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."
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."