Quote, "The resolution said, "The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (my italics) to defend U.S. interests and enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions that Hussein was flouting." So I'll repeat it for the thousanths time: Bush justified the war in Iraq on the basis the Saddam had WMDs. That claim has been proven wrong over and over and over and over. It doesn't even come close to "necessary and appropriate."
Quote:Bush justified the war in Iraq on the basis the Saddam had WMDs. That claim has been proven wrong over and over and over and over. It doesn't even come close to "necessary and appropriate."
So if John Kerry knew that, why did he vote for the war?
Saddam was not a threat to anybody as long as the UN inspectors were doing their jobs, Iraq was under sanctions, and Saddam was contained within the no fly zone.
So if John Kerry thought that, why did he vote for the war?
I suspect that the next Frontier will be Iran... and the Military/Industrial Complex will continue to have their way with the American economy... rape, pillage and plunder.
Because Kerry thought Bush would use due diligence, but didn't. Can't blame that on Kerry. Making wrong decisions by Bush is universally known and understood. Only conservatives and Bush never thinks he makes major mistakes - only small one's because he's human.
But Bush is willing to leave that up to historians....on the small mistakes.
Due diligence? Kerry had access to every single bit of information Bush had prior to sending in the first wave of the invasion. Kerry sits on the intelligence committee remember? I can dig up all those Kerry quotes that have been posted again and again and again in which Kerry again and again and again agreed 100% with President Bush's opinion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and the threat that existed--UNTIL--Kerry was running against George Bush for president.
It is either the height of disingenuousness or naivete to think that Congress was not voting on an imminent resolution for immediate implementation. Presidents don't go to Congress for authority they might need at some future time. The President spelled out in no uncertain terms that the U.N. would be given one last chance to act. If they did not we go ahead. The President gave the U.N. that one last (of many) chances. Then acted with the full knowledge and consent of Congress.
This has to be Kerry's biggest flip flop of all, and the one with the most serious consequences.
Fox, You have learned spin-mysting from the experts, Bush and company.
cicerone imposter wrote:Fox, You have learned spin-mysting from the experts, Bush and company.
That's a funny way of saying, " well, ya, I guess that's true". :wink:
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states: "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War...." This simple and clear language requires that the decision of whether or not we go to war must be made by the legislative branch. By definition it specifically prohibits the president from making that decision, as the authors of the Constitution deemed the power to wage war to be too great to place in the hands of one individual.
In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution that gave President Bush
the power to fight terrorism. A loose reading of it would lead one to believe that it gave him the power to start wars. But
the content of it does not issue a declaration of war against any nation. Rather, it states that the president "has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States...." It does not and cannot alter the express language of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could do so.
Very few members of Congress who voted for the Iraq resolution thought they were handing President Bush war-making powers. Just read the statements made on the floors of the House and the Senate by the resolution's proponents. Also, on Jan. 24, 2003, 123 members of Congress sent a letter to the president stating that "the US should make every attempt to achieve Iraq's disarmament through diplomatic means and with the full support of our allies." Of the signers, 22 had voted for the resolution.
SOURCE
Foxfyre wrote:So Revel (and others), given Kerry's perfect 20-20 hindsight and his absolute firm convictions that there were no weapons of mass destruction and sanctions were containing Saddam Hussein, why did he vote to authorize the war?
I am by no means the smartest person on the block. But I just don't understand why you guys can't understand Kerry's vote. I really think that you guys do understand it but are just being obtuse for the sake of the argument. It's like Kerry said bush can't defend his own record of failures so he attacks and distorts kerry's.
So I will try to explain it one more time and after that if you still ask the same stupid question in the face of all logic, I give up.
Kerry did not know before hand that Saddam did not have weapons and in order for his defense to work, he did not need to know.
Kerry voted for the resolution but with conditions for a process to go through. Bush said he would go through with the process but he quit before the process was allowed to work it's course. If the process was allowed to run its course then at the end everyone would have known there was no weapons of mass destruction so there would have been no need to go to war and kill people on both sides. There was no need for a crystal ball or 20/20 hindsight. It was Bush's rush to war that stoped the process of the inspections that Kerry objects to, not his vote for the resolution that said if there was a
need for force then he would be for it.
What is so hard to understand?
Again, I think you guys do understand it, whats more I think the voters do too and this "he was for it before he was against it" is going stale. Better come up with something else quick.
Squinney, Revel, others. I know you guys would like to believe what Kerry is now saying is what he always said... but that simply isn't so. Here is what he had to say in the past:
On Eve Of War, Kerry Said Saddam Hussein's WMD Are Threat. KERRY: "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." (NPR's "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)
Here is a more complete list of Kerry quotes on the subject.
Kerry On Saddam's WMDs:
Kerry: "I Have Always Said We May Yet Even Find Weapons Of Mass Destruction. I Don't Know The Answer To That." (Fox News' "Fox News Sunday," 12/14/03)
Kerry On Saddam's History Of Miscalculation: "And Now He Is Miscalculating America's Response To His Continued Deceit And His Consistent Grasp For Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Georgetown University, 1/23/03)
Kerry Wanted To Show World U.S. Ready To Act To Take Away Saddam's "Deadly Arsenal." "'By standing with the president, Congress will demonstrate that our nation is united in its determination to take away Saddam Hussein's deadly arsenal, by peaceful means if we can, by force if we must,' Kerry said." (Nick Anderson And Richard Simon, "Debate On Iraq," Los Angeles Times, 10/10/02)
On Eve Of War, Kerry Said Saddam Hussein's WMD Are Threat. KERRY: "I think Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that's why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him." (NPR's "All Things Considered," 3/19/03)
Kerry Said Saddam Chose "To Make Military Force The Ultimate Weapons Inspections Enforcement Mechanism." (Glen Johnson, "Critics Of Bush Voice Support For The Troops," The Boston Globe, 3/20/03)
Kerry Said "Threat Of Saddam Hussein With Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Real." "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)
Kerry Cited WMD As Reason For His Vote For Iraq Resolution: "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat." (Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq, U.S. Senate, 10/9/02)
Kerry: Saddam "Would View" Inspections As Nothing More Than "Buying Time And Playing A Game." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 2/5/02)
Kerry Said "There's A Greater Rationale" For Pressuring Saddam Now Because Of His "Increasing Activities" Involving WMD. KERRY: "Well, I'm for focusing on Saddam Hussein. I've been saying that for a long period of time. I criticized the prior administration a number of years ago for pulling back from the intensity of focus on the inspections. When Ambassador Butler came back and the United Nations was focused, I thought that was the moment we should have kept the pressure on. There was no rationale for dropping that pressure then. There is no rationale for not having that pressure on now. On the contrary, there's a greater rationale to have it, because we know, through intelligence, of increasing activities that Saddam Hussein has been involved in with respect to weapons of mass destruction." (CNN's "Late Edition," 1/20/02)
Kerry Cited Evidence Of Saddam's "Efforts To Try To Secure" And Test WMD. KERRY: "No, no, no, n-at least I don't and not to my knowledge do any of my colleagues. But it is something that we know-for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. That's why it's so vital that we get the global community to be part of this effort to begin to make their lives miserable
" (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/23/01)
Kerry Warned Saddam's Strategy Was Not Just To Remove Sanctions, But To Build WMDs. "His strategy is working. Make no mistake about it, his strategy is not to lift the sanctions. His strategy is to build weapons of mass destruction. And his strategy has been able to nip away at UNSCOM over the course of months so that he's created sanctions fatigue among our allies, who also have a different set of international or national interpretation of interests here." (Sen. John Kerry, Committee On Armed Services And Committee On Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, Joint Hearing, 9/3/98)
Kerry Worried About "Ultimate Nightmare" Of Saddam. "Finally, we must consider the ultimate nightmare. Surely, if Saddam's efforts are permitted to continue unabated, we will eventually face more aggression by Saddam, quite conceivably including an attack on Israel, or on other nations in the region as he seeks predominance within the Arab community. If he has such weapons, his attack is likely to employ weapons of unspeakable and indiscriminate destructiveness and torturous effects on civilians and military alike. What that would unleash is simply too horrendous to contemplate, but the United States inevitably would be drawn into that conflict." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12256)
Kerry: "He Cannot Be Permitted To Go Unobserved And Unimpeded Toward His Horrific Objective Of Amassing A Stockpile Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." "This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, p. S12255)
The resolution was not a resolution to authorize a war against terrorism. It was a resolution to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions.
The Resolution said:
Quote:"The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend U.S. interests and enforce the U.N. Security Council resolutions that Hussein was flouting."
Text of the 45-minute speech Kerry made from the Senate floor supporting his vote for the resolution:
Code:http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
Excerpted from that speech:
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.
All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.
I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.
From John Kerry's website on 4-1-2003
Quote:"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause. We're in this together. We want to complete the mission while safeguarding our troops, avoiding innocent civilian casualties, disarming Saddam Hussein and engaging the community of nations to rebuild Iraq."
But then he won the primary and voila--we are anti-war in Iraq. I suppose you Kerry supporters will go right on rationalizing in your mind that what he is saying now is what he said then. I would bet you a HUGE steak dinner, you wouldn't look at it the same way if this was George Bush's record, however.
Foxfyre wrote:Quote:Nimh quoted: [..] Emily Biuso
I haven't hunted up a transcript but I don't recall Bush saying the inspections weren't working. I recall him saying that the Duelfer report said Saddam was deceiving the inspectors while he was swinging deals with accomplices. It did. Why doesn't Emily speak the truth herself?
You havent looked up the transcript so you dont actually know whether he said it - but you accuse Emily Biuso of lying about it already anyway?
In response to McGentrix's and Brand X's posts, Magus wrote:So, by acknowledging Kerry's 20.20 hindsight, you acknowledge the bush/CHENEY errors?
Can't do one without the other...
Good question ...
Nimh writes:
Quote:You havent looked up the transcript so you dont actually know whether he said it - but you accuse Emily Biuso of lying about it already anyway?
Did I say she lied? That's a pretty good stretch. I did give full attention to listening to the debate last night. I didn't recall him saying what she said he said. I did recall him saying what I said he said.
But I suppose saying "I didn't recall" is a lie to a Kerry supporter so long as it isn't Kerry saying it.
I have also read the transcript of the report and know what it says, and how Biuso conveniently left out the portion that would have blunted her point.
OK, recap. Here's the bit from Emily Biuso's article you disagreed with:
Quote:[..] more of Bush's inaccuracies fell into the category of just plain wrong (Bush saying the Duelfer report said U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq weren't working, when in fact the report said years of inspections worked extremely well).
You wrote:
Quote:I haven't hunted up a transcript but I don't recall Bush saying the inspections weren't working. I recall him saying that the Duelfer report said Saddam was deceiving the inspectors while he was swinging deals with accomplices. It did. Why doesn't Emily speak the truth herself?
OK - so. You "don't recall Bush saying the inspections weren't working." Fine.
But then you say this Emily "is not speaking the truth" because she claims he
did say "the inspections weren't working".
Where is she not saying the truth on this?
Here's what George Bush said
in the debate:
Quote:BUSH: You remember the last debate? My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves. That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. That's the kind of mindset that said, "Let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well."
Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein.
OK?
That's Bush's entire response to Gibson's question, by the way, I'm not cherrypicking words here.
Good. Now, to skip from you to GWB, that above paragraph is a wonder in itself. The second paragraph. Where he strings those three claims together. "Sanctions were not working", he says, and argues so by submitting two points: the UN did not remove Saddam, and Saddam could have given WMD to terrorists.
But on point #1, the sanctions were never
meant to "remove" Saddam Hussein. The sanctions were intended to force Saddam to dismantle all his WMD and prevent him from developing any new ones.
And guess what: no matter what tinkering Saddam did with the oil-for-food programme to enrich himself or bribe others, Iraq
didn't, according to the Duelfer report, develop any new WMD. And it
did dismantle all its existing WMD. So what's there that did not work?
Which brings us to point #2: if Saddam did not possess any WMD anymore, and had not developed any WMD
in thirteen years, how in heaven's name could he have "given WMD to terrorist enemies"?
That's what the Duelfer report said in a different way. Saddam was deceiving the inspectors while using all kinds of back door loopholes in the sanctions to wheel and deal with others outside of Iraq through the OFF program. The sanctions were not working in that regard and any reasonable person would know, given his track record, he would have rearmed immediately once the sanctions were lifted. The transcript I was referring to was not of the debate but was of the report she was using to dispute it.
Quote, "Which brings us to point #2: if Saddam did not possess any WMD anymore, and had not developed any WMD in thirteen years, how in heaven's name could he have "given WMD to terrorist enemies"?"
This is the statement Kerry needed to use, but didn't. He instead let Bush get away with his tired line that his attack of Iraq was the right decision.
