Cost of War
"kerry voted to "authorize" the war against iraq"
No, this is not true. The only vote congress had was to give the president authorization to use force in Iraq. This is not "authorizing the war against Iraq", this is "authorizing the president to use the military in Iraq, if need be". Need decidedly didn't be, to any reasonable standard of "need be". There are many "grave threats to our nation", but that doesn't mean that it is reasonable or prudent to actually go into a full scale war against every one of those threats. But then again dubla, you know as well as I do that GW Bush is not an intelligent, nor moral, enough person to make reasonable decisions.
"kerry voted to "authorize" the war against iraq"
No, this is not true.
really? i guess cnn is just all mixed up then.
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.
arguing semantics wont change the fact that kerry and bush held the same beliefs about saddam........which is what i was originally responding to in abaddons post (his assertion that bush lied about the threat posed by iraq).
It's good, Abaddon, that you have become political and have researched the genesis of the sinister nature of the neo-con movement and how it is playing out in the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq ? planned long before Bush came to office and before 9/11. As an American, I would wish that more of my fellow countrymen and women would be as interested in becoming more informed about how we got to our present state of affairs. Sadly, that is too often not the case.
Call me a conspiracy nut if you will, but as an earlier posting alluded to, absent an horrific event that sufficiently riled the American public ala Pearl Harbor, it's very doubtful that average Americans, let alone Congress, would have even remotely supported the invasion of a Middle Eastern country no matter how cruel its leader. How convenient that a mere 8 months into the Bush presidency September 11th provided such an opportunity. Too much has been written about how the entire tragedy unfolded right under the noses of a supposedly duped intelligence community?the terrorists, listed on several watch lists, entering the country and learning to fly planes, somehow disappearing around September 9th or 10th, carrying out their evil deed, and then having the intelligence community that same day all of a sudden discover loads of tell-tale evidence?but hasn't it played marvelously into the hands of the neo-cons... almost as if by divine intervention?
and of course voted to go to war in iraq.
As Six said, John Kerry (nor any other Senator) "authorized Bush to go to war." They authorized him to use force (go to war) after all other remedies were exhausted. Why this extremely simple concept is so hard for 50% of the American population to understand is truly mind-boggling.
Okay, here's the text:
There's a whole bunch of "Whereas..." and then the meat of it, red is my empasis this is my comment;
Section 1: Short title:
This joint resolution may be cited as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
Section 2: Support for United States diplomatic efforts:
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to:
- Strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts and
- Obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and non-compliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
Section 3: Authorization for the use of United States armed forces:
(a) Authorization: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to:
(1) Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
Ah, problem. The threat posed by Iraq, was illusory, but even with the gift of hindsight it was still doubted at the time. So, under this phrasing, the President did not have a reason to use Military Force against Iraq, even though he may have thought that he did (or wanted to anyway, so there!)
(2) Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential determination: In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that:
(1) Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) Acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
More problems. Iraq were not involved in 911. The attack on Iraq was not an attack on terrorists(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements:
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization:
Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
Now this is interesting. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm. Don't you just love the internet? Okay, I am scan reading but I think it boils down to this. Although 'use of force' is used, there is clear indication in the reference to and the text of the War Powers Resolution that we are talking about war being implicit in the resolution we're discussing. However, it's not an absolute green light.
(c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Now I assume we can all accept the resolution we're debating is a statutory authorization, not specific, but a statutory authorization all the same. 'Force' is less specific than 'war; afterall.
Given that (and putting the generality of 'force' as compared to 'war' and the requirement for 'specific' statutory authorization to one side for now), the President;
... in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after every such introduction shall consult regularly with the Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations.
So, one could argue this both ways. The authoprisation of use of force could be seen as a specific green light for war, or as a green light to prepare for war and consult an d report to Congress. I'm not a lawyer. If I was I'd have to eat arsenic.
Anyway, hi dubla! How you doing? So, what do you think of neo-conservatives then?
As Six said, John Kerry (nor any other Senator) "authorized Bush to go to war." They authorized him to use force (go to war) after all other remedies were exhausted.
i understand your point, and as i said, the difference between your above statement and my original statement does not change the point i was making, that being bush and kerry held the same beliefs on the threat posed by iraq. why this fact is so hard for 100% of kerry supporters to accept is truly mind-boggling. (honestly its not mind-boggling at all....its very easy to understand why that fact is stepped around as if its a pile of dog doo in the middle of the room.)
The authoprisation of use of force could be seen as a specific green light for war, or as a green light to prepare for war and consult an d report to Congress. I'm not a lawyer.
i see youve taken the path of six and teejay.....picking the one debateable statement from my post and ignoring the true point. as far as the authorization of war in iraq, im not naive enough (and i honestly dont think you guys are either) to believe that kerry simply didnt know that bush was going to march into iraq without u.n. approval. they knew what they were voting for (if they thought bush was going to consult congress again before attacking, why would there be any "no" votes?), and if kerry didnt believe we should attack iraq, he wouldnt have voted yes, regardless of how he supposedly wouldve handled it much differently. the fact remains that he either believed saddam was a grave threat to our nation, or he flat out lied about it......and if bush "lied", then kerry also "lied", you cant have it both ways.
Ahhh ... I feel good ! ... (and thanks again)
Eddited to add after reading Dubla's comment : Oh la la .... pffffffffffffffffffffffff
The fact neo-cons fabricated evidence to allow a massive millitary build-up in the '70's, and the same bunch (give or take) are doing the same thing again is important.Can you please provide me with some evidence of this? Something besides an editorial from the Washington Post.
These are the same people who allowed Jimmy Carter to be elected president, right?
If you're argument is that big governments do currupt things, who's arguing with you on this? Show me any government and I'll show you some corruption. What I find funny is how people try to limit this to 'right wing republicans" when in fact the Clinton administration was one of the most corupt administrations in US history. Another example is this "Bush oil connection." People like Michael Moore claim all these connections and how they helped him win the election in 2000. Um..then why aren't helping him now?
Anyway, what's your answer to the world's ills? Like I asked before, the people of Sudan are being slaughter by their own government, should the europeans do anything about it? I mean, they did such a great job in Yugoslavia, I think only a few hundred thousand people died before it was all over.
Dubla, Roy, ..., ..., ...
I don't think that anything at this point will change your mind (facts or arguments) ... ONLY YOU CAN (it's true for everybody) ... If you can read in between the lines.
I don't think that anything at this point will change your mind
likewise. i dont think those that debate politics with me are trying to "change my mind", and im certainly not trying to change theirs/yours....its not realistic. if thats what youve been trying to do, its no wonder that you get frustrated from time to time.