the kerry would vote to authorize thing, again

[Ignoramus]

Sorry if this is monotonous. There is still more that I could read, but: Could someone site exactly what Kerry was asked, and exactly what he said? What I read is either, just Kerry's reply, or that plus a summary of what he was asked.

For example:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war/

says:

"In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said..."

What exactly did Kerry say that led the reporter to conclude that Kerry was making that distinction? What exactly word for word was he asked and what exactly did he say?

[The Magistrate]

1. Here Is A Fair Summary Of the Matter, Sir

Sen. Kerry indicated that he felt any President, engaged in diplomatic endeavor against a hostile power, ought to have the possible use of force as one arrow in the quiver. That is not only commonsense but commonplace; diplomacy has been well defined as the art of saying "Nice doggie..." while feeling about for a brick. Without the possibility of force behind the words, no one will pay the least attention to them. Current events in Sudan and Iran are cases in point: both governments know no force will be brought to bear against them, and so continue in their actions despite tremendous international criticism and "pressure".

Sen. Kerry has made it clear to any fair-minded observer that had he been in charge of policy, the United States would not have diverted its power from the assault against al Queda to the invasion of Iraq. He has made it clear that he considers the invasion of Iraq was wrong-headed, and that even if one agreed it was a proper course, that it was done in the poorest possible manner. It is only of benefit to the Republican reactionaries to mis-represent the Democratic Party candidate for President's positions. In this matter, Sen. Kerry's views are, in fact, those of a decided majority of the populace, and so ought to have the widest possible appeal at the polls; that is precisely why there is such a campaign of misrepresentation being waged about them by the reactionaries and their sundry allies....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[oasis]

18. You have summed it up rather nicely, Sir.

:thumbsup:

[goodhue]

2. "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the . . . "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

Since last month's Democratic National Convention, the senator from Massachusetts has been under mounting pressure to provide a clearer explanation of his views on the war, including why he voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the invasion yet opposed funding for it. On Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer whether he would support the war "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction that U.S. and British officials were certain were there.

In response, Kerry said: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

But Kerry has charged that the president and his advisers badly mishandled the war, and in the news conference he posed sharp questions for Bush.

"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace?" he asked. "Why did you 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?" he added. "Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html

[Ignoramus]

11. Are the exact words cited anywhere?

The article there doesn't say exactly word for word what he was asked.

If it was simply the question that Bush asked, then Kerry's answer seems to be yes, because it includes the word yes. I think it's actually an attempt to evade the question, but he has to be held to account for the word yes in his answer.

If I ask, is it okay to shoot stray dogs on sight, and you answer "Yes, I think it is important to handle the stray dog situation, but we must not deal with stray dogs in a brutal manner, and there are more humane ways to deal with the situation than my opponent has blah blah blah.". You are actually saying yes, despite the rest of the sentence.

The yes answer from Kerry, doesn't change what I thought his position was. I still intend to vote for him for various reasons, other than the main reason for opposing Bush, since he will probably be more advantageous to people pursuing social justice etc.

I think it's a bad idea if the Kerry people are trying to conceal what their real position is, at the sound-bite level. People will still support Kerry even if all their hopes for an opponent to militarism are dashed.

[emulatorloo]

14. He is not concealing anything, and he is being consistent

Yes to authority for Pres to protect the US, but against GWB abusing the authority by rushing to war like a nitwit

without trying to avoid war with diplomacy etc.

[Ignoramus]

15. if that was the question

I'm yet to see the exact words of the question. It seems to have been in response to Bush's question which was about support for going into Iraq. In that case Kerry's answer is:

"Yes..."

Which, being an answer to the question, means that he would support going into Iraq, even knowing what he knows now.

Then a change of the subject:

".. I would have voted for the Authority..."

So, either he didn't understand the question, which I think is unlikely, or he has answered yes.

If the question was not Bush's, that makes all the difference. So, where's the text of the exact words of the question?

.

[emulatorloo]

17. Question was would you vote Yes/No for IWR

there are clips of Bush asking it. . .

Bush is the one changing the subject. . . .deliberately.

[Ignoramus]

20. That would make all the difference

Do you have a citation showing that the exact words kerry was asked were about the vote? Not a summary of that being what he was asked. The actual words.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Why are you joining Bush in misquoting Kerry?

you said:

It seems to have been in response to Bush's question which was about support for going into Iraq. In that case Kerry's answer is:

"Yes..."

But that isn't true. What happened, and what was said, was:

Bush, whose administration cited the weapons and alleged terrorist links to justify the war, challenged the Democratic presidential nominee on Friday at a campaign rally in Stratham, N.H., to tell voters whether intelligence disclosures since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 would have altered his position on the war. ''My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. ''The American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."

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

[Ignoramus]

21. Notice how that's not a quote

The highlighted text is a reporters interpretation. Where is a citation of the exact words of the question and the exact words of the answer?

[Xipe Totec]

25. Ok, Let's Assume Nobody Can Find A Quote

Since we' seem to be going in circles looking for an 'exact quote' of the question, and no satisfactory answer can be found, what is your conclusion?

What would Kerry's 'YES' answer mean to you, if there is no text showing the question?

[Ignoramus]

28. Speculations

Well, there are hints at what the question was. It makes more sense to speculate about the question than to take the answer out of context. But I also don't know what the complete answer was either, so I have to speculate about that for now.

Kerry could clarify that he misspoke or was misquoted and that he would not support going into Iraq, in which case that would answer my quesion.

Bush is reported as asking if Kerry would support going into Iraq. The articles I've seen say Kerry responded to that question.

The washington post says Kerry answered "Yes, ...".

The boston globe says Kerry's answer distinguished between invading Iraq and authorizing force and then cites Kerry saying, "Yes, ..."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/08/10/kerry_says_hed_still_vote_to_authorize_iraq_war/

Because of the way it's worded:

"In response, Kerry, distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing the action said, 'Yes,...'"

The reporter seems to be interpreting the cited answer by Kerry, as distinguishing between invading Iraq and authorizing action, otherwise I would think the article would have quoted Kerry saying, something like: no, but I do stand by my decision to give Bush the authority to use force under the conditions etc. etc.

Somewhere else, somewhere cited on DU I think, I read Kerry's answer being the same as I read elsewhere, but with a sentence before it: "I will answer directly. Yes, ...".

It seems likely that he was just asked to respond to Bush's question and his answer was "Yes, ...".

So I think it means, yes he would still support invading Iraq, but he would have wanted the conditions layed out in the authorization to have been followed. In other words, yes he would support invading Iraq even though no links to al qaeda and no wmd, but he wants to know why Bush rushed into the invasion without following the conditions, implying that he thinks Bush should have followed them.

So, for the pro-terror faction of his supporters, they can be reassured that he would invade Iraq even now. For the anti-terror faction, you can ignore the little bit of confusion about him saying yes, and leap over to how Kerry thinks Bush should have followed the authorization.

[Xipe Totec]

32. You Did Not Answer My Question

If no quote can be found, what is your conclusion?

What would Kerry's 'YES' answer mean to you, if there is no text showing the question?

And what is this 'pro-terror faction' you mention? I don't know ANY DUers that support terrorism.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Why are you joining Bush in misrepresenting and attacking Kerry?

Why are you parroting Bush's attack?

[Zhade]

3. What really bothers me isn't Kerry - it's his ADVISORS.

Check my signature for an example of the types of people leading Kerry down the wrong path.

Kerry should ditch these people. Beers, Albright, Holbrooke, Rubin, Marshall - they're all very dedicated to continued American imperialism.

They are a cancer on Kerry's policies.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Guilt by association?

Are you saying you think Kerry should only hear advice you agree with?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

6. Two things: first, I'm a guy.

Second, I did not tell anyone to shut up. So your lie is pointless and will be ignored.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Umm,

the post you are responding to, was a response to me. I didn't see it, so it's possible they replied to the wrong message, but perhaps their attacks were actually directed at me? I get that a lot.

So, will you respond to my question in post 4?

[sangh0]

8. OK, you're a guy. My mistake

erased....I just re-read the other thread. It looks like we're all a bit confused.

[Zhade]

9. That's a lie, and you know it. I'll say this once, Sangh*.

1) I misinterpreted Padraig's post, and apologized for misinterpreting it. That apology was accepted. Issue closed.

2) I am clearly not advocating his advisors be silenced, as anyone reading my post can see. I am advocating he cut himself loose from them. They're free to say whatever they want. I would just prefer (and do not demand) that they not be associated with him.

That's all. You know this, of course, and further attempts to turn your straw man into a full-blown debate will be one-sided. I have no time to waste on you.

[sangh0]

12. Yes, I re-read the other thread

and so I erased the post you just responded to. We must have crossed wires.

[Zhade]

23. It happens. As Padraig said, "no blood, no foul".

(Such a violent metaphor! :D )

[Nicholas_J]

10. If you read the act in full

There is only authorization under certan, rather exacting circumstances, inclusind exhausting every diplomatic peaceful method, deadlock in U.N. about how to handle Iraq with regards to enforcement of all resolutions regarding Iraq. THe only cuircumstance allowing unilateral action or any action without the U.N. was if the president had overwhelming proof that Iraq posed an immediate, immienet threat to the U.S. or its allies in the Middle East.

Randy Rhodes is today citing all of the reasons that I have cited for months about Kerry and the other democrats signing the resolution NOT giving a blank check for Bush to go to War. If anything Bush decuded to disregard the resolution and walk away from the diplomatic arena he had become engaged in when he followed the first steps in the act, and that was going to the U.N. to get support for dealing with Iraq.

[goodhue]

13. Here it is (and I don't find the exacting standards as you describe) . . .

<DOC>



<[Page 1497>]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<[Page 116 STAT. 1498>]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

<[Page 116 STAT. 1499>]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

<[Page 116 STAT. 1500>]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR 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
(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.

(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.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Bush violated the IWR when he lied in his Presidential Determination

to Congress.

[Nicholas_J]

27. Its right there in section 3. The section that gives authorisation

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR 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
(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--
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.

(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.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::


What does this section titled:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

state...

That all diplomatic measures must be exhausted, and that peaceful means will not adequately protect the United States. (Through the United Nations)

And that this act is consistant with the the agreements that we had made regarding the war on terrorism with other nations.

This this act requires that Bush PROOVE that all diplomatic,peaceful efforts had been exhausted, that the relying on those peaceful, diplomatic measures could not adequately protect the U.S. from the dangers that Iraq presented to the security of the U.S. and its allies.

THis is the section grating authorization. The prior sections were giving the historical basis for the claimed need for the act, the following sections deal with how Bush is to communicate with congress if war was deemed necessary.

Read,it and tell me where this section gave Bush a blank check to go to war with Iraq, and show me where in March of 2002, Bush gave adequate, and truthful indication that diplomatic,peaceful measures had failed, that this falure lead to a situation in wher the security of the U.S. was not adequately protected frombthe regime of Saddam Hussein.

[robcon]

31. That's not true. There are no conditions on the use of force in the IWR

other than the president's sole judgment and notification (not approval) to Congress...

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.

[Bake]

22. Kerry should never have responded to a hypothetical question!!

He took the bait, this was the dumbest thing he's done since the "I voted against it after I voted for it" quote.

It was a fuck-up. Carville is on CNN now, defending Kerry but saying also that he wouldn't have responded to the hypothetical question.

It was a fuck-up.

Bake

[Eurobabe]

29. Exactly, and this is what the Dems need to address

Reading Lakoff: Moral Politics, right now. He says Repubs are masters at laying traps and diverting attention from what the REAL issue should be. We don't know how to effectively respond.

[Gyre]

24. It doesn't matter

Probably nobody subscribing to this forum is likely to vote for bush regardless of Kerry's position on Iraq.

I personally believe Kerry's trying to out-nazi bush on the Iraq issue. And he did vote to authorize the $87bill Bush was asking for, so there's no reason to believe he would not have attacked Iraq also given the choice and based on his own words.

For that I dislike him intensely. But with all the jingoistic shite floating around he probably wouldn't be competitive with Bush if he didn't bellow louder about Iraq. Also, he knows the anti-war vote in "in the bag" for him regardless of his position on the war because bush has polarized us that much. At this point Kerrys probably moved on to attempt to appeal to that large percentage of murikkkans who believe that Saddam was going to nuke us if we didn't invade. Oh well. Despite pissing me off, it's not a completely assinine strategy. Go Kerry!

Gyre

[PATRICK]

30. Iraq face down

I believe candidate Gore 2000 was hinting at this kind of confrontation as well. Well, after the nightmare bungling and exploitive sham in which Bush had predetermined conquest of Iraq, maybe it is time to go back to alternate history. Maybe even without 9/11 and the blind fear.

Saddam, sitting fortuitously on top of the world's last undertapped oil reserve, and his sons to inherit, was set to become a power and begin again to go for WMD's, yet at the moment he was hamstrung. Looking at Iran and NK we see what even a small headstart given by compromise will do to the security situation. The balance of terror used to mean the US and the Soviet nukes, but another kind of terror, oil, religious war and the Middle East would have made a catastrophic mix. With the UN backing Saddam would have been proved compliant and stringent safeguards installed, with a different kind of pressure and finesse breaking his military hold over the country. Instead, Bush just drove it underground in every conceivable way harmed everyone except his vampirish busniess partners.

We would not have committed the atrocities that make this war immoral. We would not have sent in plunderers and overlords and conquered the country- but really liberated it without razing its infrastructure. We could have kept moving in global unity and benign fashion to pacify the WMD situation in Iran and perhaps guarantee Israeli security so they could stand done safely and maybe surrender their own nukes and get on with substantive movement with the Palestinians. Remember the Bush roadmap sham is an empty, half-hearted bit of pro Sharon disaster too.

No bombs dropped on civilians, no occupying conquering force of under-equipped GI's, no torture prisons, no graft that could come close to Cheney's dream. Kerry might be forgiven in thinking that a bit of respect for law, common sense and the obvious would have enabled Bush to do that mostly pretty well. Instead, Bush dragged down the entire nation with his media peanut gallery going insane behind him. reasonable moral people are left gaping unless they had the wisdom to ineffectually oppose Bush with utter faith in his intention to do harm. In hindsight they might have- and then been left with the dilemma of enabling Hussein. It is the GOP whop keeps demanding that we face a choice between two evils, themselves disguised.

If Gore or Kerry had managed the Iraq confrontation, we can see now what a dumb nut he had to crack so things might not have been so rosy either, but if only we had two different universes to compare notes we would see in Bush's case we would be talking war crimes and a threat to his own nation and world. With the Dems we would be grousing about policy and the morality of applying force like Clinton in Kosovo. In that happier universe we would perhaps be longing for yet a further step up to Gandhi like ideals- and speak out in admirable discontent. Kerry has the inclination to be sold on some lies, maybe he needs some louder substantial input, as now is the case in Venezuela, a fascist coup that has not happened yet.

But it can always get worse- especially if that objection, that discontent, is spiteful enough to enable the horrors visited upon us today.