[RAILhead]

"GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

"Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: 'I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively.'"

Link to story

I guess that throws a wrench in some people's voting plan reasoning, perhaps?

Maury

[Atomic Rooster]

[zachs]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I guess that throws a wrench in some people's voting plan reasoning, perhaps?

*siigh*

Bush made the decision to go to war. And he didn't have to.

Giving authorization is *not* the same as a declaration of war. Authorization just means that the president CAN send troops and go to war, if he chooses to. So he could have still decided not to invade.

[Spliffdaddy]

Who would approve funding for the troop deployment?

Dubya can't spend tax money - he can only beg congress to do it.

And so far, the money is there.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
*siigh*

Bush made the decision to go to war. And he didn't have to.

No, Bush & Congress, including Kerry (He voted for it too) made the decision.

Kerry as you see would have STILL done the same thing.

This "Where is the WMD" stuff is just shill.

Kerry also knows pushing against this war isn't going to get him any votes.

[MacGorilla]

Kerry also knows pushing against this war isn't going to get him any votes.

I don't know, it may help, it certainly wont hurt, except among a voting block that wouldn't vote for him anyway,

[BRussell]

Kerry seems to be back to his pre-2004 position.

I was curious what Kerry voted for, so I found the war resolution.

The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.

It seems pretty clear cut to me. It really doesn't say anything about going to the UN or exhausting inspections or anything else. (BTW, you an really see in that resolution how they linked Iraq to 9/11. It would have taken balls of steel to vote against that.)

On the other hand, here's Kerry's speech from when he voted for it:

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

It's actually a very good speech, and brings up many of the issues that have governed the debate over Iraq.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I guess that throws a wrench in some people's voting plan reasoning, perhaps?

Personally, I have had no objection to using force in Iraq, the UN is a joke and if they were allowed to keep doing nothing then the joke would turn in to a nightmare...

I DO have a problem with being told that they have and are actively developing WMD and they are a immediate threat to us.

I feel this was a way to justify quick action with a country that had little or nothing to do with the "terror" we were dealing with.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I DO have a problem with being told that they have and are actively developing WMD and they are a immediate threat to us.

Did you have a problem with it when Bill said it too?

Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.

Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world.

Or how about Kerry?

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did you have a problem with it when Bill said it too?

Did he or did he not invade and take over Iraq?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, Bush & Congress, including Kerry (He voted for it too) made the decision.

Kerry as you see would have STILL done the same thing.

This "Where is the WMD" stuff is just shill.

Kerry also knows pushing against this war isn't going to get him any votes.

Kerry did NOT make the decision to go to war!
He voted to give *Bush* the authorization to go to war, if BUSH decided to do so.

[mikellanes]

Exactly, only one made the decision to invade and take over Iraq.
Kerry only voted to give him the power to do so if NEEDED.

As for Bill, perhaps he saw there was not enough evidence yet to justify invading and taking over the country.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Did he or did he not invade and take over Iraq?

So what you are telling me is, It's better to know what needed done, and not do it, than to know what needs to be done and accomplish it?

Sorry, that spin wont work. It didn't work the last time you tried it.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Kerry did NOT make the decision to go to war!
He voted to give *Bush* the authorization to go to war, if BUSH decided to do so.

LOL!!!!!!! All of Congress made the decision. They could have striked it down.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
As for Bill, perhaps he saw there was not enough evidence yet to justify invading and taking over the country.

That isn't what he said. He didn't say "perhaps" or "maybe"

“The best way to end [Saddam's] threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government—a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.” Bill Clinton

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
So what you are telling me is, It's better to know what needed done, and not do it, than to know what needs to be done and accomplish it?

Sorry, that spin wont work. It didn't work the last time you tried it.

No, because it wasn't an urgent thing that needed to be done right away.

If it was, then one wonders why Bush waited two years to do it.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
LOL!!!!!!! All of Congress made the decision. They could have striked it down.

Made the decison...to give Bush the authority to go to war if he [Bush] decided that it was necessary.

This was NOT a declaration of war.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
No, because it wasn't an urgent thing that needed to be done right away.

If it was, then one wonders why Bush waited two years to do it.

He wasn't waiting.. he even made comments about plans to take care of Iraq before he was elected.

You don't just JUMP IN

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Made the decison...to give Bush the authority to go to war if he [Bush] decided that it was necessary.

This was NOT a declaration of war.

They made the decision to let war happen. Plain and simple.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did you have a problem with it when Bill said it too?


Or how about Kerry?
[/b]""I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002 " [/B]

But read the sentences immediately before and after that one, from the speech linked above:

If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action--without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so.


When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

I hadn't read his whole speech before, and it makes me realize that he really has been consistent on the Iraq war.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They made the decision to let war happen. Plain and simple.

No, the decision was made to let Bush decide.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I hadn't read his whole speech before, and it makes me realize that he really has been consistent on the Iraq war.

It's because he is saying what he thinks will get him votes at the time. He's just another Clinton. Riding that fence.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
No, the decision was made to let Bush decide.

And they gave him permission to do so because they too were in agreement.

It wasn't till the election season started did the "WHERE ARE TEH WMDS"!! crap started.

It was as transparent as can be.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He wasn't waiting.. he even made comments about plans to take care of Iraq before he was elected.

You don't just JUMP IN

Again, if Iraq was a threat, then why wait two years?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And they GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO DO SO. BECAUSE THEY FELT THE SAME WAY.

Bush made the final decision as to whether or not to invade. It was HIS choice. End. Of. Story.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Again, if Iraq was a threat, then why wait two years?

Did you not read what I posted? At all?

Originally posted by zachs:
Bush made the final decision as to whether or not to invade. It was HIS choice. End. Of. Story.

Hey, if that makes you feel better, and it lets you keep putting all the Blame on Bush, go one with your bad self. You are only deluding yourself.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Did you not read what I posted? At all?

Yes, I *know* you don't just "rush in." But two years is a long time to wait if Iraq really was a threat.

Hey, if that makes you feel better, and it lets you keep putting all the Blame on Bush, go one with your bad self. You are only deluding yourself.

Bush is Commander in Chief. He makes the final decision to go to send troops. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to say.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Yes, I *know* you don't just "rush in." But two years is a long time to wait if Iraq really was a threat.

And as you leftists always like to say, the war was in planning for MONTHS before it actually took place. I could see the knee-jerk reactions if as soon as Bush got into office, we attacked Iraq. Be realistic here.

Bush is Commander in Chief. He makes the final decision to go to send troops. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to say.

I am not arguing that zachs. I am telling you if it wasn't for congress agreeing, and giving Bush said power to do such a thing, he couldn't have.

He did it because he was given the "thumbs up" by Congress.

Now you can totally ignore that because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of politics from which you just blame everything on Bush, but that isn't very honest.

[Zimphire]

Sen. John Kerry's latest and most spectacular flip-flop on Iraq hasn't escaped President Bush's notice.

"Almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," saying he "now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq," Bush told thousands of cheering supporters today in Pensacola, Fla.

"After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we all believe were there ... he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power," Bush noted, with former rival Sen. John McCain at his side.

"I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that up," the president said.

Introducing the president, McCain said that defeating terrorism "is the great test of our generation." He praised Bush for leading "with great moral clarity."

"He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices," the senator said.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And as you leftists always like to say, the war was in planning for MONTHS before it actually took place. I could see the knee-jerk reactions if as soon as Bush got into office, we attacked Iraq. Be realistic here.

The same people would have objected to the war whether it was in January 2001 or in 2003.

I am not arguing that zachs. I am telling you if it wasn't for congress agreeing, and giving Bush said power to do such a thing, he couldn't have.

He did it because he was given the "thumbs up" by Congress.

Bush's reason for invading was because Congress told him he could?
Funny, I thought it was because he thought Iraq was a threat.

Now you can totally ignore that because it doesn't fit into your narrow view of politics from which you just blame everything on Bush, but that isn't very honest.

Me, ignoring something which doesn't fit my political view?

LOL! The word is: "projection."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
He went because Congress told him he could?
Funny, I thought it was because he thought Iraq was a threat.

No, no, no. He only COULD DO IT because Congress gave him the ok. Meaning if all those Senators hadn't given Bush the big thumbs up, it would have never happened.

So yes, they are also responsible. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

Notice, Kerry is now saying he made the right decision.

A month or two down the road he might again change his stance. Who knows with him.

[Zimphire]

<Bush>"I have given my answer. We did the right thing and the world is better off for it," the president said.

<Kerry>"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

[CreepingDeth]

Good for Kerry. I know it's BS, or he realized that the socialist approach wasn't as effective. Or both. I wonder what Edwards thinks. Looks like the put the smily marionette back in his case, cuz evidently he wasn't the ticket winner everyone thought.

If Kerry voted for it, then he also agreed to whatever action was to come. But since the UN was a joke, he pretty much voted for the war.

Also glad to see RAILhead isn't a socialist, like alot of people around here.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, no, no. He only COULD DO IT because Congress gave him the ok. Meaning if all those Senators hadn't given Bush the big thumbs up, it would have never happened.

Sure they gave him the OK. They were allowing him to use his judgement to decide whether or not to invade.

So yes, they are also responsible. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

Bush made the decision to invade. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

Notice, Kerry is now saying he made the right decision

A month or two down the road he might again change his stance. Who knows with him.

This, when your candidate is the biggest waffler around?

[CreepingDeth]

Come on, do we really even need to go over your candidate's record? Russell even said he want back to his "Pre-2004" stance.

Oh yeah, Edwards voted for the war, too.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Sure they gave him the OK. They were allowing him to use his judgement to decide whether or not to invade.

No, the President alone doesn't have the power to start a war. That isn't how it works. They GAVE HIM TO OK TO DO IT. They didn't say "We really have no opinion as to what to do, you decided!"

You are spinning.

Bush made the decision to invade. Like it or not. Admit it or not.

And congress agreed with him. And gave him the power to do such a thing. Without it, he couldn't have.

This, when your candidate is the biggest waffler around?

Sorry, when it comes to waffling, Kerry is the Waffle King here.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, the President alone doesn't have the power to start a war. That isn't how it works. They GAVE HIM TO OK TO DO IT. They didn't say "We really have no opinion as to what to do, you decided!"

You are spinning.

I wonder where the buck stops with this administration. Look, until you get it into your head that, in the end, it was BUSH who made the decision to send troops into Iraq, there's nothing else I can say.

And congress agreed with him. And gave him the power to do such a thing. Without it, he couldn't have.

So WHAT? He still made the decision to go to war. He didn't HAVE TO!

Sorry, when it comes to waffling, Kerry is the Waffle King here.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
I wonder where the buck stops with this administration. Look, until you get it into your head that, in the end, it was BUSH who made the decision to send troops into Iraq, there's nothing else I can say.

zach's I have NEVER BEEN DENYING THAT. You are placing ALL THE BLAME on him though and ignoring the facts that unless Congress gave him permission to go to war, he could not have. Bush DID NOT, and I repeat DID NOT act alone here. Many Senators INCLUDING Kerry supported him. It wasn't till election time did they start the silliness. And now, Kerry is back against supporting said decision. And you are still spinning.

So WHAT? He still made the decision to go to war. He didn't HAVE TO!

Right, And Congress didn't have to give him permission to do it either. Had Congress voted no, it would have never happened. But your boy Kerry, and most of the other congressmen agreed with Bush. And gave him the big THUMB UP. So in other words, Had Kerry and the other senators voted a big NO in Congress, it wouldn't have happened.

Kerry didn't HAVE to vote yes. Kerry didn't HAVE to support Bush's decision.

Bush could NOT act a lone. Sorry.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
zach's I have NEVER BEEN DENYING THAT. You are placing ALL THE BLAME on him though and ignoring the facts that unless Congress gave him permission to go to war, he could not have. Bush DID NOT, and I repeat DID NOT act alone here. Many Senators INCLUDING Kerry supported him. It wasn't till election time did they start the silliness. And now, Kerry is back against supporting said decision. And you are still spinning.

Right, And Congress didn't have to give him permission to do it either. Had Congress voted no, it would have never happened. But your boy Kerry, and most of the other congressmen agreed with Bush. And gave him the big THUMB UP.

Yet again: Congress voted to give him authorization. They decided to let him make the decision on whether or not to invade. It was his decision, and his decision alone. Congress didn't vote to send troops in; they let Bush make that decision based on his own judgement. Think of it as a precautionary measure. By passing the bill, Bush was able to use force right away if an immediate threat arose instantly. So he wouldn't have to wait for Congress before acting.

Remember, Bush himself said that military action wasn't unavoiable or imminent:

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.

[CreepingDeth]

Congress okayed it, so he pretty much said yes.
"No, I didn't shoot the guy down the block! All I did was give the guy the gun! It wasn't my decision!"

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Had Congress voted no, it would have never happened. But your boy Kerry, and most of the other congressmen agreed with Bush. And gave him the big THUMB UP. So in other words, Had Kerry and the other senators voted a big NO in Congress, it wouldn't have happened.

Kerry didn't HAVE to vote yes. Kerry didn't HAVE to support Bush's decision.

Bush could NOT act a lone. Sorry.

There's nothing stopping Bush from acting without Congress. It's nice, but not necessary as you suggest. Clinton's Bosnia action was voted down by Congress, and yet he went ahead with it. It's a murky area constitutionally, but I can't see what there is to stop a president from going to war if he wants to.

[Zimphire]

*DP*

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
Yet again: Congress voted to give him authorization.

Because they voted and agreed with him. You don't give someone authorization when you think it's wrong.

They decided to let him make the decision on whether or not to invade.

No, THEY made the decision because THEY AGREED with what he said. They aren't going to let him go to war if they disagree. Again, had they thought what the president propositioned was wrong, they would have shot it down. They KNEW the president was going to go to war with Iraq if they voted yes. They KNEW THAT.

What you are trying to spin is, you act like they had no clue, and just left it up to him. That isn't the case.

It was his decision, and his decision alone.

No, sorry, that isn't how it worked. Congress made a decision also. The agreed it needed to be done.

Even your buddy Kerry still agrees it did. That is why he VOTED TO LET IT HAPPEN.

Congress didn't vote to send troops in; they let Bush make that decision based on his own judgement.

Congress made it's decision KNOWING Bush was planning on sending troops in. And they agreed with the president.

Think of it as a precautionary measure. By passing the bill, Bush was able to use force right away if an immediate threat arose instantly. So he wouldn't have to wait for Congress before acting.

Remember, Bush himself said that military action wasn't unavoiable or imminent:

That isn't something we are arguing zach .You are spinning again. Keep em coming and I'll keep shooting them down one by one.

You remind me of one of my lib friends. He blames ALL bad things on the right, and ALL good on the left.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
There's nothing stopping Bush from acting without Congress. It's nice, but not necessary as you suggest. Clinton's Bosnia action was voted down by Congress, and yet he went ahead with it. It's a murky area constitutionally, but I can't see what there is to stop a president from going to war if he wants to.

In this instance it doesn't matter. Congress agreed and voted yes.

[CreepingDeth]

If I remember correctly, Congress has the power to declare war. The President, however, can order an attack (or something to the effect). OF course, the modern dictatorship is the Supreme Court, but that's another thread.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Good for Kerry. I know it's BS, or he realized that the socialist approach wasn't as effective. Or both. I wonder what Edwards thinks. Looks like the put the smily marionette back in his case, cuz evidently he wasn't the ticket winner everyone thought.

If Kerry voted for it, then he also agreed to whatever action was to come. But since the UN was a joke, he pretty much voted for the war.

Also glad to see RAILhead isn't a socialist, like alot of people around here.

Socialist approach? Riiiight.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
If I remember correctly, Congress has the power to declare war.

Indeed.

[zachs]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Because they voted and agreed with him. You don't give someone authorization when you think it's wrong.

They gave him authorization in case it was needed.

No, THEY made the decision because THEY AGREED with what he said. They aren't going to let him go to war if they disagree. Again, had they thought what the president propositioned was wrong, they would have shot it down. They KNEW the president was going to go to war with Iraq if they voted yes. They KNEW THAT.

But before the bill was voted on, Bush said that war wasn't imminent or unavoidable. Unless you are saying they shouldn't have trusted him when he said that.

What you are trying to spin is, you act like they had no clue, and just left it up to him. That isn't the case.

They DID leave it up to him. The decision to send troops was in his hands alone.

No, sorry, that isn't how it worked. Congress made a decision also. The agreed it needed to be done.

Spin, spin, spin, Zimph. You should stop before you hurt yourself.

]Congress made it's decision KNOWING Bush was planning on sending troops in. And they agreed with the president.

Again, Bush said (before the vote) that military action wasn't imminent or unavoidable. So they DIDN'T know for sure he was going to war. Do you think they shouldn't have trusted him when he said that?

That isn't something we are arguing zach .You are spinning again. Keep em coming and I'll keep shooting them down one by one.

Close your eyes and keep telling yourself that.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Indeed.

However, I don't recall a declaration of war. Hmm. We need one. I don't think you can be tried for treason without one. Damn.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zachs:
They gave him authorization in case it was needed.

They gave him authorization knowing he was going to invade after said authorization. You are spinning again.

But before the bill was voted on, Bush said that war wasn't imminent or unavoidable. Unless you are saying they shouldn't have trusted him when he said that.

That isn't saying "I am not going to do it" they KNEW what his intentions were, he told them. Heck, I KNEW, and I wasn't even part of congress. I surely hope you aren't trying to say Kerry is that dumb.

They DID leave it up to him. The decision to send troops was in his hands alone.

He made the decision to send troops indeed. A decision he could not have made had Congress not agreed to vote on letting him.

Spin, spin, spin, Zimph. You should stop before you hurt yourself.

How was that a spin? It wasn't.

This is just another case of a political zealot trying to put blame on one side only.

At least I can come to grips with reality.

You always blame one side, and make poor apologetic excuses for the other.

Get a grip.

Fact is, if it wasn't for Congress AGREEING with Bush, and voting to give him such power, knowing it would be used, it wouldn't have happened.

Now this isn't taking away and responsibility Bush had. It was HIS idea and HIS plan (based on Clinton's research too)

Yet another post of yours shot down.

Keep em coming.