Candidate Review

 

The War in Iraq

 

General Wesley Clark

 

This is from a speech made in South Carolina on November 6, 2003.

"Let me be clear: there has been some real progress in Iraq. Iraqis have a better future with Saddam Hussein out of power. In many areas, life is improving. It is inspiring to see brave Iraqis working with Americans to rebuild their country. But seven months after the fall of Saddam; violence is growing, and the enemy's morale and momentum is increasing with each deadly attack.

Saddam Hussein did pose a national security challenge. There is no dispute about that. He was in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. If he didn't still have weapons of mass destruction, he was trying to acquire them. He remained hostile to his neighbors. But it was clear then and it is even clearer today that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the region or the world.

I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan.

The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests. Instead of basing life and death decisions on hard-headed realism, they were guided by wishful thinking. They were convinced that if only we could get rid of Saddam, democracy would bloom in Iraq and across the Middle East.
"

And here's Clark's strategy in Iraq.

"A new and realistic strategy for Iraq should be guided by the following principles. First, we must end the American monopoly on the occupation and reconstruction. Then we must develop the right force mix to fight and win a guerrilla war. Finally, we must give Iraqis a greater stake in our success.

. . .This new international effort should be launched immediately. The world is waiting for our leadership. They know success is critical for them, too. And we mustn't cast them aside any longer. They should have a seat at the table. But fixing the Administration's missteps won't be easy. It will require diplomacy at the highest levels. And I will call a summit of leaders from Europe, the United Nations, Japan, and the Arab World to launch this new international project.

. . . First off, we want to distribute our resources properly. This requires US forces to run an agile, intelligence-driven counter-insurgency campaign, while Iraqi forces and our allies perform other necessary tasks. When it comes to our force levels, it's possible that some may need to be added initially to create the right mix of capabilities. You cannot measure success by a reduction in forces, and you can't declare failure by an increase in forces. It's better to do the job right so we can succeed and then bring our troops home.

. . .Iraqis will be more likely to meet the security challenge if we give them a greater stake in our success. That means establishing a new sovereign government in Iraq right away. There has been a false debate between the French, who recommended turning all government functions over to Iraqis now - and the Bush Administration, which insists on waiting until a constitution is written and elections are held.

The French are wrong: we cannot transfer full authority to Iraqis before they are ready. But the administration is also wrong: we can give the Iraqis a much bigger sense of ownership over their country and move more quickly towards a government that answers to its people.
"

 

Former Governor Howard Dean

 

From a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, June 25, 2003. Not that any of you are having a hard time remembering Dean's stance on the war.

"Last October, four of the major contenders for the Democratic nomination supported the President's preemptive strike resolution five months before we went to war without, as we now realize, knowing the facts.

I stood up against this administration and even when 70% of the American people supported the war, I believed that the evidence was not there and I refused to change my view. As it turned out, I was right. No Democrat can beat George Bush without the same willingness that John F. Kennedy showed in 1962. A President must be tough, patient, and willing to take a course of action based on evidence, and not ideology.

I question the judgment of those who led us into this conflict this unfinished conflict that has made us, on balance, not more secure, but less. Although we may have won the war, we are failing to win the peace.

I believed then and I believe now that removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a just cause. But not every just cause requires that we go to war, especially with inadequate planning and without maximum support.
"

And from his big foreign policy speech of December 15, 2003.

"America's interests will be best served by acting with dispatch to work as partners with free Iraqis to help them build a stable, self-governing nation, not by prolonging our term as Iraq's ruler.

To succeed we also need urgently to remove the label "made in America" from the Iraqi transition. We need to make the reconstruction a truly international project, one that integrates NATO, the United Nations, and other members of the international community, and that reduces the burden on America and our troops.
"

 

Senator John Edwards

 

This is from a Senate Statement on May 20, 2003.

"Last fall, many of us who supported the use of military force in Iraq warned President Bush about this problem. We argued that the United States needed to put the same amount of energy, effort and creativity into planning for what to do after Saddam was gone.

We supported the use of force to ensure that Iraq complied with its commitments to the international community. But we also called on the president to carefully plan for a new Iraq - a prosperous democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The president obviously did not heed our advice. The administration did not make adequate plans for the situation which now threatens the success of our mission in Iraq -- and in some instances, it apparently didn't plan at all. It now tries to explain away its failures as the "untidy" realities of postwar Iraq. Rather than make excuses, the administration must act before it undermines all that we have accomplished.
"

The Edwards plan for winning the peace in Iraq, released at the same time, is as follows.

"Before the Bush administration "undermines all that we have accomplished," Senator Edwards said the United States should:

Involve our allies, the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in establishing a free Iraqi government with legitimacy in the region and around the world.

Create a NATO-led multinational peacekeeping force to ensure that the Iraqi people live in a place that is safe and secure.

Ensure that the Iraqi people - not some puppet government - shape the nation's future under a government that reflects the nation's diversity.

Help develop a prosperous economy by making clear that Iraq's vast oil reserves will not be exploited by the United States or others.
"

 

Representative Dick Gephardt

 

These comments are from a speech on July 22, 2003 at the San Francisco Bar Association.

"It's a new world, with manifold new dangers from global terror, to the recklessness of rogue dictators, to international crime and drug-running that rips at the very fabric of freedom.

That is why, in the days and weeks after September 11th, I closed ranks and supported President Bush. I make no apologies for supporting the war in Iraq. And I still hope and pray for the president's success in world affairs. In a very real sense, the lives and livelihoods of our people are in his hands.
"

Gephardts web page also has a section entitled "Ask Chrissy" in which Gephardts Daughter, whose name is, I believe, Magnolia, answers questions.

" Ken, my father was Democratic Leader in the House when America was deciding on whether to go to war with Iraq. In the days leading up to our declaration of war, my dad visited the CIA twice and met with former Clinton intelligence experts on several occasions. My dad says that he became convinced after meeting with these experts and officials, that Saddam Hussein was a formidable threat and that he was positioned to use his weapons of mass destruction. My dad made a tough decision to do what was right to keep the American people safe.

In addition, he strongly encouraged George Bush to go to the United Nations to get their support in this effort. Despite my father's efforts, Mr. Bush did not engage the United Nations. Instead, he insisted that we go into Iraq alone to take on Saddam Hussein. My father will always make decisions on what he believes is right and to keep the American people safe.
"

Gephardts other ideas on Iraq, going forward, are difficult to tease out. He does think that whoever becomes President should have Foreign Policy Experience. Which presumably he thinks he has.

He also had this statement, from the speech to the San Francisco bar earlier.

"If I were president, I'd ask NATO to join with us immediately to secure peace and stability in post-war Iraq. And I'd go the U.N. right now and ask for a Security Council mandate, so countries like India and Russia and France and Germany will join us.

According to news reports, some in this administration are pressing right now for the president to go back to the U.N. to finally get a real U.N. mandate, but others believe it would be 'humiliating.' I'll tell you what's humiliating - putting American lives on the line without the help and support and additional troops we need to do the job right.

Even in the best scenario, it's going to be a long and arduous road to Iraqi democracy - a phrase that, historically speaking, has been a contradiction in terms. We've got 147,000 Americans there now; we're spending $4 billion a month in Iraq; it's not mere machismo to resist asking allies for help - it's absolute insanity.
"

Oh, and I know that Gephardts daughter name is really Chrissy. Just my little joke.

 

Senator John Kerry

 

Both quotes are from a speech Mr. Kerry gave on December 16, 2003 at Drake University. Of course, Mr. Kerry spends quite a bit of time slamming into Howard Dean, and commenting on the capture of Saddam Hussien which had just happened at the time.

The first is on his support for the Resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"I believe it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for violating UN agreements. I believed then – and I believe now – authorizing force was the only way to get inspectors in, and the only way ultimately to enforce Saddam Hussein’s compliance with the mandate he had agreed to, knowing that as a last resort war could become the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism.

And I also believe that those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don’t have the judgment to be President – or the credibility to be elected President.
"

And the second is on his plan for Iraq now.

"First, go back to the international community and to the United Nations and offer a real partnership in Iraq. We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations authority in the rebuilding process and the development of a new Iraqi Constitution and government. Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority should be sincerely thanked for their service – and replaced by a UN Special Representative in Iraq who will remove the stigma of foreign occupation from our presence there. The United States has ample power and influence to establish a working relationship which guarantees— indeed guides us to—an outcome which meets our goals and security needs.

Second, the UN authorization for international forces in Iraq is finally in place, but to expand participation we have to share responsibility, which the Administration still won’t do. We need to conduct real diplomacy with the goal of really getting boots on the ground.

. . . Third, we need a reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government, for transferring political power and the responsibility for reconstruction to the people of Iraq. That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in that country – not cutting and running in order to claim a false success for the sake of the 2004 election. The timing of events in Iraq should not be keyed to the timetable of the Bush re-election campaign. Genuinely engaging the Iraqi people in shaping new institutions is fundamental to the long term cause of a stable, peaceful, and independent Iraq that contributes to the world instead of threatening it.
"

 

Senator Dennis Kucinich

 

This is one that really sticks in the craw of Kucinich supporters I've noticed. Their candidate is pretty much pure on this issue (in the sense that he's not changed his position, a distinction he largely shares with Lieberman, although both candidates have pushed their beliefs forward or backwards as politics required).

The first quote is from a speech on Martin Luther King Day, before the war started.

"In sixteen months since America was attacked, no credible evidence has been presented that Iraq perpetrated 9-11, or conspired in 9-11. Iraq was not responsible for the anthrax attack on our country. Nor does Iraq have missile strike capability against the U.S., usable weapons of mass destruction nor the intention to use them against us.

It is more than strange that while no credible connection has been made between Iraq and 9-11, that the Administration blocked efforts at an early official inquiry into 9-11, while beating the drums to attack Iraq.

Why is the Administration targeting Iraq? Oil. America has become increasingly reliant on imported oil. The future of an oil-dominated economy rests in the Gulf region. Instead of a new energy policy, we get a new war of "good" acting against "evil".

To be sure, the dictator Saddam Hussein is an easy target, for murder of his own people. He was an easy target, too, years ago when supported by the United States, notwithstanding his cruelty.

When war is already in the hearts of those who lead this nation, because our leaders aspire to dominate oil markets, or expand arms trade or desire world empire, or to distract from failures domestically, what are the American people to do? Do we just sit and watch while the United States moves next to declare war against North Korea, or Iran?
"

And this quote is from a web document on what should be done in Iraq now.

"The war in Iraq is over and the occupation of Iraq has turned into a quagmire. The US troops have become the targets of criminals and terrorists who are flowing into Iraq for the chance to shoot Americans. The cost of the occupation keeps rising: The President has already asked for more than $150 billion to pay for it. And there is no end in sight. The UN is now in an impossible situation, where most of the members view the war and occupation of Iraq to be a US folly. Under these circumstances, the UN can?t help. The US is stuck, mostly alone, with a costly, unpopular and unending occupation of Iraq. If we stay the course, it will do damage to American security. Iraq was not and is not a threat to the US, yet the demands of an occupation will overstretch our armed forces. And the extended deployment of reserve forces make us vulnerable at home because the reserve call ups include large numbers of firemen, policemen and other first responders who are needed for the homeland defense mission."

 

Senator Joe Lieberman

 

This is from Joe Lieberman's website, a section covering his record on Iraq

"Joe Lieberman has been the Senate's leading voice for removing Saddam from power. Over the years, he has fought to empower the Iraqi opposition to oust Saddam Hussein so that American military force might not become necessary. In 1998, he and Senator John McCain cosponsored the Iraqi Liberation Act, which -- when signed by President Clinton -- made a change of regime in Baghdad official United States policy and provided assistance to forces within Iraq seeking to depose Saddam's brutal dictatorship.

Crafting Bipartisan Resolution Authorizing Force. In 2002, Joe Lieberman worked with the Democratic leadership to pass the bipartisan resolution giving the President the authority as Commander-in-Chief to use military force, if and when diplomacy failed, to disarm Saddam. Through his work, he helped craft a resolution that led President Bush to go through the UN for support in this effort.
"

And from a speech from September 10, 2003 to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"We've made some progress--creating a Department of Homeland Security; overthrowing tyrannical regimes with links to terror in Afghanistan and Iraq; and killing or rounding up members of Al Qaida.

But nearly every step forward has been matched by a stumble, a setback, a stalemate. Both abroad and at home, rather than set bold goals and build durable coalitions to reach those goals, the Bush Administration has hoarded authority, bungled diplomacy, pushed allies to the margins, and divided rather than multiplied the strength we need to win the war on terror.
"

Former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun 

 

This is from remarks made on CNNs Crossfire, September 8, 2003.

"You should know, I opposed this war. I thought that the Congress missed - abdicated its Article 1, Section 3 -- Section 8 authority under the Constitution by giving a president who had not gotten the popular vote of the American people unilateral authority to go in with a preemptive war in Iraq. I didn't think it had anything to do with the war on terrorism. I've called it a misadventure. So we shouldn't be there, in my opinion. But having been - now that we're there, we've got young men and women in the field. We cannot abandon them. We have to give them the support they need to get the job finished. Americans do not cut and run."