During the Jan. 1991 speech before the start of the first Iraq war, Kerry kept emphasizing that the vote on the resolution boxed in Congress. He also referenced a coouple of times that the threat to use force was not new and was already on the table.
Here's a quote from Kerry's Jan. 11, 1991 speech (my transcription):
This is a vote about putting ourselves in a much smaller box, where war may become more likely where it needs to or not. And where we will have nothing further to say about it.
snip...
But voting to keep sanctions and diplomacy is not a vote against war if all other options fail because we continue to hold that lever in our hands
So I went to read the resolution:
(102nd Congress
00002 12-Jan S.J.Res. 2 On the Joint Resolution Agreed to S.J.Res.2; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution )
snip...
Whereas, in the absence of full compliance by Iraq with its resolutions, the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 678 has authorized member states of the United Nations to use all necessary means, after January 15, 1991, to uphold and implement all relevant Security Council resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; and
Prior to that, Kerry gave a speech in October 1990, supporting a resolution to work through the UN:
SUPPORTING THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PRESIDENT WITH RESPECT TO IRAQI AGGRESSION AGAINST KUWAIT (Senate - October 02, 1990)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support this resolution which I believe sends an unequivocal signal to Saddam Hussein that the Senator is in total agreement with the President and the international community in actions taken thus far to force the Iraqi, withdrawal from Kuwait.
In so doing, it should be pointed out that this resolution is not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the Persian Gulf. Quite the contrary, this resolution reflects the near unanimity of the global community in condemning this aggressive act by a brutal dictator.
Unlike our experience in Vietnam, the United States is not acting unilaterally in the Persian Gulf. We are not acting in the absence of an international consensus in support of our presence in the region. The emphasis that the President is placing on the role of the United Nations is a critical element of our policy in dealing with this crisis. The President has done a superb job in mobilizing the international consensus, as manifested by the eight resolutions passed by the U.N Security Council in response to the Iraqi invasion.
The success of U.S. policy will be largely contingent upon the maintenance of this international solidarity. It is imperative that the United States continue to operate under the auspices of the United Nations.
While the resolution is not statutorily binding upon the President, I would like to differ with its characterization offered by our distinguished colleague from Oregon . Subsection (b) of the resolved clause expresses support for the President's actions, or continued action, in `accordance with the decisions of the United Nations Security Council and in accordance with United States constitutional and statutory processes, including the authorization and appropriations of funds by the Congress.'
Mr. President, I believe this phase appropriately defines the limit of our support. We are telling the administration that Congress will support continued action so long as this action is in accordance with the decisions of the U.N. Security Council, in accordance with the U.S. constitutional and statutory processes. I would submit that since the War Powers Resolution is part of our statutory process, this resolution is covered in the legislation we are considering today.
And quite frankly, if the Congress is so predisposed to correcting a perceived policy miscalculation, the ultimate weapon we have is the power of the purse. As one who fought and bled for my country, the failure of the Congress to cut off funding for the Vietnam war for so many years represented the ultimate derogation of the responsibilities of this institution.
I am a strong supporter and advocate of the War Powers Resolution. But the War Powers Resolution, and its invocation, should not be used as an excuse for not exercising the most effective tool we have to decide these issues--the power of the purse.
Mr. President, I am supporting this resolution because it is my belief that it does not authorize the President to operate unilaterally either apart from the U.N. framework, or without specific authorization from the Congress. The success of the President's policy, thus far, has been the international consensus behind our efforts and those of our allies--a consensus which has contributed to, and strengthened, the broad base of support among the American people.
I would caution anyone in the administration who would be inclined to engage in a twisted or convoluted interpretation of this resolution that we are not giving the President carte blanche to wage offensive military action unilaterally. All our actions must be predicated upon support from the Congress, the American people, and under the continued sanction of the United Nations.
I am concerned that the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait may be an ominous omen of the potential dangers facing the global community in the post-cold war era.
The global community has emerged from 45 years of superpower competition, during which the threat of unclear confrontation was never far from our consciousness. Fortunately, the cold war did not bring our worst fears to fruition.
The end of the cold war era, however, does not mean the world is safe from global catastrophe. The greatest danger to international security and stability can come from traditional regional hot spots which, if left unattended, could be the spark that could turn local confrontations into more widespread conflagration.
Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq , which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait, for both territorial gain and control of an important resource. The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.
That is why I support President Bush's response thus far to the crisis and our demand--the demand of the international community as manifested through the Security Council resolutions of the United Nations--for the unconditional and total Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
The fundamental issue associated with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, in my estimation, has nothing to do with oil prices or who controls how much of the world's petroleum reserves. The fundamental issue has nothing to do with our rushing in to support, or prop up, so-called feudal monarchies in the Persian Gulf.
Even the question of energy independence, or the failure to develop a national energy policy, is peripheral to what should concern us, our Western allies, and our new-found allies in the region.
If local or regional aggressions are allowed to go unchallenged, then the entire global community could open itself up to nuclear and/or chemical weapons blackmail, particularly if a despot's appetite has been whetted by local or regional successes.
That is the potential reality being played out in the Persian Gulf today. Yes, there are risks inherent in the current massive development of U.S. military power in the region. But one has to weigh those risks against what, potentially, could be a more catastrophic outcome. Do we want to risk this possibility?
While the threat of all-out nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union has hung so heavily over the world for the past 45 years, there has also been concern for local and regional conflicts escalating into nuclear or chemical wars. We have succeeded, for the most part, in keeping that genie in the bottle. It would be disastrous if that genie were ever allowed to pop out of the bottle. It would establish a precedent that would make it difficult to influence other potential hot spots around the globe.
We are currently in a transition period from the cold war era to an era in which the superpowers no longer have surrogates over whom they could exercise influence in times of crisis. Saddam Hussein has certainly proven that to his former ally, the Soviet Union. There are leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, who will exploit this new reality to pursue their own nefarious ambitions.
Yet, no one nation alone can carry the burden for responding to such threats which could escalate into confrontations with global implications. We need to focus on strengthening the capabilities of the U.N. to meet future aggressions, because, unfortunately, there are other Saddam Husseins lurking in the world's future. The global community has to be prepared to respond quickly and credibly to avert larger catastrophies which might lurk in our future.
We have to get serious about the conventional arms race around the world. Iraq is a frightening example as to the need for the international community to get serious in bringing to an end the proliferation of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons throughout the world. We have to get serious about nonproliferation.
The current crisis, and the response of the international community to the Iraqi aggression, does provide us an opportunity to strengthen a multilateral capacity to deal with future threats.
The President speaks of a new world order. And to a large degree we are seeing the unfolding of a new world order. But for the principle of collective security to become a functional reality, we have to take the leadership in supporting a system based upon the rule of international law.
If there is one lesson, among many, to be learned from this crisis, it is the fact that the West, and the United States as the leader of the West, has to realize that unilateral action will threaten seriously our own long-term security. In the coming decades, we could find ourselves in a world at least as dangerous and unfriendly as that of the cold war. Only by promoting a truly international security system based on the rule of international law and the United Nations can our Nation hope to promote both our own and wider global security.
The fact that the President has been sensitive to the need for responding to this crisis under the United Nations auspices and framework, has been a very important consideration in my support for his policy. He has been skillful in working with the United Nations to establish an international partnership to respond to this aggression. In the process, I believe the United States is making an important contribution in the long overdue requirement for strengthening multilateral responses to present and future crises which do and will, face this global community of ours.
What changed: the box.
In essence, Bush Sr. did exactly what Bush Jr. did in terms of getting authorization to use of force and then rushing to war with a quickly pulled together coalition. The difference was that Bush Sr. got Congress to included a deadline---a date after which using force would be authorized---in the resolution. That's why Kerry made his speech and voted against it. He even emphasized that in the speech. Saying that maybe this will all work out, but that's not the point. The point: what he said in October 1990, January 1991 on and since October 2002.
The current IWR did not include a date, Bush set that date arbitrarily and that violated the IWR. The current IWR was in line with Kerry's thinking all along. He voted for a resolution that required Bush Jr. to meet specific criteria laid out by Congress, report back. It (like the resolution he spoke about in Oct 1990) did not give Bush authority to go to war, something Kerry has refused to do---cede Congressional powers to the president.
The two authorizations were very different. A complete distortion of the facts that has led to comparisons of the two.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
