Kerry stands by Iraq vote
 

Wasn't I just saying this on Sun. - Haven't I been saying this all along :shrug:

:wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

Kerry stands by 'yes' vote on Iraq war
Bush challenges Democrat on stance

GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nomiee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.

Bush's campaign has challenged Kerry to give a yes-or-no answer about whether he stood by the October 2002 vote which gave Bush authority to use military force against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The question of going to war in Iraq has become a major issue on the campaign trail, especially in light of the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found there.

Intelligence reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a major rationale for going to war.

The U.S. senator from Massachusetts said the congressional resolution gave Bush "the right authority for the president to have."

But he told reporters on a campaign swing through Arizona, "I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." He challenged Bush to answer four questions.

"My question to President Bush is why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" Kerry asked. "Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war? Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way that we deserve it and relieve a pressure from the American people?

"There are four, not hypothetical questions like the president's, but real questions that matter to Americans," Kerry said. "And I hope you'll get the answers to those questions because the American people deserve them."

Bush's campaign has hammered Kerry over his vote to authorize military action and his vote a year later against $87 billion in funding for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry has said he voted against that measure because it would have financed the war with borrowed money. He voted for a defeated alternative that would have rolled back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for the conflict.

The president told supporters Monday in Virginia that he still would have gone to war based on the evidence at hand at the time, and he challenged Kerry to say whether he would have cast the same vote.

More than 900 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 that deposed Saddam. No WMD arsenal has been found, although a few aging gas shells have been located, and U.S. inspectors have said Iraq tried to conceal some weapons-related research from U.N. weapons inspectors.

Bush said Iraq had the ability to build weapons of mass destruction and had been deceiving weapons inspectors, who reported no sign of banned weapons in Iraq in the weeks before the invasion.

"Everybody thought they would be there. We haven't found them yet," Bush said. "But he did have the capability of making weapons. Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision."

Kerry has said that if elected, he would work to recruit more U.S. allies to assist in stabilizing Iraq, where nearly 140,000 U.S. troops are still fighting to provide security for the country's interim government.

Kerry said his goal would be to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq within six months of taking office, but he said he would put more troops into the country "if the commanders ask for it."

"Obviously, we have to see how events unfold," he said. "The measurement has to be, as I've said all along, the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself."

But he said if he could persuade other countries to contribute troops, reducing the U.S. contingent would be an "appropriate" goal.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...raq/index.html

If he is stupid enough to give Bush the power to wage war against Iraq when it was clear he was dead set on it, why should I trust him with this:

and YOU have been saying that all along :wavey:

You have a point and are correct IMO!!!!!!!!

But, I am voting for Kerry anyway - hyppocrite that I am ;)

I didn't know this was the topic of conversation Sunday. :shrug:

Kerry's vote perplexed me and continues to perplex me. Less than a month ago, he was on Larry King with Teresa and he said that had he known where the intel came from, he would not have voted to authorize force. Now he says he stands by his vote. :cool: I think those vile Swift Boat Veterans are getting to him, personally.

I thought I mentioned Kerry several times as, like Clinton, espousing this policy and how it was due to 9/11 a change or natural progression from the "regime change from within" policy in the Clinton years.

See posts 64, 86, and 142 :shrug:

Maybe in a passing reference, I was more concerned with setting you straight about Clinton's Iraq policy and how it had been abandoned. ;) :laugh:

I did not say it, Clinton did :xoxo: :angel:

Again, it doesn't matter what he said once he left office, he was no longer making policy. :xoxo: His revised '98 policy was abandoned, then used as leverage by the current administration. ;)

ALl I am saying is the former Pres. of the US who fought the same foe for YEARS (bombings, no fly zones, sanctions, etc.) says he would have done it. I take his word on it any day of the week. I think you do not because his current position does not support your position. I mean yes, we will never know what anyone would do until they actually did it - so you are correct from that generic point of view. But, you are incorrect from this one based in reality, Clinton's actions during his Presidency fully support what he says he would do now :woohoo:

No, they don't. During his '92 campaign, he blasted Bsuh for not being tough on Saddam. Once elected, he excised all of his tough guy talk and took a rather light approach to Saddam. His policy from '93-'98 was to simply enforce sanctions, no more and no less. With the UNSCOM scandal in late '97, he revised his Iraq policy to say that the US advocated regime change from within. He allocated roughly $100 million in US funds for Saddam opposition forces to use against fighting Saddam and promoting democracy in Iraq. However, once any involvement with Iraq was frowned upon by the public and his poll numbers slipped, he abandoned it and forgot about Iraq until his term ended.

That is my point. At all times, Clinton, like W, believed that we should not trust SH to say anything with any truth to it because SH had not for years and was a terrorist to his and other peoples :shrug: Clinton clearly was moving toward it but trying to avoid it during his Presidency. I mean to go from enforcing the light approach from 93-98 to attacking Iraq with quasi UN approval in 98 to get Iraq to comply with UN sanctions, which Iraq was openly defying, was quite a leap. Moreover, the regime change from within was still advocating a war or at least a revolution of some sorts, just without, or without us knowing about it, American soldiers or special ops being involved :shrug: In 98, he still advocated violence and was in fact violent with Iraq all because of the UN sanctions, which is the root of all of this. I think it is not a huge leap to get from those actions to the need after 9/11, which did not happen in his administration, to use force against SH to once again comply. That is what he is saying. Thus, I think his actions during his Presidency fully support his post-office and current statements that after 9/11 SH was too dangerous to allow to remain non-compliant with UN sanctions and the UN's demand for inspections.

Here is where it gets intersting to me - Then, in the process of getting the inspections started again, SH tries his old cat and mouse tactics (you can go here but not there, here is the info. we gave you in 98 - that ought to be good enough, why are you bothering us, etc.) - again in violation of the UN's final demand of many demands for full complaince or face serious consequences. In the end and only after the threat of war, the massing of troops, etc. did SH comply - after not complying in the beginning, SH was complying in the end according to Blix. This is where Clinton and W differ. Clinton said he would have waited for the inspections to finish. W said, sadly and wrongly so IMO, enough of SH and his 11 years of BS, we are going in now - but W had a point.

In the end, Clinton and W were both right up to a point because Kay said SH had the means to make WMD with little effort, the 9/11 Commission report shows SH had met with Al-Q a few times (though no collaborative realtionship resulted), SH had aided abetted with medical attention and free passage a fugitive and known American enemy of the Afgan. war, and SH openly defied the UN and the world for 11 years and until right up to the very end, when he began complying with the burden he had illegally avoided carrying for 11 years. These acts along with SH's past activities did not cast any favorable light on SH and certainly went a long way in making the case against allowing him to stay in power. Did they justify a preemptive invasion? That is what the debate is about.

Note: this does not speak to W's rush to war with no plan to win the peace or the other three questions Kerry asked W to answer yesterday. For those W is wrong and should not be reelected :cool:

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. ;) American troops were in no way involved in his regime change plan, there's a huge difference between that and an invasion on the Shrubya scale. In '98, he advocated enforcing sanctions and UN resolutions, but not invading a country. I don't get why you don't see that. Going to war with Iraq was never an option for Clinton and was never even hinted at in a single one of his policies, especially when you consider that his last revised policy was abandoned.

As for the rest of your post, we've been there and done that. I have facts to support me, you have facts to support you. There's no middle ground and we'll just run around in more circles. No thanks. ;) :xoxo:

Just don't claim that Iraq attacked us again. :lol:

Kerry has a huge problem. Let's review:

He volunteered for Vietnam. The Navy puts him in charge of a swift boat in the Mekong Delta. While in the delta, certain events occur that have come into question. I won't get into those because I think that there's a handful of androids being remotely controlled by the Republican Scoundrel Tactics Machine to throw doubt at the man's heroism under fire.

Kerry leaves Vietnam after receiving three purple hearts. Stateside, he lashes out at the government and declares that atrocities are being commited in Vietnam. He even says he participated while following orders. He points out the corruption of the leadership in claiming we're in Vietnam defending the nation when clearly that is not what is happening.

Fast-forward to 2003. Kerry, the once-vehement anti-Vietnam protester, votes to give Bush permission to attack Iraq. He agrees that there are WMD in that country and that we must force Iraq to give them up, even if it means attacking the country. Later it becomes clear there are no WMD, but Kerry refuses to acknowledge the error. Instead, he lambasts the administration for its execution. This, dear readers, is where I ask everyone to stop and ponder for a second the implications of his position.

By "bad execution," Kerry seems to suggest the Bushers rushed to attack Iraq. This is a funny argument no matter how you slice it considering we'd been launching missiles at Iraq for some 11 years and considering we had been talking about attacking Iraq for at least six months. That aside, one is to presume that Kerry wanted to prolong inspections, talks, whatever, before resorting to violence. Well, then, since he was convinced there were WMD in Iraq and Saddam was not to be trusted, would he not have reached the same conclusion in the end? That is, would he not have come to the decision that Iraq must be invaded? Or was he going to take somebody's word that there were no WMD? You think so? Well, I doubt it, since it has been proven there were no WMD and he continues to insist attacking Iraq was the right thing to do.

Time passes. Still no WMD. Kerry launches his presidential campaign. He metamorphoses from former anti-war protester to warmongering hawk. All those claims he made about atrocities in Vietnam? Oh, never mind, I shouldn't really have said that. I was young. At the "nominating" convention he makes a show of "reporting for duty" and proclaims that he fought to defend his country, which is grossly incongruous with his statements 30 years earlier that claiming we were defending our country in Vietnam was corrupt reasoning. He was right then. He is wrong now.

I really don't know how this guy expects to win. And don't give me the "complexity" bull****. I'm complex, and so are most human beings I know. There's nothing complex about being inconsistent and taking on a new persona when you decide to run for president. It's quite simple, really.

Carne - I agree - nut I am voting for him anyway. I'd rather have Kerry's crap than W's crap - even though they are both and sadly the only realistic crappy choices :cool:

Plus, I think Edwards is FAR better than W., Cheney, or Kerry.

There is not an ounce of truth to a single statement made by one of those vile Swift Boat Veterans. Not one shred of anything resembling the truth. This is 2000 all over again and Kerry has become McCain. Regardless of whether or not I agree with Kerry on some issues, to call his heroism and courage into question like that is unpatriotic and treasonous, in my book. These vile men are being bankrolled by the Republicans, they never served with John Kerry (one man has stepped up who did serve with Kerry, but his credibility is called into question after he made public statements in '96 where he said Kerry was a courageous hero in Vietnam), they never treated Kerry for any wounds, and so on. This is a witch hunt and it makes me want to vomit. Never in my life have I seen anything more vile in a campaign.

I'd rather have Teresa than any of them. ;)

Do youhonestly believe that America did not clandestinely have special ops toops in Iraq after 98 to help implement the regime change plan and to spy on SH :shrug:

Again, I agree the regime change policy in the Clinton Admininstration was different than the one W implemented after 9/11. All I am saying I agree with Clinton's statment that SH was too big of a risk to let stay in power unless he fully complied with UN Res. 1441 after 9/11 for the reasons set forth above. I think Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 98 and his enforcement of the no fly zones (all with quasi UN approval) show Clinton was not hesitant to take military action against SH. I am unsure why you think that does not support Clinton's post-office and current statements that he would have done do again, esp. after 9/11 :shrug:

There you go again, what you say is just your spIIINNNNing
Who am I to keep you down
Its only me - who wants to set the record staight baby
and have you stop your spinning - here and now - now

:p :laugh: :wavey: :D :xoxo:

Amen :thumbsup:

Hey, you said it, not me. ;) It's on this board in black and white! After you made the ridiculous statement and I reacted with shock, you tried to clean it up by saying that Iraq did attack us when they attacked Kuwait. :laugh: That's when you totally lost me in our political debates and I've still yet to recover!!!!

I'm feeling the Teresa love with all the new sig lines lately. :D :nod:

Yep - they are swine. This is just what they did to Max Cleland. I makes me sick to my stomach. I mean to assert that three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star could all be obtained with sheer and open fabrication is just insane. Yet, I know people who think it - Sick just sick.

As I said then and as I say now, when I initially said it, I meant Iraq attacked our ally Kuwait, which was the same thing as attacking us. I never meant to say Iraq attacked the continental US and you know it. Is that too much for you to grasp? Moreover, is no one allowed to clarify anything when asked to? You certainly have - we all have :shrug: Yet, I do not throw your unclarified words out as if they were all you said :shrug: But, when you have no real fact based argument to assert - I guess half truths and incorrect statements are all you have :eek: :shrug: :xoxo:

P.S. Please explain to me how attacking an American ally is not considered the same as attacking us? Thus, my initial statement in its intent is true. Even Goldie apparently conceded that when she responded "no hiding the ball" :shrug:

I think it's quite a leap to say that if, say, Britain or another ally were attacked by Iraq, we were also attacked...which is what you essentially said. :shrug:

:nod:

I never thought of it that way, either! :xoxo:

Have you seen/heard the ad? The first time I heard it, my gagging reflexes kicked in and I saw red. :laugh:

Britian and Kuwait are both our allies are they not. I am pretty sure the Geneva Convention allows allied reaction in that circumstance.

Yes, they are, and yes, it does. I agree with you in that regard. But to say that we were also attacked is a stretch and requires a suspension of belief, IMO.

I have reached my satuaration point with ads. When they come on, I tend to change the channel.

Unfortunately, there is one in Ga right now (we have the run off elections today) for, I think a US Rep seat, where the guy says not one thing about policy, platform, etc. All he says is I have been faithfully married for 17 years and have children that are strong in their faith. I will put MY faith first when I am in office. Sadly, he will probably win and when he gets there, only the Baptist faith will matter when he votes, the Const, will mean nothing to him.

Sounds like a Shrubya ad. :shrug: It says nothing about his record or anything, it's just a puff job.

Well, America was essentially attacked in the sense that an attack on an ally is considered an attack on all allied with that ally - it is as if Iraq invaded us when they invaded Kuwait. I never meant it as Iraq attacked the continental US or any of the US holdings around the world. I thought that was clear when I made the statement. When people questioned me, I explained what I meant and my explanation is correct. But, if you want to keep asserting I somehow said that Iraq attacked the continental US or any of the US holdings around the world - go right on ahead. But, your assetion is wrong. I never said that - period. If I did - show it to me.

He is not the only one. There are many fundamentalist Christians running on this platform. They want everyone to be forced to believe what they do, even though all of them do not believe in exactly the same things :shrug: