|
While Bush continues to claim Kerry voted for war against Iraq, then
voted against it, this claim couldn't be further from the truth. In
short, Bush is lying about Kerry. As Kerry tried to make clear in the
debate, he did NOT vote for war, but voted to give Bush authority to
go to war AS A LAST RESORT in the event all other attempts to disarm
Hussein failed. And he made clear "we must act in concert with allies
around the globe" before taking this action. And as it turns out,
Bush did not use war as a last resort, and did not act in concert with
the global community. Here are Kerry's actual words before the Senate
on October 9, 2002 when he voted to give the president authority to
use force:
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our
allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe
it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the
administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war
must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and
that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the
world's case against Saddam Hussein.
As the President made clear earlier this week, 'Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.' It means 'America speaks with one voice.'
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is 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 joint concert with our allies.
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."
|
| |
| |
In article <7571b5ea.0410021232.34792f35@posting.google.com>,
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote:
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our
allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe
it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the
administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war
must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and
that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the
world's case against Saddam Hussein.
I feel sorry for you because you are so homely but I feel even sorrier
for other people because they have to look at you.
As the President made clear earlier this week, 'Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.' It means 'America speaks with one voice.'
You do understand what I mean by that term, don't you?
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is 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 joint concert with our allies.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/
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.
The complaints I have heard of you I do not all believe; 'tis my
slowness that I do not, for I know you lack not folly to commit them
and have ability enough to make such knaveries yours.
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."
If a man be great, even his dog will wear a proud look.
--
Lady Chatterly
"haven't you got a gardener to molest somewhere?" -- Vampi Fangs
|
| |
| |
Of course what's relavent is not what Kerry said in debate; it's what
the actual resolution he voted for said.
The text of Public Law 107-243 ("AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002") is clear on its face, as is
its title: it specifically authorizes the use of military force to
enforce all 17 UN Resolutions, including Resolution 1441; THE
AUTHORIZATION IS UNCONDITIONAL. Read it for yourself:
(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.
And if that's not clear enough, the resolution provides:
(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.
Of course, the War Powers Resolution is in all likelihood
unconstitutional; the President, as Commander in Chief, does not need
Congressional approval to send troops into action.
For the full text see
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107.pdf
laddiejr@aol.com (BillyJoe) wrote in message news:<7571b5ea.0410021232.34792f35@posting.google.com>...
While Bush continues to claim Kerry voted for war against Iraq, then
voted against it, this claim couldn't be further from the truth. In
short, Bush is lying about Kerry. As Kerry tried to make clear in the
debate, he did NOT vote for war, but voted to give Bush authority to
go to war AS A LAST RESORT in the event all other attempts to disarm
Hussein failed. And he made clear "we must act in concert with allies
around the globe" before taking this action. And as it turns out,
Bush did not use war as a last resort, and did not act in concert with
the global community. Here are Kerry's actual words before the Senate
on October 9, 2002 when he voted to give the president authority to
use force:
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our
allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe
it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the
administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war
must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and
that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the
world's case against Saddam Hussein.
As the President made clear earlier this week, 'Approving this
resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable.' It means 'America speaks with one voice.'
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is 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 joint concert with our allies.
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."
|
| |
| |
|
