wrong war, wrong time, blah blah

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: jtusa4

Originally posted by: Aimster
He voted to go to war. He didn't vote to go to War by telling the UN to shove it up their ass.

I think Bush standing up the U.N. was a very good thing.

The inspectors were doing their job. Saddam was being very allowing in letting them do their job. He was allowing them to go wherever they wanted to go. There was no reason to rush into it. Bush didn't like the fact that they couldn't come up with anything.
He didn't let them do their job in the mid 90s, but he did in the last time.

Are you being sarcastic or are you from an alternate universe? Everything happened exactly contrary to what you just posted.

The inspectors were at it for 12 years. Saddam kept kicking them out, then letting them back in when threatened with force only. Then kicking them out again. Rinse repeat over 12 years. It wasn't rushed into it took over 12 years. Bush never said anything about "liking or disliking" the outcome, only Saddam's defiance, which is completely different. Who didn't let them do their job? Bush? They had 12 years, that should be more than enough.

I'm not being sarcastic. The war was a mistake. Iraq was never a security risk for the United States. For the Middle East maybe. This doesn't even include Israel as Iraq's military was rusting. Bush's reasoning for war does not make sense to me. Even if you say Saddam had weapons of mass destruction then why did we go after Iraq and not Iran? Iran has far more advanced weapons than Iraq. Iran is known to have tons of chemical weapons, building missles able to hit Europe (which they have now), and are also 1 year away from a nuclear bomb. They also send millions to Hezbolleh and they have thousands of Republican Guard troops in Lebanon.

Iraq was finally allowing the inspectors to do their job. If it took force for Saddam to listen then we would have used forced if he failed. We gave him one last chance and he listened, but we didn't care at that point. What was the reason to rush into war? Iraq had no ties to any terrorist organization. Iran is known to have ties to terrorist organization. The leaders in Iran spread anti-U.S anti-Israel remarks left and right.

Explain to me why Iraq over Iran.

Cuz Saddam put a hit out on Big Daddy Bush. Iraq was just easier, and with iraq and afghanistan under our belt, we can now squeeze Iran from both sides. Pop em like a pimple. I think we've put a real cramp in Iran's support of terrorists in Syria and Lebanon by now occupying iraq

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: element
If Kerry is so good at making decisions compared to Bush, why was he so easily convinced to vote for the war as well? Yes let's remember Kerry voted for the war.

if your answer is that the war was just, then why now is he against it?

Bush Campaign Lie #742: Kerry voted for invading Iraq.

Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.


Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N. He did not tell Bush to invade.

Got it?

Didn't think so.

That's funny. I don't recall the words "bargaining chip" in the resolution. I do recall something along these lines:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "

that doesn't tell Bush to invade. Just gives him the power to decide to do the right or wrong thing. Bush chose poorly. Time for him to go.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: element
If Kerry is so good at making decisions compared to Bush, why was he so easily convinced to vote for the war as well? Yes let's remember Kerry voted for the war.

if your answer is that the war was just, then why now is he against it?

Bush Campaign Lie #742: Kerry voted for invading Iraq.

Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.


Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N. He did not tell Bush to invade.

Got it?

Didn't think so.

That's funny. I don't recall the words "bargaining chip" in the resolution. I do recall something along these lines:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "

To put this to bed, Congress did not explicitly vote for war, however everyone knew Bush could run with this and start one. No one should have been suprised that this would be used as implicit (or even explicit) support for the Iraq War. Politicians play this game all the time, and if Congress (including Kerry) didn't see it coming, shame on them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: element
If Kerry is so good at making decisions compared to Bush, why was he so easily convinced to vote for the war as well? Yes let's remember Kerry voted for the war.

if your answer is that the war was just, then why now is he against it?

Bush Campaign Lie #742: Kerry voted for invading Iraq.

Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.


Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N. He did not tell Bush to invade.

Got it?

Didn't think so.

That's funny. I don't recall the words "bargaining chip" in the resolution. I do recall something along these lines:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "

Are the words "invade Iraq" in the resolution? No. It was NOT a resolution to invade Iraq. It was a resolution "to give the President of the United States the authority" to use the Armed Forces as Bush deemed necessary (very open and general). You'll note my quote in the preceding sentence is an accurate paraphrase of the resolution. You will also note the resolution does not mention invasion. Kerry simply, inarguably did NOT vote to invade Iraq. Period.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K
that doesn't tell Bush to invade. Just gives him the power to decide to do the right or wrong thing. Bush chose poorly. Time for him to go.

I like that. Short, accurate, and to the point. "Bush chose poorly." Exactly. How many poor choices do we let him make before we fire him?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: element
If Kerry is so good at making decisions compared to Bush, why was he so easily convinced to vote for the war as well? Yes let's remember Kerry voted for the war.

if your answer is that the war was just, then why now is he against it?

Bush Campaign Lie #742: Kerry voted for invading Iraq.

Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.


Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N. He did not tell Bush to invade.

Got it?

Didn't think so.

That's funny. I don't recall the words "bargaining chip" in the resolution. I do recall something along these lines:

"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq. "

Are the words "invade Iraq" in the resolution? No. It was NOT a resolution to invade Iraq. It was a resolution "to give the President of the United States the authority" to use the Armed Forces as Bush deemed necessary (very open and general). You'll note my quote in the preceding sentence is an accurate paraphrase of the resolution. You will also note the resolution does not mention invasion. Kerry simply, inarguably did NOT vote to invade Iraq. Period.

I see. So if he didn't give authorization to invade, then what military authorization did he give? Airstrikes? Pistols at dawn? Please define what authority was granted when he authorized the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary"

 

[alchemize]

To put this to bed, Congress did not explicitly vote for war, however everyone knew Bush could run with this and start one. No one should have been suprised that this would be used as implicit (or even explicit) support for the Iraq War. Politicians play this game all the time, and if Congress (including Kerry) didn't see it coming, shame on them.

Of course they saw it coming. Kerry didn't want to be caught on the wrong side of the vote. It was a political calculation. He gambled, and lost. It's only appropriate it is used against him.

Bush did the same thing. He gambled that Iraq would have WMD's. They didn't. And it's only appropriate it is used against him. If they had, we wouldn't be having any of these vigorous conversations over a hotly contested election!

Kerry should be held as accountable for voting the authorization of the "President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (guess we have to say that every time to keep Bowfinger happy), as Bush should be held accountable for using incomplete intelligence.

We need to elect better gamblers...

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: alchemize

To put this to bed, Congress did not explicitly vote for war, however everyone knew Bush could run with this and start one. No one should have been suprised that this would be used as implicit (or even explicit) support for the Iraq War. Politicians play this game all the time, and if Congress (including Kerry) didn't see it coming, shame on them.

Of course they saw it coming. Kerry didn't want to be caught on the wrong side of the vote. It was a political calculation. He gambled, and lost. It's only appropriate it is used against him.

Bush did the same thing. He gambled that Iraq would have WMD's. They didn't. And it's only appropriate it is used against him. If they had, we wouldn't be having any of these vigorous conversations over a hotly contested election!

Kerry should be held as accountable for voting the authorization of the "President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (guess we have to say that every time to keep Bowfinger happy), as Bush should be held accountable for using incomplete intelligence.

We need to elect better gamblers...

So by this you are at least admitting that this Iraq debacle/quagmire is MORE Bush's fault than Congress's? I guess we'll have to take that as a consolation prize.

If you were mad at Bowfinger and asked me for permission to do something about it and I said, "go ahead!" is it now my fault when you smack him across the face then get your ass beat? I don't think so. The president would have gotten all the glory in victory, he should accept responsibility in failure. The president needs to take responsibility for his own actions and decisions. He should be held accountable to this. He asked for more slack from Congress, they gave it to him and he hung himself with it. Congress is republican controlled anyhow.. yeesh.

 

[element]

If congress gives authorization for war willy nilly and leaves it up to the president to decide then our system of checks and balances isn't working now is it?

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: element
If congress gives authorization for war willy nilly and leaves it up to the president to decide then our system of checks and balances isn't working now is it?

most presidents aren't as irresponsible. :disgust:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I see. So if he didn't give authorization to invade, then what military authorization did he give? Airstrikes? Pistols at dawn? Please define what authority was granted when he authorized the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary"

I don't need to define it, you're changing the subject. The claim is that Kerry voted to invade Iraq. That claim is false. Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use force if necessary. Bush is the one who chose to use that authorization to rush into an invasion instead of making real efforts to work with the U.N., build a true coalition, and let the U.N. Weapons Inspectors continue their work. The Inspectors were, of course, gathering the information that might have ultimately made it obvious that Iraq no longer had stockpiles of WMDs, thus undermining his compulsion to attack.

That said, I agree with your comment in your next post. Kerry should be held responsible for making the politically cowardly vote letting Bush rush to war. Kerry did NOT, however, vote to invade Iraq. That was Bush's choice.

 

[element]

Congress is republican controlled anyhow.. yeesh

This is about Kerry not congress. If Kerry had voted no, are you saying that means nothing? is yes vote means nothing, his no vote means nothing. Let's do away with congress what we need them for?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: element
If Kerry is so good at making decisions compared to Bush, why was he so easily convinced to vote for the war as well? Yes let's remember Kerry voted for the war.

if your answer is that the war was just, then why now is he against it?

Bush Campaign Lie #742: Kerry voted for invading Iraq.

Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.
Kerry did NOT vote to invade Iraq.


Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force as a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N. He did not tell Bush to invade.

Got it?

Didn't think so.

Kerry said back in 1991, when he voted against the first Gulf War (which somehow didn't pass his global test w/ the biggest coalition ever assembled and UN authority), that everyone knew that voting to give the President the authority to go to war was in fact a vote to go to war.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Kerry said back in 1991, when he voted against the first Gulf War (which somehow didn't pass his global test w/ the biggest coalition ever assembled and UN authority), that everyone knew that voting to give the President the authority to go to war was in fact a vote to go to war.

Interesting. Now give a link.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K

Originally posted by: alchemize

To put this to bed, Congress did not explicitly vote for war, however everyone knew Bush could run with this and start one. No one should have been suprised that this would be used as implicit (or even explicit) support for the Iraq War. Politicians play this game all the time, and if Congress (including Kerry) didn't see it coming, shame on them.

Of course they saw it coming. Kerry didn't want to be caught on the wrong side of the vote. It was a political calculation. He gambled, and lost. It's only appropriate it is used against him.

Bush did the same thing. He gambled that Iraq would have WMD's. They didn't. And it's only appropriate it is used against him. If they had, we wouldn't be having any of these vigorous conversations over a hotly contested election!

Kerry should be held as accountable for voting the authorization of the "President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (guess we have to say that every time to keep Bowfinger happy), as Bush should be held accountable for using incomplete intelligence.

We need to elect better gamblers...

So by this you are at least admitting that this Iraq debacle/quagmire is MORE Bush's fault than Congress's? I guess we'll have to take that as a consolation prize.

If you were mad at Bowfinger and asked me for permission to do something about it and I said, "go ahead!" is it now my fault when you smack him across the face then get your ass beat? I don't think so. The president would have gotten all the glory in victory, he should accept responsibility in failure. The president needs to take responsibility for his own actions and decisions. He should be held accountable to this. He asked for more slack from Congress, they gave it to him and he hung himself with it. Congress is republican controlled anyhow.. yeesh.

It should be no surprise that Congress cannot abdicate their separate power to declare war.

What the Iraq War Resolution represents is an illegal act. That includes Kerry.

It should be noted also--that at the time of the resolution vote--the Bush administration was putting the hammer down full-throtle, with lies, fabrications, inuendo and misdirection. The atmosphere they cleverly created made it clear that a vote against the resolution was tantamount to treason. That was the Bush strategy--it was hard fought for by Bush--and he clearly celebrated the vote--as his victory.

Having said that--IMHO--it was absolutely illegal.

 

[element]

Kerry campaign lie #1025: Kerry voted for a bargaining chip. not for the war.

Let the chips land where they may. What chip? Where did you see any mention of a chip in any document regarding the vote
to authorize use of force
to authorize use of force
to authorize use of force
to authorize use of force
to authorize use of force
to authorize use of force

get it yet? I didn't think so.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: ntdz
Kerry said back in 1991, when he voted against the first Gulf War (which somehow didn't pass his global test w/ the biggest coalition ever assembled and UN authority), that everyone knew that voting to give the President the authority to go to war was in fact a vote to go to war.

Interesting. Now give a link.

Not to mention it's irrelevant, as has been thoroughly hashed if he'd read the thread.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: EDoG2K

Originally posted by: element
If congress gives authorization for war willy nilly and leaves it up to the president to decide then our system of checks and balances isn't working now is it?

most presidents aren't as irresponsible. :disgust:

Wow you still don't get this is about Kerry and not the president do you? If Kerry knew this war was wrong why did he give authorization to the president to wage it?

/me sits back and watches Kerry apologists dance around the issue

 

[element]

It's plain english but I'll explain it in YET even simpler terms for those a little on the slow side.

I'm not asking what the president did or if Kerry "told him to go to war" (laughable, nice try to twist the issue), I'm asking what Kerry was thinking when he gave authorization to use force on Iraq.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: element
Kerry campaign lie #1025: Kerry voted for a bargaining chip. not for the war.

Let the chips land where they may. What chip? Where did you see any mention of a chip in any document regarding the vote to authorize use of force

get it yet? I didn't think so.

You will also not see the words "war", "invasion", "shock and awe", or "slaughtering thousands of innocent Iraqis" in the resolution. What's your point?

By the way, I did not say Kerry voted "for a bargaining chip". I said, and I quote, "Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force". (As alc, pointed out, even that's not completely accurate. He actually voted to allow Bush to use the military as Bush deemed necessary.) Why did Kerry do that? To give the President "a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N." Kerry did not vote to invade. Kerry did not tell Bush to invade. Bush made that decision.

I know understanding nuance can be hard work, but there is a significant difference between the two statements.

 

[conjur]

<---- pokes head into thread, sees it's a troll thread, heads on out.

 

[her209]

Kerry vote to give authorization to the President for the war, HOWEVER, he made it publicly clear that he want the president to use all other means necessary before going to war. Did Bush do that?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: element
It's plain english but I'll explain it in YET even simpler terms for those a little on the slow side.

I'm not asking what the president did or if Kerry "told him to go to war" (laughable, nice try to twist the issue), I'm asking what Kerry was thinking when he gave authorization to use force on Iraq.

IMO, Kerry was thinking it's political suicide to vote against the authorization. He may have been so truly naive as to have trusted Bush to use war as a last resort. He may truly not have realized just how reckless Bush is. We'll never know for sure. I tend to believe Kerry, however, because of his accidental honesty when he blurted out to Rolling Stone, "I would have never voted for it if I'd known he was going to fsck it up so badly." (Not an exact quote, but close enough for this purpose.)

As I said to alc a few message up, Kerry should be held responsible for his timid vote. It is a legitimate complaint. That's not the same thing as saying Kerry voted to invade Iraq.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: element
Kerry campaign lie #1025: Kerry voted for a bargaining chip. not for the war.

Let the chips land where they may. What chip? Where did you see any mention of a chip in any document regarding the vote to authorize use of force

get it yet? I didn't think so.

You will also not see the words "war", "invasion", "shock and awe", or "slaughtering thousands of innocent Iraqis" in the resolution. What's your point?

By the way, I did not say Kerry voted "for a bargaining chip". I said, and I quote, "Kerry voted to give the President of the United States the authority to use force". (As alc, pointed out, even that's not completely accurate. He actually voted to allow Bush to use the military as Bush deemed necessary.) Why did Kerry do that? To give the President "a bargaining chip to gain better cooperation from both Iraq and the U.N." Kerry did not vote to invade. Kerry did not tell Bush to invade. Bush made that decision.

I know understanding nuance can be hard work, but there is a significant difference between the two statements.

I know it's hard work learning english and reading comprehension (well at least for an illiterate 7yr old it must be)

But where I come from authorization for use of military force is the same as authorization to go to war. Of course if you're blinded by zealotry, hate, or just an illiterate that doesn't have much in the way of comprehension skills I can see why you might not see that.

Military force is war, that so hard to understand?

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: element
It's plain english but I'll explain it in YET even simpler terms for those a little on the slow side.

I'm not asking what the president did or if Kerry "told him to go to war" (laughable, nice try to twist the issue), I'm asking what Kerry was thinking when he gave authorization to use force on Iraq.

That is not accurate--Bush's 2002 Iraq War Resolution--was a punt by congress. It gave the president discretion (not authorization) to make the call on attacking Iraq.

Congress should not, and cannot punt as such--that much I totally agree with.


CNN vote article.