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
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
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
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
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
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
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"
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...
Originally posted by: alchemize
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.
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?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
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.
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?
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.
Originally posted by: EDoG2K
Originally posted by: alchemize
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
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.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
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.
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?
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter