wrong war, wrong time, blah blah

[element]

Originally posted by: 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?

That's not good enough. If that's the case then Kerry should NOT have given authorization to go to war until his demands for "other means necessary" were met.

 

[conjur]

This is all anyone needs to read re:that Oct. 2002 vote:


John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War
TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002

http://www.independentsforkerr.../media/kerry-iraq.html

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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?

I answered your question. Repeatedly. It is not my fault you are determined to evade the answer. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think. Or something like that.

 

[DealMonkey]

I blame Congress (of which Kerry is a mere member, not the sole deciding force) for giving the President a blank check. I blame them for bowing to immense political pressure only a year post-9/11 to not stand in the way of fighting terror. I blame them for being the political animals they are. I blame Congress, yet I blame the President more for misusing the authority given to him. I blame him more for taking us to war on false premises against a threat that really wasn't a threat. I blame him more for cooking the intel and rushing to war.

Kerry's vote was only 1 of 535 to authorize force in the last resort where force became necessary. Bush's vote was 1 of 1. Ultimately, this is Bush's war. Element's attempt to equate the two votes as if they carried the same weight is laughable. Nice try Element, but nope.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: element
That's not good enough. If that's the case then Kerry should NOT have given authorization to go to war until his demands for "other means necessary" were met.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news...003/03/20030316-3.html

THE PRESIDENT: Jose, thank you very much for your hospitality. You've done a great job on such short notice. And I'm honored to be standing to here with you and two other friends as we work toward a great cause, and that is peace and security in this world.

We've had a really good discussion. We've been doing a lot of phone talking and it was good to get together and to visit and to talk. And we concluded that tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world. Many nations have voiced a commitment to peace and security. And now they must demonstrate that commitment to peace and security in the only effective way, by supporting the immediate and unconditional disarmament of Saddam Hussein.

The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations. He is a danger to his neighbors. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He's an obstacle to progress in the Middle East. For decades he has been the cruel, cruel oppressor of the Iraq people.

On this very day 15 years ago, Saddam Hussein launched a chemical weapons attack on the Iraqi village of Halabja. With a single order the Iraqi regime killed thousands of men and women and children, without mercy or without shame. Saddam Hussein has proven he is capable of any crime. We must not permit his crimes to reach across the world.

Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder. He agrees -- he agreed to disarm Iraq of these weapons as a condition for ending the Gulf War over a decade ago. The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441, has declared Iraq in material breach of its longstanding obligations, demanding once again Iraq's full and immediate disarmament, and promised serious consequences if the regime refused to comply. That resolution was passed unanimously and its logic is inescapable; the Iraqi regime will disarm itself, or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force. And the regime has not disarmed itself.

Action to remove the threat from Iraq would also allow the Iraqi people to build a better future for their society. And Iraq's liberation would be the beginning, not the end, of our commitment to its people. We will supply humanitarian relief, bring economic sanctions to a swift close, and work for the long-term recovery of Iraq's economy. We'll make sure that Iraq's natural resources are used for the benefit of their owners, the Iraqi people.

Iraq has the potential to be a great nation. Iraq's people are skilled and educated. We'll push as quickly as possible for an Iraqi interim authority to draw upon the talents of Iraq's people to rebuild their nation. We're committed to the goal of a unified Iraq, with democratic institutions of which members of all ethnic and religious groups are treated with dignity and respect.

To achieve this vision, we will work closely with the international community, including the United Nations and our coalition partners. If military force is required, we'll quickly seek new Security Council resolutions to encourage broad participation in the process of helping the Iraqi people to build a free Iraq.

Crucial days lie ahead for the world. I want to thank the leaders here today, and many others, for stepping forward and taking leadership, and showing their resolve in the cause of peace and the cause of security.

Jose Maria.

Two days later, he sends this letter to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame Congress (of which Kerry is a mere member, not the sole deciding force) for giving the President a blank check. I blame them for bowing to immense political pressure only a year post-9/11 to not stand in the way of fighting terror. I blame them for being the political animals they are. I blame Congress, yet I blame the President more for misusing the authority given to him. I blame him more for taking us to war on false premises against a threat that really wasn't a threat. I blame him more for cooking the intel and rushing to war.

Kerry's vote was only 1 of 535 to authorize force in the last resort where force became necessary. Bush's vote was 1 of 1. Ultimately, this is Bush's war. Element's attempt to equate the two votes as if they carried the same weight is laughable. Nice try Element, but nope.

Well said. I agree 100%.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame Congress (of which Kerry is a mere member, not the sole deciding force) for giving the President a blank check. I blame them for bowing to immense political pressure only a year post-9/11 to not stand in the way of fighting terror. I blame them for being the political animals they are. I blame Congress, yet I blame the President more for misusing the authority given to him. I blame him more for taking us to war on false premises against a threat that really wasn't a threat. I blame him more for cooking the intel and rushing to war.

Kerry's vote was only 1 of 535 to authorize force in the last resort where force became necessary. Bush's vote was 1 of 1. Ultimately, this is Bush's war. Element's attempt to equate the two votes as if they carried the same weight is laughable. Nice try Element, but nope.

it's true the votes don't carry equal weight. But I never said they did either.

All I asked was (why i need to repeat this yet again astounds me) why Kerry gave authorization if he knew then it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame Congress (of which Kerry is a mere member, not the sole deciding force) for giving the President a blank check. I blame them for bowing to immense political pressure only a year post-9/11 to not stand in the way of fighting terror. I blame them for being the political animals they are. I blame Congress, yet I blame the President more for misusing the authority given to him. I blame him more for taking us to war on false premises against a threat that really wasn't a threat. I blame him more for cooking the intel and rushing to war.

Kerry's vote was only 1 of 535 to authorize force in the last resort where force became necessary. Bush's vote was 1 of 1. Ultimately, this is Bush's war. Element's attempt to equate the two votes as if they carried the same weight is laughable. Nice try Element, but nope.

it's true the votes don't carry equal weight. But I never said they did either.

All I asked was (why i need to repeat this yet again astounds me) why Kerry gave authorization if he knew then it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Conjur's link answered your question nicely and accurately. Open your partisan ears....or turn off the troll thread. Plain...and.....Simple!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame Congress (of which Kerry is a mere member, not the sole deciding force) for giving the President a blank check. I blame them for bowing to immense political pressure only a year post-9/11 to not stand in the way of fighting terror. I blame them for being the political animals they are. I blame Congress, yet I blame the President more for misusing the authority given to him. I blame him more for taking us to war on false premises against a threat that really wasn't a threat. I blame him more for cooking the intel and rushing to war.

Kerry's vote was only 1 of 535 to authorize force in the last resort where force became necessary. Bush's vote was 1 of 1. Ultimately, this is Bush's war. Element's attempt to equate the two votes as if they carried the same weight is laughable. Nice try Element, but nope.

it's true the votes don't carry equal weight. But I never said they did either.

All I asked was (why i need to repeat this yet again astounds me) why Kerry gave authorization if he knew then it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

DM and I both* answered your question. I'd suggest you not attack others for being "illiterate 7yr old".


Edit: as did Conjur and probably others.

 

[element]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: element

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame Congress (of which Kerry is a mere member, not the sole deciding force) for giving the President a blank check. I blame them for bowing to immense political pressure only a year post-9/11 to not stand in the way of fighting terror. I blame them for being the political animals they are. I blame Congress, yet I blame the President more for misusing the authority given to him. I blame him more for taking us to war on false premises against a threat that really wasn't a threat. I blame him more for cooking the intel and rushing to war.

Kerry's vote was only 1 of 535 to authorize force in the last resort where force became necessary. Bush's vote was 1 of 1. Ultimately, this is Bush's war. Element's attempt to equate the two votes as if they carried the same weight is laughable. Nice try Element, but nope.

it's true the votes don't carry equal weight. But I never said they did either.

All I asked was (why i need to repeat this yet again astounds me) why Kerry gave authorization if he knew then it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Conjur's link answered your question nicely and accurately. Open your partisan ears....or turn off the troll thread. Plain...and.....Simple!

If it's a troll thread, what are you doing here? Trolling? I thought we were having a discussion, where we might agree to disagree. (if you think Kerry is blameless) but if you think he shoudl share the responsiblity, as some have conceded to (although it was like pulling teeth to get them to) but some still won't concede that point.

 

[Engineer]

Just as hackers hate to be hacked...I'm trolling the troll!

You GD question has been answered and you're pulling shtz. You'll never be satisifed.

Bush took us to an unjustified war...Kerry did not.

Thanks for playing....please drive through.

 

[fjord]

All I asked was (why i need to repeat this yet again astounds me) why Kerry gave authorization if he knew then it was the wrong war at the wrong time?

Perhaps you have to keep asking this why question because the implications within it are supposition and false assumption.

1st implication in dispute "Kerry gave authorization"
2nd implication in dispute "if he knew then it was the wrong war at the wrong time"

So the entire question is suspect (read: invalid).

 

[umbrella39]

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?

Do a back search or two before you post this tripe again. Kthanks.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: element

That's not good enough. If that's the case then Kerry should NOT have given authorization to go to war until his demands for "other means necessary" were met.

This President Kerry nonsense has really gotten beyond old.

Now Neocons can't even admit Bush has been the President for past 4 years.

Beyond Pathetic.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Buahahaha... lots of kerry apologists here.

First off, a vote to authorize the use of force isn't a "bargaining chip" or a "threaten to use force" vote. If one want to threaten or bargain - they don't need a joint resolution to do so. Congress knew what they were voting for when they voted on it. This dance kerry and other are trying to play with their vote is laughable.
Second, as element has stated. If kerry did not want force to be used as the President felt necessary, then he shouldn't have voted for something that gave the President the authority to use force as he deemed necessary. Kerry wasn't born yesterday - he knows how things work - he knew exactly what he was voting for.
Third, there was no "rush to war". There was well over a year of planning, posturing, and etc leading up to when we started the invasion to remove Saddam. This idea that there was a "rush" is absurd. I suppose maybe we should wait two years before we act next time - maybe then you won't think there was a "rush" to war.:roll:

All the kerry apologists in the world can't change how he voted, but it's fun to see them try. Excuse after excuse for his votes. Hell, the funniest part of all this is kerry has stolen dean's "wrong war at the wrong time" line. I'm just waiting for kerry's version of the dean scream!

CsG

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

Yeah look how well it turned out for us!

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Buahahaha... lots of kerry apologists here.

First off, a vote to authorize the use of force isn't a "bargaining chip" or a "threaten to use force" vote. If one want to threaten or bargain - they don't need a joint resolution to do so. Congress knew what they were voting for when they voted on it. This dance kerry and other are trying to play with their vote is laughable.
Second, as element has stated. If kerry did not want force to be used as the President felt necessary, then he shouldn't have voted for something that gave the President the authority to use force as he deemed necessary. Kerry wasn't born yesterday - he knows how things work - he knew exactly what he was voting for.
Third, there was no "rush to war". There was well over a year of planning, posturing, and etc leading up to when we started the invasion to remove Saddam. This idea that there was a "rush" is absurd. I suppose maybe we should wait two years before we act next time - maybe then you won't think there was a "rush" to war.

All the kerry apologists in the world can't change how he voted, but it's fun to see them try. Excuse after excuse for his votes. Hell, the funniest part of all this is kerry has stolen dean's "wrong war at the wrong time" line. I'm just waiting for kerry's version of the dean scream!

CsG

Didn't you guys (CSG + Element specifically) watch the first debate? I would think P+N nuts such as yourself would have watched all 3. Kerry addressed this issue. The president should be allowed some discretionary power to use the military. The president asked congress for authorization to use force he deemed necessary and they gave it to him. Bush then sent our troops into Iraq on false pretenses: it wasn't a rush to war because Bush was planning to invade iraq before 9/11 (no connection, btw), before he even was elected to office! 1100+ american deaths and 20000+ iraqi civilian deaths are on his hands. I hope you are proud of your boy, because I am certainly not.