A couple of months before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Kerry called on Bush to exhaust all options and only go to war as a last resort. His exact words were "...show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war." After Bush launched his illegal invasion, Kerry called for regime change here at home. During the debates, Kerry stressed that America should have no "long-term designs on staying in Iraq." When the Iraqis held their election in January 2005, the Bush admin and media hyped it as validation for the war. Kerry warned that while the election was significant, the training, reconstruction, delivery of services, diplomacy and international community involvement were lagging. Kerry was right!
Kerry's conviction allowed him to stay on message, which wasn’t always easy for some Democrats even though we were trying to win an election.
Last spring, Kerry introduced Kerry-Feingold, his plan for setting a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq. It turns out Kerry was right, again.
Hotline: Kerry was Right
From the DC insider daily Bible - National Journal's Hotline (no link, behind paywall):
Was Kerry "Right"?
John Kerry must be feeling good, watching Harry Reid back the Senate's tough anti-war bill and VP Cheney escalate anti-Dem attacks. With each passing day, more Dems view WH '08 as a referendum on WH '04; voters rejected Kerry not for what he proposed to do, but who he was supposed to be.
Now, '08 Dems vow withdrawal. Kerry was there a year ago. They voted for the Iraq war before voting against it. Voters don't want U.S. troops left in the lurch, but they're not too concerned about the Dem strategy either. Speaking of strategy, the man who defined Kerry as an effete flip-flopper almost published those magical words: "Kerry was right."
In the modern era, success hinges on winning the WH. But some of history's most effective pols never made it that far. Dean failed in '04, but indies ratified his ideas in '06. Gingrich may never become pres., but his (yes) positive influence on the GOP brand is undeniable.
If Dems force Pres. Bush's hand on Iraq, you can credit (or blame) Kerry as much as anyone.
Posted here.
Kerry made the following statement after the 2006 election:
"On Tuesday night, the American people voted overwhelmingly to take this country in a new direction. Today with Jim Webb’s election secured, it’s official that we have a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House.
"With both the House and Senate led by Democrats, we have a chance to get America back on the right track. In the Senate, I will first and foremost focus on the disaster in Iraq, setting a deadline so we can end the war and bring our brave heroes home.
"We will work to put the focus on the real priorities of Americans: raising the minimum wage, protecting the environment, and providing affordable health care for every American – starting with our children.
"I will continue to work with Sen. Kennedy, Congressman Markey, and our entire delegation to make higher education more affordable. I will work to make sure Massachusetts stays on the cutting edge of both technology and education. And by helping keep our state a great place to live, I will work to ensure that people don’t have to leave Massachusetts.
"The American people have spoken loud and clear, and we are eager to work in the new congress to help Massachusetts and our country move forward."
link
Turns out that Kerry-Feingold was the best solution for Iraq. It was important for Kerry to keep pushing for a timetable because Democrats were sending mixed signals.
Yesterday in an interview by Jonathan Singer, Kerry was right as he made points about cutting funding for Iraq, Iran and Congress' powers vs. Bush:
<...>
Singer: Speaking about national security issues, specifically the issue of Iraq, what do you see going forward in terms of Senate action, Congressional action with Iraq. Senator Obama seemed to indicate in an Associated Press interview that he felt that the Senate would fund the war no matter what.
Kerry: No, I'm against funding the war no matter what. And today I've joined up with Senator Harry Reid and Senator Feingold. The only thing we should fund is to complete the training of the troops, to prosecute against Al Qaeda and to protect American forces and facilities and interests in the region.
We should not be engaged in Civil War in Iraq. And I would vote a year from now, which is the date we said we should be redeploying our troops, we ought to be cutting off those other activities.
Singer: In terms of Iran the administration seems to be ramping up pressure instead of taking the engagement route. What can you do and what will you do in the Senate to try to ensure that we don't go to war with Iran?
Kerry: First of all, I think the administration would be hard pressed to go to war with Iran right now, both physically and politically. Physically, because we're overstretched in Iraq and everybody knows it. And I think you'd have the generals and a whole bunch of people be unbelievably reluctant to just sort of pick some willy nilly fight with Iran right now. That's different if they should do something to provoke it. It's different if they do something aggressive and proactive. You have to respond and do what you have to do. But right now this administration needs to deal diplomatically more intelligently and rebuild its credibility so the world understands what the stakes are. And I will do everything in my power to make sure they don't run off half cocked and leverage some kind of a confrontation that's inappropriate.
Singer: Specifically the House Democratic leadership removed language that would that would say that the President has to come back to Congress. Would you like to see such language...
Kerry: No. Look, there's a constitutional balance here. The President knows the limits of the War Powers Act. The President has the authority to defend the nation. He's the commander in chief. If there's a legitimate reason for the President to do something, he doesn't have to come back to Congress to do an immediate emergency response. On the other hand if the President thinks he's going to walk up to it like he did with Iraq, he's got to think again, because there's no way the Congress is going to let that happen.
link (to more and audio)
Today, Kerry was right in his response to Bush's press conference:
WASHINGTON D.C. - Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered the following statement today, following President George Bush's press conference.
"The President's promise of a veto rings as tragically hollow as his pledge of 'mission accomplished,'" said Kerry. "Congress must enforce a one year deadline for redeploying most U.S. troops from Iraq. President Bush stubbornly refuses to change the disastrous policy in Iraq, so this Congress has no choice but to force a change in course. No more open ended commitment, no more leaving American troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. The American mission in Iraq will be to train Iraqis and chase Al Qaeda, not do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves. Unlike this administration, when it comes to standing by our troops, we mean business.
"An administration that misled America into war is once again trying to mislead when it comes to supporting our troops. If the President uses his veto, he is the one denying funding for our troops. Our brave American troops deserve nothing less than a policy that is equal to their sacrifice. Congress has done its job, now the Administration needs to do its job and force Iraqi politicians to do their job. Get the funds to our troops, and get Iraqis to achieve the political compromise this misguided escalation was supposed to make possible.
"The President says he sent more troops into Baghdad to give the Iraqi government 'breathing space,' to find a political solution to the civil war. But where is the progress in meeting key political benchmarks - and where is the accountability for squabbling Iraqi politicians? American soldiers should not die while the Iraqis refuse to compromise."
link
As for McCain, turns out the only time he was right in three years was when he acknowledged that Kerry hadn’t offered him the VP slot. The rumor was one of the first signs of McCain’s desperation, which is being exposed, here, here and here
Had to throw that in there because McCain is annoying and wrong about Iraq.
In any case, Kerry was right!