Kerry's Vote for the WAR

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Kerry's Vote for the WAR
76
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.


 

Donna
Donna

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:12pm
I see, I tell lies and you tell facts. Yeah, right.
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:12pm
And that means?????
Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:14pm
that is no excuse to out her to the world and you should know that.
Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:16pm
I didn't make an excuse.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:20pm
What is it you don't understand? Kerry distanced himself from this liar as fast as he could when the truth came out. Even Joe Wilson's website has disappeared and is automatically diverted to the Kerry website - which no longer has his name mentioned anywhere.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:22pm

<<"If you are not Republican you sure immitate one perfectly.">>.... yeh, just like I áct like I'm not pro-choice I guess just because I added nuance to my pro-choice stance, eh? LOL!


This is all you have to respond to the backed up facts I posted to you? I'm serious. I am open to read factual (not POV) links, to include/consider in my thinking. I am not here to persuade you, or to change your mind. I'm here to add backed up facts, and I'd love it if you did the same.


TIA.

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:30pm
i HAVE. You don't care. I don't either.
Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:34pm
I have found that Democrats are not interested in facts. Their pov is based on faith and emotion rather than anything analytical.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-07-2004
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:38pm
Critical sweeping generalizations add nothing to real debate.

< I have found that Democrats are not interested in facts. Their pov is based on faith and emotion rather than anything analytical.>

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2003
Mon, 09-06-2004 - 4:46pm
>> Their pov is based on faith and emotion rather than anything analytical <<

Fear? Which party mentioned 911 over and over and over and over at their convention?

Faith? Who claims God offers them direction on policy, and who offered insights in their convention speech as to Gods opinion of things?

My two cents on the subject.

Pages