Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq

[ciba]

My point exactly: If the UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions, is it a useful entity? Why would any country obey a UN resolution contrary to its interest if there will be no negative consequences?

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Voting for the authority to use force is not the same as voting for a war. Get that into your heads neocons.

If our congresspeople are THAT stupid to think they were not voting for war, then they should all be thrown out of office. The President already HAS the authority to use military force without specific permission from congress..

I guess this is one of those 'depends on what you definition of IS is' things.

And Congress is the only one that can declare war, we didn't. What's your point? It was a vote for support, not war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Voting for the authority to use force is not the same as voting for a war. Get that into your heads neocons.

Bullsh!t, that's exactly what it means. We haven't declared war since WWII so when Congress is asked for permission to use force (iaw War Powers Act) they are in fact authorizing the President to go to "war". Kerry was asked a very specific question and he gave a very specific response. He could've easily referred to or repeated what he said on the Senate floor but he did not so trying to rationalize what he said by referring back to them now is nothing more than a lame attempt to divert criticism. He also could have said that since no wmd have been found yet, if he would not have given authorization but, he didn't so we are forced to take his statements at face value. He very clearly said he would have voted the same way. Period. Get over it.

No, it's NOT exactly what it means.

Go back and read what was voted on and you'll see you are 100% wrong.

Bush was not given authority to immediately invade Iraq. That's what you seem to think occurred.

Bush didn't immediately invade dumbass. You're wrong as usual.

Nice language. :roll:

When was the vote? Oct. 2002.

When was the invasion? Mar. 2003.

Wow...5 whole months to let diplomacy and inspections work. I think that qualifies as immediate considering it takes time to amass troops for an invasion even given Franks' accelerated plans.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Voting for the authority to use force is not the same as voting for a war. Get that into your heads neocons.

If our congresspeople are THAT stupid to think they were not voting for war, then they should all be thrown out of office. The President already HAS the authority to use military force without specific permission from congress..

I guess this is one of those 'depends on what you definition of IS is' things.

And Congress is the only one that can declare war, we didn't. What's your point? It was a vote for support, not war.

Just like a Kerry flip flop, I voted to support it, but I did not mean war. I voted no before I voted yes. Come on people WAKE UP! If congress approved the use of force, they can't then say they did not approve of war. Work on a different arguement.

I also love the way Kerry spells out in the above speaches that Saddam was a clear threat, yet Bush lied. HAHA

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: ciba
My point exactly: If the UN doesn't enforce its own resolutions, is it a useful entity? Why would any country obey a UN resolution contrary to its interest if there will be no negative consequences?

The U.N. isn't an autonomous being. It's only power is what it's member states decide to contribute and it's member states will always act in their best interest.

Is it useful? No if a country with veto power (or a country that has a country with veto power in its back pocket) is the country under fire. Yes if you're talking about the numerous education, and relief programs the U.N. oversees.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
Just like a Kerry flip flop, I voted to support it, but I did not mean war. I voted no before I voted yes. Come on people WAKE UP! If congress approved the use of force, they can't then say they did not approve of war. Work on a different arguement.

I also love the way Kerry spells out in the above speaches that Saddam was a clear threat, yet Bush lied. HAHA

Good job on misunderstanding Kerry's words.

Are you working to be heartsurgeon's or Riprorin's replacement soon?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: MoFunk

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Voting for the authority to use force is not the same as voting for a war. Get that into your heads neocons.

If our congresspeople are THAT stupid to think they were not voting for war, then they should all be thrown out of office. The President already HAS the authority to use military force without specific permission from congress..

I guess this is one of those 'depends on what you definition of IS is' things.

And Congress is the only one that can declare war, we didn't. What's your point? It was a vote for support, not war.

Just like a Kerry flip flop, I voted to support it, but I did not mean war. I voted no before I voted yes. Come on people WAKE UP! If congress approved the use of force, they can't then say they did not approve of war. Work on a different arguement.

I also love the way Kerry spells out in the above speaches that Saddam was a clear threat, yet Bush lied. HAHA

Is your memory that short term or are you just ignorant? Congress had to authorize force because that was the quickest and best way to get inspectors back into Iraq. Had they not authorized force it would have been like pointing a unloaded gun at someone. The resolution loaded that gun, but Bush was the idiot who pulled the f-ing trigger.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Todd33
So? He also said war is a last resort (I'd say most sane people would approve). He approved the authority of force, not a declaration of war. I know levels of gray are too complicated for neocons. Everything is war or not war.

What kind of force to you suppose he authorized?

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: SViscusiThe U.N. isn't an autonomous being. It's only power is what it's member states decide to contribute and it's member states will always act in their best interest.

Is it useful? No if a country with veto power (or a country that has a country with veto power in its back pocket) is the country under fire. Yes if you're talking about the numerous education, and relief programs the U.N. oversees.

You're right. Things get done at the UN when ALL parties agree to a resolution. The problem with the UN and sanctions is that the party under sanction has little to lose for rebuffing the UN. Take Iraq as a case in point. Iraq had little to lose for telling the UN to "shove it." Saddam got what he wanted (thanks oil for "food")

So? He also said war is a last resort (I'd say most sane people would approve). He approved the authority of force, not a declaration of war. I know levels of gray are too complicated for neocons. Everything is war or not war.

Hmmm... I always thought of the use of military force as war, regardless of whether 100,000 people die or just 1,000.

 

[Rainsford]

After reading what he said, I think people are making a big deal out of this. He is saying he would have assigned authority to the president to use force if necessary because he believes it is authority the president should have. Notice he is NOT saying he would have done what Bush did.

IMHO, this is not out of line even for anti-war people. He's saying that, yes, the president should have that authority to use as he sees fit, but Bush misused that authority.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Todd33
So? He also said war is a last resort (I'd say most sane people would approve). He approved the authority of force, not a declaration of war. I know levels of gray are too complicated for neocons. Everything is war or not war.

What kind of force to you suppose he authorized?

I think he proposed pointing an unloaded gun.

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Todd33
So? He also said war is a last resort (I'd say most sane people would approve). He approved the authority of force, not a declaration of war. I know levels of gray are too complicated for neocons. Everything is war or not war.

What kind of force to you suppose he authorized?

I think he proposed pointing an unloaded gun.

using charrison's illustration, it's actually good if bush has an unloaded gun because as it turn out, he was be shooting at wrong suspect (saddam instead of OBD).

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet

Originally posted by: Vadatajs
Voting for the authority to use force is not the same as voting for a war. Get that into your heads neocons.

Bullsh!t, that's exactly what it means. We haven't declared war since WWII so when Congress is asked for permission to use force (iaw War Powers Act) they are in fact authorizing the President to go to "war". Kerry was asked a very specific question and he gave a very specific response. He could've easily referred to or repeated what he said on the Senate floor but he did not so trying to rationalize what he said by referring back to them now is nothing more than a lame attempt to divert criticism. He also could have said that since no wmd have been found yet, if he would not have given authorization but, he didn't so we are forced to take his statements at face value. He very clearly said he would have voted the same way. Period. Get over it.

No, it's NOT exactly what it means.

Go back and read what was voted on and you'll see you are 100% wrong.

Bush was not given authority to immediately invade Iraq. That's what you seem to think occurred.

Bush didn't immediately invade dumbass. You're wrong as usual.

Nice language. :roll:

When was the vote? Oct. 2002.

When was the invasion? Mar. 2003.

Wow...5 whole months to let diplomacy and inspections work. I think that qualifies as immediate considering it takes time to amass troops for an invasion even given Franks' accelerated plans.

The political actions started well before oct 2002.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: UltraQuiet
Bush didn't immediately invade dumbass. You're wrong as usual.

Nice language. :roll:

When was the vote? Oct. 2002.

When was the invasion? Mar. 2003.

Wow...5 whole months to let diplomacy and inspections work. I think that qualifies as immediate considering it takes time to amass troops for an invasion even given Franks' accelerated plans.

The political actions started well before oct 2002.

When did the inspectors return to Iraq?

Hmmm?


I'll give you a hint. It was after that Oct. 2002 vote.