Iraq

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Sept. 22, 2004
IRAQ

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, it is said that politics is the art of the possible. And while certain things are simply not possible, it is our duty to try all the same.

So today, I will try to explain the unexplainable. The distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts has made so many statements on this country's involvement in Iraq that he has taken every conceivable position possible, and many that are simply not possible. The result is a record of "dizzying contradictions," as Charles Krauthammer recently wrote, so confusing that the more he speaks, the less we understand.

Mr. President, John Kerry has spoken on so many aspects of the liberation of Iraq. He has been on both sides of just about every coin in this entire debate. I want to address just four different positions he has taken.

What is more disturbing is that he has taken these four positions on the most basic question of the liberation of that country. The question is not nearly as difficult as the multiple answers we continue to get.

The question is: Would you have used force to remove Saddam Hussein?

Back in 2002, the answer was clear enough. Citing Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction, his terrorist-like actions, and the fact that he was part of a global scourge of terrorism, Senator Kerry said he completely agreed with the President to effect regime change in Iraq, unilaterally if necessary. So he voted for the Iraq war resolution in October of 2002. Support in October of 2002.

Nine months later, Senator Kerry started to use another answer. He now claimed that the war resolution he supported in October 2002 did not empower the President to engage in regime change.

By January of 2004, around the time of the Iowa caucuses, Senator Kerry had a new position. He was now the "antiwar candidate." In January of 2004, he was now the antiwar candidate, campaigning in the Iowa caucuses, having been, in October 2002, entirely supportive of the war.

He then went on to lock up the Democratic nomination for President. So we are into the general election season, Mr. President. When challenged by the President to answer whether he would have gone into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein based on what we now know, KERRY stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon-a dramatic pose facing the Grand Canyon-and said on August 11:

Yes, I would have voted for that authority.

In August of 2004, in the general election, he seems to be back where he was in October of 2002. He has gone from support to oppose and back to support.

But that was last month. A week ago, on the "Imus in the Morning" show, Senator Kerry was asked:

Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq?

That is a pretty simple question. Here was Senator Kerry's response:

Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see.

This was last week. A month ago, he was in support of the war, but last week he was back in opposition to the war. He says:

I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that.

Let's try this one more time. Senator Kerry, on the "Imus" show last week, said, in answer to the question:

Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq?
He said:

Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that.

When KERRY finished his interview with Imus, here is what Imus had to say about it. Don Imus said:

I asked him a number of questions about Iraq and I can't tell you what he said.

That was Don Imus' summary of John Kerry's position on Iraq on his program last week.

Well, Mr. Imus, you are not alone. The top ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, recently stated:

I don't think John should go back and try to explain accurate statements that are unexplainable.

That is our colleague in the Senate, an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Kerry. He said why try to explain the unexplainable, referring to Senator Kerry's various positions on Iraq.

We could all use clarity from John Kerry with regard to Iraq's liberation, but none more than Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who will be here among us addressing Congress tomorrow morning. Dealing with the terrorists and Baathist insurgents, he needs, more than anyone, to know that the U.S. position of supporting the liberty of Iraq is clear, unequivocal, and steadfast. He would not get that from reading John Kerry's numerous positions.

Mr. President, a Senator's position on Iraq should not be all that hard to explain because it is not a complicated question. It is, however, a tough question, representative of the sort of tough issue any Commander in Chief frequently gets. In trying to answer and re-answer the most important issue of this election, central to the struggle for freedom today and tomorrow, we have a Presidential candidate who constantly changes his mind. This is not some little issue; this is the biggest issue confronting the country today. We are 6 weeks from the election, and this is a man who flip-flops like a fish on the deck of a boat, back and forth, back and forth, who doesn't know where he stands on the most important issue we are confronting in our era.

For example, when asked if he would have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, KERRY recently answered:

You bet, we might have.

Let me read that one more time. When asked if he would have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, KERRY recently said:

You bet, we might have.

Not exactly Winston Churchill. Perhaps there is some nuance here, such as an exclamation point or a question mark, that tells whether this is a declaration or a question, but the answer to the most critical issue in this election should not leave the world wondering and more confused than before.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.