John Kerry on War & Peace Jr Senator (MA), Democratic nominee for President

Sub-sections under War & Peace:
• Afghanistan
• Iraq
• Iraq Criticism
• Vietnam
• Voting Record
• Other issues under War & Peace

2006 Arab Peace Initiative is a re-alignment towards peace

Kerry urges that we face the unpleasant fact that our honorable efforts bring about a political settlement have failed, primarily because of the unwillingness of the Arab states to make peace. Furthermore, all of our efforts "to give the Israelis a legitimate partner of peace," for which Israel has always yearned, have foundered on Palestinian intransigence. Now, however, there is a welcome change. With the Arab Peace Initiative of 2006, the Arab states have finally signaled their willingness to accept Israel's presence in the region. "This re-alignment can help to lay the groundwork for progress towards peace," Kerry said, as we "re-conceptualize" the problem, focusing on the Iranian threat

OpEd: War hero unlikely role for former antiwar activist

That only lasted until John O'Neill, a swift boat vet himself, saw the Kerry charade and decided to do something about it. He understood that even though he held no office, had no pulpit, and was unknown nationally, his status as a Vietnam veteran willing to speak out gave him an inherent power to affect a political ad casting doubt on Kerry's self-aggrandizing accounts of his war service. Even though the ad only ran in a few small media markets, it had an immediate national impact because it spread rapidly and virally online to tens of millions of people.

OpEd: Lied about being in Cambodia on 12/24/1968

No one, not one person, backed him on that claim. So eventually Kerry was forced to retract this one, too. What kind of adult tells a lie like that? (Answer: The kind who carries a home-movie camera to war in order to reenact combat scenes and tape fake interviews with himself.)

North Korea’s got nuclear weapons due to Bush’s ambivalence

KERRY: You can’t tell me that that we have a genuine coalition when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and below that the four others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn’t anybody out of the hundreds. You can’t tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started - it was principally the US, Great Britain and one or two others. That’s it. Today, we are 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs. Meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages. Bush is the one that said, “We can’t allow countries to get nuclear weapons.” They have. I’ll change that.

Need credible Arab partner to negotiate with Israel

OpEd: Served his conscience at home after service abroad

Unlike WWII, the Vietnam conflict was filled with ambiguity. The war's veterans came back from Southeast Asia having to face new battles--political and social ones they were even less equipped to take on than the firefights in-country. In addition to their noticeable wounds, the Vietnam vets had to confront post-traumatic stress disorder, inadequate VA medical care, forgotten POWS, and the US government's illegal incursions into Cambodia and Laos. It had now become the duty of the war's winter soldiers to put a stop to the horrific errors of the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

Pre-emptive strike ok only when US survival at stake

KERRY: Only when the US is so threatened that it is required for the survival of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal. Look, this administration misled the American people, abused the power that they were given, and has run an ineffective war on terror. Saddam Hussein was way down the list, with respect to the targets, even on the Pentagon’s own list of targets. And what they did was supplant Iraq for the real war on terror, which is Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and terror across the world. The war on terror is less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering and law-enforcement operation. And we deserve presidential leadership that knows that and knows how to make America safer, and I will do that.

Get US more deeply involved in Arab-Israeli peace process

A: It’s one of the most important trouble spots in the world around which a lot of the world’s tensions are related and it is imperative for a president to be deeply involved in the peace process. Bush abandoned that involvement for more than a year. I will reengage in the Middle East and work with all parties AND I’ll bring together other nations to help in the process. I believe peace is attainable.

Leadership comes from experience: share the war burden

LIEBERMAN: This is a test of leadership. I don’t know how John Kerry and John Edwards can say they support the war but oppose funding. I’ve been over Clark’s record. He took six positions on whether going to war was right.

EDWARDS: Leadership is standing up for what you believe in. I believe Saddam was a threat; I voted for the congressional resolution. Then the president says, “I want $87 billion.” I am not willing to give a blank check.

KERRY: I have the experience of being on the front lines when the policy has gone wrong. Our troops are in greater danger because this president’s been unwilling to share the burden.

CLARK: I want to make it clear that I would not have voted on $87 billion. The best welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. We ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. He ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny.

Supported Kosovo action & Powell Doctrine

Palestinians renounce right of return; get treated equally

While the United States should recognize that both parties must be willing to walk the path of peace together, we must also acknowledge that there is no substitute for our own leadership in lighting the path and dealing with potential pitfalls along the way.

Regrets nothing more that his 2002 vote for Iraq War

When I asked Kerry about the concerns over his laggardly response to the Swift Boat mugging, the senator called that “a miscalculation,” but one he insisted shouldn’t disqualify him from being president. He also had this challenge for his skeptics: ‘‘Who would have come closer to beating a sitting president in time of war who had an enormous fear card to play?“

Focus on the real war on terror and find bin Laden

BUSH: I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those exaggerations. Of course we’re worried about bin Laden. We’re on the hunt after bin Laden. We’re using every asset at our disposal to get bin Laden. Kerry said this war is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement. No, this is a war as a matter of using every asset at our disposal to keep the American people protected.

The right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan

KERRY: The right war was Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan. That was the right place. And the right time was Tora Bora when we had him cornered in the mountains. Everyone in the world knows that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That was the reason Congress gave him the authority to use force, not an excuse to get rid of the regime. Now we have to succeed. I’ve always said that. I have been consistent. Yes, we have to succeed, and I have a better plan to help us do it.

Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is, is forgotten

Afghanistan incursion justified and not the same as Vietnam

Supported 1998 missile attacks against Afghanistan & Sudan

1998: respond militarily to Saddam's threat of WMDs

There was bipartisan support for the operation. A number of senators, including Democrats John Kerry, Carl Levin and Tom Daschle, wrote to President Clinton urging that he "take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

2003: Believed Saddam had deadly arsenal of WMD

The intelligence had an impact on members of Congress. Sen. John Kerry said, "When I vote to give the president of the US the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat."

Bush-McCain stategy in Iraq is policy to stay, not to win

McCAIN: The US strategy in Iraq should be to defeat al-Qaeda, to reverse the increasing influence of Iran in Iraq, & to move towards the goal of military security & a functioning government.

Q: General Petraeus testified that in order to do that we will lose, on the average, two US men or women per day, 15 will be wounded per day, at a cost of $300 million per day. Is it worth it?

McCAIN: The strategy that we’ve now adopted is now succeeding. If we abandon it and go, the consequences will be genocide, and chaos in the region

KERRY: The Bush-McCain strategy of escalating our troops in the middle of a civil war has no relationship directly to what you need to do to resolve the civil war. A policy of putting more troops in and staying is a policy for staying. It is not a policy for winning or for changing the equation. This is making us weaker in the war on terror. It is emboldening Iran, empowering Hamas & Hezbollah.

No al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2002; we invaded under false pretense

McCAIN: The consequences of a set date for a withdrawal would cause us to have severe national security implications not only in Iraq but the region.

KERRY: On the word “withdrawal:” [McCain implies that] a fixed date withdrawal is somehow going to abandon Iraq. We’re not talking about abandoning Iraq. We’re talking about changing the mission & adjusting the mission so that the bulkier combat troops are withdrawn, within a year, but that you are continuing to provide the basic backstop support necessary to finish the training, so they stand up on their own, and you are continuing to chase al-Qaeda. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before we attacked. So we are in Iraq today on false pretenses, in the middle of a civil war.

McCAIN: You are advocating going back to the failed tactic of before. And whether al-Qaeda was there before or not, al-Qaeda is there now. Iraq is now the central front in the war against al-Qaeda.

Reduce US military presence in Iraq; and bring in neighbors

McCAIN: In my study of military history, I never heard of a withdrawal and a reduction of military presence as being a winning strategy. The fact is that we are succeeding. That’s the thing that the Democrats won’t realize. And of course I’m saying it’s a recipe for failure. Of course history teaches that if we announce withdrawal, we will fail and we will see catastrophic consequences.

Would have given Clinton the power to use force if necessary

KERRY: I’ve never changed my mind about Iraq. I always believed Saddam was a threat. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would’ve used that force wisely, not rush to war without a plan to win the peace. I would’ve brought our allies to our side. I would’ve fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission. Bush rushed to war, pushed our allies aside, and Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of bin Laden.

Iraq is diverting our attention from the real war on terror

Iraq wasn’t the center of the war on terror before invasion

It’s getting worse by the day in Iraq

The US has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq

BUSH: You can’t change the dynamics on the ground if you’ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq. The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word, that we stand with you, that we believe you want to be free. And I do. I reject the notion that some say that if you’re Muslim you can’t free, you don’t desire freedom.

90 percent of our Army is in Iraq instead of fighting terror

KERRY: 35 to 40 countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the president invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he’s been diverted, with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army, either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea’s gotten nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide. The world is more dangerous. I’d have made a better choice.

Wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time

Never fight a war without enough troops and a plan to win

Intelligence information should not be manipulated

A: There is nothing more serious than the intelligence information that we receive and it should never be manipulated to mislead the people. We have to have an investigation to know to a certainty whether the Bush’s claims were hype, whether we were misled, and whether the CIA was serving the political purposes of the administration. Bush has the responsibility of coming clean.

Preferred diplomacy, but supported invading Iraq

KERRY: I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.

Q: Gov. Dean, you’ve criticized Sen. Kerry on the campaign trail saying he’s tried to have it both ways on the issue of Iraq.

DEAN: I’m delighted to see Saddam Hussein gone. I appreciate that we have a strong military in this country, and I’d keep a strong military in this country. But this was the wrong war at the wrong time because we have set a new policy of preventive war in this country. Sooner or later we’re going to see another country copy [that policy].

Q: But do you believe Kerry is still trying to have it both ways?

DEAN: That’s not up to me to judge that. That’s up to the voters to judge that, and I’m sure they will.

War in Iraq was founded & perpetuated on lies, like Vietnam

Ending Iraq war requires summit including Iran & Syria

Bush rushed to war without having a plan to win the peace

Iraqi war is a catastrophic mistake

Saddam Hussein didn’t attack us, Osama bin Laden did

2004: Swift Boat ad "Sellout" devastated campaign

On Aug. 20, the Swift Boat Veterans announced their second ad, "Sellout," which featured footage of Kerry speaking before Congress in 1971, when he accused the American military of atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry had said, "They had personally raped; cut off ears; cut off heads; randomly shot at civilians; razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

"Sellout" was devastating because it featured Kerry's own Brahmin-accent words slandering his Vietnam comrades. The ad raised disturbing questions from Kerry's character that would not go away.

2004: attacked Rove and Cheney for draft deferments

Kerry personally attacked Dick Cheney and me as people "who went out of their way to avoid their chance to serve when they had the chance." Kerry admitted he didn't know the details of my draft record but refused to apologize, saying, "I'm just not going to be accused of not being strong on defense, period." His campaign unleashed three surrogates to carry the message, including former senator Max Cleland.

It was a real insight into John Kerry. He spoke without knowing the facts, and he sounded as if he were attacking as unpatriotic the 15 million men who received student deferment during the Vietnam War. And he concentrated his fire on an aide rather than on the other candidate. Any day Kerry spent attacking me was a day he wasted.

OpEd: Kerry's attitude was "I'm a vet! I know war & peace!"

Ironically, even if it were true that the Swift Boat Veterans were lying, it undercut Kerry's main selling point anyway. Kerry's message was "I'm a veteran! Don't talk to me about war and peace!" An ad by 200 Swift Boat Veterans who served with Kerry saying that he was unfit to be commander in chief completely destroyed Kerry's presumptive credibility as a veteran, whether you believed the 200 Swift Boat Veterans or not. Either they were telling the truth, and Kerry wasn't fit, or they were not, in which case military service isn't much of a trump card. Yes, Kerry had served in Vietnam. But so had they.

Veteran biography strategy failed with “Reporting for duty”

It turned out that his record in Vietnam was not all he said it was. Now the Internet and the participatory politics would strike again. The first ad the Swift Boat vets bought accused Kerry of lying to get his medals. The second charged that when he returned he turned on his former mates and joined Jane Fonda in her antiwar crusade.

Kerry’s advisors pooh-poohed the ads, failing to see how damaging they could be. But the ads began to swim through the arteries and veins of the new alternative media. Bloggers alerted one another, talk radio shows reported the accusations, the story spread underground and online.

Nothing in Vietnam realistically threatened America

"In our opinion and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the US. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life to the preservation of freedom, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is the kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

"We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that most people didn't even know the difference between communism & democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them. They practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.

Vietnamese villagers say Swift Vets’ account is incorrect

Nightline interviewed the Vietnamese villagers, who say they saw: “Firing from over here. Firing from over there. Firing from the boat,” Vo Thi Vi said, adding that the boat was unleashing a barrage of gunfire as it approached. Her husband, Tam, said the man who fired the B-40 rocket was hit in this barrage of gunfire Then, he said, “he ran about 18 meters before he died, falling dead. When the firing started, Ba Thanh was killed,” Tam said. “And I led Ba Thanh’s comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats.”

Kerry’s C.O. says Kerry deserved his Silver Star?

Kerry won the Silver Star for his action on Feb. 28, 1969, in which he shot a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher. All of Kerry’s crewmates who participated said last year that the action was necessary and appropriate, and it was Elliott who recommended Kerry for the Silver Star. [Lt. Col. Elliot later repudiated this story. -- Ed.]

Man Kerry rescued says Kerry deserved his Bronze Star

Rassmann said there were two separate events: One was earlier in the day, when he and Kerry blew up a rice cache. The second involved a mine explosion as Kerry and Rassmann were on patrol, which knocked Rassmann overboard and injured Kerry’s arm. Rassmann stood by his recollection that he was under fire when rescued by Kerry. Those questioning Kerry’s medals, Rassmann said, are “angry about John speaking out against the [Vietnam] war.”

Only veteran to testify to congress about Vietnam

The solidarity that Kerry felt toward the veterans in the chamber-”brothers,“ as he called them-was palpable. Kerry’s testimony proved unflinching. From the outset he lambasted America’s foreign policy leadership and to challenged Congress to end what he described as an immoral war. Kerry’s testimony indicted not just presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and their administrations, but the entire US foreign policy establishment since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed in 1964.

Accused US government of war crime, not veterans

What quickly became clear was that Kerry was accusing the US government of war crimes, as ordained through such policies as free fire zones, harassment-and-interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions, carpet bombings, and the execution of prisoners. He scorned the rationale that one had to destroy a village in order to save it, and excoriated the effects of that policy on the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. As Kerry pointed out, they understandably saw U.S. liberators not as liberators like the GI’s of World World II, but as colonialist intruders even worse than the French before them.

Before enlisting, believed in the US saving face in Vietnam

Kerry claimed that he had originally supported a complete US withdrawal on the grounds that the South Vietnamese government had fallen into disarray, anti-Americanism pervaded Southeast Asia, the Johnson administration’s policies were failing, and the domino theory was a myth. That said, Kerry that he had come to realize how important it remained for the US not to lose face, and that Johnson had to either score a military victory or negotiate a peace. “In the future, the US must fix goals which are tenable,” the Yale junior intoned. “These goals should recognize priorities that correspond minutely with our best national interests. We should concern ourselves with other ideologies and attempt to apply a policy which is both sensitive and compatible with the expressed desires and cultures of the people involved.”

Condemned early Vietnam protests as “irresponsible”

“All but a few of our fellow students realize that a reasonable debate on foreign policy must be kept free from fanaticism or emotional posturing, and must show a fundamental loyalty to our political institutions,“ the petition declared. ”A position of protest justifies no one in an attempt to impede troop movements at home, to undermine morale abroad and to encourage our generation to repudiate its military duties.“

Five years later, Kerry led one of his generation’s most searing protests against the war, asking the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, ”How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?“

Anti-Vietnam but not left-wing anti-war

Kerry saves life under fire, awarded Bronze Star

Word “atrocity” is too strong, though it reflected anger

Served in Vietnam as "winter soldier" not "sunshine patriot"

Vietnam was genocide, but no point calling it “war crimes”

A: I don’t stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don’t even believe there is a purpose served in the word “war criminal.” But I stand by the rest of what happened over there.

We’ve got to put this war in its right perspective and time helps us do that. I believe very deeply that it was a noble effort to begin with. I signed up. I volunteered. I wanted to go over there and I wanted to win. It was a noble effort to try to make a country democratic. But we misjudged history. We misjudged our own country. We misjudged our strategy. And we fell into a dark place. All of us. And I think we learned that over time. And I hope the contribution that some of us made as veterans was to come back and help people understand that.

War crimes by leadership policy, not personal atrocities

Q: Did you see war crimes committed?

KERRY: I personally didn’t see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones and I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search-and-destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground. And all of these, I find out later on, are contrary to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and to the laws of warfare. So anybody who took part in those, is in fact guilty. But we’re not trying to find war criminals. What we’re looking for is an examination of our policy, particularly by the leaders, to examine the policy at the highest level.

Vietnamization just changed the color of the bodies fighting

KERRY: You should change [your group’s] name from Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace to Vietnam Veterans for a Continued War because that in fact is really what Vietnamization is. It is nothing more than a way of getting the United States out of Vietnam by changing the colors of the bodies in that country. It’s a military solution in a problem that requires a very sophisticated political solution. In the end [it may] intricate us into a much deeper war. [At best it will] allow us to withdraw in time for the elections of next year when the president can say, “Yes, indeed, we did withdraw,” at which time more Americans will have lost their lives and more Vietnamese will have lost their lives needlessly.

US actions in Vietnam were counter to Geneva Conventions

KERRY: Did you serve in a free fire zone?

O’NEILL: I certainly did serve in a free fire zone.

KERRY: [Reading] “Free fire zone, in which we kill anything that moves - man, woman or child.” This practice suspends the distinction between combatant and non-combatant and contravenes Geneva Convention Article 3.1.

O’NEILL: Where is that from?

KERRY: Geneva Conventions. You’ve heard about the Geneva Conventions. Yes, we did participate in war crimes in Coastal Division 11 because we took part in free fire zones, harassment, interdiction fire, and search-and-destroy missions. [Didn’t you] see huts along the sides of the rivers that were totally destroyed? You never burned a village?

O’NEILL: No, I never burned a village, that’s absolutely correct. We’d never do anything dishonorable.

Objected to war policy while in Vietnam, and after

KERRY: The members of Coastal Division 11 when I was in Vietnam were fighting the policy very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions; to the point where my commanding officer was relieved of duty because he pressed our objections. After I received my third wound, I was told that I could return to the US. I deliberated for about two weeks but I finally made the decision to go back because I felt that I could do more against the war back here. I requested that I be released from the Navy early because of my opposition, and I was granted that release, and I have been working against the war ever since then.

O’NEILL: I served in Coastal Division 11 for 12 months. I never saw any moral protest there. I think that the story Mr. Kerry has told is in large measure prevarication.

Vietnam didn’t threaten US; US war crimes did

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war.

We call this the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term Winter Soldier is a play on words of Thomas Paine’s in 1776 when he spoke of the summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough. We feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of the crimes that threaten this country, not reds & not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.

Vietnam war was criminal hypocrisy and tore apart US

We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from colonial influence. We found most people didn’t even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime.

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations.

We have come here to Congress, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. [Our leaders] have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching in the sun.

US soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam, including me

A: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, contrary to the Geneva Conventions, and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the US. And I believe that the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, are war criminals.

Voted for Iraq war in 2002, but voted against 2004 funding

No regrets on war vote-but regrets on Bush breaking promises

KERRY: No. I do not regret my vote. I regret that we have a president who misled America and broke every promise he made to the US Congress. We did not give the president any authority that the president didn’t have. Did we ratify what he was doing? Yes. But we changed the dynamics by getting him to agree to go to the UN and to make a set of promises to the nation. Promise number one: He would build a true global international coalition. Number two: he would honor the UN inspection process. And number three -- and this is most important -- He said he would go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises.

Q: Would you leave now?

KERRY: No, I would not leave now. I think that you can’t leave now. The impact of leaving now on the war on terror, on the Middle East, would be disastrous. The Arab community has an enormous interest in not having a failed Iraq as its neighbor.

Vote for war was needed to push Saddam on inspectors

KERRY: Absolutely not. The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize, it was the right vote. And the reason I mentioned the threat is that we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn’t a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. If there hadn’t been a vote, we would never have had inspectors. And if we hadn’t voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the UN.

$87B for Iraq only when internationalization is addressed

KERRY: I will do what we need to do to protect troops. But I am not going to vote for an open-ended $87 billion without questions answered about an adequate effort with respect to the international community [and other matters].

And if you don’t get the answers that you’re looking for?

KERRY: I would be prepared to vote no.

Voted YES on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

• The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
• Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
• No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
2. Training Iraqi security forces
3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

• that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
• that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
• to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
• that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text]. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.

Voted YES on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007.

1. The President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces and conducting specialized counterterrorism operations.
2. The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.
3. Within 30 days, the administration shall submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of US forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

Opponents of the Resolution say:
• This amendment would withdraw American forces from Iraq without regard to the real conditions on the ground.
• The consequences of an American retreat would be terrible for the security of the American people at home.
• Our commitment is not open-ended. It is conditional on the Iraqis moving toward self-government and self-defense.

Supporters of the Resolution say:
• Congress talks almost incessantly about the situation in Iraq as if on 9/11 the situation involved Iraq. Of course, it didn't. We were attacked by al-Qaida operating out of Afghanistan on 9/11.
• One of the theories we hear is that somehow staying in Iraq is necessary because all the terrorists will come into Iraq, and then they wouldn't be able to attack us anywhere else. Some call this the roach-motel theory. The fact is, al-Qaida is operating in 60 to 80 countries. Yet our resources are only heavily focused on this Iraq situation.
• In terms of differences from other Iraq amendments: This is binding, not just a sense of the Senate.
• Secondly, we have a date; other amendments are open-ended.
• Thirdly, this has an over-the-horizon force specifically to protect our security interests.

Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Voted NO on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan.

• $5.1 billion for security
• $5.2 billion for reconstruction costs
• $65.6 billion for military operations and maintenance
• $1.3 billion for veterans medical care
• $10 billion as a loan that would be converted to a grant if 90% of all bilateral debt incurred by the former Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, would have to be forgiven by other countries.

Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.

Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo.

Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo.

Voted NO on ending the Bosnian arms embargo.

Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism.

Title: Condemning bigotry and violence against Sikh Americans in the wake of terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

Summary: Declares that, in the quest to identify, locate, and bring to justice the perpetrators and sponsors of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the civil rights and liberties of all Americans, including Sikh-Americans, should be protected.

• Condemns bigotry and acts of violence or discrimination against any Americans, including Sikh-Americans.
• Calls upon local and Federal law enforcement authorities to: (1) work to prevent hate crimes against all Americans; and (2) prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who commit hate crimes.

Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur.

Calling for the urgent deployment of a robust and effective multinational peacekeeping mission with sufficient size, resources, leadership, and mandate to protect civilians in Darfur.

• Whereas hundreds of thousands of people have died and approximately 2,500,000 people have been displaced in Darfur, Sudan since 2003;
• Whereas Congress declared on July 22, 2004 that the atrocities in Darfur were genocide;
• Whereas the Sudanese President refused to allow the UN to deploy a peacekeeping force to Darfur;
• Whereas deliberately targeting civilians and people providing humanitarian assistance during an armed conflict is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, and those who commit such violations must be held accountable;
• Whereas on June 11, 2007, Sudanese President al-Bashir pledged to accept unconditionally the full United Nations-African Union hybrid deployment;
• Whereas to establish conditions of peace and security, the peacekeeping mission must be accompanied by a peace-building process among the parties to the conflict;
• Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate urges the President of the US to work with members of the UN Security Council and the African Union to ensure the expeditious deployment of the United Nations-African Union hybrid peacekeeping force with a mandate affirming that civilian protection is a primary mission objective;
• Provide the UN-African Union hybrid force with sufficient logistical support and airlift capacity; and necessary vehicles, fixed-wing aircraft, and helicopters for tactical reconnaissance and armed deterrence;
• Be prepared to implement meaningful measures, including the imposition of multilateral sanctions, an arms embargo, and a no-fly zone for Sudanese military flights over Darfur, if the Government of Sudan obstructs deployment of the agreed upon peacekeeping mission.

Legislative Outcome: Agreed to by Senate by Unanimous Consent.

Iranian nuclear weapons: prevention instead of containment.

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, Iran has engaged in a sustained pattern of illicit and deceptive activities to acquire nuclear capability;
• Whereas the UN Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities by Iran, particularly possible military dimensions;
• Whereas, in Nov. 2011, the IAEA issued an extensive report that documents "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme";
• Whereas top leaders of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the State of Israel;
• Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984;
• Whereas Iran has provided weapons, training, & funding to terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite militias in Iraq;
• Whereas Iran had forged a "secret deal" with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;

1. Reaffirms that the US Government has a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
2. warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3. urges continued and increasing economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until a full and sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related activities;
4. expresses that the window for diplomacy is closing;
5. expresses support for the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
6. strongly supports US policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
7. rejects any US policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat.

Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

Declares it to be U.S. policy that:
• Jerusalem remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected;
• Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;
• the U.S. Embassy in Israel be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
• Makes specified amounts of such funds available until expended in FY 1996 and 1997 only for construction and other costs associated with relocating the U.S. Embassy Jerusalem.