Kerry's Vote for the WAR
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 09-06-2004 - 3:41am |
This from the book Plan of Attack, by Bob Woodward regarding Kerry's (and Kennedy's) stance on the vote to give Bush authority to go to war:
That afternoon, after two days of debate, the House passed a resolution authorizing the president to use the U.S. armed forces in Iraq "as he deems to be necessary and appropriate." The vote was a comfortable 296-133 - 46 more than the president's father had in 1991.
In the Senate, Edward M. Kennedy the Massachusetts Democrat made an impassioned plea to reject the resolution.
"The administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilatera, preeimptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary. Nor has the adminitration laid out the cost in blood and treasure for this operaton," Kennedy said. He later added that Bush's preemptive doctrine announded to "a call for 21st Centry American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept."
Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat who would soon be running for president, said in a speech on the Senate floor he would vote for the resolution to use force in disarming Saddam because "a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat to our security." In announcing his support, Kerry stated that he expected the President "to fullfill 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.....and to act with allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force."
But no Democrat or other critic had been able to gain much traction in the face of the president's repeated declarations about the threat posed by Saddam and the CIA's estimates that Saddam posessed WMD and might be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power.
In light of what we know now it is understandable why Kerry voted to give the authority with the caveats he did. Bush had no intention of working with the UNSC to adopt a resolution. Bush was not against it so much as Cheney was. He said it would take too long and wanted to do it right away and do it without UN approval.

Pages
Since you didn't read the story I posted, I will highlight this part:
"According to the reports released last month, Wilson actually told the CIA that
his contact in Niger did believe Iraq was after "yellowcake" (weaponizable uranium), the primary export of that African nation, and that Saddam had sent his emissaries to Niger. This confirmed other information the CIA had from British and European intelligence agencies and is what the CIA told the president."
Ooops. You stopped following that story too soon.
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/iv-elpoliticsto/?msg=3296.227
Renee ~~~
<<"It seems there is little support here for either critical thinking skills or the truth. I am always trying my best for both. I find the Republican answer to any of this is to try to discredit, call names and ignore facts. I don'ut understand since truth and open thinking is so important to me.">>.......
Then how about backing up your "truth"? I presented you with backed up facts, and IF I get a response it is opinion. Which is ok, just don't call it truth and/or fact.
"critical thinking" doesn't include ignoring or inventing 'new' facts or philosophy.
I don't call names, I counter with facts.
I am not a republican.
If "truth and open thinking" are so important to you, why don't you try and digest facts (that may be new to you, which is no sin) that are presented to you?
Innuendo is a favourite arrow in their quiver.
If you are critical about Bush's elective invasion of Iraq and the abuse of intelligence to further the neo-cons' political agenda you get responses like:
"you can be against the WOT (war on terror) all you want" insinuating you support terrorism
I suspect we have many Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly fans on this board.
His credibility was shrinking long before TWO COUNTRIES bi-partisan reports outed HIM and his lies. LOL!
Pages