Originally posted by Muaddib
First of all, what I was trying to prove with my analogy is that when you make a statement like "I support this president to use force if its
necessary", you can put all the roses you want and try to spin it all you want, at the end you are giving support to the president... you can try to
cover your butt all you want, which is what Kerry did, at the end the decision whether or not it was time to use force was not Kerry's....and btw to
partially quote Kerry we did not "go it alone"... nice grammar Kerry, I guess his education went down the drain in that statement... and all this
time I thought he was an educated man...
Between those who want America
to go it alone, and those who want America to lead the world toward freedom.
Edited from.
www.gwu.edu...
Once authority to use force against an enemy is given, who is it that has to decide whether to use force? Was Kerry commander in chief to decide? and
of course he said this after the war was waged...
lmgnyc, Kerry gave support for the war and he gave the reasons why we should go to war...then he changed his mind and said there were no real reasons
to go there?, now he says the only reason we were given to go there is wmd?, and even in that he didn't make it clear that what we haven't found,
is the
stockpiles of wmd that the UN said were unnacounted for.
You can try to spin it any way you want to, the bottom line is that Kerry does not stand by what he says.
Kerry wanted more time to let the inspectors continue...well the
coalition, not only the US, decided it was time to go to war and force Saddam
to comply...Bush did not do it alone.
The bottom line is that he changed his mind, as he has done several times, even after he himself saw the intelligence on Iraq. Intelligence that was
available before this administration was in office, during the administration of Clinton, and which in the overall stated the same views that the Bush
administration have been telling Americans since before the war.
lmgnyc, you can make whatever claims you want to, you can even continue trying to attack me personally implying that i must have some problem with
reading comprehension.... which is quite clearly an ad hominem attack on your part, instead of trying to make your point by debating the topic.
BTW, since when being part of a coalition is striking out on our own? Did the US go by itself against Afgahnistan or Iraq? no...there was a
coalition, but of course i guess Kerry wants the US only to do what France, Russia, China and Germany wants.... those countries are the whole
world according to Kerry and all those people saying
the coalition went against the wishes of the world....
BTW, the coalition was being build under Clinton for the same purpose, to make Saddam disarm peacefully or by force....the world waited enough on
Saddam, it was time to take action.
[edit on 1-10-2004 by Muaddib]
You are still not getting the point. If you give someone the authority to do something with certain conditions, those conditions are certainly
important. If you tell your son that he can go out on Friday night, but only if he is home by midnight, you certainly have the right to punish him
if he comes home at 2 am. If he says "but you said it was OK to go out", the fact that he missed curfew is still important, get it?
And it is not changing his mind or flip-flopping for Kerry to criticize the way to war was carried out, especially when the conditions of the
authority that was given to him were not met. The war has cost the U.S. a lot of money and it has not made us safer as promised--don't you think
that more than a little criticism is deserved? We don't live in a totalitatian state. The president is not untouchable--the decisions that he makes
should be scrutinized because he is the most powerful leader in the world and they have global repercussions.
Although Kerry has remained consistent on his position on Iraq, Bush has changed his mind so many times--before the war and after. At first he
didn't want to form a "coalition" and then made a weak attempt that resulted in a "coalition" that is made up of 90% U.S. soldiers. He initially
was against forming the 9/11 commission, and then he decided that he was for it. He initially was against creating a Homeland Security Department and
wanted Tom Ridge to remain as an advisor. And the biggest flip-flop of all was that in 2000, Bush said that he was against nation building. Hello?!?
And this is just on Iraq & terrorism, I won't even get into domestic issues.
So Bush decided it was time to go to war (yeah, and Poland decided to go to war too, they just showed up a few months late to the party....
)
and after all of these months, where was the imminent threat? It is obvious that there was none. Our biggest ally, Tony Blair has apologized to the
British people for going to war based on false pretenses. He has admitted sending troops to Iraq was based on a mistake. When is George Bush going
to apologize for making the same mistake?
Bush painted a perfect picture of the war on terror. 
