Kerry's Iraq vote

Btw, it's a pretty big issue.

Never said it wasn't, the point is that this big issue is the main issue and both were singing the same tune prior and now even after the war, both defending going in.

Re: Kerry's Iraq vote


No, he didn't.

Re: Kerry's Iraq vote

Yes, he did
http://www.issues2000.org/International/John_Kerry_War_+_Peace.htm
On the Iraq war, the Bush campaign has been pressuring Kerry to say whether he would have still voted for the war given the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found. Bush maintains the world is still better off without Saddam Hussein in power. Kerry on Monday said he would have voted to give the president authorization to use force against Iraq "but I would have used that authority effectively."

Bush and his aides said that was evidence of Kerry flip-flopping from an anti-war stance. "Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq."

Kerry's campaign national security adviser responded, "The issue has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable, the issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace."
Source: Steve Holland, Reuters Aug 10, 2004

Re: Kerry's Iraq vote


"but I would have used that authority effectively" are the key words. Sorry Kerry does not see everything as simple as words like, "wanted dead or alive" and then saying that it don't matter if they catch bin ladden or not.

I guess I still feel, as I did at the time, that the Congress gave away its authority by voting to authorize the president to go to war as a last resort. It's something I hold against Kerry and Edwards because I feel they sold out the American people. If anyone should have known how this president would use that resolution, it was them.

My hunch is that they saw that it would be passed with or without their votes and knew they would be portrayed as soft on terrorism if they didn't vote for it. That kind of purely political rationalizing is not something I can fully appreciate, but I gave up looking for an honest politician a long time ago.

what a melancholy post Duck

Freeduck
Freeduck, you speak the truth. I would never have trusted Bush with the resolution Congress gave him. Their only excuse is the tremendous pressure created by the lies being proffered by Bush et al. I'm old fashion. I believe the Constitution give the power to Congress to declare war. The Congress gave up that power and they should be ashamed of that fact and never, never again repeat the same mistake.

BBB

I feel the same way, even why they did it as you do. But when you consider it is either kerry or bush, my thinking is it is better to be kerry. There are not too many people around who wasn't for the war then and now are not so who are we left with to choose from besides people like dean and nader who don't have a chance for some reason? (I personally don't care for nader; no particular reason, just don't; I like dean but for some reason he wasn't considered electible)

Politics makes me sad. That's why I'm here -- for therapy.

Text of Joint Resolution to Authorize use of force in Iraq
It may be helpful to the debate to actually read the text of the resolution Congress voted to approve. ---BBB

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President 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 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate 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, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution 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 terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Re: Kerry's Iraq vote

Yes, but he voted for the war, the war that Bush 'lied' about, so Kerry is a liar too? You think he wasn't able to see intelligence?

He wasn't only going by the word of the president he was also going by our's and other countries intelligence.

My post wasn't about who would have done better it was about the double standard still flying around. You guy's say "BUSH LIED" then I give you a quote almost exactly the same as Bush's but from Kerry. Then, you say "Well, Kerry would have done better". Again, This is just about the ridiculous double standard not what they would have done different. If Bush lied, Kerry lied, they both said the same things from intelligence they BOTH saw.

Re: Kerry's Iraq vote


Kerry's campaign slogan should be "Me too, but I would do it better." What? What makes you people think that Kerry is going to do well if elected?

Kerry wants to cut the intelligence budget BIGTIME. In this day and age, this should be the most important thing to us. Why do you think there hasn't been a terrorist attack since 9/11? Do you think they're just waiting around twiddling their thumbs? Do you think they just don't feel like it? Or is it maybe...hmmm...because the Bush admin is doing a good job keeping them away? Trust me, all the terrorists want to do is kill us...they wouldn't have waited 3 years, they would kick us while we're already down.

al-Qaeda wants Bush out of office. Could that be...because...he's effectively breaking down their sinister organization?

Take a big reality check people, the apocalypse is near if Kerry gets into office.

I'll tell you what Fuk: For a first post, you're getting in my face, a little too much. I'm just gonna scroll and roll. C ya

Re: Kerry's Iraq vote


Agreed. What the masses fail to realize is that the government knows things that the general public will never know. Bush would not have lead us to war without a lot of thought, and credible intelligence that we needed to go, and we needed to go now.

Bush does not have a sinister agenda like many like to believe.

TheTruth,

The fact is simply that Bush and Kerry DIDN'T see the same intelligence.

The senators were presented a great deal of evidence from the white house which was classified to begin with and filtered straight to them.

The vast majority of senators did not see the classified evidence at the highest levels.

Bush (and more importantly, his people) most certainly did. And they are the ones who were in the best position to judge the accuracy of the information. They claimed it was super accurate at the time; it turns out that it wasn't. Big mistake.

Now there's a sizeable amount of evidence saying that the alphabet agencies gave some warning that Iraq didn't have what the pres was claiming FOR SURE....

This is a real problem. If you don't want to blame Bush, fine. I don't, not really. Blame his staff, the REAL neo-cons.

Cycloptichorn

nor does Bush have "a lot of thought, and credible intelligence."

dear mr. newbie

Your name offends even me, and I will admit I can be a pretty offensive Bear. I've reported it.