Flip-Flop or Not?

The Senate vote in October 2002, on a resolution to use force IF necessary against Iraq was largely a symbolic show of support. The Senate wanted to afford President Bush the opportunity to legitimately threaten military force should Iraq refuse the return of weapons inspectors. President Bush himself stated that, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice." Certain Senators still felt compelled to state explicit conditions under which they would exclusively approve the use of force against Iraq. Among them was Senator John F. Kerry, who stated this in his floor statement the day of the Senate vote:

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out......

.Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust all other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

.An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort.

...As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet..."

Less then a month after the Senate approved the threat of force, the Bush administration drafted Resolution 1441. Its chief goal, to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq, was stated clearly throughout the document. Upon this premise the Security Council voted unanimously in support of the resolution. But in a strange development, Iraq actually accepted the conditions placed upon them in Resolution 1441 and weapons inspectors returned to Iraq. Almost immediately the administration began to question the credibility of reports from the weapons inspectors while simultaneously transporting thousands of troops to the Iraqi border. Iraq then refused to allow inspectors access to presidential palaces, and began to waffle on other conditions specified within the resolution. But weapons inspectors insisted they needed more time to thoroughly evaluate the WMD capacity of Iraq. Hans Blix pleaded with the United Nations, citing real progress in their work; he claimed U.S. estimates of weapons programs within Iraq were unrealistic and unfounded. The Bush administration was undeterred, and America was set on a course for war.

Did President Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq meet the standards for military intervention that Senator Kerry specified in his floor statement before the vote? Had President Bush exhausted all options available to him? Should he have given the inspectors more time to evaluate Iraq's weapons capability? Did the President prepare and present an effective plan to govern post-war Iraq? Was a multi-lateral effort proven impossible under any circumstances? Did Iraq pose an imminentnent and grave threat that would have justified a preemptive military strike?

No. No. Yes. No. No. And No.

Can Senator Kerry legitimately criticize the way in which the President took our nation to war even though he voted for the resolution to use force if necessary?

Yes absolutely.

Did he flip-flop on the war?

I report you decide.