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
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:28am

France did not want to go to war with out inpections first? How many times were they going to allow Saddam to throw out the inspectors?


The inspectors kept coming back with "no WMDs" and the alliance you mentioned wanted the inspectiosn to be completed. The info I read in Plan of Attack said that those inspections were 80% completed so it would not have taken much more time. Those countries had to sell a war to their countries too or commit political suicide and with the Intelligence coming back empty for WMDs they wanted more than just an assumption that they did exist someplace. Turns out they were right. They did not exist.

Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:33am

I know Novak outed her, but Wilson is a big talker, too. He could have told someone he shouldn't have, probably when he was relating the steamy make-out story of how he found out.


It is interesting how when the truth doesn't suit you another assumption jumps out of your mouth. Can't be that your Rep friends are responsible for it can it?

Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-05-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 2:51pm
Well.... Wilson *was* a member of the administration. Maybe he didn't mean to tell it, he just couldn't help himself...After all, many men kiss and tell...
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-21-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 4:03pm
Your information is shoddy, untrue and full of assumptions. Bull Sh!t is what I say.
Donna
Donna
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 5:08pm
Keep ignoring the facts!!

Djie

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-05-2004
Wed, 09-08-2004 - 10:31pm
Gee, that's what I think about 90% of your posts!

Pages