How do I find out?

The exact wording of the...whatever (was it a bill??) that Congress voted on that gave Bush permission to declare war on Iraq? I am curious to know what they voted for.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

On Edit: I think this was the final resolution passed, but I'm not 100% sure

Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

http://www.kpid.dk/Iraq%20Resolution%20of%202002.htm'

I read it and I don't have a problem with anyone voting for this authorization. I respect that others do.

The only reason this Authorization exists and confines military action to Iraq and pushed Bush to the UN to get a new weapons inspection resolution is because of the Democrats who insisted on it. Howard Dean stated in January he supported the weapons inspections and UN involvement, but fails to acknowledge how that happened in the first place.

Here's their statements and if you want to read some others, I'd be glad to google them up for you. I included Edwards because it seems you're leaning that way, and Kerry cuz I'm leaning that way.

http://edwards.senate.gov/statements/20021010_iraq.html

Kerry's is, of course, wordy (understatement). I encourage you to trudge your way through it, particularly towards the end. The thought he put into this vote and the specificity of this statement is what makes me support him. I disagree with the war, but I blame it on Bush. Had he done what Kerry recommended, over and over and over, we wouldn't be where we are.

http://www.independentsforkerry.com/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html

It tells me he did say pretty much what I would expect a combat Veteran with a good conscience to say. I skimmed it but the highlighted parts were enough to convince me my impressions of Senator Kerry as a good man with the best of intentions who trusted some very bad people at the wrong moment were right on the mark.

You know what I had never actually read kerry's statement till you linked it here.

All I can say is, What a pile of crap that was!

I had no idea kerry was so full of it on this thing. I mean I knew he voted for the IWR but my god man!

heres just a few passages i really have a problem with.


With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

Prety much that whole paragrapgh is crap or if you prefer bush talking points

The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.

Am i getting this right? He is trying to say here that desert fox was an atempt to get Saddam to re accept the inspectors? If so thats extreme revisionist history.

And the topper

According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons.

This the same report that said those claims were highly questionable?

Sry not only was he on the wrong side of this vote but he was complicit in the missleading of the American public.

ABB in the end but my god is he wrong

This *is* what the CIA was saying. What Kerry couldn't have known is the extent that Cheney was pressuring the CIA to say these things or that Cheney or somebody in the Administration was hiding information on the Iraq nuclear claims.

`Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up?

He couldn't have known the nuclear claims were false.

`Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community?

He didn't allow inspectors in for 4 years and that was breaking the cease-fire agreement.

`Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster?

Again, he couldn't have known these claims were false.

`Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits?

He did do this.

`Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously?

Reported consistently by UNSCOM.

`Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified?

Reported consistently by UNSCOM.

`Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?

He also couldn't have known what this vehicle actually was when reported.

People want to mix up the information and circumstances available in October with what was available in 2003. Even Howard Dean does it when he says in January 2003 to let the inspections continue without acknowledging there would have been no inspections without the Authorization. It's convenient denial and I have no idea what purpose it serves in the minds of anti-war people. There's a huge difference between Bush's manufacturing and manipulation of intelligence in the months before the war, and Kerry's use of the only intelligence available in October. Anti-war people only had speculation at that point, I have not had one person post one piece of factual intelligence that would point to anything different than what Kerry stated. The Administrative malfeasance started in full force after that vote, in December really, and Kerry consistently criticized it. No rational person could have expected Bush to engage in such horrific behavior in his push for this war.

But again i ask isnt he citing the same report in that speach that was later outed as saying there was no justification for suporting these claims as credible?

If in fact this is the same report then he absoltely knew. He isnt citing bushes spin of the report he is citing the report itself is he not?

"George Tenet personally intervened in October 2002, to have the same evidence removed from the President's October 7th speech? (The Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, 7/13/2003)"

was this not because of the same report kerty is citing? Also in october of 2000?

Repetative i know but...

By last fall, the White House had virtually dismissed all of the intelligence on Iraq provided by the CIA, which failed to find any evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, in favor of the more critical information provided to the Bush administration by the Office of Special Plans

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071803D.shtml

in the fall the CIA is failing to find any evidence of iraqis weapons programs but theres kerry telling us how they all agree. Is it me or isnt there a disconect here?

If I understand you. What the White House was doing behind closed doors is exactly what I was saying. ONLY the White House knew what they were doing, nobody else did or even suspected until much later.

Let me also say there were numerous reports from the CIA, as well as testimony and reoprts from other sources, over the years. In 1998, for example, Scott Ritter testified that Saddam had the capability to have bio and chem weapons within 6 months of his choosing to begin production. Then we had pictures of rebuilding at those same production facilities. A good, and rather urgent, reason to get inspectors back in to Iraq and enforce the UN resolutions.

If you continue reading Kerry's statement, that is exactly what he said. In fact, this is what Kucinich said about the Authorization:

"I believe had the Administration fully disclosed their plans, before the Congressional vote, there would have been a much different outcome," continued Kucinich. "The resolution passed yesterday by Congress authorized enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions, not colonization."

This is consistent with what John Kerry said he was voting for. George Bush did not do what he said he would do, he is the one that that launched a campaign of disinformation to have his war. He did the exact OPPOSITE of what that Authorization called for.

But in the words of John Kerry in March 2003, 'We are where we are.' I believe he is now putting the troops first, which is exactly what one would expect from a military man and leader. It would be leaving those troops hanging in the wind to focus on Bush's atrocities instead of the troops' security in Iraq. The first obligation of a President is to protect those troops and 'tomorrow morning' isn't soon enough for George Bush to go to the UN and do what needs to be done to remove the US as an occupying force. So, as much as I would love to see Kerry rip Bush a new one with these war lies, right now isn't the time.

I think he is actually showing an enormous amount of self-restraint. Remember his remarks back in February or so, 'we need a regime change in Washington' and 'if he lied, he lied to me personally'. That's his gut reaction, he hasn't forgotten it. He's just putting the needs of the troops and the stability of Iraq first.

He trusted his national leader as he was trained to do, and now he's saying here we are and all we can do is deal with the aftermath.

What pisses me off is by the logic of people wanting to bash Kerry for this, we may as well beat up on any soldier who didn't refuse to go.

Great excuses the truth is it was widespread knowledge that the evidence was BS.

Article 94 cited by butler in his testimony makes it abundantly clear that the only thing they had on Iraq at all was a difference in numbers between what Iraq could have possibly built and what they couldnt prove was destroyed. Not what they had proof they had.

It was all part of the process at the time to steal Iraqi oil through the oil for food program we were in control of.

I feel like i have to say this over and over but go look at the sanction that were in effect and come back and tell me that Saddam had any chance in hell of building WMD.

It was bulllshit then and its bullshit now. And all the evidence against it was there for kerry to see had he bothered to look.

The obvious thing that was going on though was Kerry like always wasnt interested in the truth but in getting elected again. Same old Kerry Same old Bullshit!

People were complaining about the sanctions and the no fly zone, it was harming the Iraqi people, causing thousands of deaths. What was your position on that over the last ten years? If the oil for food program was just a way to steal oil, then I suppose you must have wanted the sanctions lifted. Then where would your argument be that the sanctions were keeping weapons out of Iraq? Can't have it both ways.

And here's one report from Richard Butler in 2000. To say there was no evidence is just denial. Conclusive evidence of an imminent threat, no. Not Kerry or Dean or Kucinich ever said there was. Evidence that the UN resolutions needed to be enforced and inspectors needed to go back in, absolutely. And that's what the Authorization did.

“The chemical warfare agent manufacturing facilities have been rebuilt. The same is true of their biological capacity. And I've seen evidence that I accept that he has recalled their nuclear weapons design team. So, in summary, Mr. Chairman, they're back in business, which is precisely what was not to happen. Remember, my leitmotif here is that essentially we're talking about weapons of mass destruction."

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2000/msg01020.html

Saw it ALL

The no fly zone was also an example of our raping of Iraq. My position is the same as it has allways been. The sanctions should have been lifted the no gfly zones should have been gone we should have taken our thumb off that country and go back to the friendly relations we had with them in the past. At one time before the gulf war Iraq was one of our best alies in the midle east. The were the "model for an emerging democracy" in the ME they had nearly 100% literacy and were doing very well towards becoming a full fledged member of the international comunity.

Then bush realized that Saddam had too much control over the price of oil on the open market. Endangering his friends the saudis and threatening to destabalize the dollar. This is what led us to the first gulf war. It was Margret thatcher that changed bushes stance after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Till that time he was friendly with Saddam even after the invasion. Then just like that he turned on a dime.

We had no business in Iraq in the first place! It has been a lie from the start!!!!! Getting that part yet? IT HAS BEEN A LIE FROM THE START! through bush and clinton and on and on. They were no threat to us at any time!!! EVER! getting it yet?

Thats my position and its why I know kerry knew better he has been a part of it fromn the begining. If in fact he didnt know better then hes incompetant and doesnt deserve to be anywhere near the white house including the senate.

That was the policy for a long time with Iraq/Iran. Equal powers that offset each other's ability to wage war on the other. Stability. Oil. The fall of the Shah changed that, reducing the power of both countries became the US goal with the Iran/Iraq war. As soon as that goal had been accomplished, the Kuwait thing came along. Kerry rightfully voted against that. But once military action has been undertaken, 'we are where we are'. In the course of the next few years, alot more was discovered about Iraq than had been known. Of course, we knew about the bio/chem weapons, the fact remains Iraq had them. Call it cleaning up our own mess if you like. The nuclear program, on the other hand, was not known. That changed the situation. The necessity for real disarmament was clear. You can say Iraq wasn't a threat to the US, true. They were a threat to the stability of the region... and the US need for oil. And yes Kerry knew that, he said as much in 1999. He voted against the war in 1991 because of that.

Back to the recent past. You say we didn't need to be in Iraq at all in the 90's because they weren't a threat to the US. But were they or could they be a threat to the region? And is the UN responsible for maintaining safety around the world? And would Saddam continue to build weapons programs without sanctions? If there had been no sanctions throughout the 90's, which you use as the basis to claim no weapons programs, where would we actually be today?

So 'we are where we are'. A ME country with a tyrannical dictator as leader who has produced bio/chem/nuclear weapons in the past. Sanctions have kept him from moving forward on that, by your own admission, but have also caused significant harm to the Iraqi people. What do we do? Resolve the issue once and for all, lift the sanctions and pretend Saddam will be a peacemaker in the ME, or continue with sanctions and containment, that was creating animosity in the ME. John Kerry voted to go back to the UN and enforce disarmament resolutions, once and for all. At the time of that vote, there was little factual evidence against the intelligence that had been presented for years. I believe had we had a different President, a different resolution would have come about in Iraq. Something that got inspectors in permanently, created more oversight on the oil for food, got some humanitarian efforts moving in the country.

Bush bungled it, he mangled it, badly, horribly. But again, 'we are where we are'. Kerry is not going to leave the troops in Afghanistan or Iraq in jeopardy by taking the focus to Bush instead of to the troops that are relying on the US government to do the right thing by them. Not to mention the Iraqi and Afghani people who are also dependent on the US to do the right thing, as well as our own security if we don't do a better job over there.

So you can call it a colossal error on the part of the US since the 80's and before, but it certainly isn't John Kerry's fault. And every step of the way he seems to have been trying to get the right things accomplished. So I don't see any reason to be so black and white on the war vote because it certainly hasn't been a black and white issue in a very long time.

Your post shows your thought process well on this but I heartily dissagree with your assumptions.

Verry tired at the moment and need to sleep. Will answer when I wake.

Good post though :)

You are going to drive yourself crazy trying to get someone who has already made up their mind to see anything other than what they are willing to.

That doesn't bother me, it's opinion without reason that drives me over the bend. And I actually do try to avoid those posts whenever possible. But I also know if Kerry people don't start standing up on some issues, we may as well pack it in. And if Edwards ever starts coming up from the rear, hang on to your hat. An end to bashing has been asked for on this board for a couple of months now, it has never worked. So, in the words of Mr. Kerry, 'we are where we are'. I honestly try to be civil 99% of the time. Every now and then, like today, I totally lose it!

Thanks though, I got a real chuckle out of your post.

Pleas ignore us.