It indicates that Bush had to exhaust all diplomatic and peaceful methods of dealing with Iraq before going to war in Iraq.
Secondly, it stated that we could go to war with Iraq if a link to 9/11 and Iraq could be found.
No other conditions other than Iraq posing an immediate threat to the U.S. were allowed under that act.
Why bother about Kerry's military record. There is one thing that makes it obvious that he has been to war, and been in a war zone. THe fact that he is reluctant to let someone elses kids go into the same environment.
t really doenst matter how Kerry gort his Purple Hearts. I partcularly dont care if he got the citations for getting splinters in his ass sitting on the Swift Boat benches. He was in Vietnam. Bush was not, and joining the National Guard was the best way to get out of being drafted and going to Vietnam. Bush didnt volunteer to go to Vietnam. Kerry did. Bush didnt volunteer for what was considered a dangerous duty. Kerry did. All of thr crap about it being possible for Bush to be sent to Vietnam with the Guard is just tat, crap. At the time the Guard was not allowed to be sent to Vietnam.
Kerry did not Flip Flop. His consistant position was, Get Osama First, and then worry about going after Saddam, and that the only conditions for going after Saddam before going after Osama was that if you could prove that he currently has WMD's OR that he was directly involved with September 11th. Bar that Osama is the first threat, deal with it first>
Heres a few links to Kerrys speeches before the war showing exactly this position which he held from the get go, and still states today:
****************************************************
We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.
New York Times
September 6, 2002...
Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein -- the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism -- should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.
If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate...
http://www.cfr.org/pub5596/john_f_kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php*************************************************************
t r u t h o u t | Address
Senator John Kerry
Remarks Georgetown University
Thursday 23 January 2003
"Mr. President, Do Not Rush To War"
First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.
In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
http://www.truthout.com/docs_02/012503A.kerry.no.rush.htmNo flip flopping there. This position which Kerry has held since well before the invasions of Iraq is the same positionsthat he has been stating over and over agains since the war was engaged in and the same that he states during the debates.
*************************************************************
The act itself was no blank check for war, not dod kerry "VOTE FOR THE WAR" as the Bush Adminstrations keeps repeating. Unfortunately, Howard Dean gave the media the opening to create this opinion in the public eye by calloing the act a "blank check for war" when there were limitations in the act:
This is the sections authoriuzing the use of military force:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htmAnything there giving Bush a free ride to go to war. Do you note that the conditions that Bush had to meet before he would be considered to have done what COngress would want to see before he engaged in the use of military force?
THe act is rather clear. THe president could only go to war if it was proven that peaceful measures would not be effective.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
