We’ve heard quite a bit about John Kerry’s inconsistency dealing
with many issues. The Bush campaign even has a page listing
37 supposed “flip-flops” on Kerry’s part. One serious and misunderstood allegation deals with Kerry’s vote on the Iraq War Resolution. Was the vote for the “Authorization
for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ really a vote for war, as Bush supporters
and many members of the press are alleging? If you take a look at what this resolution actually
says, it is clearly not a vote for war as the preferred action to be taken in the conflict. The resolution starts by stating that Congress supports Bush’s desire
to “strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions,”
as well as wishing Bush to drive toward obtaining “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 regarding Iraq.”Remember that after this resolution
was passed by Congress, the United Nations passed a security-
council resolution to restart
weapons inspections in Iraq, despite skepticism by President Bush. The resolution gave two – and only two – situations in which Bush could use military force against Iraq. The first condition in which force could be used was for Bush to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” The second condition was that the United States could use force in order to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”On top of this, there are two restrictions
on how Bush could use force to defend national security. First, Bush was supposed to show that reliance on diplomacy alone would either not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or that diplomacy alone was not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The second restriction required that any action taken be part of the war on terrorism against specific
nations or groups, including
the nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. Is this a “vote for war?” Is Kerry being inconsistent? Even if Kerry’s vote was a vote to go to war, Kerry has never said that he was categorically against war with Iraq for any reason. Instead, Kerry has criticized Bush’s lack of major international cooperation, meaning anyone with significant military power other than the United Kingdom. However, diplomacy was clearly
the first choice in resolving the situation. The fact that a military option was made available does not make that vote a “vote for war.” It is quite possible that, had Bush let diplomacy and the weapons inspections run their respective
courses, we would have discovered the truth about Iraq’s supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction and, as a result,
never would have needed to attack Iraq. It is also possible that we may have found some evidence which could legitimize the use of force or that a situation could have come to play where Iraq refused to abide by non-WMD related U.N. resolutions, such as those dealing with his long-range missiles,
which would have then legitimized the use of force on some level. Kerry’s point is that we’ll never know because Bush rushed to war before diplomacy even had a chance to work. The evidence used to argue in favor of the war is flawed at best and false at worst.Perhaps we should be talking about Bush’s responsibility on this issue, instead of a vote that Kerry made, which once investigated, shouldn’t be an issue at all. Bush must take responsibility
in some way, and if he doesn’t choose to take that responsibility, he must be held accountable. Bush, as president of the United States, must either take responsibility
for the intelligence – even if he didn’t know it was flawed – or make those who gave him the intelligence responsible for it. Bush has done neither, and should be held accountable for it.

Author