Questions for Kerry

[mrgorth]

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040223&s=greider

<snip>
Nothing stirs Democrats' anger like the fearmongering rhetoric Bush/Cheney employed on the march to war. "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."

"Can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might provide weapons of destruction to some terrorist group bent on destroying the United States?"

"Every nation has the right to act pre-emptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat."

The problem with this rhetoric is that it belongs to Senator John Kerry, the Democratic front-runner. He voted for unilateral war in Iraq, citing the same basic rationales offered by the White House. The only difference was that Kerry simultaneously expressed ambiguous "on the other hand" doubts. Ever since his vote, he has elaborated nuanced explanations as to why he didn't actually mean what he seemed to be saying.
<snip>

[mrgorth]

1. kick

[bryant69]

2. a year and a half ago

I believed that Saddam had weapons of mass distruction. I believed he was a threat to the United States. I even believed there was an outside chance he would work with Terrorists. I was wrong; but i don't think I was alone.

That's not to say I agreed with the Adminsistrations rationales for war, because I didn't--i just thought that he probably had all those things things. So it's not too big of a problem, for me, that Senators Kerry and Edwards and General Clark (and a whole bunch of others) thought that too.

I guess the counter argument is that Kucinich and Dean knew better than Kerry and therefore they deserve our support.

Bryant
Check this out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[blm]

3. A Senator SHOULD have OTOH thoughts expressed.

I'd be worried if they didn't and only relied on arguments that validated their already set belief system, like Bush does.

[redqueen]

4. The catch is that any thoughts should have stopped him from voting YES

oh well.

[pezcore64]

6. Yeah, Really

Im in total agreement with you.

I hate people who vote for something and then turn around and say they didnt mean to when they realise people were actually against it. Sheesh. with as much of a tounge lashing some people got about flipping positions, youd think this would hit home to them now.

[library_max]

5. There's no contradiction here.

Kerry's position on the IWR vote has been consistent from the beginning. The IWR was not a declaration of war. It gave the president the authority to go to the UN with a strong bargaining position. Kerry always intended, and said so from the first, that the president should seek UN and multilateral solutions, beginning with inspections and using force only as a last resort.

As far as the WMD talk is concerned, the Bush administration lied to the Senate as elaborately and shameless as they lied to the UN and to us. Most of the nation got behind Bush on the eve of the invasion because they trusted him. Now they know he's a liar. Kerry can speak to that issue better than most - he's been where the public has been all the way along.

[krkaufman]

8. IWR = Iraq _ W _ A _ R _ Resolution

> The IWR was not a declaration of war. It gave the
> president the authority to go to the UN with a strong
> bargaining position.

Huh? The Iraq War Resolution didn't authorize war?

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

Read the resolution. Was it a "declaration of war"? No. It merely authorizes Bush to go to war, at his discretion. It was a total abdication of responsibility by those in Congress voting for it.

[library_max]

10. I've read the resolution.

It was not a declaration of war. It did not require the president to go to war under any circumstances. The decision to invade was Bush's alone. Kerry's vote did not send US troops to Iraq, even (as is not the case) if his vote alone had made the decision on IWR.

[DrFunkenstein]

7. Wow! That Is Some Dang Creative Cut And Pasting!

"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."

To see this thoroughly dishonest crap blown out of the water:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=248417

Thank you. Come again.

[krkaufman]

9. What he said on the floor is moot

What Kerry said on the floor before the vote was negated by his vote for the resolution. He can't have it both ways.

Actions speak LOUDER than words.