PDA

View Full Version : Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq



lucky wilbury
08-09-2004, 08:29 PM
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249|top|08-09-2004::17:46|reuters.html

Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq



Aug 9, 5:34 PM (ET)

By Patricia Wilson

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Speaking to reporters from the Powell's Landing on the rim of the Grand Canyon above a mile-deep drop, Kerry also said reducing U.S. troops in Iraq significantly by next August was "an appropriate goal."

"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said.

On that timetable, Kerry's aim would be to pull out a large number of the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in the first six months of his administration.

"Obviously, we'd have to see how events unfold," he added. "I intend to get more people involved in that effort and I'm convinced I can be more successful than President Bush in succeeding in doing that. It is an appropriate goal to have and I'm going to try to achieve it."

Kerry refused to say if he had any private assurances from Arab or European nations that they would help with security and reconstruction in Iraq but said "right now the administration ... is scrambling and struggling to try to find a way to do that."

"All of this should have happened in the beginning, all of these things should have been achieved beforehand," he said. "American presidents should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace."

BUSH CHALLENGE

Bush last week challenged Kerry, who Republicans accuse of flip-flopping on Iraq by voting for the war resolution and against the $87 billion request to fund operations, to say straight out if he would have voted the same way if only to eliminate the danger that Saddam Hussein could have developed weapons of mass destruction.

"Now, there are some questions that a commander-in-chief needs to answer with a clear yes or no," Bush said. "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

"I have given my answer," Bush said. "We did the right thing, and the world is better off for it."

Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.

"There are four not hypothetical questions like the president's, real questions that matter to Americans and I hope you'll get the answers to those questions, because the American people deserve them," he told reporters.

Kerry, who is on day 11 of a two-week coast-to-coast campaign trip, used the majestic backdrop of the Grand Canyon to criticize Bush for neglecting America's national parks system and pledged to restore $600 million he said the president had cut from the budget.

JCOOK
08-09-2004, 09:14 PM
He would have voted for it.... before he voted against it

John Ashcroft
08-09-2004, 09:38 PM
Heh heh heh...

Ford, I'm gonna bump this until you respond.

Considering you were just telling me that you're "4 1/2 out of 10 for Kerry" (as simply opposed to President Bush), I think this admission from Kerry should bump you down at least 2 points, no?

At what point do you stick to your moral standards? You're against the war in Iraq, and that's fine. You've made it pretty much a central theme to all of your rants against President Bush and his administration (and pretty much all Conservatives and the newly coined "Neo-Cons"). I'm cool with you being against the war (although I'll never agree with you). But now it seems the new hero of the Democratic party... "Savior" if you will... would've started the war to remove Hussein regardless.

So, does he still warrant your vote more than Nader? What kind of moral fortitude do you actually possess? Are you simply a party hack? Has your hate for all things "Bush" driven you to irrational decision making?

Inquiring minds want to know...

John Ashcroft
08-09-2004, 10:32 PM
Bump...

Warham
08-09-2004, 10:59 PM
I'll join in the bumping.

FORD
08-09-2004, 11:05 PM
I knew Kerry's foreign policy was fucked all along, which is why I was so against him in the primaries.

As I said, that 4 out of 10 is to preserve what's left of the environment and to keep the judicial branch from being lost forever to the likes of Charles Pickering and Kenny Starr.

Warham
08-09-2004, 11:28 PM
What's left of the environment...

Good grief.

FORD
08-09-2004, 11:40 PM
There's a lot less left of it now than there was 4 years ago :(

JCOOK
08-09-2004, 11:44 PM
War.. Did you know that there are deer out there dying from starvation...Also any one who ate carrots in the year 1864 is dead Check with FORD for wacky conspiracy theory.

lucky wilbury
08-10-2004, 12:49 AM
lets see ford was againest kerry and now is for him. sounds like he could be kerrys long lost twin!

JCOOK
08-10-2004, 01:05 AM
MMMM........ WAFFLES

Warham
08-10-2004, 07:27 AM
The environment is no worse now than it was in 1776.

Where's this global warming taking place, anyway?

The last few winters around my house have been fucking cold.

John Ashcroft
08-10-2004, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by FORD
There's a lot less left of it now than there was 4 years ago :(

Only because of those fuckin' huge forest fires that you libs enabled with your environmental policies...

And yes, there is more forest area in the U.S. than at our country's founding.

Warham
08-10-2004, 08:56 AM
You are right Ashcroft. I was amazed when I found out the state that I reside in, New Hampshire, was only 20% forest one hundred years ago. Now it's like 80%. I was shocked.

FORD
08-10-2004, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Only because of those fuckin' huge forest fires that you libs enabled with your environmental policies...

And yes, there is more forest area in the U.S. than at our country's founding.

Huh?

How the fuck could anybody possibly make that statement?

For one thing, if you are calling replanted tree farms "forests", they aren't. Forests take decades, perhaps even centuries to develop ecosystems. Would you call a Christmas tree lot a "forest"?? Hell, there's a lot of trees there, right?

Once a forest is clearcut, it no longer exists. Yeah the timber companies might replant the trees, and several years later it might not even be noticeable to the naked eye that the earth was scalped there. But a forest, it definitely is not.

Pink Spider
08-10-2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Warham
The environment is no worse now than it was in 1776.

What about the water and air? I seriously doubt that they're as clean as they were in 1776.


And yes, there is more forest area in the U.S. than at our country's founding.

There is still a lot of wilderness in the US, but I don't know how you'd go about saying that there's more forest now than then. I'd like to see a source. And not a politicized one.