John Kerry says he would have voted for war knowing there were no WMDs

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:46 PM
link   
For several days, now, Bush has been challenging Kerry to say if he would have voted to go to war with Iraq EVEN if it was known that there were no WMDs there. Today Kerry responded in person:
www.reuters.com...;jsessionid=ZH1AX2ZE2XYJACRBAEKSFEY?type=politicsNews&storyID=5915798


...By saying that he still would have voted for the war. He did, however, add that he would have done a 'better' job in waging it than Bush did (though he didn't give any examples of alternate tactics or strategies he would have used).


Question: Doesn't this endorse the Republucan argument that the war was worth fighting on purely humanitarian (and perhaps energy access) grounds? Since Kerry hasn't given a detailed solution for the problems in Iraq... Doesn't this essentially make the main moral argument the Democrats have been using null and void?

EDIT: I did a search for this topic on ATS before posting... so I hope I haven't accidentally written a double post.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by onlyinmydreams]




posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
This is where I disagree with Kerry, although I agree that he would of done a better job. I think the sticking point with the Democrats is how Bush lied and over-exagerrated the threat, and ineptly executed the invasion and occupation.
I mean, why would you ignore the advice of your military? And, of course, the war profiteering isn't cool either.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Am I the only person on earth that understands the difference in voting to give the President the authority to go to war so as not to have to return for another vote in a time of potential crisis and actually voting "for war?"

I guess I am. Just another one of those ever increasing situations where everyone is wrong but me. Nice.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Iraq was the most disorderly country in the middle east, so it makes sense to change their government. Lack of many basic rights to civillians, and mass killings by Sadaam was enough grounds to stand on. Its a shame Bush had to use the WTC as an excuse to attack Iraq. The Iraq war was long overdue, with the corrupt dictatorship that was in existence.

Also based on Iraqs poor economy, even with the money other countries were pumping in to Iraq for oil was going directly to millitary; thus totally disregarding its civillians. Terrorism would have been common place in Iraq, because of poverty issues. Some blamed Sadaam and others blamed the States. So technically it was a double edged sword going into Iraq.

[edit on 9-8-2004 by websurfer]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Am I the only person on earth that understands the difference in voting to give the President the authority to go to war so as not to have to return for another vote in a time of potential crisis and actually voting "for war?"

I guess I am. Just another one of those ever increasing situations where everyone is wrong but me. Nice.



Kerry was specifically asked if he would have 'voted to go to war' knowing what we know now. He was not asked if he would have made a vote for procedural sakes. He was asked a direct question... and so your observation that his vote was somehow a anti-war war vote doesn't apply.

But that being said... It actually looks worse when Kerry supporters claim that his pro-war vote was only done for the sake of giving the president options (or for procedural reasons). It makes it sound like Kerry was casting a major vote without thinking about its implications or what it could be used for. I mean... the 'I voted for the war but didn't mean it' line just looks weak...


...which is why it's important to note that -- procedural questions and senatorial posturings aside -- Kerry STILL would have voted for the war, sans WMDs. In responding to Bush's direct question, Kerry has effectively erased all the technicalities his supporters have been using to minimize his pro-war vote.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
This is where I disagree with Kerry, although I agree that he would of done a better job. I think the sticking point with the Democrats is how Bush lied and over-exagerrated the threat, and ineptly executed the invasion and occupation.
I mean, why would you ignore the advice of your military? And, of course, the war profiteering isn't cool either.



The occupation is, of course, up for debate...

But criticizing the actual invasion sounds a bit silly. I can't think of a more decisive military action in the history of warfare.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by websurfer
Iraq was the most disorderly country in the middle east, so it makes sense to change their government. hrw.org... Its a shame Bush had to use the WTC as an excuse to attack Iraq. The Iraq war was long overdue, with the corrupt dictatorship that was in existence.


That argument does not convince me. Hussein may have been a tyrant, but the majority of his atrocities occurred immediately before and after Gulf War1. I have also seen the argument whereby he systematically tortured and publicly killed his citizens, yet we are never given the numbers, but are left to our own imaginations that they amount to tens of thousands a year, which is not substantiated by either Amnesty International or the Human rights report. Granted, westerners had very little access to Iraq, if any, while the recounting of these atrocities come from such shining examples of truth as Ahmed Chalabi and his paid band of informants..

How can we possibly have placed Hussein at the top of the removal list of despots when we have literally tens of thousands being killed, raped, tortured, displaced and left to die of starvation in places such as the Congo and the Sudan?


August 09, 2004- A European Union delegation of civilian and military experts that completed a mission in Sudan said Monday that large-scale killings were taking place in the strife-torn region of Darfur but the killings could not be qualified as genocide.
"We are not in the situation of genocide there," said Pieter Feith, who headed the mission as the personal representative for Sudan of EU foreign affairs chief Javier Solana.
"But it is clear there is widespread, silent and slow killing going on and village burning of a fairly large scale."
Feith added that there were "considerable doubts as to the willingness of the government of Sudan to protect the civilian population".
www.eubusiness.com...

Where the future has little chance of survival:

Mothers are told to force formula into their skin-and-bone infants every three hours. With malnutrition come other killer diseases: diarrhea, skin infections and septicemia. These patients are also victims of the brutal wave of ethnic cleansing perpetrated by government-backed militias over the past 18 months.www.cnn.com...

Because the Sudanese government allows the atrocities to continue. Why?

Moved by Labor MP Michael Danby, it accuses government-controlled Arab militias known as the Janjaweed of numerous massacres, summary executions, rapes, burnings of towns and villages, and forced depopulation from the region.

Where the Human Rights Watch report summaries;

The government of Sudan is responsible for “ethnic cleansing” and crimes against humanity in Darfur, one of the world’s poorest and most inaccessible regions, on Sudan’s western border with Chad. The Sudanese government and the Arab “Janjaweed” militias it arms and supports have committed numerous attacks on the civilian populations of the African Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnic groups. Government forces oversaw and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians-including women and children—burnings of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land long inhabited by the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa. The Janjaweed militias, Muslim like the African groups they attack, have destroyed mosques, killed Muslim religious leaders, and desecrated Qorans belonging to their enemies.
The government and its Janjaweed allies have killed thousands of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa-- often in cold blood, raped women, and destroyed villages, food stocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population. They have driven more than one million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, hostage to Janjaweed abuses. More than 110,000 others have fled to neighbouring Chad but the vast majority of war victims remain trapped in Darfur. hrw.org...

There is absolutely no excuse that would have placed Hussein above this territory or the DRC which for years has shed several million by bloodshed. the American public is learning this, little at a time, but they are learning it nontheless.


[edit on 8/9/04 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
So Kerry would have gone to war even though no WMDs were found?

Different sides of the same coin...

Go LP!





new topics
 
0

log in

join