Kerry did not vote "FOR THE WAR"

[bagnana]

Dems have to get fucking rabid on this! Kerry voted to allow the use of force as a threat to force Saddam to disarm. PERIOD. And, to quote the BUSH himself, sometimes you have to vote for the use of force to keep the peace. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE VOTING FOR WAR? If Bush had said, this is FOR WAR, then why wouldn't Kerry have been voting on a war resolution and declaration of war? Because it wasn't a fucking war resolution. It was an authorization to use force against Saddam if necessary.


I heard this on Maher's show, on the pundits, and out of the cyborg's mouth tonight. ARGH! Who will call them out on this lie?

[ET Awful]

1. I also want to know when someone is going to call them on their

bullshit about the $87 billion by pointing out that Bush threatened to VETO the same money before it ever reached a vote. He threatened to kill the bill before Kerry every had a chance to vote on it if it didn't fit his criteria for a giveaway of tax dollars.

[secular_warrior]

2. Kerry didn't vote for war, but it shouldn't even come to this

The president should always have the threat of force - not the power to wage war - in today's world. I don't agree with the Iraq War Resolution or any "war resolution".

I believe one man should not have the power to wage war without a declaration from congress. The founding fathers set up the government with a system of checks and balances for a reason. An unelected fraud like Bush never would've been able to get as far as he has if our government was staying true to the constitution in matters of war and peace. Most of these war debates like Vietnam and Iraq would not be this contentious and controversial if it was up to congress, as the founding fathers intended. We would then have a true debate and a true consensus on whether to go to war or not. It should not be in the hand of one man. Congress is more representative of the people of a whole. It should be in the hands of the people.

Bush, Kerry or nobody else should be able to authorize war without a congressional declaration.

This is not the liberal position; it is the American position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. factcheck.org to the rescue!

You know, the one Cheney wanted people to look at ;-)

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=272

Cheney Overstates Iraq Resolution

Cheney repeatedly said Edwards had voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops," when in fact the Iraq resolution that both Kerry and Edwards supported left the decision to the president and called for intensified diplomacy.

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

And Edwards made clear in a statement at the time of his vote that he hoped to avoid war by enlisting broad support from the United Nations and US allies:

Edwards ( Oct. 10, 2002 ):

I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.

If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.

Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used.

In fact, not even Bush himself characterized the resolution as a vote "for war" at the time. Speaking at the White House Rose Garden Oct. 2, 2002, Bush said:

Bush (Oct. 2, 2002):

None of us here today desire to see military conflict, because we know the awful nature of war. Our country values life, and never seeks war unless it is essential to security and to justice. America's leadership and willingness to use force, confirmed by the Congress, is the best way to ensure compliance and avoid conflict. Saddam must disarm, period. If, however, he chooses to do otherwise, if he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.