Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Debunking The Mythical Kerry Flip-Flops Part I
NOTE: Due to blogger.com's downtime, this wasn't posted last night as it should have been. Sorry for the delay.
For months now we've been hearing about John Kerry's alleged flip-flops. Listening to the Bush/Cheney campaign, you'd think Kerry changed his mind twice an hour every day. This simply is not true. So over the next few days, I'm going to examine some of these alleged flip-flops and do my best to set the record straight.
FLIP-FLOP MYTH #1: THE WAR IN IRAQ
According to the Bush/Cheney campaign, John Kerry has flip-flopped positions concerning the war in Iraq. First he supported it, but now he's against it. This is not true. Here's why:
On October 11, 2002 John Kerry did indeed vote in support of the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) that authorized the use of force in Iraq. He, along with seventy-six other Senators voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force in Iraq if all other diplomatic efforts failed. By supporting this resolution, John Kerry and the other Senators gave the inspectors the mandate they needed. Without the threat of military force, what incentive was there for Saddam Hussein to comply? Allowing this resolution to fail would have given Saddam the freedom to defy the U.N. at will. So, in essence, the vote was a threat to Saddam that military force would be forthcoming if he did not allow our diplomatic efforts a chance to succeed. Remember though, the vote was for the authorization to use force only if diplomacy failed. Section 3 of H.J.Res 114 clearly states this objective.
(emphasis mine)
This being the case, one could assume that diplomatic efforts would be taken to accomplish our goals of disarming Saddam Hussein and forcing him into compliance with the U.N. Resolutions. However, this was not what happened.
According to the lead inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, diplomacy was working.
The President didn't give them the six months they would need. On March 19, 2003, the United States abandoned its diplomatic efforts and invaded Iraq.
This is why John Kerry is now seen as opposing the war in Iraq. You see the fallacy comes from the syntax. John Kerry's vote was to authorize force if diplomacy failed, however the Bush administration would have you believe that the vote was in support of the war itself. You only need to read the resolution to know that this is not the case. Kerry's opposition to the war is not rooted in his opposition to forcing Saddam to disarm as the Bush administration would have you believe, but he is opposed to the way the authority was mishandled. One of the soundbites the Republicans like to play comes from an episode of Hardball on MSNBC in which they claim that Kerry calls himself an anti-war candidate. The exchange with host Chris Matthews went like this:
Clearly John Kerry is saying that he does not approve of the way the president handled the authority. That is his anti-war stance.
To further prove John Kerry's status as a flip-flopper, the Bush Cheney campaign points to his vote against an $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, John Kerry did indeed vote against this bill. His stance was based in the fact that he opposed the way the money would be obtained. Instead of voting for a version that would require the United States to borrow the necessary funds, John Kerry co-sponsored and supported a bill that would have provided the same $87 billion by making a portion of the money a loan and would call for a roll-back of part of the Bush tax cut to finance the rest. The President threatened to veto this bill if it was passed. So the only bill available to be passed was the version that John Kerry was in opposition to. The Bush/Cheney campaign would have you believe that John Kerry was choosing not to support the troops when he voted against this bill, however, he was actually voting to support the troops in a more financially sound way. The troops were going to get the support either way, John Kerry just happened to support the method that President Bush did not.
Despite all of this, President Bush and Vice President Cheney still insist on calling John Kerry a flip-flopper. So on August 9, 2004, John Kerry once again restated his position and stood by his votes:
I, myself, do not view this as a flip-flop. What I see here is a distortion of the facts by the Bush administration. Altering the syntax of the resolutions makes it look as if John Kerry has indeed flip-flopped, but upon closer examination, John Kerry has stuck to his position throughout this entire campaign.
Yes, John Kerry voted to authorize force, but the President didn't give diplomacy a chance like the resolution called for. Yes, he voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill, but he supported a more fiscally sound version that the President opposed. No flip-flop here, just a false claim by Bush/Cheney.
Tomorrow: No Child Left Behind
For months now we've been hearing about John Kerry's alleged flip-flops. Listening to the Bush/Cheney campaign, you'd think Kerry changed his mind twice an hour every day. This simply is not true. So over the next few days, I'm going to examine some of these alleged flip-flops and do my best to set the record straight.
FLIP-FLOP MYTH #1: THE WAR IN IRAQ
According to the Bush/Cheney campaign, John Kerry has flip-flopped positions concerning the war in Iraq. First he supported it, but now he's against it. This is not true. Here's why:
On October 11, 2002 John Kerry did indeed vote in support of the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114) that authorized the use of force in Iraq. He, along with seventy-six other Senators voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force in Iraq if all other diplomatic efforts failed. By supporting this resolution, John Kerry and the other Senators gave the inspectors the mandate they needed. Without the threat of military force, what incentive was there for Saddam Hussein to comply? Allowing this resolution to fail would have given Saddam the freedom to defy the U.N. at will. So, in essence, the vote was a threat to Saddam that military force would be forthcoming if he did not allow our diplomatic efforts a chance to succeed. Remember though, the vote was for the authorization to use force only if diplomacy failed. Section 3 of H.J.Res 114 clearly states this objective.
- SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
- (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--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 thereafter 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
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(emphasis mine)
This being the case, one could assume that diplomatic efforts would be taken to accomplish our goals of disarming Saddam Hussein and forcing him into compliance with the U.N. Resolutions. However, this was not what happened.
According to the lead inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, diplomacy was working.
- ElBaradei told CNN he would probably need six months to complete inspections of Iraq's nuclear programs. He also said additional inspectors would enable him to freeze certain sites, conduct simultaneous inspections of various sites and monitor imports of certain materials.
He told the council that the inspections can succeed even without complete cooperation from Baghdad -- contradicting what U.S., British and other officials have said.
He said Iraq has provided immediate access to all inspection locations and that four Iraqi scientists have been interviewed in private.
"We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear activities in Iraq," ElBaradei said, adding that there are "a number of issues under investigation, and we're not in a position to reach a conclusion about them."
For example, he said, though Iraq has not imported uranium in recent years, it has attempted to procure it -- though he added that it was not clear what such stores, if they exist, might be used for.
The President didn't give them the six months they would need. On March 19, 2003, the United States abandoned its diplomatic efforts and invaded Iraq.
This is why John Kerry is now seen as opposing the war in Iraq. You see the fallacy comes from the syntax. John Kerry's vote was to authorize force if diplomacy failed, however the Bush administration would have you believe that the vote was in support of the war itself. You only need to read the resolution to know that this is not the case. Kerry's opposition to the war is not rooted in his opposition to forcing Saddam to disarm as the Bush administration would have you believe, but he is opposed to the way the authority was mishandled. One of the soundbites the Republicans like to play comes from an episode of Hardball on MSNBC in which they claim that Kerry calls himself an anti-war candidate. The exchange with host Chris Matthews went like this:
- CHRIS MATTHEWS: ?Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it?s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates??
KERRY: ?I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don?t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.?
Clearly John Kerry is saying that he does not approve of the way the president handled the authority. That is his anti-war stance.
To further prove John Kerry's status as a flip-flopper, the Bush Cheney campaign points to his vote against an $87 billion Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan. Once again, John Kerry did indeed vote against this bill. His stance was based in the fact that he opposed the way the money would be obtained. Instead of voting for a version that would require the United States to borrow the necessary funds, John Kerry co-sponsored and supported a bill that would have provided the same $87 billion by making a portion of the money a loan and would call for a roll-back of part of the Bush tax cut to finance the rest. The President threatened to veto this bill if it was passed. So the only bill available to be passed was the version that John Kerry was in opposition to. The Bush/Cheney campaign would have you believe that John Kerry was choosing not to support the troops when he voted against this bill, however, he was actually voting to support the troops in a more financially sound way. The troops were going to get the support either way, John Kerry just happened to support the method that President Bush did not.
Despite all of this, President Bush and Vice President Cheney still insist on calling John Kerry a flip-flopper. So on August 9, 2004, John Kerry once again restated his position and stood by his votes:
- The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."
But he told reporters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
.....
Bush's campaign has hammered Kerry over his vote to authorize military action and his vote a year later against $87 billion in funding for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Kerry has said he voted against that measure because it would have financed the war with borrowed money. He voted for a defeated alternative that would have rolled back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for the conflict.
I, myself, do not view this as a flip-flop. What I see here is a distortion of the facts by the Bush administration. Altering the syntax of the resolutions makes it look as if John Kerry has indeed flip-flopped, but upon closer examination, John Kerry has stuck to his position throughout this entire campaign.
Yes, John Kerry voted to authorize force, but the President didn't give diplomacy a chance like the resolution called for. Yes, he voted against the $87 billion appropriations bill, but he supported a more fiscally sound version that the President opposed. No flip-flop here, just a false claim by Bush/Cheney.
Tomorrow: No Child Left Behind
