Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 It only calls into question the leadership of everyone who voted for it if you assume that everyone's reasoning was the same as Kerry's. I think that's a very bad assumption. I'd guess the majority of "yea" votes were actually indicative of a sincere belief that war was justified, and a sincere desire to authorize the office of the President to use the military, not to give the office of the President the power to authorize the the use of the military. I'll bet a large number of voters saw the vote as a declaration of war itself...but by Kerry's reasoning, he didn't. Of course, to be really sure, I'd have to go look at the text of the bill...and I'm sure it's a weasely, mealy-mouthed example of Congress trying to cover their asses... And though most of the "issues" in this campaign I find shallow in the extreme, this (among a few others) is one I think is important. His actions regarding his Vietman experience (serves, gets four medals, comes back essentially saying he's a war criminal, now he goes back to being a war hero), his tax plan ("I'll cut taxes for the middle class...the key to job growth is increased taxes on the middle class"), his Iraq War justifications ("I voted to go to war, even though I didn't want to...but I didn't vote to go to war, just to let the President decide") collectively make me question just how effective a President he'd really be. I don't know what causes him to do this BS, if he's truly spineless or if he just over-intellectualizes everything to the point that he can't express a single coherent thought, but it's not something I want to see in a Presidential candidate. 17253[/snapback] As people on this board know, I was and am as strongly against this war as anyone on here. I despise the job that GW has done on this war as much as ANYONE. But even now, in hindsight, knowing that there were no stockpiles of WMD, knowing all we do about what was going on in Iraq in retrospect, even TODAY, if I was a Senator, I would have voted yes for President Bush to have the authority to go to war in that vote. THAT vote was a no-brainer. It didnt mean that you were voting for going to war in a full scale invasion. It meant you were giving the President the power, which he should have in these troubled times. I don't think you can blame anyone for voting yes then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 I'm not happy with either convention....the political parties are playing the american people like a flock of sheep, both giving half stories that suit themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 As people on this board know, I was and am as strongly against this war as anyone on here. I despise the job that GW has done on this war as much as ANYONE. But even now, in hindsight, knowing that there were no stockpiles of WMD, knowing all we do about what was going on in Iraq in retrospect, even TODAY, if I was a Senator, I would have voted yes for President Bush to have the authority to go to war in that vote. THAT vote was a no-brainer. It didnt mean that you were voting for going to war in a full scale invasion. It meant you were giving the President the power, which he should have in these troubled times. I don't think you can blame anyone for voting yes then. 17321[/snapback] And as I said, if that's your interpretation of the resolution, it's a complete abandonment by Congress of its Constitutional authority. The relevant text of the resolution: 3(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. And the Constitution: Section 8. The Congress shall have power...To define and punish [...] offenses against the law of nations; To declare war... The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States Now reconcile the resolution with the Constitution, and explain to me how Congress appropriately fulfilled it's duty while giving the President the authority to either "declare war" or "punish" Iraq's offenses. The only way I see to do that is to accept the resolution as a de facto declaration of war... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 And as I said, if that's your interpretation of the resolution, it's a complete abandonment by Congress of its Constitutional authority. The relevant text of the resolution:And the Constitution: Now reconcile the resolution with the Constitution, and explain to me how Congress appropriately fulfilled it's duty while giving the President the authority to either "declare war" or "punish" Iraq's offenses. The only way I see to do that is to accept the resolution as a de facto declaration of war... 17365[/snapback] You may indeed be smarter than me but I see no such problem. The little semi-colon seems to me to be an "OR". "Define and punish [...] offenses" does not necessitate declaration of war, or full scale invasion (basically) unilaterally with no exit strategy and no co-pay. Especially when the resolution referred to "serious consequences" and not full scale invasion or war unilaterally with no exit strategy and no co-pay. It could mean a declaration of war if the Presdient thought it necessary, which he did. It didn't force war, this way, this time, or declare war by itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 You may indeed be smarter than me but I see no such problem. The little semi-colon seems to me to be an "OR". "Define and punish [...] offenses" does not necessitate declaration of war, or full scale invasion (basically) unilaterally with no exit strategy and no co-pay. Especially when the resolution referred to "serious consequences" and not full scale invasion or war unilaterally with no exit strategy and no co-pay. It could mean a declaration of war if the Presdient thought it necessary, which he did. It didn't force war, this way, this time, or declare war by itself. 17419[/snapback] I'm not sure I understood that. It SEEMS that you're saying that it wasn't a declaration of war...merely an authorization for the President to go to war if he saw fit. Which is exactly my point. If you believe that, you're saying that Congress voted to abandon its Constitutional responsibility...which is pretty damn stevestojantty Congressional leadership. I believe Kerry (among a few others) believed that, and I believe they thus abandon their Constitutional responsibility in the issue. I believe that MOST of the "yea" votes, however, did see the resolution as a de facto declaration of war. And as for my position...if you go way back in the annals, you'll recall that I questioned the legal and Constitutional basis for the war even back then. I believed, and still do, that the resolution was illegal (and I would NOT have voted for that authorization,even with what I know now). I also believe it's open to interpretation. And I believe Kerry's either a schizophrenic or a hypocrite for trying to have his cake and eat it too on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 You may indeed be smarter than me but I see no such problem. The little semi-colon seems to me to be an "OR". "Define and punish [...] offenses" does not necessitate declaration of war, or full scale invasion (basically) unilaterally with no exit strategy and no co-pay. Especially when the resolution referred to "serious consequences" and not full scale invasion or war unilaterally with no exit strategy and no co-pay. It could mean a declaration of war if the Presdient thought it necessary, which he did. It didn't force war, this way, this time, or declare war by itself. 17419[/snapback] And as an aside to everyone: THIS is what's known as an "intelligent discussion". No name calling, no sound bytes taken out of context, no "I like Bush/Kerry because Kerry/Bush sucks!" partisan BS. Just a reasonable, respectful exchange of ideas, opinions, and positions intended to gain a better understanding of each other's beliefs. You idiots out there (and you know who you are. If you have to ask "Is he talking about me?"...then yes, I am) should try it sometime. Or at least shut the hell up so the rest of us can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Yeah, Massachussetts Democrats have a ridiculously difficult time getting elected, especially to Congress. Ted Kennedy could snort coke of a preschooler's belly and he'd win in a landslide. 16883[/snapback] They did from about 1853 to about the 1930's... Mass. was a Republican state. What gives/gave? Is it fair to say that the Republicans today are the "Party of Lincoln"... Only in name only. Any fool with the sense of history knows that just isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 They did from about 1853 to about the 1930's... Mass. was a Republican state. What gives/gave?Is it fair to say that the Republicans today are the "Party of Lincoln"... Only in name only. Any fool with the sense of history knows that just isn't true. 17482[/snapback] The same thing that always does. The people found they could vote things for themselves through a certain vehicle. Once that train starts rolling down the tracks, it's pretty impossible to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain America Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Maybe Cheney didn't say it in those exact words, but that's what he meant and you all know it. Take a gander at this headline from yesterday. 17251[/snapback] Well now there is a reliable source 'The Detroit Free Press' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Maybe Cheney didn't say it in those exact words, but that's what he meant and you all know it. Take a gander at this headline from yesterday. 17251[/snapback] So you're saying that Cheney wrote the headline? Or are you really just saying "Cheney didn't say that...but he said it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billfan63 Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 So you're saying that Cheney wrote the headline? Or are you really just saying "Cheney didn't say that...but he said it!" 17608[/snapback] what???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 what???? 17810[/snapback] Which word didn't you understand? And stop cyberstalking me, you fruitcake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I have 5 words for George W Bush: Your daughters are f*cking hot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts