Kerry voted against GWI and for GWII in the Senate; for that, he was accused of inconsistency. The charge was never refuted, ASAIK; even Kerry supporters are trying not to address the issue. But was he really inconsistent? There is a whole bunch of presumptions left unquestioned here, major one being that GWI was an absolutely imperative thing to do. I think the necessity for US to restore Kuwait to the Emir was at least open to question. Strictly speaking, it wasn’t “our war”.
I see it as a perfectly reasonable attitude for US Senator to desire to stay away from Middle East troubles in 1991 and to be compelled to support the Prez. on the Iraq invasion in 2002, for it is “our war” now. By that I mean we are at open war with terrorist groups that thrive on present duality of despotism and chaos of the whole Middle East (no, Saddam wasn’t likely involved in 9-11).
Well, it couldn’t possibly be because of differences in the times and circumstances and situations involved, could it? After all, there’s no need for context – just say “Saddam Hussein”, and everyone should be tripping over themselves to take him down, right? :rolleyes:
By the less-than-rigorous standards of the OP, we may as well argue that Donald Rumsfeld is inconsistent w/r/t Iraq – after all, he didn’t have a problem playing nice and shaking hands with Saddam back in the '80s, but turned around and pushed for bombing Saddam to itty-bitty pieces last year…
I was trying to make a point that Kerry was consistent and necessity of GWI is not closed and shut case. IMO, Rumsfield was also consistent (and he wasn’t just “playing nice and shaking hands with Saddam” in the 80-s, he was executing US gov. policy, i.e. doing his job).
John Mace: It should be noted that, in 1991, Kerry voted in favor of a resolution urging a continuation of sanctions on Iraq, and that Congress “does not rule out declaring war or authorizing the use of force at a later time should that be necessary to achieve the goal of forcing Iraqi troops from Kuwait.” That resolution was voted down by a vote of 46 yeas, 53 nays. After that, the Senate then voted to authorize force, 52 yeas, 47 nays.
It is ironic that part of Kerry’s 1991 statement explaining his vote could well be applied to 2003: “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years–even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them. It will be because we set an artificial deadline.” 1991 speech.
Kerry gave an exceedingly poor and boring speech on October 9, 2002, explaining his upcoming vote on the war resolution. It basically says that Saddam’s WMD are a problem, and then blathers on and on about everything under the sun, in the end saying nothing. 2002 speech.
In the final analysis, Kerry held out the possibility that force should later be authorized in 1991, and gave a bunch of senseless doubletalk in 2002.
I think he is between the rock and the hard place, politically. If he’d say that he didn’t approve of GWI or approved of GWII, he’s going to loose votes, right-leaning or left-leaning. So he stays mum.
For another perspective on the 2002 vote, look here.
So maybe he’s a little more inoculated against this charge than one would think. And it seems to me that both of his votes were for the same position: use force as a last means in Iraq, not as one of many policy options to be applied as the Chief Executive sees fit.