# Kerry inconsistent on Iraq wars? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 29, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130 "2004-03-29T18:59:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/1 "2004-03-29T18:59:35Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/2 "2004-03-29T20:06:54Z")
It would be interesting to hear Kerry himself explain the 2 votes. Does anyone have a cite where he has even attempted to do this? It looks like he pretty much just voted the Dem party line in both cases. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/3 "2004-03-29T20:42:24Z")
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… ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/4 "2004-03-29T21:06:11Z")
**rjung** , 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). ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/5 "2004-03-29T22:02:15Z")
**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.](http://www.jameskbishop.com/special/kerry_on_iraq_1991.html) 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.](http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html) 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. ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/6 "2004-03-29T22:20:30Z")
Just about 99% of the Democrats spent 99.9% of their time in 2002-late 2003 clearing their throats. They are trying their best to make up for a lot of lost time. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/7 "2004-03-30T00:40:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It would be interesting to hear Kerry himself explain the 2 votes. Does anyone have a cite where he has even attempted to do this? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/8 "2004-03-30T01:06:49Z")
Kerry was totally consistent: Both times he voted in a way that he thought would help him politically. What’s not to understand? ---
**Author:** ![Airblairxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Airblairxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airblairxxx)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kerry-inconsistent-on-iraq-wars/237130/9 "2004-03-30T01:08:11Z")
For another perspective on the 2002 vote, look [here.](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_07.php#002681) > [@](#): > > But Kerry’s critics – on both the right and the left – say, well, fine but it was clear in late 2002 that President Bush was going to war no matter what. And those critics have a very good point. I don’t think it quite obviates the first argument. And I wrestle with this myself. But it’s a very good point. > > The problem is that this is an argument the president and really his partisans really just can’t make. Because what it amounts to is saying is that Kerry’s position doesn’t hold up because the president is a liar. > > Right? Isn’t that the idea? > > The president’s argument at the time was that he needed to be empowered by the congress to go to the UN with a credible threat of force and a united congress behind him. That was the best way to assure that Iraq would be disarmed and in fact the best way to avoid war. > > The resolution was intended to give the president full authority to go to war if the our vital security needs – namely, resolving the weapons issue – could not be solved by means short of war. > > Kerry’s argument is only the president’s argument read back to him. > > People don’t think it adds up because they think the president was lying – that he had already decided to go to war no matter what – and that Kerry must have known. 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.