Re: OT: why USA is a regime
From: Bill Todd (billtodd_at_metrocast.net)
Date: 10/21/04
- Next message: Nigel Barker: "Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?"
- Previous message: Rich Alderson: "Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?"
- In reply to: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Next in thread: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Reply: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 15:07:51 -0400
"JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com> wrote in message
news:4177E72E.AE824A46@teksavvy.com...
> Bill Todd wrote:
> > Indeed, and Kerry's vote and subsequent attempts to weasel around it are
> > major reasons why I won't consider voting for him
>
> <man, this is tough to resist answering>
Well, you just could have tried harder.
But no matter: I just happen to have a response at hand, this being an area
that I've followed rather closely for the past couple of years.
>
> In fairness to that vote, at the time, the "official" purpose, as outlined
by
> the Bush regime, was to put pressure on Hussein to fully comply with the
UN
> resolutions.
That may have been the official line BushCo. was stringing out, but Kerry
was well aware at the time of the lie it was, yet found it convenient to
play along regardless of the consequences for the country. As I said, I've
already got a response handy, and here it is:
The assertion that Kerry voted merely to give Bush a bigger stick to use to
threaten Saddam with might have at least a bit of credibilty (even though it
would still have been a monumentally stupid move on his part) if a) others
at the time had not pointed out the grave problems with the Iraq War
Resolution as drafted and b) Kerry's subsequent actions were consistent with
that explanation.
Let's look at the record:
Back in September, 2002, Kerry supported the Biden-Lugar amendment to the
IWR (as did Dean), which would have gone a considerable distance toward
limiting Dubya's freedom to invade Iraq and toward holding him accountable
after the fact for any chicanery on his part. Without wishing to go down
too deep a rat-hole, the distinctions between the IWR and the Biden-Lugar
variant have been so widely misrepresented that a quick review seems
appropriate (see
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A31884-2
002Oct2¬Found=true and http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=1009
for additional comments; the update to the latter fails to take into account
the explicit Biden-Lugar phrasing in subsection (a) noted below).
Biden-Lugar
[quote](b) Requirement for determination that use of force is necessary. -
Before exercising the authority granted by subsection (a), the President
shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that -
(1) the United States has attempted to seek, through the United Nations
Security Council, adoption of a resolution after September 12, 2002 under
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter authorizing the action described
in subsection (a)(1), and such resolution has been adopted; or (2) that the
threat to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program and prohibited ballistic missile program is so
grave that the use of force is necessary pursuant to subsection (a)(2),
notwithstanding the failure of the Security Council to approve a resolution
described in paragraph (1).[/quote]
(The complete text appears at
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/bidenlugar-resolution-093
002.htm .)
Note that since no such U.N. authorization for use of force was ever
obtained, Biden-Lugar would have forced Bush, before starting the war, to
provide Congress with his determination "that the threat to the United
States or allied nations posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program
and prohibited ballistic missile program is so grave that the use of force
is necessary" - a very specific assertion of need (clarified in subsection
(a) as "the exercise of individual or collective self-defense") for which he
could later be held accountable and if appropriate impeached. In fact, in
the absence of such U.N. approval the Biden-Lugar version arguably gave Bush
absolutely no authority that he did not already hold by virtue of the
recognized right of self-defense.
The Iraq War Resolution
[quote]In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in
subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or
as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after
exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful
means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of
the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not
likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States
and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those
nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or
aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.[/quote]
(The complete text appears at
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/03/politics/03HTEX.html?ex=1082520000&en=fbc2
3828cadaaffb&ei=5070 ; the first 1.5 pages are standard Congressional
meaningless "Whereas..." embroidery.)
This resolution merely required Bush to assert that war was necessary to
protect our 'national security' - itself a rather poorly-bounded concept -
[b]or[/b] to enforce "all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions", a sufficiently vague grab-bag to make later accountability
comfortably nebulous. Furthermore, it conveniently ignored the fact that
absent U.N. approval, the U.S. had no right under international law (nor
under U.S. law, by virtue of the fact that we have ratified the U.N. charter
as a treaty) to attack Iraq for any reason save self-defense against an
imminent threat (a point that was not lost on Paul Wellstone at the time -
see http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_10/alia/a2100413.htm , right at the
end - and which has recently, though regrettably belatedly, been stated
explicitly by Kofi Annan).
Bush himself rejected the Biden-Lugar variant because he claimed it would
'tie his hands'
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200210/02/eng20021002_104296.shtml ).
The ACLU held that view as well
http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n100202a.html ). Unfortunately, Geppy
forged an arrangement with the White House in support of the unamended IWR
(why, I have no idea), and this placed Kerry in a bind: now he would either
have to stand up against something unconscionable that well might pass
anyway (and thus risk being portrayed as soft on terrorism), or cave in and
support the unamended resolution even though viability of the Biden/Lugar
amendment hung by only 2 votes (and thus might well have prevailed had he
the courage to stand up for it - see
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact1 ).
While 22 of his fellow Democratic senators plus one independent (along with
140 or so House Democrats, IIRC) had the courage to oppose the IWR when the
actual vote came up, for someone like Kerry this was a no-brainer: he
dropped his support for Biden-Lugar like the hot political potato that he
felt it was and voted for the unamended IWR, but made a stirring Senate
floor speech about how he would be "the first to speak out" if Bush failed
to abide by the understanding that an invasion would take place only if an
effective inspection regime could not be reinstated and there was an actual
threat to us:
[quote]Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President
for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass
destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons
inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to
fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days -
to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution
setting out 'tough, immediate' inspections requirements and to 'act with our
allies at our side' if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out.[/quote]
( http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2002_1009.html )
So the question is, why didn't Kerry speak out, as he had so clearly
promised to, after Bush's 'failure to do so' had become obvious to most of
the world (and even to the majority of Americans, who polls showed supported
a war only with U.N. approval) well before the war began? He was reportedly
deluged with requests to stand up and be counted from both his Massachusetts
constituents and others around the country, because to anyone even
half-paying attention it was clear that
1) Iraq posed no imminent threat to us,
2) Iraq did not appear to be connected with our 'war on terror',
3) invading Iraq might well worsen the terrorist threat (by energizing their
supporters, and according to the CIA creating the possibility that the
purported Iraqi WMD would be given to terrorists where no such danger
existed before),
4) even the presence of WMD in Iraq was far from clear,
5) the Bush administration had been systematically misrepresenting
intelligence in an attempt to build up support for an unnecessary war
(Nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes, Iraq/Al Qaeda connections, the
likelihood of an Iraqi nuclear weapon in a year or two rather than by
decade's end at the earliest - those are just the things that spring
immediately to mind, without actually going back to look, which were known
to be spurious in February, 2003),
6) the U.N. clearly opposed an invasion,
7) the invasion was thus illegal under both international and (by virtue of
our ratification of the U.N. charter) U.S. law,
8) we had been utterly unable to create a credible coalition outside the
U.N., and, perhaps most importantly,
9) the inspectors were back in, on the ground, and working effectively -
precisely the objective that he had claimed his vote in favor of the IWR was
aimed at achieving so as to [b]avoid[/b] any need for military action.
Here was Kerry's moment to be, if not the [b]first[/b] to speak out (as he
had promised), at least a strong voice in support of those who had already
been doing so largely without help from the rest of their party (Dennis
Kucinich, Robert Byrd, John Conyers, Howard Dean, and a very few others with
whom I should be more familiar than I am). And yet the best that he could
come up with was a plaintive request to hold off for another month to try to
build up the kind of international coalition that might help lend
superficial legitimacy to our invasion (as indicated in this form email
response I received on March 26, 2003):
[quote]Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the war in
Iraq. I appreciate knowing your views at this difficult time.
I was deeply disappointed that the Bush Administration made the
decision to abandon diplomatic efforts rather than giving diplomacy
the time and commitment necessary for a real chance of success. In my
estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for real
multilateral coalition building would have been prudent and no
impediment to our military situation - an assessment with which our
top military brass apparently agree. The costs of this failure will be
borne out in the coming months and years as we labor to disarm and
rebuild Iraq and to reclaim the trust of the international community.
However, I voted last fall to authorize the use of force in Iraq
because I believed then, as I believe now, that Saddam Hussein's
development and possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) pose a
threat to our country and to his neighbors that must be confronted.
Now that our country is engaged in war, it is incumbent upon all of us
to support our troops in Iraq and to support President Bush as our
Commander in Chief.
As the fighting continues, my thoughts and prayers are with the brave
and capable men and women of our armed forces and those of our allies.
I am confident they will successfully remove Saddam Hussein from power
and bring an end to his regime's WMD programs. We must focus on
achieving these goals quickly and with a minimum loss of life on both
sides, so that we may soon get on with the process of rebuilding Iraq.
Thank you once again for taking the time to share your views with me.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry
United States Senator[/quote]
Kerry has not even come to grips with the war's illegitimacy given 18 months
for additional reflection. His book parrots the PPI's (and DLC's) mantra
that the main problem was [b]how[/b] the war was conducted, not [b]that[/b]
the war was conducted. He - in a fashion which many would call
characteristic - has continued to shift with the prevailing winds:
By the summer of 2003, Iraq, while nowhere nearly as bad as it has become
since, was at least starting to look like less of a 'liberation' than an
unwanted occupation of a country that we had had no justification for
invading in the first place. And this was not lost on much of the
Democratic party, even those less-than-astute non-activists who had stood
shoulder-to-shoulder with their Commander-in-Chief earlier. Howard Dean
(and of course others) spoke to these Democrats, and they began to listen in
significant numbers.
This, naturally, got Kerry's attention in a serious way. While as recently
as the first presidential debate on May 4th he had stood staunchly by Bush's
decision to invade
http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000012593), he now
moved to address this new problem - not by joining the anti-war contingent,
but by trying to give the impression of doing so while actually confining
his criticism to the way Bush had [b]conducted[/b] the invasion and its
aftermath.
Still, he failed to gain any traction. So by the time the official
announcement of his candidacy rolled around on September 2nd, he decided to
ignore his refusal to stand up to Bush in February/March (voters have really
short memories, after all) and return to the unfulfilled fiction of his
Senate speech: "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein
comply with the resolutions of the United Nations." And he carefully
insinuated that he had been seriously misled by Dubya while attempting to
avoid the stigma of having been 'brainwashed' that older readers may recall
from George Romney's candidacy in 1968 (and those who apologize for Kerry
today seem more than willing to overlook the fact that such a large majority
of the world managed to see through Dubya even though Honest John could
not).
But somehow the party faithful still just didn't warm to Kerry, and he had
to be rescued by the party's Republican wing, regrettably aided and abetted
by a lot of other people who really should have known better. This aid
began to appear in serious proportions just after Gore and a couple of very
significant labor unions endorsed Dean, and then a plum fell into Kerry's
undeserving lap: Saddam Hussein was captured, and Kerry the Hawk suddenly
reemerged in full battle regalia in a December speech at Drake University,
questioning Howard's fitness to be president because of his rather sensible
observation that capturing an old man huddled in a spider hole hardly made
us any safer.
Nonetheless, it [b]was[/b] still primary season, and the Democrats were
somewhat less excited by Hussein's capture than the general electorate
seemed to be, so Kerry characteristically tried to have it both ways in a
January 6th Hardball interview. Chris Matthews: "Are you one of the
anti-war candidates?" JFK: "I am. Yes, in the sense that I don't believe
the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."
Right, John. ABBsolutely.
Of course, since effectively capturing the Democratic nomination 7 months
ago, Kerry has moved hard to the pro-war side, recently maintaining that he
would have supported the IWR - and even 'might' have taken us to war
himself, had that been his decision to make - [b]despite knowing everything
that we know today[/b] (actually, his national security advisor went farther
and stated that Kerry [b]probably[/b] would have invaded Iraq, but then
hastily back-pedaled in a classic non-denial denial which simply said that
he had not been speaking for Kerry rather than that Kerry actually disagreed
with what he had said).
It's safe now, you see: there's no more competition for the Democratic
nomination, and he can count on nearly all of even the most disgusted
Democrats to support him, given the alternative. So there's nothing left to
do but scoop up all the pro-war votes that he can get: the only way he'll
be inclined to change his image yet again on the war issue is if a
third-party anti-war candidate suddenly develops serious support, and the
ABB contingent just isn't going to allow that to happen if there's any way
to prevent it, despite the salutary effect it would have on their
oh-so-regretfully-supported nominee.
All this from the man who stood up in the Senate 30 years ago and questioned
how they could ask anyone to be the last man to die for a mistake. Whatever
moral compass Kerry had then seems to have been thoroughly demagnetized in
the interim.
(End of handy response)
...
the way it looks from outside the USA, half the USA population is so
> brainwashed into voting republican, that it doesn't matter who they put as
the
> president, as long as he is republican.
Unfortunately, most of the other half of our voting population (a total
voting population which, of course, is well under 40% of the total U.S.
population: the majority here recognize just how lousy the choices they've
been given are, and are reacting accordingly) is so brainwashed into
thinking that replacing Bush (even with someone with remarkably similar
policies) will fix the situation that they've paid little or no attention to
just how much like a neocon Kerry has become since locking up the Democratic
nomination back in March.
Sounds as if you might have the same problem. The brainlessness behind the
'anybody but Bush' mantra is that it examines only half of the equation
before reaching its conclusion. Would Satan be better than Bush? Would
Hitler? Would Cheney?
Once one is prepared to ask, "*Would* Kerry be better than Bush?", one is at
least on the path toward a rational decision. But not yet at that path's
end, because while Kerry *would* almost certainly be *somewhat* better than
Bush, electing him would solidify the grip of the neocons controlling the
Democratic party to the point where the likelihood of any further
improvement over the little that Kerry offers would be virtually nil (if the
more progressive elements of the party could get completely stiffed *this*
year, when the party could have fielded *any* decent centrist or even fairly
liberal candidate and won in a landslide against the imbecile currently in
charge, and after a decade of abysmal failure of the Democratic Leadership
Council's 'strategy' of moving ever-farther to the right, just how much
chance will the progressive wing have if the DLC can boast of an actual
win?).
So the question becomes, "Is Kerry *sufficiently* better than Bush to make
it worth trading away most chance of actually substantial improvement in the
future?" When people reach that level of understanding, then, and only
then, is a rational, informed decision possible.
- bill
- Next message: Nigel Barker: "Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?"
- Previous message: Rich Alderson: "Re: DEC-C: Null string constant ?"
- In reply to: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Next in thread: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Reply: JF Mezei: "Re: OT: why USA is a regime"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
