[Gee-Man]

I finally ran across the full text of Kerry's statement on the Senate floor about that infamous authorization to go to war. After reading it, at worst you can accuse Kerry of naivete for believing that Bush wouldn't take the authorization and run with it, but certainly not flip-flopping. After you read the whole thing, it's interesting how much of what he said then is exactly the same as what he's saying now (and what he was saying all during the campaign).

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/...erry-iraq.html

This speech was given on October 9, 2002. It's a good read for open-minded folks who aren't buying the usual political talking points. It is, however, very long-winded, typical of Kerry's senatorial style. But, nowhere in this speech does he say or even imply to Bush, "I want you to go to war immediately to remove Saddam for the purposes of regime change, and it doesn't matter whether there are WMD or not."

Some quotes:

It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq--seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition.

The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime.

Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution.

In other words, no WMD, no war. Pretty clear to me.

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what "relevant" U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements.

Translation: Kerry didn't authorize Bush to go to war under any circumstances except to enforce WMD and Iraq's disarmament. Bush at the time was promising that this was what they would do. NOT regime change for the sake of regime change.

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.

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.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Despite what some on the right will say, Saddam was not proven to be a threat without WMD. Without WMD, he was just another cruel and vile dictator, but not a threat to the United States. War should be reserved for those who truly are a threat to the United States, which isn't as difficult to determine as some think. Significant ability to develop WMD, demonstrated ties to terrorists, these are the things that you need to justify a pre-emptive invasion. WE thought that Saddam had both at the time of this authorization. Turns out, everyone was clearly wrong, but only some are willing to admit to that fact.

None of this is intended to cover what must be done now that the deed is done. I think most reasonable people agree that we can't simply leave immediately, we have to finish the job in some way. But it does indicate that many people are willing to lie and distort a good man's words and record in order to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and that is very, very wrong to me.

[itai195]

The SF Chronicle recently had a similar analysis. Link. But I'm not sure it's worth pursuing, because it's easier to label than to examine the facts.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
I finally ran across the full text of Kerry's statement on the Senate floor about that infamous authorization to go to war. After reading it, at worst you can accuse Kerry of naivete for believing that Bush wouldn't take the authorization and run with it, but certainly not flip-flopping. After you read the whole thing, it's interesting how much of what he said then is exactly the same as what he's saying now (and what he was saying all during the campaign).

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/...erry-iraq.html

This speech was given on October 9, 2002. It's a good read for open-minded folks who aren't buying the usual political talking points. It is, however, very long-winded, typical of Kerry's senatorial style. But, nowhere in this speech does he say or even imply to Bush, "I want you to go to war immediately to remove Saddam for the purposes of regime change, and it doesn't matter whether there are WMD or not."

Some quotes:




In other words, no WMD, no war. Pretty clear to me.



Translation: Kerry didn't authorize Bush to go to war under any circumstances except to enforce WMD and Iraq's disarmament. Bush at the time was promising that this was what they would do. NOT regime change for the sake of regime change.



Despite what some on the right will say, Saddam was not proven to be a threat without WMD. Without WMD, he was just another cruel and vile dictator, but not a threat to the United States. War should be reserved for those who truly are a threat to the United States, which isn't as difficult to determine as some think. Significant ability to develop WMD, demonstrated ties to terrorists, these are the things that you need to justify a pre-emptive invasion. WE thought that Saddam had both at the time of this authorization. Turns out, everyone was clearly wrong, but only some are willing to admit to that fact.

None of this is intended to cover what must be done now that the deed is done. I think most reasonable people agree that we can't simply leave immediately, we have to finish the job in some way. But it does indicate that many people are willing to lie and distort a good man's words and record in order to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and that is very, very wrong to me.

Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah! Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah!Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah blah blah blah!

http://homepage.mac.com/gunslinger5/iMovieTheater4.html

Sorry.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah! Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah!Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah blah blah blah!

I don't want to dload a big movie. What's your point?
Wait.. I think my quote sums up your point.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah! Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah!Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah blah blah blah!

http://homepage.mac.com/gunslinger5/iMovieTheater4.html

Sorry.

That's the second time sombody has posted a link to that movie and it seems to be about 70% pro Kerry and 30% anti-Kerry about 90% of the time so I'm confused as to what it's purpose is.

Waste of time maybe?...I dunno.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Sorry.

All that video proves is that Kerry is guilty of believing the BS shoveled by Bush. His reactions at the time were consistent with his stance as outlined in his Senate statement. Bush has been proven a liar, therefore Kerry's stance changes appropriately. But I guess for the sake of electoral rhetoric, this is called "flip-flopping"

[icruise]

So let me see if I understand this. Kerry believes what Bush told him before the war with regard to WMD, etc. After we invade, we discover that there wasn't any WMD after all and that the reasons Bush gave us for the invasion were shaky at best. This causes Kerry (and any rational person) to change his mind about whether the invasion was the best thing to do. And this makes him a "flip-flopper" huh? Ok...

That's brilliant. Bush is the one at fault, but he blames it on Kerry.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by itai195:
The SF Chronicle recently had a similar analysis. Link. But I'm not sure it's worth pursuing, because it's easier to label than to examine the facts.

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah! Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah!Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah blah blah blah!

Wow. Way to prove itai195's point

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah! Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah!Blah blahblah blah blahblah bbllauh blah blahh bla blah bl blu bl bah blah blah blah!

http://homepage.mac.com/gunslinger5/iMovieTheater4.html

Sorry.

I watched that whole thing very closely. It's interesting - but except for a couple of older edited statements dating back before the current situation, there's nothing there that's any different from the full statement I posted. You obviously didn't read it, you'd rather watch somebody's movie than analyze Kerry's own words. I warned you that it was long, but it's more informative than a bunch of out-of-context soundbites. Open your mind, dude.

Kerry has a clarity problem, no doubt about it, but it's not a flip-flop. This video doesn't cut it - find something from the relevant period (2002-2003) that directly contradicts the statements in the link I posted, and then we can talk.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
I watched that whole thing very closely. It's interesting - but except for a couple of older edited statements dating back before the current situation, there's nothing there that's any different from the full statement I posted. You obviously didn't read it, you'd rather watch somebody's movie than analyze Kerry's own words. I warned you that it was long, but it's more informative than a bunch of out-of-context soundbites. Open your mind, dude.

Kerry has a clarity problem, no doubt about it, but it's not a flip-flop. This video doesn't cut it - find something from the relevant period (2002-2003) that directly contradicts the statements in the link I posted, and then we can talk.

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Icruise:
So let me see if I understand this. Kerry believes what Bush told him before the war with regard to WMD, etc. After we invade, we discover that there wasn't any WMD after all and that the reasons Bush gave us for the invasion were shaky at best. This causes Kerry (and any rational person) to change his mind about whether the invasion was the best thing to do. And this makes him a "flip-flopper" huh? Ok...

That's brilliant. Bush is the one at fault, but he blames it on Kerry.

Those that sat on the senate intelligence committee saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. They came to the same conclusion as Bush that we should go to war. I wonder who was sitting on the Committe at the time? This sure would be interesting wouldn't it!

If Kerry and other Democrats (or Republicans) simply voted for the war because they "[believed] what Bush told [them] before the war" then those people have no business leading even in the Senate. They are in essence admitting that this was not serious enough for them to look into the facts and intellegence for themselves. So, was Kerry simply a follower of Bush?

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
Those that sat on the senate intelligence committee saw the same intelligence that Bush saw. They came to the same conclusion as Bush that we should go to war. I wonder who was sitting on the Committe at the time? This sure would be interesting wouldn't it!

If Kerry and other Democrats (or Republicans) simply voted for the war because they "[believed] what Bush told [them] before the war" then those people have no business leading even in the Senate. They are in essence admitting that this was not serious enough for them to look into the facts and intellegence for themselves. So, was Kerry simply a follower of Bush?

They did look into the facts themselves. They believed the intelligence, not necessarily what Bush said about the intelligence. But as we all know now, the intelligence wasn't complete - it wasn't solid proof, just circumstantial. They wanted proof before invading. And they believed Bush when he promised he would take more steps to enforce stronger inspections (backed by force) to get that proof, and get a more solid alliance before invading. There shouldn't have been any reason to doubt Bush's word at that point.

Nobody really knew what was going to happen at that point. All you can do is make a choice based on the best available evidence. I think that at the time, the decision to go to war made some sense, even though it was controversial, because there was some circumstantial evidence that Saddam was up to no good. But the main point of contention between Bush and Kerry is one of hindsight. What would either man have done knowing what they know now?

Bush's original position was reasonable. His current position is preposterous and insane. If you knew for sure that all of the things you think are reasons to go to war aren't true, why would you go ahead anyway? That makes no sense. Kerry has basically said the same thing before and after - war is the right decision IF certain things are true and certain things happen; if not, then it's the wrong decision.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
All that video proves is that Kerry is guilty of believing the BS shoveled by Bush. His reactions at the time were consistent with his stance as outlined in his Senate statement. Bush has been proven a liar, therefore Kerry's stance changes appropriately. But I guess for the sake of electoral rhetoric, this is called "flip-flopping"

Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy (MA) wrote the 1956 Pulitzer Prize winning, "Profiles in Courage."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...17534?v=glance

In it, he outlines "eight Senators who stood alone against tremendous political and social pressure for what they felt was right."

In the build-up to war in Iraq there was at least ONE Senator who disagreed with the President's actions. (Washington Sen. Patty Murray [D])

But NOT "JO...KE!"

The last time JOhn KErry showed any political courage was when he met with the North Vietnamese in Paris during the Viet Nam War!

Where is the HERO Kerry???

In the movie, "Top Gun" at least the pilot who knew he'd lost his edge, had the courage to throw his wings on his C.O.'s desk and resign!

John Kerry has, instead, tried to coast on a questionable war record and an unspectacular career since then to now hoist himself up before the American people as a viable candidate for the highest office in the land.

HA!

He is committed to making things run as they did before.

Not before 9/11 but before 1969!

He would have the US mired in the same kinds of geo-political stalemates in 2005 as the US faced in 1971 at the Paris Peace table of the Viet-Nam era!

Tail between our legs. Thousands dead. America in disgrace. Billions in debt.

There's a different world possible with GWB. We have the might. We have the right. We have the will. All we need is the vote.

From AudioFile
In 1954-55 a freshman U.S. Senator from Massachusetts wrote a book profiling eight of his historical Senatorial colleagues, such men as John Quincy Adams, Sam Houston, and Robert A. Taft. Instead of focusing on their storied careers, John F. Kennedy chose to illustrate their acts of integrity, when they stood alone against tremendous political and social pressure for what they felt was right....

Awarded the Pulitzer Prize in 1956, Profiles in Courage resounds with timeless lessons on themost cherished of virtues and is a powerful reminder of the strength of the human spirit. It is, as Robert Kennedy states in the foreword, "not just stories of the past but a book of hope and confidence for the future. What happens to the country, to the world, depends on what we do with what others have left us.

[Wiskedjak]

I know somebody is flip flopping ...

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...44#post2169644
As a FORMER Bush supporter, I appreciate your post lerkfish.

I gain a great deal of disrespect for those who support W without even thinking about it, or knowing why.

I posted 7 possible reasons someone might support the President, but none of them are good reasons.

I believe many people simply go along because he talks tough.

If he wins, we will ALL regret it and those of you who support him without GOOD cause, do NOT say you weren't warned.

Someone should write a book, styled after JFK's, ("Why England Slept") and call it, "Why America Slept."

He's a lying, thieving, cheating manipulator. If he wins, America will only be getting what it deserves.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I know somebody is flip flopping ...

As you accept JO...KE's right to change his mind in the face of new information, I submit to you and the world that my political opinion has changed in light of the BOLD and exciting possibility of world peace with the PNAC blue print and that there is NO negotiating, no possible compromise with al qaeda!

They want us either all MUSLIM or all DEAD!

GWB understands this and THAT is what changed my position.

I'm sorta flattered that you'd go through so much effort to research my positions so!

My advice?

Get a real life!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
As you accept JO...KE's right to change his mind in the face of new information, I submit to you and the world that my political opinion has changed in light of the BOLD and exciting possibility of world peace with the PNAC blue print and that there is NO negotiating, no possible compromise with al qaeda!

They want us either all MUSLIM or all DEAD!

GWB understands this and THAT is what changed my position.

I'm sorta flattered that you'd go through so much effort to research my positions so!

My advice?

Get a real life!

And, likewise, if you want us to accept your right to change your mind, then you must also accept John Kerry's right to change his mind.

As for effort, I just looked at your first few posts, remembering that they were VERY anti-Bush.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And, likewise, if you want us to accept your right to change your mind, then you must also accept John Kerry's right to change his mind.

As for effort, I just looked at your first few posts, remembering that they were VERY anti-Bush.

Kerry = Maintaining the staus quo = all the bullfrogs of the past.

Bush = A NEW possibility of ending all the crap and giving MILLIONS of peoples the peace and freedoms YOU seem to take for granted.

[kido]

I'm having a hard time seeing where President Bush did not live up to his end of the bargain, as set forth by Senator Kerry's speech. Both men understood at the time that it was not so much that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat, in that he had troops and weapons poised to strike at our interest or borders. The world had grow more complicated than that with the events of 9/11 and the rise of a terror network with us as their enemy. Perceiving an imminent threat was suddenly much less possible when you had such small groups acting almost independently and with the ability to cause so much damage. If the 9/11 terrorists had simply blown up a bus in NY or taken hostages, killing dozens of innocent Americans, the Bush Administration would not have asked to invade Iraq, nor Afghanistan. They would have condemned those acts, said a prayer for the victims, and launched a few missles into terrorist bases, much like the Clinton administration did after the first attack on the WTC. However, we would still be at war, only we would not have been fighting.

The simple truth is that we want a world in which our people and our interests are protected, and we have hope that the United Nations might meet that challenge. We do not want to be the world's policemen, we want the U.N. to take on that role for all nations. However, the U.N.'s ability to provide security for us or any nation was diminished by Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with their resolutions. Think about how the police work. They do not carry around uzis or have armored vehicles on every corner. They are able to do their job because of respect. When you comply with the law and treat officer's with respect, you barely notice that they are there. If you disrespect an officer in a one to one setting, you often times get to blow off steam while the officer patiently listens to you rant. However, if you try to yell at an officer in public, or when in a hostile crowd, you are arrested immediately. Why? Because the act of defiance on your part, if not immediately met with severe consequences by the police, results in an unruly crowd. The police seem weak and the crowd will begin to challenge them. It is in the best interests of everyone for the police to act sooner than later when dealing with troublemakers, especially if they are surrounded by hooligans.

President Bush and Senator Kerry wanted to give the U.N. some bite, so that they might take on the terrorists. The U.N. did for Afghanistan, but not for Iraq, even when they had clear evidence that Saddam had not lived up to his part. Saddam had snatched the hat from the U.N.'s head and he was twirling it to a cheering crowd made of Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, Chechnyans, et al. This was the real danger of Iraq regardless of WMDs and Senator Kerry speaks to this point in his Oct. 9, 2002 speech. If he had continued to speak to this point, I would feel much more confident about voting for him come November.

kido

[icruise]

Conservative = maintaining the status quo
George W Bush =

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
And, likewise, if you want us to accept your right to change your mind, then you must also accept John Kerry's right to change his mind.

As for effort, I just looked at your first few posts, remembering that they were VERY anti-Bush.

Here's the PERTINENT one you overlooked in the thread, "Why do they hate us?":

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...82#post2200882

9/21/04

"Here's a timeline of my political thoughts and feelings since November 2000 to this year.

11/07/00 - Voted Gore. (Previous votes went to Dems, Repubs, and Perot.) Viewed results with a shrug. New President deserves our support.

9/11/01 - WAR! President deserves our support. Employed by a Clear Channel radio station.

2/23/04 - Howard Stern fined by FCC after "King Of All Media" withdrew support for Bush Administration. Smacked of censorship, right-wing manipulation of 1st Amendment and possible collusion by Clear Channel when CC removed Stern show from 6 markets. OUTRAGE at Bush Administration.

6/27/04 - "Fahrenheit 9/11." Convinced of need to remove President Bush from office.

8/16/04 - 1st MacNN post.

9/8/04 - Discovered PNAC website.

9/11/04 - Nominated for first "Golden Troll"

9/12/04 - Awarded "Golden Troll" for a different post.

9/14/04 - After reading rightweb site (critical of Bush Administration) describing the New American Century plan, I was excited by the boldness of the plan but wondered if it could work and what the dangers of such a plan would be. Still for Kerry.

9/18/04 - Started thread, (Why do THEY hate US?) to further explore radical Islamic terrorism. Personal belief was that a more enlightened foreign policy and smart, strong leadership was the key to defusing terrorism. Had to search my soul to find my one non-negotiable issue: PEACE. Saw the possibility of peace through NAC plan as well as Kerry plan. Still leaning toward Kerry.

9/19/04 - Read article posted by Zimphire; "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" by Lee Harris and was blown away! I was disabused of my previous belief about the cause and solution for Islamic terrorism. FLIP-FLOP COMPLETED! I do not support many of the President's policies and yet I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance. Because of his strong plans to make US & the world safe for democracy and his aggressive WOT, I now support BUSH.

9/20/04 - Awarded a coveted, "SMACKDOWN!!" for posted reply to MacNN member questioning my switch to Bush.

I hope this helps explain my conversion."

[Troll]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
9/12/04 - Awarded "Golden Troll" for a different post.

9/20/04 - Awarded a coveted, "SMACKDOWN!!" for posted reply to MacNN member questioning my switch to Bush.

You do realise that almost everyone who has posted more than 10 times in the Political Forum has been awarded one or both of your "coveted" awards. Are you even old enough to vote because you do sound so like a teenager looking for peer group approval.

As for the substance, considering you switched camps after a detailed analysis of the two candidates, you'd think you'd have a decent reply to this thread.

Your precious PNAC got it all completely wrong in Iraq. What makes you think they can get anything else right?

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally posted by kido:
I'm having a hard time seeing where President Bush did not live up to his end of the bargain, as set forth by Senator Kerry's speech. Both men understood at the time that it was not so much that Saddam Hussein posed an immediate threat, in that he had troops and weapons poised to strike at our interest or borders. The world had grow more complicated than that with the events of 9/11 and the rise of a terror network with us as their enemy. Perceiving an imminent threat was suddenly much less possible when you had such small groups acting almost independently and with the ability to cause so much damage. If the 9/11 terrorists had simply blown up a bus in NY or taken hostages, killing dozens of innocent Americans, the Bush Administration would not have asked to invade Iraq, nor Afghanistan. They would have condemned those acts, said a prayer for the victims, and launched a few missles into terrorist bases, much like the Clinton administration did after the first attack on the WTC. However, we would still be at war, only we would not have been fighting.

The simple truth is that we want a world in which our people and our interests are protected, and we have hope that the United Nations might meet that challenge. We do not want to be the world's policemen, we want the U.N. to take on that role for all nations. However, the U.N.'s ability to provide security for us or any nation was diminished by Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with their resolutions. Think about how the police work. They do not carry around uzis or have armored vehicles on every corner. They are able to do their job because of respect. When you comply with the law and treat officer's with respect, you barely notice that they are there. If you disrespect an officer in a one to one setting, you often times get to blow off steam while the officer patiently listens to you rant. However, if you try to yell at an officer in public, or when in a hostile crowd, you are arrested immediately. Why? Because the act of defiance on your part, if not immediately met with severe consequences by the police, results in an unruly crowd. The police seem weak and the crowd will begin to challenge them. It is in the best interests of everyone for the police to act sooner than later when dealing with troublemakers, especially if they are surrounded by hooligans.

President Bush and Senator Kerry wanted to give the U.N. some bite, so that they might take on the terrorists. The U.N. did for Afghanistan, but not for Iraq, even when they had clear evidence that Saddam had not lived up to his part. Saddam had snatched the hat from the U.N.'s head and he was twirling it to a cheering crowd made of Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, Chechnyans, et al. This was the real danger of Iraq regardless of WMDs and Senator Kerry speaks to this point in his Oct. 9, 2002 speech. If he had continued to speak to this point, I would feel much more confident about voting for him come November.

kido

This was a well stated, non-rhetorical post. Refreshing! Nice change from 15-17 year old high school socialist Hate-Bush venom, anti-US EU superiority drivel or the US is infallible blind statist Muslims Suck pigeon holing. Unfortunately it will go unnoticed by most.

Still, my hat is off to you!

Toby

[itai195]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
9/19/04 - Read article posted by Zimphire; "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" by Lee Harris and was blown away! I was disabused of my previous belief about the cause and solution for Islamic terrorism. FLIP-FLOP COMPLETED! I do not support many of the President's policies and yet I believe he will best deliver peace through global dominance. Because of his strong plans to make US & the world safe for democracy and his aggressive WOT, I now support BUSH.

How did you draw that conclusion from the article? I've always had some issues with Harris' analysis, but it's interesting. However, it's a model for understanding 9/11, not an endorsement of Bush's policies.

[itai195]

Originally posted by kido:
President Bush and Senator Kerry wanted to give the U.N. some bite, so that they might take on the terrorists. The U.N. did for Afghanistan, but not for Iraq, even when they had clear evidence that Saddam had not lived up to his part. Saddam had snatched the hat from the U.N.'s head and he was twirling it to a cheering crowd made of Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, North Koreans, Chechnyans, et al. This was the real danger of Iraq regardless of WMDs and Senator Kerry speaks to this point in his Oct. 9, 2002 speech. If he had continued to speak to this point, I would feel much more confident about voting for him come November.

kido

He did talk to this point regarding the UN, and I haven't seen any evidence that he's changed his mind. But his reason for supporting the authorization of force is pretty clear:

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.

There are really two arguments Kerry/Democrats are making regarding Iraq. Moving beyond reasons for war, Kerry also charges that President Bush has mishandled the war and the rebuilding effort. From my own point of view, while I am personally upset about how the war was justified, at this point it's more important to make sure we finish what we've started. In that respect, Kerry strikes me as the better option.

[ebuddy]

C'mon folks, you're only addressing one point here. First of all, if you believe Kerry gave the go-ahead to authorize Presidential discretion regarding military action while not believing Bush would use it you are so sadly mistaken you may not even warrant my time.

Kerry on Saddam Hussein and the need for military action startine WAYYYY back in 97;

"Saddam Hussein has continued to push international patience to the very edge."

3/20/03; "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."

3/19/03; "�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."

*note, this from the man working on the intelligence committee.

"The Bush administration has taken too long to make its case for military action, but nonetheless I am glad we�ve reached this moment in our diplomacy.�_ Kerry added: �Convincing evidence of Saddam Hussein�s possession of weapons of mass destruction should trigger, I believe, a final ultimatum from the United Nations for a full, complete, immediate disarmament of those weapons by Iraq."

January, 2003;
"If You Don�t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn�t Vote For Me.�

It just goes on and on people. Look, his flopping are well known, well documented, many years in the making, and quite vast. Don't simply adhere to one effective attack launched by the Reps. Address them all. Google "waffles" and you'll quickly realize Kerry embodies the very definition of the word. This isn't some fundamental misunderstanding folks, it's the downfall of his campaign because it has proven inescapable for him. It's my understanding that Bush will likely ask Kerry during the debates; "Is that your final answer?"

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
It's my understanding that Bush will likely ask Kerry during the debates; "Is that your final answer?" [/B]

Unfortunately their own rules prohibit direct questioning during the "debates"

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
C'mon folks, you're only addressing one point here. First of all, if you believe Kerry gave the go-ahead to authorize Presidential discretion regarding military action while not believing Bush would use it you are so sadly mistaken you may not even warrant my time.

Here's Bush on the day he signed the resolution.

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime. If any doubt our nation's resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it.

...

Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. Yet, if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands. It's the obligation of Iraq.

...

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I'm fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. Yet those risks only increase with time. And the costs could be immeasurably higher in years to come

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
All that video proves is that Kerry is guilty of believing the BS shoveled by Bush. His reactions at the time were consistent with his stance as outlined in his Senate statement. Bush has been proven a liar, therefore Kerry's stance changes appropriately. But I guess for the sake of electoral rhetoric, this is called "flip-flopping"

Riiiight... Didn't watch the film, did you? A great deal of it's content (where he's calling for attacks on Saddam and war on Iraq) is before Bush ever took office.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Here's the PERTINENT one you overlooked in the thread, "Why do they hate us?":

I've no problem with you changing you mind based upon new information. What I find interesting is that you are unable to accept that others can do the same. What I also find interesting is that one of the key elements you list for changing you mind, PNAC, is something that most Replublicans appear to deny has any influence on Bush.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Riiiight... Didn't watch the film, did you? A great deal of it's content (where he's calling for attacks on Saddam and war on Iraq) is before Bush ever took office.

I did, and it's the same difference. He was working on the information as we knew it *at the time*

[Mithras]

Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, August 1992:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.
...
Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.

Flip-flop? Or prescient early analysis? You be the judge.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, August 1992:


Flip-flop? Or prescient early analysis? You be the judge.

How 'bout (c) all of the above?

[zachs]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, August 1992:


Flip-flop? Or prescient early analysis? You be the judge.

And, President George H.W. Bush, March 1998:

We were disappointed that Saddam's defeat did not break his hold on power, as many of our Arab allies had predicted and we had come to expect. President Bush repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

[itai195]

Ouch

[zachs]

Well while we're talking about flip-flops on Iraq...here's Colon Powell in February 2001:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

[Troll]

Originally posted by zachs:
Colon Powell

Hee hee!

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Kerry = Maintaining the staus quo = all the bullfrogs of the past.

Bush = A NEW possibility of ending all the crap and giving MILLIONS of peoples the peace and freedoms YOU seem to take for granted.

Could you be more delusional?

[ebuddy]

I bring up Kerry flip-flops, you hand me links regarding George Bush Sr. and Colin Powell. Like I said; Kerry's flip-flops are inescapeable.

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I bring up Kerry flip-flops, you hand me links regarding George Bush Sr. and Colin Powell. Like I said; Kerry's flip-flops are inescapeable.

Ok, then prove it. Please find and post a Kerry statement - not an edited or out-of-context soundbite, a full statement - from the relevant period (2002-2003) that directly contradicts anything he said in the statement I posted.