Why can't Kerry just say....

[dennis4868]

I gave Bush authorization to go to war because he and the rest of the WH in public appearances and in private meetings scared the crap out of me by telling me that Saddam could have a nuclear weapon, that Saddam has unmanned aerial vehicles, massive stockpile of bilogical weapons. Plus, I read the National Intelligence Estimate that also scared me. That is why I gave Bush the authorization for the war. Now I know there are no WMD and everything Bush was telling me (and the NIE) was false. There are serious questions about how the intelligence was so wrong. There is evidence that Bush and the WH manipulated the intelligence and that Bush went further by hyping the hype...meaning, Bush was telling us things that was not supported by any intelligence (i.e., Saddam has unmanned aerial vehicles, nuclear weapon in 6 months).

If I knew then that the intelligence was manipulated and wrong and If I knew then that Bush was lieing about the threat from Iraq, I would have never voted for the authorization.

What is holding Kerry back from speaking the truth and saying this?

[Zhade]

1. Because he doesn't feel that the war was wrong?

:shrug:

[dennis4868]

6. How can anyone....

objectively say that the war was not a mistake? All of the reasons for the war turned out to be a lie.

I think a great man once said, "how can you ask the last man to die for a mistake?" wonder who said that? hmmmmmm.....wonder who!

[The Magistrate]

12. A Couple Of Points, Mr. Zhade

First, it would be very un-wise for a Presidential candidate to say he had been frightened or lied to successfully: those are not things people look for in a leader, who ought to be unafraid and able to discern the truth from the lie.

Second, there is no reason whatever to believe that, had Sen. Kerry been President, there would have been an invasion of Iraq. It is a cul de sac, with no bearing whatever on the real problem, which is to destroy the power of radical Islamic fundamentalism in arms to assail the West. Unfortunately, the invasion and occupation having been undertaken, it is not an easy thing to undo. Retreat is the most delicate and difficult of all military operations, and has the greatest potential for disaster. My own view is that we should retire as quickly as possible, but how quickly, and in what manner, are eminently debateable points.

On thing is quite clear, my friend. This is the sort of matter in which all leading politicians must be followers rather than leaders: just as soon as a decisive majority of the people indicate a desire for the U.S. to leave Iraq, you will see leading politicians declare their intention to withdraw immediately. You will see no such statements before that threshold is reached. Radical agitation, in this question, is better aimed at the people than at the politicians, who in this sort of matter will not shape, but rather be shaped by, the people's views.

"Where are the people? I must hurry there and lead them!"

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[dennis4868]

20. You said that.....

"it would be very un-wise for a Presidential candidate to say he had been frightened or lied to successfully."

What is wrong in believing your president over such serious issues. Kerry believed what Bush was telling him and acted on it appropriately. He can now say I was lied to by Bush over the threat from Iraq.

[noahmijo]

2. I think it's the fact that Bush can run and hide behind Rove

and then they'll come up with another lie and another and another to get attention away from the real issues.

I think and hope Kerry is waiting till the debates where Shrubbie will have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide to really lay it on him.

[Racenut20]

3. Beats me, Senator Nelson (FL) said long ago they lied to the

Intelligence Committee.

[K-W]

4. He is saying that.

He is saying that he stands by his decision at the time, but Bush screwed up, that is exactly what kerry is saying.

[pacalo]

5. Exactly. We have to have patience.

Dubya will get his public reckoning during the debates.

[emulatorloo]

24. For having the President protect the US, against GWB screwing it up

and rushing to war like a nitwit.

To put it another way

[michigandem2]

7. where is OUR ken starr?

all that keeps going on in my head is all the trumped up charges they tried to convict clinton on...ya know?

why isn't this being investigated...??? all the things this admin has done why aren't they being hounded and investigated??? god that was ENDLESS every day on the news Ken Starr this and Ken Starr that...ugghhh

[dennis4868]

8. It's hard to have our own....

ken starr when the dems do not control the congress and the media like the repubs did in the late 1990s....John Dean said that a scandal only has legs if the media decides it wants to investigate it....the media we have today is a joke. When we have to rely on a comedian (Jon Stewart) to get our news that tell you alot about the state of our so-called liberal media.

[michigandem2]

18. i watch him every night now..

he is the only one who actually gives real news..I know its supposed to be funny and it is...but its so true..

I am watching him on election night...I will flip around but mainly watch him...its sad.

[RobertSeattle]

9. Just because I gave you the keys to the car doesn't mean you can wreck it

EOM.

[dennis4868]

10. a better one is....

just because you stole the keys to my car does not mean I gave you permission to drive my car!

[Texas_Dem]

11. perfectly

stated! Except he not only wrecked it, he ran over us with it too.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Would you give the keys of your car to a known drunk?

I think not!

[Xipe Totec]

13. Let's Go Back and Look at the Rationale for the Vote

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
Administration applauds vote
Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)

<snip>

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the Al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

<snip>

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

<end quote>

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


Given that the purpose of authorizing the President to go to war was to strengthen his hand when dealing with Saddam and with the United Nations, and that the objective was to avert war if at all possible, I think John Kerry was justified in voting for the resolution then, and voting for the resolution now even though no WMD were found.

The real issue is not whether the President should have been authorized to go to war. The real issue is how George Bush wasted this tremendous power granted to him by the Congress and abused the trust of the American people by going to war before all other avenues had been exhausted, as expressly called for in the resolution.

[The Magistrate]

16. Hear Hear, Mr. Totec!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[sandnsea]

28. What Bush said

Got tired of listening to this twisted version of the IWR vote and went and looked up Bush's words myself. This was not a vote for war at the time at all and we need to quit letting Bush pretend that it was.

"What I've told others, including President Fox, is we have no imminent plans to use military operations," Bush said in Monterrey after meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox. March 22, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/25/world/main504515.shtml

"The president discussed Iraq in a general sense, because the president has not made a decision about the use of military action vis-a-vis Iraq," the Bush spokesman said. August 27, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/bush.saudi.prince/

Such a resolution, Bush said, should not suggest that military action is "imminent or unavoidable," only that the United States was speaking with "one voice." October 8, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/bush.iraq/

[sangh0]

14. Because Kerry is smart

.

[pookastew]

15. I agree that Kerry has made his position known, but...

I also agree with the poster that he hasn't done so very clearly.

I think it's because:

1. He wants to appear as if he'd go after a bad guy IF that guy was a threat (had WMD);

2. He has to support the general decision to give a president that power because a) he DID give it to him and b) he'd want it himself.

Instead of answering the question he should have turned it around and said, "the question is not what I would have done then knowing what I know now--I *didn't* know then what I know now; like everyone else I only knew what the administration told me--the question is what did Bush know then, and what did he do with what he knew."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. What do you object to in what Kerry actually said?

What Kerry said:

Pre-Iraq vote 10/09/02:

Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President 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 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, immediate" inspections 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 the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible.

And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test. Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Mr. President, Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean that we have exhausted all our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done.

The Administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs through inspections whenever, wherever, and however we want them - including in presidential palaces -- and I am highly skeptical we can given the Iraqi regime's record of thwarting U.N. inspectors in the past - then we have an obligation to try that course of action first, before we expend American lives and treasure on a war with Iraq.
http://www.seanrobins.com/kerry/kerry_senate_2002_10_09.htm

Pre-invasion 1/23/03:
As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/issues/kerr012303spfp.html



8/9/04 :
In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, ''Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have." Kerry has said the decision to invade rested with the president.

Then, in his most direct challenge to Bush about the war, Kerry listed four questions for the president, inquiring about prewar intelligence, postwar planning, the lack of efforts to bring other nations into the war as allies, and why Americans were misled about the war.

And unlike Bush, who never mentioned Kerry by name during his New Hampshire campaign stop, the Massachusetts senator said, ''My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? 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, and I hope you'll get the answers to those questions, because the American people deserve them," Kerry said.
http://tinyurl.com/3k2js

So what is it he said that you object to, specifically?

[dennis4868]

19. What do you object to in what Kerry actually said?

what I object to is Kerry saying that if he had known then that Saddam was NO THREAT AT ALL he still would have voted to give Bush authorization for the war. WTF? Kerry is saying that he was for the war even if he knew that Saddam was no threat at all to anybody. How can he say that.

A wise man once said: "How do you ask the last man to die for a mistake?" This is so true now.

Also, the damn media and even dems do not hold Bush accountable for lieing about WMD, Saddam's weapons deliver systems, and the so-called Saddam/911/al Qaeda connection. Kerry should be the one to hold Bush accountable and say that i was lied to by Bush and the rest of the administration about the reasons for war! He should say I would have NEVER VOTED FOR THE AUTHORIZATION if I knew I was being lied to by Bush.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

21. He didn't say that though did he? Your argument would be more persuasive

if it were honest.

[sangh0]

23. I love the way

some poster say "I don't like it when Kerry says ...." followed by something Kerry never said.

[dennis4868]

26. The question was....

"Mr. Kerry would you have voted for authorization of the war if you knew then what you know now....that Saddam was no threat at all and no ties to 911/al Qaeda?" Kerry answered, YES!

Am I wrong about that?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Yes you are wrong.

If Kerry answers a question, and instead of quoting his answer, your post quotes ONE WORD of his answer in order to change or obscure its meaning, your post isn't just wrong, it's deceitful and dishonest.

[dennis4868]

29. I am sorry you feel that way....

i can assure you I am not trying to be deceitful or dishonest. I am trying to figure this all out. I like Kerry and I am volunteering for him as well....It was just my understanding that the question was phrased the way I stated in my earlier post. I only wish Kerry would have answered that he would not have voted for authorization if he knew then what he knows now....that Bush lied to him about the Iraqi threat to our country....put Bush on the defensive. Even though the mainstreem media wont dare to say Bush lied/exxagerated about the reasons for war, there is plenty of evidence that he did. And not only that, there is plenty of evidence that Bush and his thugs manipulated the intelligence...LETS PUT bUSH ON THE DEFENSIVE ABOUT THIS!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

33. I understand your feelings about what you 'wish Kerry had said'

and that's why I asked you if that also meant you objected to what he actually did say. So far, I haven't seen you cite anything he did actually say that you take issue with.

[dennis4868]

34. Well I was told that....

Kerry was asked if he would have still voted to authorize the war if he knew back then what he now knows (that saddam was NO threat and no links to 911)? So, when Kerry said yes to the question I was shocked because that means he would give Bush the authority even if Iraq was no threat, had no WMD, and no connection to 911/al Qaeda. Why would Kerry or any senator give authority in such a situation?

But from what I have been reading in this thread, I have not understood the actual question asked to Kerry and how the future president answered it...I will go Lexis/Nexis it and get the full transcript.

Thanks for your help!

[pookastew]

22. The response to that would be:

"See, he doesn't support the war in Iraq. He doesn't support ousting a brutal dictator who had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction and had known ties to terrorists--terrorists like the ones that attacked us on 9/11. He doesn't support our troops. He wouldn't act to protect America. He would leave America's security up to the U.N."

[emulatorloo]

25. Kerry DID NOT say what you say he did

You are reacting to misleading headlines and trusting George Bush in his characterization of Kerry's words.

[GalleryGod]

30. SHEeeeeeeesh! Somebody Lock THIS useless Thread!?

:nopity: :wtf: :hurts:

[dennis4868]

31. what would be wrong....

if Kerry dealt with this the way I suggested in the original post in this thread?