[Mb-civic] Kerry Says His Vote on Iraq Would Be the Same Today

[Michael Butler]

    Go to Original 

    Kerry Says His Vote on Iraq Would Be the Same Today
    By Jody Wilgoren
    The New York Times

     Tuesday 10 August 2004

     Grand Canyon National Park, Ariz. - Senator John Kerry said Monday that
he would have voted to give the president the authority to invade Iraq even
if he had known all he does now about the apparent dearth of unconventional
weapons or a close connection to Al Qaeda.

     "I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," said Mr.
Kerry, who has faced criticism throughout his presidential campaign for that
October 2002 vote.

     But Mr. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, extended his attack on President
Bush's prosecution of the war, saying he had not used the Congressional
authority effectively.

     "My question to President Bush is, Why did he rush to war without a
plan to win the peace?" Mr. Kerry told reporters here after responding to
Mr. Bush's request last week for a yes-or-no answer on how he would vote
today on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

     "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work
necessary to give America the truth?" he said. "Why did he mislead America
about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the
table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and
relieve a pressure from the American people?"

     Standing at an elevation of 7,200 feet on the edge of the canyon, Mr.
Kerry also set a goal of reducing the number of troops in Iraq by next
summer, though both he and his advisers rushed to say that deployment would
depend on diplomatic progress and democratic elections in Iraq, among other
things.

     "I believe if you do the kind of alliance-building that is available to
us that it is appropriate to have a goal of reducing our troops over that
period of time," he said. "Obviously, we have to see how events unfold. The
measurement has to be, as I've said all along, the stability of Iraq, the
ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the
Iraqi security force itself."

     At the same time, Mr. Kerry said, if commanders on the ground ask for a
troop increase, "you'd have to respond to what the commanders asked for."

     The comments on troops grew out of a radio interview last week in which
Mr. Kerry said, "I believe that within a year from now, we could
significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that's my plan."

     His senior foreign policy adviser, James P. Rubin, told reporters,
"Senator Kerry made very clear he was talking about goals," pointing out
that Tommy Franks, the recently retired general who led the Iraq invasion,
said Sunday that troop reduction might soon be possible.

     To back up his contention that he could reduce the number of American
troops by persuading other countries to deploy forces to Iraq, Mr. Kerry
suggested that two of his Democratic Senate colleagues, Joseph R. Biden Jr.
of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, had received assurances while
traveling abroad that a change in administration would change allies'
attitudes.

     "Right now, this administration is scrambling to try to get Muslim
forces on the ground; the Saudis are trying to scramble to help assist to do
that," he said. "All of this should have happened in the beginning, all of
these things should have been achieved beforehand. American presidents
should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace."

     Mr. Kerry has said that he - along with other members of Congress and
the American public - was misled by the Bush administration about its
rationale for going to war in Iraq, but Monday's statement was his most
definitive yet that he would have voted to authorize the use of force even
if provided a fuller picture.

     Over the past year, he has been bedeviled by the Iraq war, first
attacked by antiwar Democrats in the primaries for his vote in favor of the
resolution, more recently pilloried by Mr. Bush and his allies for voting
against $87 billion that went largely to finance the war.

     Mr. Kerry's 10-minute exchange with a handful of reporters came after
he and his wife, and two of their adult children, took a 30-minute hike
along the canyon's southern rim. On a postcard-perfect day, the Kerrys flew
here to throw an environmental elbow at Mr. Bush over financing for the park
system.

     "Regrettably, today, the national park system is under stress," Mr.
Kerry said, promising to make up what he described as a $600 million
shortfall in the parks budget within five years, as part of a $20 billion
conservation and energy trust fund.

     "The policies of this administration are going backwards," he said. "We
believe we ought to go forward in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt, in the
spirit of all those who for years have fought to preserve America's great
treasure."

     Mr. Bush's campaign said the park system's current $1.8 billion budget
was 20 percent higher than when the president took office and "has more
funds per employee, per acre and per visitor" than it has ever had.

     "President Bush has provided record funding levels for America's
national parks," said a spokesman, Steve Schmidt. "John Kerry's misleading
attacks are one more reason why he has a growing credibility problem."

     The campaign also released a statement from Gale A. Norton, the
interior secretary, saying that Mr. Bush "has taken bold and responsible
steps to protect America's forests, parks and natural resources," while Mr.
Kerry "has skipped key votes on everything from Healthy Forests to the
energy bill."

     "John Kerry's inconsistent rhetoric shows just how out of touch he is
with the values Westerners hold dear," Ms. Norton said.

  

  -------

   Jump to TO Features for Wednesday August 11, 2004   


 © Copyright 2004 by TruthOut.org