Kerry will never send troops overseas for oil...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned


Ogie, it is my understanding that Congress voted after the UN authorized the use of force to remove Saddam from Kuwait. If this is right then Kerry's a vote could not have been based upon the UN not having authorized force in Kuwait.

That woud explain the differences in the floor speech verses earlier positions he may have taken and presumably reported in the WaPo article. Good show DailyKos in parsing the truth if that be the case.

[Ned]

On Sunday, Tim Russert pwned Senator Edwards. Here is the transcript:

"MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to Tuesday night when you were talking about the war in Iraq, as compared with the war against Osama bin Laden. And let's listen:

(Videotape, October 5, 2004):

SEN. EDWARDS: Our point in this is not complicated. We were attacked by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead to begin to plan for the invasion of Iraq.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Your point being that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror against Osama bin Laden?

SEN. EDWARDS: Correct.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to October of 2002 to something you said then.

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national requires us to do both, and we can."

So you were urging the president in October of 2002 to fight the war against terror in Afghanistan and...

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...embark on the war in Iraq.

SEN. EDWARDS: No, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you're saying it's a diversion."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6200928/

[Drachasor]

Ned, that is EASILY explainable.

Kerry objects to how Bush handled the entry into Iraq.

Let's name two of the items he found lacking: Insufficent allies and insufficent planning.

If we had more allies in the coalition and more planning then we could have done both without sacrificing the war on terror. Well, at least that is Kerry's (and my) position. It isn't unreasonable at all, imho. He certainly isn't contradicting himself in that interview.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, words and puffery disquising flip-floppery.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Now who's putting words in peoples mouths. Where did I ever claim a UN veto?

No I used your words, UN approval (your phaseology) UN backing (my phraseology), Global test (Kerry's today phraseology). According to Kerry, Gulf War 1, failed that test.

For most folk I would hazard the guess that is really unreasonable, yes.

Oh, I am sorry, you are saying that Kerry would never go to war without U.N. approval....in other words, the U.N. could decide we couldn't go by not giving that approval; that's a veto. Two sides of the same coin of your position.

I already explained the Global Test, and that doesn't require the approval of others. That merely requires adequately explaining things to the American people and other nations so that they understand why we are going to war. Quite frankly, it simply seemed like we were rushing to war in Iraq under W. That's not an explaination as to why he went (and with his factual distortions and changing the primary justification it still isn't entirely clear). That's not a veto or approval. Though Kerry might believe that an adequate explaination would probably result *in* approval, assuming the war was just and necessary, this isn't the same as requiring approval by any means.

As for the passage you quoted, I have no date or context for it, but the one I quoted came right before the vote. In any case, it is a fact that the first Gulf War was not necessary to our immediate national interests, and it is possible Kerry (and others) knew of peaceful ways to resolve the situation. An important part of the speech I quoted states this.

-Drachasor

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, words and puffery disquising flip-floppery.

It is a consistent position, certainly much more consistent than Bush's stance against the office of homeland security before he decided to support it. (and numerous other such issues).

Proper planning and allies make a huge difference into the cost in troops and money you need a war and occupation. If you deny that then you are being purposefully dense.

Kerry's position here is quite consistent. He might not always explain it well, but that doesn't change the consistency of it. You might not like it being consistent, but that's how it is.

-Drachasor

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Squirm Drach squirm.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Squirm Drach squirm.

If that is the only response you can make, then I am finished.

-Drachasor

[Ned]

Drach, you STILL have not explained Kerry's no vote in '91 when there was a coalition that met all his definitions.

[Ned]

Drach, have you ever considered the "remote" possibility that Kerry's positions are motivated more by whose in power that by core beliefs?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor


If that is the only response you can make, then I am finished.

-Drachasor

You'll be back. Afterall I was to be ignored earlier because I was too obviously partisan to listen to the truth according to Drach.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, you STILL have not explained Kerry's no vote in '91 when there was a coalition that met all his definitions.

Hence my rationale for "squirm Drach squirm" commentary.

The particular point that is being raised is the decision making process of Kerry for Gulf War 1 as that is the most relevant since it is a decision not charged with election year (i.e. no real stake) politics. Given his decision making process 13,14 years ago, what makes anyone think his decision making process will be any different now. This especially in light of his recent statements that he doesn't think 9/11 really transformed or changed him.

[Ned]

Ogie, Kerry fully supported armed intervention in Iraq when Clinton was president. Then he did an about face when a Republican became president. Similarly, he supported the Vietnam war when Johnson was president, then turned against it when Nixon was president.

His thinking on these issues couldn't be clearer.

[Drachasor]

I did explain that. It wasn't a coalition issue. Kerry thought we could handle the situation without a war, or at least give a more reasonable deadline so there wasn't a guarantee of war. It was one of his concerns this time around too, although the vote for force if necessary came much earlier in the overall process.

Again, it is a reasonable position; you shouldn't go to war unless you must. It is a position of last resort.

-Drachasor

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, have you ever considered the "remote" possibility that Kerry's positions are motivated more by whose in power that by core beliefs?

Have you ever considered the remote possibility that Bush is the exact same, except that he's the one in power?