Kerry Gains Among Undecideds

He did not vote to authorize war only if the UN approved or only if all other measures had been exhausted. He specifically voted to give the President the authority to go to war. It's that simple.

No, it's not that simple. He based his vote, according to Kerry's words on the Senate floor (before the war) off the President's words...that all other means would be exhausted and that we would have the support of the international community. Kerry also said, if the President went back on these words, he would be the first to call him on it.

Jess
 
Originally posted by Gupsmom
No, it's not that simple. He based his vote, according to Kerry's words on the Senate floor (before the war) off the President's words...that all other means would be exhausted and that we would have the support of the international community. Kerry also said, if the President went back on these words, he would be the first to call him on it.

Jess

Sorry, but yes, it is that simple. What his vote was based on has no bearing on what he actually voted for. He voted to give the President full authority to go to war. No conditions, no restrictions.
 
I'm sooo sick of this ridiculous argument. Saddam had ignored 16 resolutions. WHY WOULD HE HAVE RELENTED ON THE 17TH???

He needed to be unseated and he was. Bush had the balls to make it happen.
 
Sorry, but yes, it is that simple. What his vote was based on has no bearing on what he actually voted for. He voted to give the President full authority to go to war. No conditions, no restrictions.

It was the President that gave the conditions to which Kerry voted for. It was the President that lied about following those conditions.

Jess
 
I'm sooo sick of this ridiculous argument. Saddam had ignored 16 resolutions. WHY WOULD HE HAVE RELENTED ON THE 17TH???

The 17th resolution to do what? Accurately and fully disclose the weapons of mass destruction that never existed to begin with. Bush had the balls to not care what the rest of the world thought...only problem is he was wrong.

Jess
 
Originally posted by disney4us2002
I'm sooo sick of this ridiculous argument. Saddam had ignored 16 resolutions. WHY WOULD HE HAVE RELENTED ON THE 17TH???

He needed to be unseated and he was. Bush had the balls to make it happen.
That's exactly the attitude I hate from Bush supporters. Iraq was obviously not an imminent threat considering we still haven't found any WMD. The only thing Bush's balls made happen is a lot of unnecessary death and suffering, not to mention the region hates us more now than they ever have.
 
Originally posted by Gupsmom
The 17th resolution to do what? Accurately and fully disclose the weapons of mass destruction that never existed to begin with. Bush had the balls to not care what the rest of the world thought...only problem is he was wrong.

Jess

Saddam, the Bomb and Me
By MAHDI OBEIDI

hile the final report from Charles A. Duelfer, the top American inspector of Iraq's covert weapons programs, won't be released for a few weeks, the portions that have already been made public touch on many of the experiences I had while working as the head of Saddam Hussein's nuclear centrifuge program. Now that I am living in the United States, I hope to answer some of the most important questions that remain.

What was really going in Iraq before the American invasion last year? Iraq's nuclear weapons program was on the threshold of success before the 1991 invasion of Kuwait - there is no doubt in my mind that we could have produced dozens of nuclear weapons within a few years - but was stopped in its tracks by United Nations weapons inspectors after the Persian Gulf war and was never restarted. During the 1990's, the inspectors discovered all of the laboratories, machines and materials we had used in the nuclear program, and all were destroyed or otherwise incapacitated.

By 1998, when Saddam Hussein evicted the weapons inspectors from Iraq, all that was left was the dangerous knowledge of hundreds of scientists and the blueprints and prototype parts for the centrifuge, which I had buried under a tree in my garden.

In addition to the inspections, the sanctions that were put in place by the United Nations after the gulf war made reconstituting the program impossible. During the 1980's, we had relied heavily on the international black market for equipment and technology; the sanctions closed that avenue.

Another factor in the mothballing of the program was that Saddam Hussein was profiting handsomely from the United Nations oil-for-food program, building palaces around the country with the money he skimmed. I think he didn't want to risk losing this revenue stream by trying to restart a secret weapons program.

Over the course of the 1990's, most of the scientists from the nuclear program switched to working on civilian projects or in conventional-weapons production, and the idea of building a nuclear bomb became a vague dream from another era.

So, how could the West have made such a mistaken assessment of the nuclear program before the invasion last year? Even to those of us who knew better, it's fairly easy to see how observers got the wrong impression. First, there was Saddam Hussein's history. He had demonstrated his desire for nuclear weapons since the late 1970's, when Iraqi scientists began making progress on a nuclear reactor. He had used chemical weapons against his own people and against Iran during the 1980's. After the 1991 war, he had tried to hide his programs in weapons of mass destruction for as long as possible (he even kept my identity secret from weapons inspectors until 1995). It would have been hard not to suspect him of trying to develop such weapons again.

The Western intelligence services and policy makers, however, overlooked some obvious clues. One was the defection and death of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of the unconventional weapons programs in the 1980's.

As my boss, Mr. Kamel was a brutal taskmaster who forced us to work under impossible deadlines and was the motivating force for our nuclear effort. The drive for nuclear weapons began in earnest when he rose to a position of power in 1987. He placed a detail of 20 fearsome security men on the premises of our centrifuge lab, and my staff and I worked wonders just to stay out of his dungeons. But after he defected to Jordan in 1995, and then returned months later only to be assassinated by his father-in-law's henchmen, the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs lost their top promoter.

In addition, the West never understood the delusional nature of Saddam Hussein's mind. By 2002, when the United States and Britain were threatening war, he had lost touch with the reality of his diminished military might. By that time I had been promoted to director of projects for the country's entire military-industrial complex, and I witnessed firsthand the fantasy world in which he was living. He backed mythic but hopeless projects like one for a long-range missile that was completely unrealistic considering the constraints of international sanctions. The director of another struggling missile project, when called upon to give a progress report, recited a poem in the dictator's honor instead. Not only did he not go to prison, Saddam Hussein applauded him.

By 2003, as the American invasion loomed, the tyrant was alternately working on his next trashy novel and giving lunatic orders like burning oil around Baghdad to "hide" the city from bombing attacks. Unbelievably, one of my final assignments was to prepare a 10-year plan for military-industrial works, even as tens of thousands of troops were gathering for invasion.

To the end, Saddam Hussein kept alive the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission, staffed by junior scientists involved in research completely unrelated to nuclear weapons, just so he could maintain the illusion in his mind that he had a nuclear program. Sort of like the emperor with no clothes, he fooled himself into believing he was armed and dangerous. But unlike that fairy-tale ruler, Saddam Hussein fooled the rest of the world as well.

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

So what now? The dictator may be gone, but that doesn't mean the nuclear problem is behind us. Even under the watchful eyes of Saddam Hussein's security services, there were worries that our scientists might escape to other countries or sell their knowledge to the highest bidder. This expertise is even more valuable today, with nuclear technology ever more available on the black market and a proliferation of peaceful energy programs around the globe that use equipment easily converted to military use.

Hundreds of my former staff members and fellow scientists possess knowledge that could be useful to a rogue nation eager for a covert nuclear weapons program. The vast majority are technicians who, like the rest of us, care first about their families and their livelihoods. It is vital that the United States ensure they get good and constructive jobs in postwar Iraq. The most accomplished of my former colleagues could be brought, at least temporarily, to the West and placed at universities, research labs and private companies.

The United States invaded Iraq in part to end what it saw as a nuclear danger. It is now vital to reduce the chance of Iraq's dangerous knowledge spilling outside of its borders. The nuclear dangers facing the world are growing, not decreasing. My hope is that the Iraqi example can help people understand how best to deal with this threat.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?oref=login&th=&pagewanted=print&position=
 
Originally posted by Sonny Eclipse
That's one of the things that has bothered me the most about the Republican spin machine. They are adamant to say Kerry has flip flopped on the war but if you actually listen to what the man has said he has stayed extremely consistent in his views. This is from the speech Kerry made from the Senate floor when he voted to give Bush authority for the use of force:

"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 and immediate inspection 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 among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs."

That's exactly why he has criticized Bush on the war, because he didn't exhaust all other means before using force. If Bush truly understood the horrors of war, that war isn't some kind of game, then he would've done everything in his power to avoid this war with Iraq. By not allowing the inspectors to finish their job, and by not building a proper international coalition, he acted irresponsibly. And now, a year and a half later, not one WMD has been found and there are over 1000 Americans dead, more than 7500 Americans wounded, and more than 10,000 Iraqis dead.

For Bush to use his own ineptitude to show that Kerry is a flip flopper is disgusting.

Bravo! I couldn't have said it better myself! Thank you for an intelligent, articulate point of view!
 
Here is the relevant text from the resolution John Kerry voted in favor of:

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.

Seems rather obvious from that; the text indicates that the Congress is authorizing the President to use military force as he sees fit regarding Iraq. Now one can debate over whether President Bush used this authority wisely or not. But the simple fact is John Kerry gave him the authority to do what he did.

In my opinion that was irresponsible of the Congress (not John Kerry in particular, the entire Congress) to do that.
 
Originally posted by Sonny Eclipse
That's exactly the attitude I hate from Bush supporters. Iraq was obviously not an imminent threat considering we still haven't found any WMD. The only thing Bush's balls made happen is a lot of unnecessary death and suffering, not to mention the region hates us more now than they ever have.

No one ever said they were an imminent threat.

Hate is hate. I didn't realize we measure it by degrees.
 
Originally posted by Gupsmom
The 17th resolution to do what? Accurately and fully disclose the weapons of mass destruction that never existed to begin with. Bush had the balls to not care what the rest of the world thought...only problem is he was wrong.

Jess

If everyone but Bush knew they weren't there, what was Hans Blix looking for? :rolleyes:
 

Can all these undecided voters just please stay home? We go through this ever election year with these people. Are they incapable of researching the candidates and making up their minds before the last minute? How hard can this be? Jeez.. get informed and make a decision! I really don't care which candidate they vote for, but my God, it can't be that hard. Don't they have any core beliefs to which a candidate resonates? I get so tired of candidates spending their time trying to woo these folks every election year. Next election year we'll be in the same vote with these undecideds.
 
Originally posted by dmadman43
Can all these undecided voters just please stay home? We go through this ever election year with these people. Are they incapable of researching the candidates and making up their minds before the last minute? How hard can this be? Jeez.. get informed and make a decision! I really don't care which candidate they vote for, but my God, it can't be that hard. Don't they have any core beliefs to which a candidate resonates? I get so tired of candidates spending their time trying to woo these folks every election year. Next election year we'll be in the same vote with these undecideds.

My point entirely - we don't need these people making the decision for the nations future.

It is like a board meeting of a major corporation that is trying to decide if they should submit to a hostile takeover or sell some assets to fight - and the board is evenly divided.

Would the proper action be to rush out on the street and ask the first person that walks by = "What should we do?"

And then DO what that uninformed person said??

This is madness - undecideds are just not interested in the nation - why should we be interested in them?
 
Originally posted by jrydberg
Here is the relevant text from the resolution John Kerry voted in favor of:



Seems rather obvious from that; the text indicates that the Congress is authorizing the President to use military force as he sees fit regarding Iraq. Now one can debate over whether President Bush used this authority wisely or not. But the simple fact is John Kerry gave him the authority to do what he did.

In my opinion that was irresponsible of the Congress (not John Kerry in particular, the entire Congress) to do that.

This is a well-reasoned post. You clearly disagree with the overall decision, but you recognize that regardless of Kerry's rhetoric, his vote in fact gave the president the power to act as he did.

It would be like a sportscaster voting for the number one team in the nation - only to find that the team he voted for lost the next game.

How many would not LAUGH at a sportscaster who explained his prior vote by saying = "hey I only voted for them because I thought that they would win all the rest of their games. Now that they have lost a game, I want to retract that vote. I want to say that I didn't REALLY mean it. AND - I am going to CRITICIZE that team for not doing what *I* expected them to do. It was CLEAR that my vote for them was a 'protest' vote so that I could SLANDER them if they lost a game."

makes sense to me <~~wish I had one of those eye-roll smilies.
 
Originally posted by Sonny Eclipse
That's exactly the attitude I hate from Bush supporters. Iraq was obviously not an imminent threat considering we still haven't found any WMD.

Another example of circular logic. Notice the difference in the tense (grammatical) of the thoughts in the same sentence.

Iraq WAS obviously not an imminent threat <~~~ meaning THEN

considering we still haven't found any WMD <~~~ meaning NOW

How can NON-uneducated people think this way?

If a firetruck runs over a puppy on the way to a fire, does it make the firemen at fault if when they get there the alarm is shown to be a false alarm?

Can you criticize the firemen for responding to a false alarm??

With YOUR brand of logic - yes you can.

YOU would say

- "Iraq was obviously not an imminent threat considering we still haven't found any WMD."

and

- "The firemen should have stayed in the firehouse considering we still haven't found any fire."

ridiculous - but evidently the best the Democrats can do.
 
Originally posted by Rokkitsci
My point entirely - we don't need these people making the decision for the nations future.

It is like a board meeting of a major corporation that is trying to decide if they should submit to a hostile takeover or sell some assets to fight - and the board is evenly divided.

Would the proper action be to rush out on the street and ask the first person that walks by = "What should we do?"

And then DO what that uninformed person said??

This is madness - undecideds are just not interested in the nation - why should we be interested in them?

Well then DON'T be interested in ME! It must be wonderful to be so self righteous that you have a clue on how my mind works. Maybe I am undecided because of all the crap I hear from both sides...why would I want either man in office when all the hear is garbage being spewed from both parties. I have been voting since I was 18...I am now 46...this is the FIRST time I have felt the absolute uncertainty that neither candidate is right for the job. So I guess I have just made up my mind...I'm voting for the lesser of the 2 evils. And you can just forget about me.
 
Originally posted by Rokkitsci
Another example of circular logic. Notice the difference in the tense (grammatical) of the thoughts in the same sentence.

Iraq WAS obviously not an imminent threat <~~~ meaning THEN

considering we still haven't found any WMD <~~~ meaning NOW

How can NON-uneducated people think this way?

If a firetruck runs over a puppy on the way to a fire, does it make the firemen at fault if when they get there the alarm is shown to be a false alarm?

Can you criticize the firemen for responding to a false alarm??

With YOUR brand of logic - yes you can.

YOU would say

- "Iraq was obviously not an imminent threat considering we still haven't found any WMD."

and

- "The firemen should have stayed in the firehouse considering we still haven't found any fire."

ridiculous - but evidently the best the Democrats can do.
First of all, believe it or not, I'm a Republican. I have always voted Republican, until now. Secondly, comparing firefighters going to put our a fire with going to war is just ridiculous and shows how little you actually understand about the consequences of going to war. If you had read any of my other posts you would see that my stance all along was to allow the inspectors to finish their job, build a proper international coalition, and use force as a last resort. What was the urgency to go to war? We were in no danger of Saddam using possible WMD as long as inspectors were on the ground so why not let them finish their job? People say Kerry has "flip flopped" his stance on the war but his stance all along has been to go to war as a last resort. There is no way in hell you can say Bush did that. Now you have thousands dead and still no WMD. You say Bush ran over a puppy on his way to put out a fire that didn't exist, I say if he had gone through the proper channels he would've never had to get in the truck.
 
Originally posted by Gupsmom
QUOTE]No one ever said they were an imminent threat.


http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/iraqimminent.html



Really? I thought that was exactly what Bush said.

Jess
[/QUOTE]

Actually, quoting Bush from the source you provided:

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so."

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

"Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

Now - from the source you quoted - these are Bush's words. They sound very much like what I remember - so I beleive these are his words.

Would you PLEASE - using the above quote that you provided - point out the SPECIFIC things that you DISAGREE with.

*****"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack."

agree or not??

*****"We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so."

agree or not?

*****"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

agree or not?

******"Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

agree or not??

******"If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

agree or not?

Note that the word "imminent" does not appear - that was coined later, but the news reports.

Now you and I can both argue the nuances of the word "imminent" all day long - but that is not Bush's word, so if you are going to make a case against BUSH - then make your case using HIS words, not the words of the reporter.
 
Originally posted by dmadman43
No one ever said they were an imminent threat.

That's not true. Iraq was called an imminent threat.

"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.
Senator John Edwards 2/24/02

This is the same Senator Edwards that was on the Intelligence committee.

Richard
 
















GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE


Our Dreams Unlimited Travel Agents will assist you in booking the perfect Disney getaway, all at no extra cost to you. Get the most out of your vacation by letting us assist you with dining and park reservations, provide expert advice, answer any questions, and continuously search for discounts to ensure you get the best deal possible.

CLICK HERE




facebook twitter
Top