

[schultzee]

10. Just about all of our brilliant Senate did not recognize bu$h's

deception.

[Larkspur]

11. But 2 thirds of the House Democrats did recognized Bush's deception

So Kerry has no excuse for the woes he faces now over his vote on the War Resolution.

[blm]

12. His conclusion is completely inconsistent with Kerry's entire record

on the issue of Iraq going back to the 80s and throughout the 90s. Kerry has always supported forced disarmament only IF necessary and to end the UN sanctions against Iraq, while preserving the UN itself as an international institution.

This guy is trying to sell Kerry as a warmonger, while making excuses for Dean's hawkishness. Not too transparent. Heh.

They call Kerry the Tough Dove in Washington. Just what this country needs.

[Larkspur]

14. Dean isn't hawkish

nor is he a dove. He is a pragmatist, who will use the military when needed, but will seek to use diplomacy and trade to make the world a better place.

[blm]

15. and NO ONE else will.

We know, we heard most of Dean's foreign policy speech the first time when we heard Kerry give his speech.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Then why don't you support Dean?

You can't lose. Kerry's positions will become policy, no matter what!

I think we have a breakthrough moment here, blm!

[DrFunkenstein]

17. Its The Parts He Left Out That Matter

I can't speak for blm, but I don't think Dean is the anti-Christ or Bush-lite. But I do think he lacks the depth or the vision Kerry has in foreign policy. And, without trying to be inflammatory, I think his position on the crucial Mid-East situation is both compromised and wrong.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

19. What's his take on the Sykes-Picot agreement?

The Allon plan?
Trans Jordan?
The UNSCOP Majority Proposal?

Enlighten me with his depth.

[DrFunkenstein]

21. As A Dean Supporter, I Wouldn't Mention Sykes-Picot

Anyone aware of history knows how America turned its back on the European colonial powers carving up the Middle East, just to ensure a Jewish state. Given the way Dean has utterly compromised his integrity with Sharon and AIPAC, I wouldn't be quick to bring it up.

UNSCOP map:

<>

Israeli wall that Dean supports:

<>

[DrFunkenstein]

31. Compare Kerry's Vision

I am here today to reject the narrow vision of those who would build walls to keep the world out, or who would prefer to strike out on our own instead of forging coalitions and step by step creating a new world of law and mutual security.

A choice between those who think you can build walls to keep the world out, and those who want to tear down the barriers that separate "us" from "them." Between those who want America to go it alone, and those who want America to lead the world toward freedom.

---

Kerry is speaking about America here, but it also represents his vision for the world. Dean wants to take America back, but Kerry wants to take it forward.

[blm]

22. Because Kerry has THOUGHT about these issues

and actively worked on them for years.

Would you trust Kerry to read your medical chart? Especially if he just cribbed the language from someone else?

[DrFunkenstein]

13. Does Anyone Believe This Guy?

Stephen Zunes could not be more dishonest. There is no way you can look at the passages he refers to and come to his interpretations.

First of all, before anything, check the MTP interview of Dean where he says unequivocally that he was "misled" because he "tend to believe the President." (Take that up the piehole, Christopher Hitchens.) Then try reading the rest of Kerry's statement, and you'll see that Kerry was referring specifically to the Niger case.

Secondly, that is some of the most creative cut-and-pasting of Kerry's statements yet. Zunes writes that Senator Kerry claimed that “all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.”

The thing is he forgot the beginning of the sentence, where Kerry says "According to the CIA's report." Much like the chemical weapons claims, which he credits to "intelligence reports." Whoops. So much for journalistic integrity.

As for the weapons inspections which began A MONTH AND A HALF AFTER his vote, and arguably as a direct result, Kerry clearly said that Saddam had the desire but not the means. He said in no uncertain terms that Iraq DID NOT pose an imminent threat - despite Dean's attempts to suggest he had.

"He could have said, 'I don’t know if Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction, but given the regime’s pattern of deception and what is at stake, I believe the risks of not going to war are greater than going to war.' While this would not have placated many anti-war activists, at least he would not have been caught lying."

Kerry's said that the threat of Saddam unaccounted for outweighed the limitations of the IWR. I have mixed-feelings about that myself, but that is his stance, and he has not wavered. Unlike Dean, he did not switch from containment to disarmament for whatever reason. He has been absolutely consistent since 1997.

[molly]

18. When Kerry is Pres - we will sit back and

GET EVEN!!!

[DrFunkenstein]

20. I Have Contacted Common Dreams

And told them that much of this article is unsubstantiated and the distortion of quotations violates journalistic ethics. This was a Common Dreams original article, and the editor gave the green light. I have been a regular follower of the website since 9/11 and am very disappointed that they let this slip through.

[molly]

23. Great - thanks!

[CWebster]

24. Absofuckinglutely

.

[helleborient]

26. I think this does represent...

The depth of the anger many Democrats have with any elected official who voted to support Bush's march to war.

When LBJ continued to pursue war in Vietnam...few of those who were adamantly against the war felt he deserved re-election based on his work for Civil Rights.

I have no questions about Kerry doing great things in the past for our country...but if he is the nominee and I vote for him (as I would do), I would still have questions about how supportive of looking for true peaceful solutions internationally he would be, unless he gives us a better answer.

And for a number of us who opposed the war, war hero means nothing...except possibly more misguided worship of military might.

[George_Bonanza]

27. His foreign plans

Are probably the best, and the most detailed. It's not just vague and empty crowd-pleasing remarks.

[Larkspur]

28. Waging war based upon fraudulent information is not a detail I want

my President to have.

Kerry may be an expert on military and foreign policy issues, but his logic when it comes to making important votes, like the 1991 and 2002 Iraq Wars, is sorely lacking. Both his Iraq War votes were WRONG!!! Why do I want a President who claims expertise in foreign affairs and makes the wrong choices in important decisions.

While Dean may lack foreign policy expertise, it is Howard Dean, not John Kerry, who has the better decision making abilities and the courage to follow them through or to adjust them as new information comes in.

[helleborient]

29. Probably?

Point us in the right direction...

Back it up with the link.

If they truly are the best, Candidate Kerry has the burden to bring them forward so the non-policy wonks understand.

[DrFunkenstein]

30. I Got Your Link Right Here

Why Kerry is the Heavyweight Champion, and Dean is a lightweight that cribs his notes from Heavyweight Champions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=22075

[helleborient]

33. Thank you

[DrFunkenstein]

32. Kerry Is More Bobby Kennedy Than LBJ

If you are truly more concerned about what he will do in the future than what he has done in the past, why do you fixate on the IWR when you know that Kerry's foreign policy of progressive internationalism has more depth and is more forward-looking than Dean's?

Kerry was right that when he called for Saddam to be held accountable - one month later Blix and UNMOVIC were on the ground - and he was right that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, right to oppose unilateralism, right to call on Bush not to rush to war, right to ask for 30 more days of inspections on the eve of war, and he was right to condemn the Rumsfeld Doctrine of half-assed warfare, right to condemn the failure to prepare for the power vacuum, and right to call for more UN involvement in winning the peace.

I prefer someone who got it right the first time, not calling for containment then saying, "Oh yeah, I agree with Kerry that we need to disarm Saddam." That's being Presidential.

We cannot afford to have someone as gullible as Dean, who "tends to believe the President."

And personally, I've never been much for war heroes. I prefer ski heroes.

[helleborient]

34. Please don't assume...

That I "know" that Kerry's foreign policy is better...that's why I asked for the link, to make my own decision, and thank you for that.

And...I would never claim that LBJ is or was the same as Bobby Kennedy.

As far as believing the President, I thought Kerry's defense of his vote was that he believed the President, but was then betrayed...or am I wrong on that?