Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

> The problem in his mind is that the US
> is illegitimate and the UN is the only
> organization capable of bringing peace
> to Iraq.

No, the problem is that the US is screwing everything up and that the UN is one of several organizations that we must work with in order to bring peace to Iraq.

-Cf

Eric,
The UN was never designed to take the role of leadership in the world; however, it is in place to uphold international law and find peaceful solutions to the world’s problem. Personally, I give them an F—- for their effects on world leaders and the stupid things they do to common people.

That being said at least Kerry and the Democrats have the ideas to move Iraq forward through internationalizing the effort like it is in Afganistan. My question to the right is simple. Why did Bush put Afganistan under international control, yet harbors Iraq efforts to do the same thing? Do we dare say it is about money?

Read about the world economy and what as a nation we face than ask yourself if going the future a lone is a good idea.

America Onward and Upward
The choice between to Economy plans for the future of America

America citizens, the future President, and future Congress of America need to have a very serious discussion over the future and direction of our country. Too many years (1980 to be exact) have passed since America took a look at how we treat our own people. Our minimum wage in this country will not allow a person to become self-sufficient working in the service industry that our parents said would make us all wealthy. This jobs fall into the unskilled labor of our two tier system of wealth. Now, I’m not a constitutional expert. Yet I have to declare that America was founded on the principles that all men were equal, not Rich vs. Poor. Our founding fathers refused a class system for this very reason.

It’s real simple for America to vote.
Bush/Cheney wants to control everything
Kerry/Edwards are willing to talk about it.
Nader just buying time on the issues, although I know his heart is in the right spot.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/papers/elastap4.html#C2 linktext

No this election will not bankrupt us, yet it will define on who we have become since 9/11. Have we as a nation turned into the Monster we despise?

America faces the same question as many of our parents faced in 1969-70. How do we build a legacy for our children’s children? Learning from our greed and mistakes does America have what it takes to turn this economy around? Elders would not you agree?

By changing the rules of trickle down theory to a trickle up society, our “Powers to Be” can easily control the fundamentals. As a business person, you should not object to having the ability to gain a few hundred new costumers. As unskilled workers, people need to know that the game is “the best is in everything we do.” Productivity really does matter (at least to a given point). Government wins also, because with higher wages comes higher taxes and that will pay the bill, but wait a minute young American unlike your parents you have a voice in this deal. Bush /Kerry just stand in your way. Congress itself needs to wake up and find the solution. As more and more people rise above poverty and become financially secured, the faster we can lower taxes to the rich.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povmeas/papers/elastap4.html Link: linktext

It seems to my friends that we have been swindled by the invisible hand of Rapitalistism. That bug which has destroyed even the strongest civilization. Why are there so many terminals in America today? Greed! Simple Greed! Who’s going to rule the world? Can we just have the Plain Cold Hard Facts about the plan where Creation and Civilization meet? In plain English, Mr. President Want-a-be America needs a vision bigger than the world itself. Got One? Get One!

Now People, We need a Vision!

The 3 E’s we can command.

Energy, Environment, and Economics are the wild game and how it plays may mean your life. Be greedy in one and harm another sooner or later you will pay. That bit of Wisdom in life has been handed down to man ever since he can remember. So how do we keep the balance in our single class society and two tier economy? Good questions for the candidates. Doesn’t every American deserve an honest wage for an honest day of labor?

Energy:
America has about 5% of our population looking for work at any giving time. Current use of electricity in the US is about 3.3 GW/yr. Instead of unemployment and welfare for people, let the start building the new electrical plants of the 21st Century. New technology energy should become the top priority of our government. By constructing at least fossil fuel generators, America would reduce her dependence on oil. I say 10 years to bring 1.5 GW renewable powers on line. This government lead adventure should use only common sense approach to the solutions and take in the other needs of regions like reservoirs for water. By building reservoirs deep enough to allow a 20 degree F temperature difference in the water you can use it to drive turbines to generate electricity and have ample water storage.
Currently war over oil fields is about issues:
America
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/incineq/p60204/p60204txt.html Link: linktext

Saudi 1980-present,
http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=108855 Link: linktext

Environment:
By forcing local governments to accept bioengineering of our land development, we will actually add value to our land. Under the current way of appraising a home and land is arbitrary at best. Over the next 25 years let’s work to build a living community where people live in harmony with nature. No not in the trees, but the trees in our world. Concrete and mud has built this world for years. It is the price we pay for progress. Now, the science is available to let us landscape our land that will help nature help us. 0 ph would be a nice start. Funny thing people are already doing it. However, a positive influence on the environment is better for the challenge considering we want to go to space.

Biosphere Engineering:
http://www.paragonsdc.com/ Link:linktext
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 Link: linktext

Good article:
http://www.synergeticpress.com/dolphinpr.html Link: linktext

Mr. President Want-a-be take a seat!
Stop and explain to me and my fellow citizens how you plan to feed our economy machine.

Our economy is suppose to be based on pure capitalism, yes our government does have the right to tax commerce for the good of the community (check city/county charters and State and Federal Constitutions I don’t think it would be a good idea to link them all together); however, Mr. President Want-a-be frankly put your economic plan really sucks.

Refer to Bush or Kerry Web site:

America, Are you ready to work.

By forcing businesses and our government representatives to seriously take a look at our society’s two tier economy, America can build the future our parents have only dreamed of. Will it be easy? Probably not, something’s we can not change.

Facts do not lie and money has become a joke. Dems and Reps got a lot of work. Forcing the news on the rich isn’t going to be pleasant. The only way they can afford to live the high life is to allow the poor to get rich our self. Rebalancing is going to be sweet justice.
http://www.epinet.org/static/books_swa2004_main.cfm Link: linktext

My fellow Americans in order to do what we want when we want we have to reinvest in America. In order for that to happen we need to stop illegal immigration.

25,000 new jobs on our south border would be a good start.
Hard fines for those employees which hire them, 59% of profit should précis.

Instead of feeding the economy from the top down that hasn’t worked lets change the rules so they feed from the ground up. What am I talking about is by increasing the unskilled labors pay over a period of a few years our economy produces a demand for products, goods, and services. But American Work an American use to be a Republican cry when it served their purpose. Don’t laugh Democrats Clinton and Kerry is no better. It’s the Powers-to-be place to make this happen. Just keep your word.
http://www.population-security.org/27-APP1.html Link: linktext

The World Today: http://www.brainyatlas.com/fields/2116.html Link: linktext

Their Plan: http://www.wfs.org/pr2003outlook.htm Link: linktext

The Battle: http://www.unificationtheory.com/bioeconomist/theGAME2.htm Link: linktext

America what is your answer to your future.
We have a real good choose. Allow people enough money in their wallet so they to can afford the basic standard of life for all or go down the road of destruction. Voting this year may very well tell how our politicians address these very questions.

A world solution to solve the inequality of basic wealth needs to be found to effectively fight the war on terror. Bush is lost in space if he thinks a few tax cuts will fix this problem. The UN may even become a major borker in the coming years on this issue (Hope Not). Yet, We the People, better wake up or our rich highly specialized professionals will fall from grace.

Jeez, talk about long-winded !! All I want from the Left is to keep up the shrill internationalist antics, please, please, PLEASE!!! The longer the Left runs it’s pie hole the more votes Pres. Bush gets. It’s that simple! And the fun thing is that they can’t help it (just read these columns). They are, figuratively, hanging themselves with their own rope, or fake memos as the case may be !! They keep thrashing around in the political quicksand and sink deeper and deeper and….Well, you get the point. And what is their solution to this problem ? Glad you asked ! Their solution is….(Drum Roll Please) More of the same (Booyeah !!).
As the Democratic sun (or son, in this case) sinks slowly in the west (or east, in this case…this is really getting fun !!) we bid a fond farewell to the Kerry/Edwards campaign as it gasps its last breath, flailing and screaming at the towering blue sky that seems to mock them, sniff, sniff!! (Insert music from the Titanic here)

Eric, you do know don’t you that much of those charges came out of the INC and Chalabi. If you want to use the accusations of a con man, a traitor, and agent of Iran to impugn a statement that’s basically true, then go ahead.

Fact is, we have no grounds for calling this a pre-emptive war at all. There’s no evidence Saddam had an active relationship with the terrorists that hit us on 9/11, no evidence he could have struck at us, and no weapons of mass destruction to make that strike worse than just a handful of dead, if they were capable in the first place.

Without that immediate threat, there’s nothing to pre-empt. Without the designation of pre-emptive war, however despicable the target the war was an act of aggression, and illegal.

We’re stuck in our mistake, we didn’t have to be. We could have at least had company in our error, if not a backup justification for what we did. We went there with a cause, a plan, and a war in mind that depend on a tenuous strand of evidence and causality to remain successful and legitimate. Other presidents before Bush have been more careful about how they brought their country, more careful as to why. By being careful in that way, they spared millions of innocent lives, both American and otherwise. By being careful like that, they didn’t put national security on the line by gambling with our reputation and resources.

As for Kerry’s positions, they are one position, with many different faces. You said he voted for War. At the time, even Bush did not say that. He said the reason for the resolution was to show Saddam he was serious so he could send in inspectors and disarm Iraq. War, he promised, was a last resort. Kerry, too, voted for that, and continues to expound the very points he did then. That Saddam needed to be dealt with, but that we had to have international support, and fundamental proof of the validity of what we were going to do.

He never voted to declare war on Iraq. He voted to give the president the ability to wage war there, on certain conditions. So did a majority of Senators and Representatives, including the bulk of your party. Now whatever they intended to do, they all put their names to a law that required Bush to prove his case and seek out UN help as long as was it was rationally possible.

Did he do so? He didn’t even let inspections end. Did he give a report reflecting the most accurate picture of Iraq? Most decidedly no. He parroted introductory language from the authorization, rather than create a new report that laid out a sound assessment of the situation.

In the end, it was Bush who went back on his war. Since then, Kerry has only maintained that he wanted UN involvement, and a war based on the facts, not on bad information. It is Bush who has changed his story, using the Bully Pulpit of the president to browbeat the message home.

He changed from telling us that we had an immediate threat bearing down on us to telling us that we went there simply to free the Iraqi people. Well yes. We’re going to free them, all right. If we keep going this way, we’re going to free them from having any semblance of a nation left. We’re going to destroy Iraq and send the rest of the middle east out of control, just so we could get at one dictator we already had boxed up.

You can UN-bait all you want to, question Kerry’s patriotism for trying to get our soldiers help til you’re blue in the face, but you are a long way from proving Kofi Annan wrong, or Bush right.

Samaritan-
I suppose you think National Intelligence Estimates are just think-pieces, too, don’t you? It’d be bad enough if you were gloating on election day, but it isn’t kind of silly to gloat over victories you don’t have yet?

Samaritan, just keep believing in our ability to stay on top it will prove your downfall.

America, as a nation faces a simple question this election.

Will we choose to chase the Almighty Dollar?

Or

Will we choose to keep building and making a better world?

We blog, You decided!

Stephen,

Eric, you do know don’t you that much of those charges came out of the INC and Chalabi.

You mean the Oil-for-food corruption? Look again Stephen. It’s not a fantasy.

There’s no evidence Saddam had an active relationship with the terrorists that hit us on 9/11, no evidence he could have struck at us, and no weapons of mass destruction to make that strike worse than just a handful of dead, if they were capable in the first place.

How can you say that? Richard Clark is the one who originally said there was a Saddam/Al Qaeda link ie the Aspirin factory in Sudan.

The left would rather have us lose a war than have George Bush in office. It’s as simple as that. Kerry is going down the wrong road, at the wrong time, in the wrong place if he wants to win the Presidency.

Stephen,

He never voted to declare war on Iraq. He voted to give the president the ability to wage war there, on certain conditions. So did a majority of Senators and Representatives, including the bulk of your party. Now whatever they intended to do, they all put their names to a law that required Bush to prove his case and seek out UN help as long as was it was rationally possible.

I’m sorry but this is just not true. The authorization for war did not require Bush to ‘prove his case,’ or come back for another vote on what he would do. It gave the President sole power to decide what to do and when. Kerry should not have voted for it if he felt that way. To argue otherwise is indeed to live in a ‘fantasy world of spin’.

This is what is wrong with Kerry. He can’t be trusted. Kerry voted for the war because he thought he had to politically. He has to spin his vote after the fact because of his calculating demeanor.

The war was the right thing to do, at the right time.

Done the “W”-rong “W”-ay to win the Peace!

Stephen,

Saddam/Al Qaeda/UN Oil-for-food program link:

Now, buried in some of the United Nation’s own confidential documents, clues can be seen that underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link — clues leading to a locked door in this Swiss lakeside resort. (To review a series of documents, audits and other stories related to Oil-for-Food, click here.)

Next to that door, a festive sign spells out in gold letters under a green flag that this is the office of MIGA, the Malaysian Swiss Gulf and African Chamber (search). Registered here 20 years ago as a society to promote business between the Gulf States and Asia, Europe and Africa, MIGA is a company that the United Nations and the U.S. government says has served as a hub of Al Qaeda finance: A terrorist chamber of commerce.

…That might be unremarkable, had the United Nations ran Oil-for-Food with enough integrity and transparency to prevent Saddam and many of his business partners from plundering oil earnings meant to help the people of Iraq. The original United Nations plan was to let Saddam sell oil solely to buy humanitarian goods such as food and medicine, with the U.N. Secretariat (search) collecting a 2.2 percent commission on Saddam’s oil sales to supervise the integrity of this process.

As the Oil-for-Food program actually worked, however, the United Nations let Saddam choose his own business partners. The world body also kept secret the details of those contracts and the identities of the contractors, and it let Saddam graft at least $4.4 billion out of the program through manipulated contract prices, by estimates of the U.S. General Accountability Office.

…According to U.S. officials and the United Nations itself, MIGA is less an “empty box” than a container of Al Qaeda-related mysteries. One of those mysteries appears to be Abdul Rahman Hayel Saeed, with his charter MIGA membership and his prominent part in a Yemen conglomerate doing hundreds of millions worth of business with Saddam.

Unraveling the mystery requires much greater access to Oil-for-Food records than the United Nations currently allows. foxnews

> The authorization for war did not
> require Bush to ‘prove his case,’

I think Eric is sorta right here. It didn’t require him to prove a case. It did, however, require the President to go through a process and then to make a determination. I do not think that the President did that. I think he made his determination even before the ink was dry on the resolution.

-Cf

Stephen and Chris:

You are correct that I did not vote to give Bush the right to go to war. I voted to give him the authority to make the decision about going to war, but only as long as he dedided NOT to go to war. Once he decided to go to war, I knew it was time to explain to the people that I was against the war that I voted for—-I mean, I was for the war I voted against….Dammit, I was against the war, but I voted for …..ahhhhhforget it.

Did you know I won three Purple Hearts in Viet Nam?

To: Stephen Daugherty- Since YOU like National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) let me paraphrase a recent one for you. The situation in Iraq is untenable and cannot be won by the United States. Now your problem is simply this, if you believe this one (And you do don’t you, C’mon admit it, I saw you grin when you read it !) then why NOT the original that the President and Congress believed. Have you had a chance to read the report of the 9/11 commitee ?? Perhaps you should…it seems that some Democrats agree with my position and not yours (Strange ??!?).
To: Henry Schlatman- You really are angry, aren’t you ?? I can just picture you, stamping your little foot, pouting petulantly and looking forward to another 4 years of President Bush, you lucky devil, you !!
For those of you who read this please reread my original post, it’s third from the top ! Then crack open a cold one and have a good laugh at the Dems expense !! I told you, “They just can’t help screwing-up”, and we just can’t help collecting ALL of the votes they lose. Hell, they should be on the Republican payroll….Hey, maybe I can forge a memo to that effect…COOL !! Let’s see….which T.V. news anchor is gullible enough to accept a patently forged memo, Hhmmm, this will take some thought. If any of you have some good (gullible) candidates don’t hesitate, just chime right in. I’d like to assemble a comlplete list. Thanks !! (Insert the theme from the “Three Stooges here)

To: Stephen Daugherty- Since YOU like National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) let me paraphrase a recent one for you. The situation in Iraq is untenable and cannot be won by the United States. Now your problem is simply this, if you believe this one (And you do don’t you, C’mon admit it, I saw you grin when you read it !) then why NOT the original that the President and Congress believed. Have you had a chance to read the report of the 9/11 commitee ?? Perhaps you should…it seems that some Democrats agree with my position and not yours (Strange ??!?).
To: Henry Schlatman- You really are angry, aren’t you ?? I can just picture you, stamping your little foot, pouting petulantly and looking forward to another 4 years of President Bush, you lucky devil, you !!
For those of you who read this please reread my original post, it’s third from the top ! Then crack open a cold one and have a good laugh at the Dems expense !! I told you, “They just can’t help screwing-up”, and we just can’t help collecting ALL of the votes they lose. Hell, they should be on the Republican payroll….Hey, maybe I can forge a memo to that effect…COOL !! Let’s see….which T.V. news anchor is gullible enough to accept a patently forged memo, Hhmmm, this will take some thought. If any of you have some good (gullible) candidates don’t hesitate, just chime right in. I’d like to assemble a comlplete list. Thanks !! (Insert the theme music from the “Three Stooges” here.)

Samartin,
Stating facts are simple work the republicans should try it sometime soon!

You must think that America can live in Isolation form the rest of the world. Please let us have four more tears of Bush, only if want to shell out another $550 billion in bad loans (‘85 Real Estate Bust). Oh yes give me a tax break so we can go deeper in debt (IMF list the dollar as bad investment). Please, let Bush show me how to live the straight and narrow road. Four more years of BS. This political move really ought to piss Ameroca off.

I’d like to share some quotes from Robert McNamara on some opinions he shared about Iraq.

“And the reason I feel that is that we’re not omniscient,” he said. “And we’ve demonstrated that in Iraq, I think.” He pointed to Washington’s failure to appreciate the complexities of Iraqi culture, and therefore to anticipate the extended guerrilla war it is now engaged in — a chief mistake of Vietnam. Without the full involvement of other major nations, he said, such mistakes will always be made.

“And if we can’t persuade other nations with comparable values and comparable interests of the merit of our course, we should reconsider the course, and very likely change it. And if we’d followed that rule, we wouldn’t have been in Vietnam, because there wasn’t one single major ally, not France or Britain or Germany or Japan, that agreed with our course or stood beside us there. And we wouldn’t be in Iraq.”

And I’d also like to share the lessons he said he learned. Let’s not repeat history. Let’s listen to our elders, and learn from their mistakes.

McNamara’s 11 lessons

In 1995, former U.S. secretary of defence Robert McNamara published In Retrospect, the first of his three books dissecting the errors, myths and miscalculations that led to the Vietnam War, which he now believes was a serious mistake. Nine years later, most of these lessons seem uncannily relevant to the Iraq war in its current nation-building, guerrilla-warfare phase.

We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience… . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine… . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions… . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Let us remember Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, two men who realized that war was a terrible tool, and strove to create a better tool, a tool where “right” ruled and not “might”; two men who hated the horrors of the war so much, they dedicated themselves to trying to create a new way to solve the worlds problems through international cooperation and not through weapons. Let’s honor them by striving to create an organization that can finally achieve their dreams.

War tears husbands from wives, mothers from sons. War tears aparts people’s bodies and lives. On both sides. The United Nations is the closest thing we have towards a better way to deal with monsters. We should cherish it, for all its flaws, and try to make it better.

Let’s look away from a culture of “bring it on”, and attempt to create a world of “do unto others”.

Julia

“Do onto other, then move before they can do onto you,” unfortunatley that is the golden rule of this world. Roosevelt and Wilson are interesting examples. I admire both of them. They had the ideal of peace in mind when they brought the U.S. into the two biggest wars in the history of the world. They remembered that there are violent people in the world and you have to subdue them with them with violent means. (The European powers tried appeasment of Hitler with predictable results.) The order Roosevelt envisoned was not the toothless UN run by consensus among potentates. His legacy (through Truman) were robust military alliances and intervention to fight totalitarians.

There was a time when we “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It was a Democrat that said this, and I admire him too.

Oh Yeah - Kofi’s interpretation is wrong. 1441 and the other 17 resolutions, as well as a reasonable interpretation of article 51 made our actions legal.

The determination the law required of him was supposed to be a definitive report on why it was necessary to strike at Iraq. Instead, we got the recycled introductory language from the authorization itself, called a congressional determinations. The “whereas” clauses, the language used by Bush, were never meant to be a report themselves, but the introduction and the explanation of the authorization. In short, what Bush did was recycle the political language as the factual justification of his war.

In doing that, Bush sealed the feedback loop together, ensuring that what we got was not a review of the facts, but instead the final trap of our nation into one groups collective opinion on Iraq.

Does it matter. It damn well better matter to our leaders. If the facts of the world around us are secondary to their decisions, so is the efficacy of our actions to secure and defend this nation, because every time we respond to a false assumption or a false threat that is opportunity lost and damage done to our efforts to defend against the real threats.

Now, nobody’s perfect. Question is, is the system allowed to or made to compensate for the weakness of our human minds and our human failings, or do our leaders push that system in such a way that ensuring the progress of an agenda takes precedence over the clear-eyed search for the truth?

“Truth” is a word all too often politicized, made to serve people’s perceptions and interests, rather than be the target of their efforts. The greatest truth we can know is to know the need to seek out more of it.

When confronted with evidence that made the case for Iraq seem weak (The Slam Dunk Episode, as recounted in Plan of Attack) The Administration’s response was not curiosity into the true nature of Saddam’s capacity to wage war, but instead anxiety as to how to sell it to the American public. Not “what kind of action do the facts make a case for” but instead, “How can we make our case with the facts and intelligence we have?”

An important distinction. The second question is not an illegitimate question, so long as your knowlege on the subject is strong, and your understanding of events correct. In essence, the first question must be asked for the second to be appropriate.

Bush didn’t ask the first. In fact, it seems a part of his personality that he just doesn’t question his assumptions. But in a world as complex as ours, in an office that presides over one of the biggest and most complicated nations on Earth, such a tendency towards rigid thinking can be exceedingly dangerous. In a sense, the only stupid questions when it comes to the president, are the ones he doesn’t ask.

The president must be given the information he needs to make his decisions. But the president must also be open to what the information in front of him tells him.

To: Henry Schlatman- You sound even MORE petulant and pouty than you were the last time. It must have just come to you, Kerry’s getting thumped and President Bush is going to win (Booyeah !!). Thanks for admitting it, however you don’t have to act like the little boy who’s going to take his ball home if we don’t let him play. You can hang around, be first-base, not a First-Baseman…just be first-base. :)
To: Julia- After reading your post I just want everyone out there to join hands (sniff) and sing a few choruses of “We Are The World”, could I get a hug, please somebody ??
Robert McNamara was the idiot (labeled as a genius) that kept pushing Pres. Johnson to take direct control of the Vietnam War. He is the moron that stuck our troops with the M-16 rifle, you know, the same one that is STILL jamming and therefore killing OUR troops. Before I believed McNamara about anything I would volunteer to be Jeffery Dahmer’s dinner guest!
Julia, the only other thing that I can suggest is the same thing that Cher’s character said to her would-be boyfriend (Nicholas Cage) in 1987’s “Moonstruck, “Snap out of it” !!

Eric
Question: who needs the UN more than any other country in the world?
In absolute dollars, consider who is the biggest beneficiary of trade. Who imports the most? Who exports the most? Who depends the most upon other countries, in absolute dollars, for financing its deficit? Who depends on a peaceful environment for trade more than anyone else? Whose currency dominates the world? Whose GDP approaches the percentage threshhold for a worldwide economic monopoly?
The UN represents the best available international organization for nurturing an environment that is to the advantage of the United States. I’m not quibbling about small issues or the scandal of the month, oil-for-food graft or whatever. Undoubtedly the UN structure can be improved. No doubt. But the fact is we depend and gain more from international cooperation than any other country in the world.
The US gains more from legal cooperation and the rule of law than anyone else. The US gains more techological advances and the free exchange of data, information, and ideas than anyone else.
But who needs cooperation, you may ask, when the US is the only superpower? After all, we have the most powerful military on the planet. No one- not even China or Russia- is anywhere close.
Let’s look at Iraq. In terms of military might, our country defeated Iraq with ease. Mission accomplished! Yet we face the increasing likelihood that the US will lose the war. It doesn’t really matter whether the US wants to or not- simple logistics will force a drawdown of troops in less than a year. (Unless there is a draft, which is cerainly undesirable). Six major Iraqi cities are in the hands of a poorly defined enemy. Civil War is a distinct possibility. How can we be approaching such an incredible…? What happened?
Consider what an effective UN could do for the US in Iraq. Think selfishly, in terms of national interest, because we benefit more from the UN than anyone. Consider what the UN could do fo us in the long-term. Third World conflicts are bound to happen again and again. Cooperation works to our advantage in almost any sphere you care to consider: political, economic, military. The rest of the world depends upon the US for security and stability. The US is, in fact, a superpower. There’s no point tearing down the UN over a sideshow issue. We need the UN, we’d do better to discuss ways to improve it.

Stephen,

The determination the law required of him was supposed to be a definitive report on why it was necessary to strike at Iraq.

I beg to differ. There was no definitive report required. Just read the bill.

Instead, we got the recycled introductory language from the authorization itself, called a congressional determinations. The “whereas” clauses, the language used by Bush, were never meant to be a report themselves,

So if Bush didn’t come back with reasons other than the ones in the whereas clauses, which include everything under the sun that could possibly be bad about Saddam Hussein in the first place, then there’s no reason to go to war? The impossible standards you set around this war show conclusively that no matter what Bush had done he would be demonized.

The fact remained that we pussyfooted around with Saddam for ten years while he killed and raped and bribed and hid and played cat and mouse with inspectors.

If Bush had backed down after all that buildup and left Saddam in power, because that would have been the result if he had, then Kerry and the left would be talking about how Bush doesn’t have the cohones to fight the war on terror. This entire issue is manufactured out of purely partisan animus.

What’s more it is going to pound the nails in Kerry’s candidacy the more he plays Howard Dean. So I guess I shouldn’t complain.

The truth is that the middle east needed a shock. It needed the removal of Saddam Hussein, the biggest bully and loudest mouth in the region. No one is sorry to see him in jail except Al Qaeda and possibly the DNC.

9/11 was also meant to be a shock to the west. It’s goal was to make us retreat from the middle east. If Gore or Kerry would have been President it would have worked. Maybe we would have invaded Afghanistan. Maybe. I’m not so sure at this point judging from Kerry and Gore’s rhetoric.

Iraq was a counter shock. Of course the left says, ‘but we’re losing.’ To which I say, only in the world of liberalism is a war lost if it’s not wrapped up in year.

Samartin,
You sound even MORE petulant and pouty Come on you can do better than that. Facts are facts my son and your boy Bush is on the loosing end of a battle he can not win.

Trickle down economics does not work. Reagan and his father tried it and “Read My Lips” had to raise taxes to keep our economy afloat.

War on Terror: Homeland Security is a joke and a serious money pit. Any 12 year old with a BB gun can dismantle our electric grid.

Iraq has never had a chance for peace under Bush’s lowball estimates of money, equipment, and troops. Since April of 2004 the Senate Forgien Relation Committee has been calling the shoots.

I could go on and on and on just like the energizer bunny; however, Bush has been up to bat and struck out on the major issues for the last four years.

Please, name me at least one thing Bush has remotely done that can be considered (Using Common Sense) proactive instead of reactive in running this country?

Eric-
Legally speaking, that’s what the word determination means. An executive determination is another word for a report given to justify a decision by the executive branch, as per some legal requirement. It’s done because congress cannot always judge things for themselves. Intelligence, environment, and other matters concerning fields most congress members would not have expert knowledge in.

In this case, intelligence gathering. All the legislators were asking for was a nice solid case for why we were going in there. The Executive branch would bring in their information, pool and process it, and present the case for war to the senate to decide.

That’s what they were required to do, by law. Fact is, an authorization bill like this is a binding piece of legislation. anything done against it, is done against the law. This particular matter is not about reasons to go to war, it’s about whether the president had the legal right to do so.

You talk of impossible standards. In a way, that’s the point. If there isn’t justification for the war, if Bush wasn’t capable of putting together a true case for war, then he had no business starting one. War should be an option out of reach at sometimes, to prevent the abuse of martial powers.

You can continue to go on about how bad of a man Saddam was, but if Saddam is just one tyrant out of hundreds of world leaders, and others pose a more substantial, immediate threat, he should not be kept as a priority.

It was Bush who chose to start the buildup in the first place, who painted us into that corner, without supporting facts that would hold up under scrutiny. He didn’t have to mess with it. He chose to do that, chose to do it on all our behalfs.

A shock to the middle east… so, your reason for military intervention in the middle east, is intimidating the rest of the place? There are people who are disquieted by what we have done, who have absolutely no sense of sympathy for Saddam Hussein, and few ideological commonalities with Osama Bin Laden. You must understand that Muslims have a sort of collective sense of themselves in a way that Christians once had before modernization overwhelmed the idea of “Christendom” They call it the “umma”. We have attacked and occupied a major center of civilization for them.

We have given credence to the idea that we’re imperialists, that we are Crusaders, looking to undermine the “umma.” Never mind we had our own reasons. Politics is local, and for the most part, they weren’t in on the discussion.

You don’t believe Kerry would have invaded Afghanistan. Gee, just how did he vote? For it, Eric, for it. He’d have probably gotten to it quicker. Gore? Let’s see… Gore was part of administration whose response to foreign terrorists incidents was to send fiery precision death their way. Additionally, the man is a bit of a hawk, advocating military actions against Milosevic on both Bosnia and Kosovo. He’s the guy who, told that snatching the terrorists off the street might technically be illegal, said “Let’s get their asses.”

I suppose his response to Afghanistan would have been phrased similarly in private. I think Gore would have gone to war.

You’re judging everything on their response to war we can no longer justify by international law or even the practical purposes of the War on Terror. That being to destroy terrorism, not create or allow more of it. In that, I can’t say we’re succeeding

Stephen said Eric, you do know don’t you that much of those charges [regarding the UN Oil for Food Program] came out of the INC and Chalabi. If you want to use the accusations of a con man, a traitor, and agent of Iran to impugn a statement that’s basically true, then go ahead.

Eric quoted Fox News Unraveling the mystery requires much greater access to Oil-for-Food records than the United Nations currently allows.

ABC News said At least three senior United Nations officials are suspected of taking multimillion-dollar bribes from the Saddam Hussein regime […]

So you’ve got an accusation from a con man that may or may not implicate three people in what is described as the largest humanitarian aid effort ever undertaken in a case that admittedly requires more evidence to solve.

Of the alleged 270 countries receiving “political support” contracts for Iraqi oil, the ABC News articles states:

The list was published by an Iraqi independent newspaper which claimed the document was discovered in the files of the former Iraqi Oil Ministry in Baghdad.

This also doesn’t sound verified. Assessment of Eric’s opinion on this matter: UN is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Regarding invading Iraq:

Eric said The fact remained that we pussyfooted around with Saddam for ten years while he killed and raped and bribed and hid and played cat and mouse with inspectors.

If Bush had backed down after all that buildup and left Saddam in power, because that would have been the result if he had, then Kerry and the left would be talking about how Bush doesn’t have the cohones to fight the war on terror.

Notice, terrorism wasn’t mentioned, only the moniker, “war on terror.” Most of the projections about what Saddam might have been able to do before the end of the decade assumes some pre-911 status quo which I believe is a false premise.

Eric tries to portray Kerry as if any his reaction to news of yellow cake entering Iraq would be, “Yellow cake in Iraq? Hmn… that sounds tasty. What’s for lunch?”

Kerry and Kofi agree, the UN should have a veto on our foreign policy.

Haha! Eric, you keep saying that, and it’s still not true. You and Bush might want to rethink your theory of cause and effect.

Unfortunately we now know that we cannot trust the UN to be responsible with the massive funds involved in programs like the Oil-for-Food program.

You know what’s funny. It turns out that after the US inherited the oil for food program, the Bush appointees running got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.

It is thought an ‘unknown amount’ of oil is unaccounted for. Mystery also surrounded what became of much of the money paid out by the DFI.

If it turns out that Chalabi’s evidence of UN scandal is true (there’s a first time for everything, right?), I’m going to start wondering if the oil for food program is cursed.

I don’t get the point of your article though, Eric. The invasion was illegal according to international law to which we are signatories, so Kerry is bad?

Oh, and the sanctions were working.

And invading Iraq wasn’t a justified humanitarian intervention.

I’ll chime in to support my fellow clear thinkers.

First point… the UN has been asked time and time again to play a bigger role in Iraq and they have refused. The idea that Bush “harbors efforts to put Iraq under international control” is simply wrong. The countries we are talking about here are France, Russia and Germany, none of which shed a drop of blood in Iraq and none of which have offered to help us after the fact. What they want now are contracts. Keep in mind that these are our so-called allies.

Second… as far as “5% of our population looking for work at any giving time.”.. yes that is true. It’s damn near what economist call full employment. At any given time, there is roughly 3-5% of the population of any country that is simply unemployable. Go walk around any downtown and you will see plenty of examples. I know that is hard for some of you that live in utopia to understand.

Third, the sanctions were not working. They were being violated everyday by smugglers. The fact is that support for the sanctions were continuing to erode (mostly among our European “allies”) and once they were gone, Saddam would have gone back to his old tricks of building his military and weapons programs back up. If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that is your choice, but that is the basic difference between the conservative and liberal approach on Iraq.

Lastly, one thing that Bush has done proactively is pushing forth tax cuts in early 2001. Those had a positive influence on the economy whether you choose to believe it or not. What was the alternative…. raising taxes in recession? Then there is the major proactive act called Iraq. You certainly can’t describe that as reactive. That was the whole point of Iraq… to be proactive to future threats.

Simply put, if you believe in the UN you should vote for Kerry because you are going to get a whole lot of that if he is elected. I’m not here to demonize Kerry. If that is what you believe, vote for him.

If you believe that the UN is a corrupt organization, a third of which is made up of vile governments that wouldn’t know a human right if it came up and bit them in the ass, you should vote for Bush.

The UN has a place in this world… monitoring elections, distributing food… but it is not a place to look to for credible foreign policy decisions.

Great Aldaron. I can’t say it better myself, so I won’t. As for others

I am touched by the confidence in Kerry’s agression. Don points out that Kerry voted for Afghanistan action, so he would have gone in himself. He voted for Iraq, so he would have invaded there too. So what is the Democratic case against Bush?

As for the UN, we bankroll much of it and remember that the goal of multilateralism is not consensus for its own sake. The United States is the largest financial contributor to the U.N., and has been every year since its creation in 1945. U.S. contributions to the U.N. system in 2003 were well over $3 billion. Other counties, some of which pay nothing, highlight particular programs where our contributions are smaller and trumpet them. But if you look at the big picture, the UN would have to shut down about 25% of ALL its operations without the U.S. The U.S. clearly has not withdrawn from the world. And Bush has increased our contributions.

> The idea that Bush “harbors efforts to put Iraq
> under international control” is simply wrong.

I think Stephen meant to say “hinders” or “hampers”. But it’s awesome that you admit something that so many Bush supporters are unwilling to admit: that the Bush Administration really wishes to maintain sole control over Iraq. Good for you!

> The countries we are talking about here are
> France, Russia and Germany

And half of the rest of Europe. And almost every Muslim country in the world. And almost all of Africa. And almost all of South America. And China, and almost all of Southeast Asia.

> What they want now are contracts.

Damn right they do. And they’d allow their young men and women to die alongside ours to pay for that right. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, as you admitted above, has no desire to share the economic spoils with anyone. Thus, they are unwilling to honestly discuss the possibility of sharing the military burden, even though such sharing will without a doubt be enormously beneficial not only to the safety of our soldiers, but also beneficial to the perception in Iraq and in the Muslim world about the true intentions of the occupying/peacekeeping forces.

The Bush Administration is handicapped from doing the right thing by the idea that a country has to be subservient to the US to participate in the project of rebuilding Iraq. This is hurting us, and it is hurting Iraq. The only people who benefit from the Bush Administration’s policy are the (American) corporations who are looting Iraq right now under America’s supervision.

> Third, the sanctions were not working. They were
> being violated everyday by smugglers.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the point of the sanctions was to disable Saddam’s ability to make WMDs and to attack his neighbors. They succeeded completely in those two goals. Or are you still a true beleiver that there are hidden stockpiles of WMD?

> If you believe that the UN is a corrupt organization,
> a third of which is made up of vile governments that
> wouldn’t know a human right if it came up and bit
> them in the ass, you should vote for Bush.

I believe that the UN is “corrupt organization, a third of which is made up of vile governments”, and I’m certainly voting for Kerry. If corruption and human rights abuses were the standard to decide whether or not America could benefit from working with a particular governmental entity, then we should probably cut off relations with 3/4 of the world. That “third” you speak of unfortunately also includes some of the America’s (and the Bush Administration’s) closest buddies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The fact is that dealing with corrupt folks is sometimes necessary to acheive our ends in a corrupt world. We should work with the UN because it is useful to us, not because we have to use it. Kerry does not want us to work under the UN. He wants us to work with it like a cabinetmaker works with a router - he thinks we should use the UN like a tool. The Bush administration obviously thinks that the UN tool is too difficult to use, so they just use a hammer for every problem and made a big reckless mess of everything

-Cf

To: Henry Schlatman- I sound angry ??!? I’ve been sitting here and laughing my butt off for weeks now ! On the other hand, or cheek as the case may be, you Leftists are going down on the Titanic and the only solution you have is to rearrange the deck chairs !! You guys are a total hoot. Hell, you picked Kerry, You live with him ! The rest of us will take the winner, thank you very much.
You wanted to know one thing that Pres. Bush did for our country….O.K., I’ll tell you the first thing he did ! He beat Al Gore (Booyeah !). How’s that for a first time accomplishment ! And now he’s trouncing the the favorite son of Massachusetts ! Yeah, at this point it looks like everyone has made up their minds, except those Democratic voters who keep sliding on over to the “Red Zone”. Remember when Kerry was claiming that he got no “bounce” from his campaign because everyone had made up their mind !!! How many times can a guy be so abjectly, dismally wrong before you guys admit it !

Jack & Aldaron,
I would concede almost every point you make in reference to the UN- the corruption, the fact that the US substantially funds it, its unwieldy & unrepresentative Security Council structure- yet my larger point still holds true. We- the US-are by far the biggest beneficiary of the UN, and of an international climate of cooperation, both political & military & economic. In terms of the ‘big picture,’ wouldn’t you agree? And if that’s an accurate depiction of the ‘big picture,’ wouldn’t you also agree that Kerry’s instincts about the UN are the right ones? That we should seek to improve it and work with it, rather than tear it down?
It really is regrettable that issues like this are nearly ignored in the election… oh, oh, rant alert! Congress should be thrown out on its ear, Dem & Rep alike, for the disgraceful budget deficit! And what is probably the biggest long-term issue of all, Global Warming, is also utterly ignored! Arrrrgh…

Jack and Samaritan -
What’s so horrible about trying to create a better tool to deal with “evil”? Do you prefer war?

I understand that we don’t currently have effective ways to deal with law-breaking nations. But the reason that Wilson and Roosevelt pursued the creation of an international body, was because they were idealists. At the end of the day, they hated war and wanted a better, more humane tool.

I liked Bush’s quote “the soft bigotry of low expectations”. We should have higher expectations of our nation, and our world. We should believe that we can find alternative ways to enforce the peace that don’t involve blowing up people, and we should pursue them. The pursuit of those solutions isn’t going to hurt us. And there’s no reason to deginerate or pour vitriol on the pursuit of non-war solutions. Unless you truly love war, and think it’s a beautiful and glorious solution to our nations problems. (As you say BOOYEAH!, right?) Let’s simply continue to work on alternatives to war, instead of undermining them. That’s all I’m asking.

We are unduly interested in fighting, but not so interested in economic intervention, or in reconstruction.

This war college article, which focuses on the performace of the United States in post-conflict situations, is an eye-opener:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/00249.pdf

If we are going to achieve our goals of a more democratic world, then we’re going to have to start dedicating our best minds (at some point) to reconstruction and economic intervention. Right now, the U.N. is the only body who focuses on doing that large scale. We should build upon their experience.

Julia

That was the whole point of Iraq… to be proactive to future threats.

There is no provision in international law for taking care of future threats, nor is their any constitutional basis for it either. International law provides for pre-emptive defense. That means taking care of a clear and present threat without waiting for an already imminent attack.

Was there any clear and present threat to us? No. You might say Saddam, but evil thoughts and muttered curses do not count as grounds for pre-emptive defense. If we had caught some terrorist with an Iraqi WMD, that would justify such an attack. Troops massing at the Kuwaiti Border with radio chatter and intercept suggesting it was no drill would qualify. A nuclear test would qualify. WMDs in Saddam’s hands with Saddam in an active collaboration with al-Quaeda would qualify.

That last one seem familiar? That was our grounds for war, in case you don’t remember. Disarm Saddam. Don’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom clound. That was the justification, not just to our people, but to the world. I think the way Bush has failed to acknowledge that simple, but oh so important fact is simply shameful. Instead of acknowledging his mistake, taking the hit, then leading Americans onward in the new tasks, he circled the wagons and had his surrogates declare any criticism of the war effort as aid to the enemy.

Whatever progress Bush made, he made by getting people to forget the last two years, to remember those brief shining moments. Now people are forgetting again, and are remembering the way things have actually gone, witnessing it new, once again.

As for the UN countries, the only thing they have to gain is getting pelted by the fallout of a war they didn’t start, for a president who won’t extend much in the way of benefits to their countries.

Is there any upside for them in taking on our war? Maybe a more skilled head of state could convince them of that.

Turns out Bush will make a radio address tomorrow proposing increased cooperation with the UN. Join hands and sing ‘kum-bay-yah’ everybody. If the Republican candidate is simply going to follow the example set by the Democrat, perhaps its time to resurrect a Buchanan candidacy?

> Turns out Bush will make a radio address
> tomorrow proposing increased cooperation
> with the UN.

Oh no! Samaritan! Eric! Your President is betraying you! Is he becoming a Leftist? Is he becoming an internationalist? Or, perchance, does he now realize that his facade is unravelling and that he can no longer sugar-coat his collosal Iraq mistake.

It’s funny how Bush changes his tune as soon as he is unmasked. Suddenly, he’s able to admit that things are going poorly in Iraq and that we need UN help. Would he have chosen to flip flop as he did today and make tomorrow’s announcement this if not for the leaked intelligence estimate the other day. Certainly not.

Samaritan,
You like most republicans have failed to take on the issues with the fact.

Point of Order to Debating True Facts: Fantasy Land ideas need to stay in their place.

You wanted to know one thing that Pres. Bush did for our country….O.K., I’ll tell you the first thing he did ! He beat Al Gore

Historal Fact: Due to the fact sited by the Supreme Court that no court could decide the election, the Republican lawyers soldout Americans by asking if counting the votes should be stopped. The actions by the Supreme Court while not directly afecting the election had the same effect since the court date left no time to preform a legal recount or file unconstitutional elections charges.

Result from Debating from true cold hard facts: Bush was selected by the fate and dumbness of the people in our society that is suppose to protect us.

FYI: I’ve been an Independent every since I first voted for Reagan. As I have clearly stated before both the Dems. and Reps. are “W”-rong. Yes, I support Kerry/Edwars for President. Not so much as I think he has all the right answers, yet unlike Bush, he is at least willing to listen to the people in our government that actually have a college degree and common sense. A very rare combination these days.

America stands on the edge of being the first nation in the world to truely bring the earth inhabitants together for the betterment of mankind so therefore I also believe as Julie that building a better tomorrow for our future generations is alot better than burning it down. Did we not learn from the 60’s?

I know hard core republicans will always take the leave me out of it attitude. I still wonder why they want the liberals to leave them alone, yet they want to tell liberals how to live theirs. What’s up with that?

More Florida ranting…. ahem

Regarding the UN, a resolution was passed by the entire security council to threatened Saddam in late 2002. Then the administration went back to the UN security council in February 2003(a clear mistake) to get an unneeded “authorization to use force”. (Unneeded because the first resolution clearly spelled out the consequences.) The US had the votes to pass the new resolution but when our great “ally” France finally said they would veto anything put forth, the other countries decided that they were not going to go on the record and vote for it only to have France veto it. (This is from Colin Powell) Without France’s veto threat, the second resolution would have passed whether some want to accept it or not. The fact is, no one takes the UN and their resolutions serious and it was a mistake to ever go there in the first place. Somehow I can’t see China or Russia going to the UN under any circumstance involving their military and yet they are used as examples by the dellusional as evidence that “the whole world is against us” because we did something wrong. I bring up this history because this is where the “whole world is against us” mentality got started.

“There is no provision in international law for taking care of future threats, nor is their any constitutional basis for it either. International law provides for pre-emptive defense. That means taking care of a clear and present threat without waiting for an already imminent attack.” Was there any clear and present threat to us? No.

I’m glad you are so certain there was nothing to worry about. I wish I could live in your world for just one day.

What you have here is the classic liberal opinion with a twist of niavete thrown in. They are willing to give a man like Saddam Hussien the benefit of the doubt over and over again. These types of people will readily embrace some of the most off-the-wall conspiracy theories about Bush and yet it is not even in the realm of their possibilities that a true maniac like Saddam might pose a future problem for the US. They accept without condition that he will behave after sanctions are removed. It’s a belief and you are certainly entitled to it, but it just doesn’t address reality.

As far as preemptive war, the fact is that most wars in this nations history have been wars of choice. Think about that for a minute…. Revoltionary War, War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, WW I, Korea, Vietnam, 1991 Gulf War. The only time we have been forced into war was when Japan attacked us. To say like Kerry did at his convention that “he will restore the tradition of the United States that we only go to war when we have to” is simple blind naive pacifism. However, I’ll let former Democratic candidate Wes Clark say it for me.

September 26, 2002 – “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons.”

“…. And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that’s longstanding. It’s been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.

“There’s no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense. Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He’s done so without multilateral support if necessary. He’s done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn’t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution.”

You can read the entire sad story of his and Kerry’s “change of heart” Here

Conservatives/Republicans believe that after Sept 11th, Saddam had to be dealt with forcefully. They believe in the idea UN, but will never be held hostage by it and the many competing and often corrupt agendas of its members.

Liberals/and some Democrats believe that Saddam was not a threat, we had no right to go into Iraq, and that all military force should be approved by a world body (the UN). (The fact that this was never required when their guy was in the Whitehouse is somehow lost on them.)

If you think we should go to the UN for everything, even to the point of paralysis, then vote for Kerry. If you think that the US has the unilateral right to defend itself and that their was plenty of justification to go into Iraq, then vote for Bush.

I’m voting for Bush.

Aldaron,
Consider it carefully. Are we safer now that Saddam is gone? Consider that 6 large Iraqi cities are ‘No-Go Zones’ for the US. We’re not talking little villages here, we’re talking about cities with populations in excess of 100,000. These cities are, in essence, in enemy hands. In the past year violence in Iraq has increased dramatically, from @ 20 attacks/day against US troops to the current rate of over 80 attacks/day.
Well, this is ground that has been covered by others in great depth already. But here’s something original…
Most countries in the world are capable of producing chemical weapons in a matter of hours. You see, chlorine is a basic ingredient of mustard gas, and many countries manufacture chlorine for their drinking water. Hopefully no one will lost sleep over this…

Aldaron,
Most Americans are for defending America’s Security as well as our nations interests.

Iraq could of been dealt with only if Bush would be a better poker player. Absolute Froce is a last resort for any government. Diplomacy is the new weapon of choose. Getting the UN to go along with the total disarming of Saddam’s military and allowing thousands of weapon inspectors free range of the country would of allowed all national leaders a way to say “We tried.”

Action taken on intellegant legal real facts of our world society must always stay on top of our national intersts. However, you are correct about Bush having the right to start the war, it is illegal the way he went about it.

The completely outdated Kerry quote to start the article and Aldaron’s comments are good examples of how the right seems to exaggerate the left’s respect for international conventions and cooperation. Messages like this try to characterize any negotiation with or through the UN as if it were the US offering its neck to be stepped on.

This position bases its argument first on the assumption that Saddam was a clear and present danger and then proceeds to discredit the UN because of its inability to react as if this supposition were true. These two arguments will almost always go hand in hand because without conceding the former, the latter is undermined, and as such, the former is further weakened.

Aldaron said What you have here is the classic liberal opinion with a twist of niavete thrown in. They are willing to give a man like Saddam Hussien the benefit of the doubt over and over again.

You try to portray giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt would allow him to become a threat. Funny that, since it was the benefit of the doubt that made him appear to be a threat to the Bush administration. When all this worst case scenario thinking of the administration was stripped away by the invasion, we found Saddam was just a scruffy old man hiding in a hole in the ground. Some threat.

The state of Saddam’s defiance of the No-Fly Zone and UN resolutions was moderate, especially compared to the current situation. Diplomatic messes may drag on for decades and be annoying and cost a few lives and come with some heavy risks but they are far less costly than military messes like the current conditions in Iraq, which also do not mitigate the heavy risks such as rogue nuclear ordinance and technology (as seen in the right’s own theories that the WMD were moved to remote states such as Syria).

Iraq has become more of a threat to the US after the invasion than it was before the invasion. By any ROI analysis, it was a failed operation. By any logistical analysis, the Iraq invasion was also a failure, especially when compounded by following the invasion of Afghanistan so quickly. This also managed to undermine our efforts in Afghanistan - turning one failure into at least 1.5 failures. Bush’s recent admission that he had miscalculated for post-war Iraq and the reappropriation of over 3 billion in reconstruction funds for Iraq security instead, along with extended tours for the troops and a heavy reliance on the National Guard, goes to prove that the Bush administration does not know how to manage the war on terrorism, conventional war, or homeland security.

The only rational justification for the invasion regarding terrorism was the argument that by invading Iraq the terrorists/insurgents will focus on Iraqi targets rather than US targets. They have accomplished this with noteworthy success. Happy liberation, Iraq. You’re welcome.

Julia said: “Jack and Samaritan -
What’s so horrible about trying to create a better tool to deal with “evil”? Do you prefer war?”

BINGO! They believe it is good for our economy. What a joke. American lives for a few more points in productivity. And they claim to have values. Well, they do, just not the same ones as those on the left. And that’s for sure.

To: Henry Schlatman- You are so unintentionally funny…you just have no idea how silly you are.

[Samaritan, your comment is a clear violation of our critique the message, not the messenger policy. Please take your flame wars elsewhere. WatchBlog Manager]

Stephen,

The authorization of force was not an authorization for the President to prepare a report of the ‘determination of the facts’. It was an authorization of force, period. You need to read the bill and stop relying on Kerry’s nuanced spin. Kerry frequently votes one way and then tries to talk himself and others out of it afterward when it suits him. This is the main reason he should not be President by the way.

All the legislators were asking for was a nice solid case for why we were going in there.

They were not asking for a nice solid case, they already thought they had one. You are retro-editing history. If Kerry in particular needed more information then why did all of his statements echo the Bush Administration practically verbatim until Howard Dean began to look like the nominee?

“I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It’s a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.” (CNN’s “Larry King Live,” 12/14/01)

…”September 11th. I mean, that’s changed the dynamic of this country and - and, I think, people’s perceptions of what people are willing to do.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 2/5/02)

…”I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq …” - John Kerry, 7/29/02 Remarks at the 2002 DLC National Conversation, NY (Senator John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

…”But the president, as I also wrote in that article, always reserves the right to act unilaterally protect [sic] the interests of our country.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 9/17/02) kerryoniraq.com

There is no weaseling out of this by Kerry. He said one thing and then changed sides, not when it looked bad in Iraq, not because he saw a bad policy that needed changing, but because he saw an anti-war candidate getting all of the attention in the primaries. That is why Kerry is so dangerous, he doesn’t have any true principles. He won’t do the right thing, he’ll do the expedient thing. He’s running as a conservative liberal, who was for the war but not for it’s execution. Who said Saddam had to go but Bush didn’t remove him ‘correctly’.

Fact is, an authorization bill like this is a binding piece of legislation. anything done against it, is done against the law. This particular matter is not about reasons to go to war, it’s about whether the president had the legal right to do so.

What? You lost me. Where in the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’, HR 114, does it say, “come back and report— and then we’ll vote again?”

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. thomas.loc.gov

Does asking the President to report every 60 days sound like a need for a full determination of the facts? or language from the war powers act?

The War Powers Resolution states that the President’s powers as Commander- in-Chief to introduce U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. fas.org

Here’s section 4:

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) 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).

(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.

I am continually amazed at the lengths to which the Bush adminstration has actually gone to do things by the book. Going to the UN when they didn’t have to, getting a resolution of force when they didn’t have to, yet, the left acts as though Bush is a dictator and imperialist gone amuck.

> Where in the ‘Authorization for Use of Military
> Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’, HR 114,
> does it say, “come back and report— and then
> we’ll vote again?”

Eric, is that what you think we’re arguing? That Bush would have had to ask again? If that’s what you think we’re saying, you’re wrong. You’re reading between the lines too much. Nobody ever said that Bush needed another resolution to invade. Clearly this bill was the final word Congress would ever have in that regard.

Our argument is simple:
1) The resolution authorized the President to use his good judgement in order to decide to attack and how to attack. It did not specifically demand, request, or even ask the President to actually invade Iraq. It put the ball in Bush’s court, and you’re right that according to the letter of the resolution Bush could do whatever he wanted at that point. He could have nuked Iraq the next day and still been in compliance with the law. Congress, however, trusted him to make the correct decision, and specifically specified that they expected him to give peaceful means a chance and to. Bush was expected to do it right.
2) He didn’t do it right.

Specifically, Bush didn’t (to our satisfaction) adequately provide a reason to anyone for invading that satisfied the resolution’s request that the President should first determine 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;

The fact is that in March of 2003 “peaceful means” were “adequately protect[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq” and the “peaceful means” that were under way were very much “likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq”.

Our disagreement with Bush’s use of the Resolution is not that he violated the letter of the Resolution, but that he radically violated the spirit. Because it seems to me that you could argue that if Bush got drunk and ordered the invasion, he would still be in compliance with the bill (in fact, this seems to be your argument exactly: that the President not only didn’t need to provide a good reason to Congress, he didn’t even need to have a good reason himself!).

I’ll say it again: It was wrong to trust President Bush to do the right thing. The Democrats really got fooled into passing that thing. Kerry still defends his vote for that bill, but not because he thinks that Bush should be trusted again, but because he’s imagining himself or another honest wise man in the Oval Office.

-Cf

Aldaron-
For months before the UN resolutions were passed, there was this talk of Coalitions of the Willing and Going to Iraq with or without support of the UN. We basically told them that they were just there to rubber stamp us our permission to go to war, that we didn’t need them anyway. So, they called our bluff, and we had to go to war without their support.

Have I ever told you what a wonderful negotiator Bush is? Well there’s a good reason, right there. I don’t expect Europe to always agree with us. It’s obvious they have their own constituencies to please. That’s why you don’t go in there trying to get everything you want. You have to be willing to concede certain things, and conceal others. For example, we could have done overflights of Turkey without them complaining. But Bush had to make it into a loyalty test. We know how that turned out.

I’m glad you are so certain there was nothing to worry about. I wish I could live in your world for just one day.

Trust me, you don’t. Your hatred of the liberal media keeps you blessedly ignorant of some pretty nasty truths about what’s going on out there. To me, the world seems a much more dangerous place, and Bush’s fumbling hasn’t helped anything.

Nor do your equivocations. You somehow assume that choice means we aren’t acting in pure defense. That’s a unreliable criteria. Civil War alone shows how threadbare the argument is. Taken from the winning side’s perspective, there was no choice but to fight the war. It was that or let the union disintegrate. WWI is a stretch too, as is Korea, which happens to be one of two UN sanctioned wars we’ve had. The other is the Gulf War. Three of these wars were justified under pretenses of defense.

When it comes down to it, whatever the ugly facts are, Americans like to think that we are not the people who start wars, but the ones who finish them. He appeals to a strong sensibility in American thought that we are bringers of peace, of democracy and of freedom, not conquerors and colonizers.

That’s why the poor job on this evidence is such a scandal, and such an embarrassment to the White House. If we didn’t invade a country like this on the facts, why, that might be seen as an unprovoked act of aggression.

There’s plenty we can do without getting the UN involved. Problem was, Iraq was UN from the start. Going in there without authorization from the UN, why, that might just be seen as a finger in the eye of international law, not to mention many folks in the middle east would see it as naked aggression.

My problem is not that Bush isn’t loveslave to the UN. My problem is that he took a sticky situation and made a bloody difficult one out of it. I mean, don’t you guys think that all the Old Europe/Coalition of the Willing/Go it alone rhetoric was going to come back to haunt us. You tell somebody to screw themselves long enough, you shouldn’t be surprised when you don’t have their assistance all of a sudden.

You can go on kicking that straw man of “Democrats need permission from the UN to defend their country” or you can recognize that liberals are not so whipped as you’d like to think. After all John Kerry did sign on to the bill that allowed Bush’s circumvention.

Thing you got to understand about that is like Kerry said, nobody thought he’d “f” it up that badly. Nobody thought Bush would actually be that stupid. Instead of keeping it as a bargaining chip, he used it gracelessly like a sledgehammer. It could have been a subtle threat, kept back. But instead, Bush beat it like a drum.

Vote for Bush if you want. You’ll only be voting for the party. You won’t be voting for the leadership.

What does an Arab tyrant do when confronted with a losing situation? Blame the US, Bash the US.

What does Eric and Bush do when confronted with a deteriorating situation in Iraq? Blame the UN, Bash the UN. Oh yeah and say Kerry did it.

“You won’t be voting for the leadership.”

I suppose your idea of leadership is equivocating every single position you have had on the war in Iraq? “Nuanced”, I believe you call it. I call it pandering and being full of S@#$.

I’m sorry I am ignorant of the “nasty truths” going on out there. (I don’t even know what that means.) We didn’t have to go to war in Korea or Kuwait, even though the UN sanctioned it. Our leaders at the time CHOSE TO as they have with most US wars. I’m not sure what part of that you don’t get.

Eric and I can quote all the history leading up to that UN resolution on Iraq that passed unanimously in the security council. Everyone that voted for it knew what they were voting on, as did every Senator that voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war. For either to backtrack and say they didn’t really know what they were voting for is simply not credible.

“Are we safer now that Saddam is gone?”
Don… acording to the Democratic candidate running for President we are.

“Diplomacy is the new weapon of choose.”
Henry, when dealing with dictators, the carrot without the stick will not work.

Greg, I don’t know WTF you’re talking about because Bush has done none of those things in regards to Iraq. He’s blamed the UN??? Kerry??? A totally baseless comment….

I’ve heard that some in the media have actually congratulated Sen. Kerry for being so nuanced, is that true ?

Chris,

Our disagreement with Bush’s use of the Resolution is not that he violated the letter of the Resolution, but that he radically violated the spirit.

That may be your argument but from what Stephen is saying it is not his.

I’m glad we are in agreement that the resolution left the determination entirely up to the President. That’s not the Dem party line though.

As for, “He didn’t do it right.” Everything that proceeds from that point in the left’s argument is false and partisan rhetoric. It’s also what’s going to lose Kerry the election. The more he plays to his base the better.

I look at Iraq and I see a war. War is hell. No plan has ever survived contact with the enemy. That’s why you can’t micromanage it. Bush’s leadership is clear. He delegates responsibility and gives the commanders the ball. I don’t see failure, I see hard fighting, and tough situations that are being handled by the best personell available to do the job. If the US military cannot acheive the ultimate mission French troops sure as hell aren’t.

The left wants and needs a defeat. The left needs another vietnam in Iraq in order to take back power. I wouldn’t be surprised when Bush wins this election that the template switches to Bush is Nixon.

Stephen,

That’s why the poor job on this evidence is such a scandal, and such an embarrassment to the White House. If we didn’t invade a country like this on the facts, why, that might be seen as an unprovoked act of aggression.

Let’s go back to the whereas’s. Bush did precisely the right thing, at the right time, in the right place, approved by the right people— congress. You say this bill forces George Bush to do some things by law. You and Chris both say Bush, “didn’t (to our satisfaction) adequately provide a reason to anyone for invading that satisfied the resolution’s request…” But you both know that the reasons are in the resolution itself. And they are not all about WMD stockpiles. In fact they are as much about the intentions and historical actions of Saddam Hussein making him a danger to the US in light of 9/11 as stockpiles of WMD are.

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

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 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 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… thomas.loc.gov

I have two questions for you.
1. In your mind what should Bush do today to correct his ‘failed policy’ in Iraq? What actions should he take right now?
2. What has Kerry said he will do to change the policy in Iraq?

Aldaron,
Fair enough. I was a Deaniac, embarrassingly so. I STILL think… oh well, never mind, it’s over. Most likely I will vote for Kerry for President, but truly, it’s more a vote against Bush. I though Bush #41 was dead-on right about Iraq from start to finish. I think the current administration’s foreign policy is… well… shockingly incompetent.
Personally, I find Kerry’s stand(s)on Iraq frustrating because, in my opinion, he’s just positioning himself to the other side of Bush in order to capture the center in this election. It’s an effective campaign strategy, but frustrating for true-believers across the board.
The US is not safer with Saddam gone. The opposite is demonstrably true, & obvious. I truly don’t think most Americans understand that. In fact, I believe the media are tired of covering the Iraq issue, and would prefer to move on, except for the way the violence keeps ratcheting up, worse & worse… the old cliche, ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ keeps drawing the media back.
Oh, before I forget! Bush addressed the UN issue in today’s radio speech, & will cover it again Tuesday.

I’ve posted this link in the past, but feel that the time is right to post it again.

Here is an excerpt from John Kerry’s speech from the floor of the Senate on October 9, 2002.

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 accom