Outside the Perimeter

The Rationalization of John Kerry

The sheer stupidity of John Kerry in justifying his vote to authorize the war in Iraq is an amazing thing to behold:

The reason so many people are confused about his position, Kerry says, is because they interpret his vote, incorrectly, as "a vote to go to war." "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through a process," to give the president leverage at the United Nations and to get the inspectors back into Iraq.

Maybe Kerry was confused by the title of the resolution for which he voted: "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq". He must have thought the resolution for which he voted was titled "Authorization for the Present to go Through a Process to Give the President Leverage at the United Nations and to get Inspectors Back into Iraq."

If the title confused Kerry, then perhaps he should have read the resolution before he voted for it. Here is one part he should have read (emphasis mine):

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."

The resolution also spelled out that if the President went to war, he should report to Congress how he made that determination. What factors should the President use in that report? The President must determine that (emphasis mine):

"(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."

"What about diplomacy?", you say. Here is what the resolution had to say about that:

"The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions."

The resolution is very clear: Either Saddam Hussein complies with U.N. Security Council resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 687, 688, and 949 or the President is authorized to go to war. (Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of "all necessary means" to enforce those security council resolutions. So much for the war being "illegal" in terms of international law, by the way). One could even credibly argue, with the compelling conditions for action laid out in the resolution, that President Bush was required to go to war if Saddam Hussein did not comply. Certainly one could see that Congress (and John Kerry) wanted "prompt and decisive action" by the United Nations Security Council.

That was something that the French made clear was never going to happen.

Notice that one never hears or reads of John Kerry or any other liberal mentioning the words "Saddam Hussein" when discussing the authorization of war. The war resolution put the burden of proof on Hussein to demonstrate that he had complied with all of those resolutions. The only way Kerry could argue that the President was not authorized would be to argue that Saddam Hussein had fully complied.

And that would be a even less credible argument than that John Kerry voted only to “go through a process”, not to enforce the multitude of United Nations Security Council Resolutions by going to war.

Kerry's Consistent Iraq Position

Yesterday, Kerry assured reporters of his consistent position on Iraq:

"The vote for authorization is interpreted by a lot of people as a vote to go to war," Mr. Kerry said. "It wasn't a vote to go that day. It was a vote to go through the process of going to the U.N., building the allies and then making a judgment of whether we had to go. ... I believe there was a better judgment to make, and I said so all along."

In a dramatic news conference this morning, John Kerry appeared with running mate John Edwards to visually demonstrate Kerry's "consistent" position on Iraq.

The two remained in the pose while fielding questions from reporters.

"Let's see Bush and Cheney top this," said Edwards during the news conference. "George Bush may be able to fly a fighter jet, but John Kerry is very bendy."

Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry said, "I can hold this position for a long time without breaking a sweat. As I carry the burden of John Edwards, so shall I be able to carry the difficult chore of cleaning up President Bush's mess in Iraq."

"I am both disciplined, flexible, and a Master of the Manchurian art of contortion," said Kerry.

Asked to comment, a senior White House Official privately admits to worry. "Kerry and Edwards have raised the bar for election-year news conferences. The President and Vice President had been practicing a couple of knock-knock jokes, but nothing like this."

The Official further said, "I blame reality shows like American Idol. Americans have gotten used to being entertained in order to earn their vote. Kerry and Edwards might have found a way to tap into that sentiment, and unless the President figures out a way to respond ... I think this election could start swinging the other way."

Hastert Hits The Nail on the Head

Dennis Hastert, Republican Speaker of The House, said this recently about the possibility of Al Queda launching an attack before the election in an attempt to help John Kerry win the Presidential election:

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, (but) I would think they would be more apt to go (for) somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops,'' Hastert said of Kerry.

John Edwards, Democratic Vice-Presidential Candidate, said this in reply:

"Let me say this in the simplest possible terms: When John Kerry is President of the United States, we will find al-Queda where they are and crush them before they can do damage to the American people,'' Edwards said.

I think both of them are right. Kerry plans to crush Al Queda by filing a class action lawsuit in the World Court against Al Queda. Otherwise, what was the point of the selection of the lightweight trial lawyer as his running mate?