Kerry and Bush rip each other on Iraq

By Seattle Times news services

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Related stories Kerry, Bush camps settle debate details

Bush immediately struck back, saying Kerry has repeatedly changed his position. "He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy," Bush said in New Hampshire. "I couldn't disagree more, and not so long ago, so did my opponent."

Kerry, who cited Bush's "stubborn incompetence" and "the prospect of war with no end in sight," spoke at New York University. His speech came on a day when Iraq's instability was underscored by the beheading of an American civilian by a Jordanian terrorist whose group threatened to kill another hostage unless all Muslim women prisoners were released from U.S. military jails.

Kerry wasn't alone in his criticism. Some Republicans had taken aim a day earlier at Bush's Iraq policies. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee and a Vietnam War veteran, said during an appearance Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation" that "we're in trouble, we're in deep trouble, in Iraq." And Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., faulted the administration for "incompetence" for not spending more of the billions that Congress has approved for reconstruction projects.

As Bush prepared to address the United Nations General Assembly today, the Democratic presidential nominee challenged him to insist in his address that world leaders make good on the pledges for more military and financial support that are contained in a U.N. resolution approved last spring.

"Not a single country has answered that call, and the president acts as if it doesn't matter," Kerry said.

Bush aides said the president would use his U.N. speech to say Iraq is making progress toward stability and democracy, despite signs that the insurgency there has gained strength.

Candidates on Iraq A look at the positions of President Bush and Sen. John Kerry on Iraq What's ahead Bush: Stay the course through Iraqi elections scheduled for January and until Iraq is on a path of stability and democracy. The next National Guard and Reserve units in the rotation have been notified of their coming mobilization, and the Army plans to send in the same number of troops that will be coming out in the next six months, the administration says. Kerry: Seek more help from allies and boost training of Iraqi security forces as part of a plan to begin troop withdrawal in six months and complete it in four years if conditions allow. Shifts in positions Bush: Acknowledges prewar intelligence pointing to existence of hidden weapons of mass destruction was wrong, but says Saddam Hussein was trying to buy time to reconstitute such programs. No longer asserts direct link between Saddam and al-Qaida but says terrorist networks were able to operate in the country. Kerry: One of 29 Democrats who voted in October 2002 to authorize Bush to use military force, if necessary, to disarm Iraq; 21 Democrats voted no. Said later his vote was based on faulty intelligence, yet said more recently it was right to give Bush that authority, although the president was not justified in using it. War costs Bush: Won approval of $87 billion in October 2003 for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including $18.4 billion for Iraq reconstruction, but less than $1 billion of the rebuilding aid had been spent by the end of last month. Kerry: One of 11 Democrats who voted against the $87 billion; 37 Democrats supported it. Separately, supported failed effort to pay for the $87 billion by canceling scheduled tax cuts for wealthiest Americans. The Associated Press

Kerry said it was irresponsible for Bush to invade Iraq knowing Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction or connection to al-Qaida, and added that the war was a diversion from the struggle against terrorism.

"Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell," Kerry said. "But that was not ... in itself a reason to go to war. The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Bush responded with withering sarcasm during a campaign stop in Derry, N.H.

"Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison," Bush said.

When U.S. troops invaded Iraq in spring 2003, administration officials expected to find weapons of mass destruction. Failure to find them has undermined a key argument for the war.

Kerry told his audience that if he's elected, his goal will be to withdraw all U.S. forces within four years, beginning next summer. But he warned that unless Bush begins to act this week at the United Nations, the prospects of being able to meet that timetable could be compromised.

He also said the administration should expand its training programs for Iraqi security forces and revamp the reconstruction process by inviting in more Iraqi firms, rather than large U.S. corporations such as Halliburton.

Kerry also said the administration must act quickly to ensure that Iraqi elections scheduled for next year can be held, beginning with the recruitment of an international security force to help protect any U.N. team that is sent there to facilitate the elections.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Kerry's prescription echoes what Bush already is trying to do in Iraq.

Kerry's critique was a sharp departure from the campaign's strategy to shift from discussing Iraq to the economy and health care, issues on which polls show that he has a clear advantage.

But the bleak outlook for Iraq disclosed last week in a National Intelligence Estimate, along with the criticism by key Republican senators, brought the issue to a "more dominant position," senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said.

Recent polls show Bush pulling away on the question of who is best equipped to lead the war on terrorism. Aides said Kerry wants to get off the defensive on Iraq and persuade voters that if Iraq is the front line in the war on terrorism, as Bush maintains, then the president's foreign-policy leadership should be judged a failure.

To Bush's argument, made repeatedly on the campaign trail, that despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction he would do the same thing now as he did in the spring of 2003, Kerry said: "How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying to America that if we know there was no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to al-Qaida, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer: resoundingly no. Because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."

Bush ridiculed Kerry's suggestion that it was wrong to go to war in Iraq, noting that the senator said last month he still would have voted for the resolution that cleared the way for the invasion even if he knew that no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would be found there.

"Today my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind with new contradictions of his old positions on Iraq," Bush said. "He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, no, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he still would have voted for force."

Kerry makes a distinction between voting for the authorization as one of 100 senators and the president's decision to invade, which he said was made after a "long litany" of misjudgments.

"The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future," Kerry said. "If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq — and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be."

Compiled from reports by Knight Ridder Newspapers, The Washington Post and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

E-mail this article

Print this article

Search archive

More nation & world headlines...