Force in Iraq

Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq

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

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."

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Huh!?! am i reading this wrong or is this the exact opposite of everything he's said before? except for the part where he could do it better of course

I’ve seen French school girls shoot better! One could say he is a pathological flip flopper!

That's what he's always said, like millions of others: agree on the war, not agree on how it's done...

OK. I'm still confused here. Kerry would have voted for the Authority to direct troops, wherever necessary, to combat terrorism, but exactly what would Kerry have done differently? Kerry believed that Saddam was a threat to the United States and Kerry. How would kerry have conducted the war? I mean, you can't wait on an 'International" United Nations decision to go to war, because Kerry would be dead of old age before that ever happened. Now, if Kerry had an intern on the side, I guess he would have bombed suspected Al-Queda camps in "South Korea". ;)

Kerry authorized the president going to war, and believes that a president should have that power. There are a few things he would have done differently, though.
One of them is the money needed for this war. Kerry voted against American taxpayers having to pay $87 billion. In stead, he'd have brought in the allies and share the burden. Bush talks a lot about those allies, but let's face it: the 21,000 non-American troops that have been in Iraq are a joke (not the troops themselves, but that number). Only a little over 30 countries have provided troops. That's not "the alliance", that's a small part of what the alliance should be and has been before Bush.
Also, Kerry would add 40,000 active duty troops, and end the backdoor draft of National Guard and reservists, double the special forces (the ones that should've been send to Iraq instead of "newbies")

Were are these magical allies? The real world scenario is, Bush or Kerry "they" didn't support the US across the board. That line in my mind is BS. It's easy to say "I would have brought in more allies." Wouldn't have happened in fact I believe; just like Kerry believes he could have garned this massive world support out of nowhere, that Kerry wouldn't have done anything but pass another United Resolution to add to 10 years worth of red tape and pocket filling.

In addition Kerry openly spoke ill of the war at first. He didn't always support it, just like Vietnam, he's a hero, he hates all his brothers and calls them baby killers, then he's a hero again. We should accept Kerry's new found love for the war because "He didn't like the way Bush went about it"? Because Bush didn't wait another year or 2 for help that will NEVER come?

The troops are thin, where is 40,000 coming from? Large numbers of soldiers here, in the low thousands, have just returned and they already have marching orders in Feb of 2005 to go back for another year or more. Why is our military so thin? Answer = Bill. I hate to mention it but that is exactly what the national guard is for. It's amazing all the people I know who detested the war, spoke ill for a year about every aspect of it now think it's great. Where were these guys when it started, we would be out of there by now with that kind of support. ;)

Kerry should be careful adding 40,000 from nothing could mean a draft?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
I’ve seen French school girls shoot better! One could say he is a pathological flip flopper!

---

Better watch it or EA will sue you ;)

I recognize that, my friends used to play mohaa 24/7.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
That's what he's always said, like millions of others: agree on the war, not agree on how it's done...

---

"always"
Kerry Voted Against The Use Of Force In Iraq. (S. J. Res. 2, CQ Vote #2: Passed 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, 1/12/91, Kerry Voted Nay) ;)

2003: Kerry Said His Vote Was For "Threat Of Force."

Quote:

---

Kerry Voted Against The Use Of Force In Iraq. (S. J. Res. 2, CQ Vote #2: Passed 52-47: R 42-2; D 10-45, 1/12/91, Kerry Voted Nay)

2003: Kerry Said His Vote Was For "Threat Of Force."

---

Nice one, !mitationRust, especially since you conveniently didn't mention the date of S.J. Res. 2...
S.J. Res. 2 was passed in 1991. Remember the first war on Iraq? That's what the vote was about. I'm not sure, but I think Tedob was talking about the most recent one :rolleyes:

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
That's what he's always said, like millions of others: agree on the war, not agree on how it's done...
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~


Hasn’t Kerry been saying for the past few months that Bush has been ''misleading'' us into war. Misleading us about the WMDs…”where are the WMDs mr bush?” showing complete disrespect for the office he seeks by calling the president mr. and meaning that had Bush not ''lied'' about WMDs, we wouldn’t have gone to war at all.

Didn’t kerry also say that he voted to give bush the authority to go to war just so bush could threaten saddam into allowing weapons inspectors to continue. His vote was not intended for us to actually attack iraq.

Is he saying that he doesn’t understand the voting system?

Kerry keeps insisting we should have waited for help from our “so called” allies or ask for their assistance now. Look what our allies are doing in the sudan. Nothing! They’ve decided its not really genocide thats happening there. Hey! That solves the whole problem conveniantly. People of a certain ethnic and religious background are being slaughtered by the thousands but its not genocide? What is it? And who cares if it is or isn’t genocide, it just needs to be stopped. Not threw years of resolutions and negotiations. this has been tried, but rather by forceful threat backed up by determination. This is exactly what kerry’s friends and his so called 'plans' lack completely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
Nice one, !mitationRust, especially since you conveniently didn't mention the date of S.J. Res. 2...
S.J. Res. 2 was passed in 1991. Remember the first war on Iraq? That's what the vote was about. I'm not sure, but I think Tedob was talking about the most recent one

---

Oh, I’m, sorry did John Kerry’s record rear its ugly head again? I was under the impression that you used the word and I quote “always.” End quote. ;)

Senator Kerry was in the minority of senators who voted against the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, he expressed the view that our international coalition consisted of " shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden." Last year, as we prepared to liberate Iraq, he recalled the Persian Gulf coalition a little differently. He said it was a "strong coalition," and a model to be followed.

A neutral observer, looking at these elements of Senator Kerry's record, would assume that Senator Kerry supported military action against Saddam Hussein. The Senator himself now tells us otherwise. In January he was asked on TV if he was, quote, "one of the anti-war candidates." He replied, "I am." He now says he was voting only to, quote, "threaten the use of force," not actually to use force.

In one of Senator Kerry's recent observations about foreign policy, he informed his listeners that his ideas have gained strong support, at least among unnamed foreigners he's been spending time with. (Laughter.) Senator Kerry said that he has met with foreign leaders, and I quote, " who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that." End quote.
A few days ago in Pennsylvania, a voter asked Senator Kerry directly who these foreign leaders are. Senator Kerry said, "That's none of your business." (Laughter.)

What happened to that "I have nothing to hide thing"? Ooooh yeah, that's only after he's elected. :D

I heard on the radio today that he plans to cut down the number of troops in Iraq within the first 6 months of office. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that put the rest of the remaining troops there in greater danger?

Quote:

---

I heard on the radio today that he plans to cut down the number of troops in Iraq within the first 6 months of office. Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't that put the rest of the remaining troops there in greater danger?

---

Only if they are required to maintain the same level of duties as previous.
If the numbers are reduced, then the standard method is to consolidate your remaining forces into certain areas, thus allowing them to be 'effectively' stronger.........

This does mean, however, that the bad guys get to run around a lot easier, although by then the Iraqi army will be holding its own........................wont it ?

UK forces in N Ireland, at peak 35000. nominal amount nowadays by comparison. But we don't cover the same area, or have the same need. Took THIRTY YEARS, and was only 30 min flying time from us...............

Northern Ireland is only 5,500 square miles [14250 sq Km] in area - about the size of Yorkshire or Connecticut.

Iraq:
Area:
160 000 sq miles
land: 432,162 sq km

Area - comparative: slightly more than twice the size of Idaho

And Iran, is four times the size of Iraq, with a population of 68 Million.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
Were are these magical allies? The real world scenario is, Bush or Kerry "they" didn't support the US across the board. That line in my mind is BS. It's easy to say "I would have brought in more allies." Wouldn't have happened in fact I believe; just like Kerry believes he could have garned this massive world support out of nowhere, that Kerry wouldn't have done anything but pass another United Resolution to add to 10 years worth of red tape and pocket filling.

In addition Kerry openly spoke ill of the war at first. He didn't always support it, just like Vietnam, he's a hero, he hates all his brothers and calls them baby killers, then he's a hero again. We should accept Kerry's new found love for the war because "He didn't like the way Bush went about it"? Because Bush didn't wait another year or 2 for help that will NEVER come?

The troops are thin, where is 40,000 coming from? Large numbers of soldiers here, in the low thousands, have just returned and they already have marching orders in Feb of 2005 to go back for another year or more. Why is our military so thin? Answer = Bill. I hate to mention it but that is exactly what the national guard is for. It's amazing all the people I know who detested the war, spoke ill for a year about every aspect of it now think it's great. Where were these guys when it started, we would be out of there by now with that kind of support. ;)

Kerry should be careful adding 40,000 from nothing could mean a draft?

---

Seriously right!

John kerry "I'll lead a collation of free nations"........"You ain't leading but two things right now: Jack and ****. And Jack just left town!"( Memorable Quotes from Army of Darkness 1993)

Kerrys statement really has me wondering why. What could he possibly gain from this:

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - President Bush mocked rival John Kerry's stand on the Iraq war Tuesday and rejected the Democrat's timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops as the Republican campaigned with Kerry pal and Vietnam War hero Sen. John McCain.
Seeking to shore up his support in the military rich, GOP-leaning Florida panhandle, Bush assailed Kerry on the dominant issue of the campaign as the incumbent made his 24th trip to the swing state that narrowly ensured his election in 2000.
"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush said. "After months of questioning my motives and even my credibility, Sen. Kerry now agrees with me."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040810/D84CJ5MG0.html

could it be, and I know this may sound stupid to some, that this is what he was requested to do in order to avoid be dragged before a judge for lying about his cambodian adventures. He did testify before a senate hearing about our forces being there and the crimes that were committed and now there appear to be witnesses credible enough to prove otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tedob1
Kerrys statement really has me wondering why.

could it be, and I know this may sound stupid to some, that this is what he was requested to do in order to avoid be dragged before a judge for lying about his cambodian adventures. He did testify before a senate hearing about our forces being there and the crimes that were committed and now there appear to be witnesses credible enough to prove otherwise.

---

Busted, he must think american voters are stupid!
Kerry's own words?
DRUDGE REPORT
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
"Does anyone have a shovel, this sh!t is really getting deep?"

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by !mitationRust
Busted, he must think american voters are stupid!
Kerry's own words?
DRUDGE REPORT
KERRY LIED . . . while good men died
"Does anyone have a shovel, this sh!t is really getting deep?"

---

The swift boat crap..comeonn we where in cambodia in 1968, MACV-SOG was conducting operations over the boarder along with operation SEALORDS. While no records where kept of these illigal and clandestin ops swift boats where used, Kerrys group was used, and kerry could well have been one of the captins involved. To claim that we where not in cambodia during 68 is a flat out lie.

http://www.bcres.com/benewah/sealords.htm
http://www.stormingmedia.us/78/7871/A787133.html
http://www.pcf45.com/sealords/sealords.htm

They aren't making that kind of blanket statement. In fact Kerry stopped saying he was in Cambodia a long time ago. They are pissed because on the night in question he was in another place. According to their affidavit he, John Kerry, lied to the Senate for attention and glory. What does John say about it? Haven't seen anything other that people trying to find dirt on these guys.

Humm lets see, we where running missions into cambodia at the time, we where using swift boats to do those missions....a bunch of wingnuts try and rewrite history to claim he wasn't there, and could have never been there...well thats not true, he and his boat could have been there...was he there, no way to prove taht one way or another, we have two groups with obvious political agends argueing both sides of this but to say that swift boats where not in cambodia in 68 is a blatent and rather mediocer lie.

Or he could have lied for some attention. :) The commanders of his unit say his unit was not in Cambodia over Christmas when Kerry said they were in a very touching speech against veterans and the United States military during a time of crisis and tension. It does become and isse of who lied and one man or unit's word against another. His commanders or him. I don't think noone is rewriting history. It's Kerry vs. the swiftboat veterans who were there with him. They have even challenged Kerry to take them into court and bring his military records with him. I find that interesting, regardless if Kerry was sad and lonely on a night in Cambodia, Vietnam or Timbuktu. Either way that is one of many issues and most of these guys have taken sworn avidavits and have challenged Kerry in the past.

Wingnuts? They were guys just like Kerry. A lot of them are probably democrats. ;)

Quote:

---

Humm lets see, we where running missions into cambodia at the time, we where using swift boats to do those missions....a bunch of wingnuts try and rewrite history to claim he wasn't there, and could have never been there...well thats not true, he and his boat could have been there...was he there, no way to prove taht one way or another, we have two groups with obvious political agends argueing both sides of this but to say that swift boats where not in cambodia in 68 is a blatent and rather mediocer lie

---

ROFL :D, Dems talking about lies :D...sorry I just find that amusing. Actually both parties talking about Lies is hillarious to me :D.

so cyberd are you saying that we where not in cambodia in 68, because either that is the truth or these dopes are lieing, which is it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
so cyberd are you saying that we where not in cambodia in 68, because either that is the truth or these dopes are lieing, which is it?

---

I think Cyb1d was trying to point out that both parties lie so much that eithier party talking about how the other party lies about things is hypocritical.

my point is not wether we were in cambodia or not (its kind of well know that we were) or even if kerry was really there or not. the fact is that they have 'proof', fabricated or real, that says kerry lied before a senate hearing. as anyone ever involved with a legal battle knows, it doesn't matter wether your innocent or guilty but rather what they can prove that counts. which is why nolo contende is allowed: 'i still maintain my innocence, but i cant win against your evidence'

the word of the eleven commanders will have more weight in a federal court than the word of kerry's subordinates. he could be in some very deep doo-doo if these charges ever proceed.

They aren't dopes blallad. I do bet the left hates their collective guts though. How dare they say, "hey I was there that is NOT what happend." :)

Negative, I heard Kerry say he was going to cut troops now? WTF? I went and found a source, biased one but only because they are arabs. :)

Source

Tebold the fact that the commanders are not presueing a legal case agenst him but trying to fight it in the court of public approval should tell us somethig about there "proof."

Road: any one that claims that it is not posable for a swift to be in cambodia in dec 68 and that PRB would stop them before they got to the border is either lieing or a dope. Now it is possable that his commanders didn't know that he was there MAVC-SOG who ran these operatiuons was a volintere unit outside of the normal chain of command, troop movements and orders where only known by the commanders of MAVC-SOG and the president. Any one who was a member had a neat little card see the image below. So we know kerry farried seals around (a major component of MAVC-SOG) he could have well been ordered into cambodia (swift boats where at the time) with out the knowladge of his commanders.

Quote:

---

any one that claims that it is not posable for a swift to be in cambodia in dec 68

---

No one is agruing wether swiftboats were in cambodia. We - at least I, am tryingt to figure out if he made up his sob story to congress for attention and politcal gain on fish tales He states he was there on Crhistmas eve pissed off at Nixon and has used that story over and over and over - and now people are saying he's a lying little bitch. That's all. Besides that is just ONE account. I have been reading some pages of the book as I get time. This doesn't effect by voting stance anyway. ;) I just want to know because people who fake medals and piss on the flag piss me off more than anything. People who don't respect the American heros, soldiers, and our history also piss me off.

Nice card you dug up.

Some what of a Nam buff, that is one of the better ones I got. Hey I'm just saying that the swift boat for the truthy guy lied about the ability of carry to be in acambodia in 68, a pr b would not have stoped him , and siwft boats where there...if hes lieing about that, a main point in his argument...well it calls his credability into question. If you are going after kerry go after his stance on issues....or at least if you want to lie about his past make sure its not that bad of a lie.

Quote:

---

so cyberd are you saying that we where not in cambodia in 68, because either that is the truth or these dopes are lieing, which is it?

---

??? NO thats not even close to what I was saying lol. I'm suprised you completely missed that. Jarrod explained it best. I'm having a hard time following you discussion bballad. Please start using a spell checker.

Here's something for you to think about bballad. When GWB was demanded to release his military records to show that he did everything he said he did, the documents were released. Correct?

Now, John Kerry is being accused of lying. If I was being accused of lying, and I have the documents to prove that I'm not lying...why on earth would I not release those documents? That is, if I was hiding something BIG! Those documents will become a very important action in this election. GWB has been pushing the accusations that Kerry has lied, and if he is proven wrong, then he will lose countless votes. On the other hand, if he is proven right, expect Hillary Clinton to run for president againts Bush in 2008.

Quote:

---

Some what of a Nam buff, that is one of the better ones I got. Hey I'm just saying that the swift boat for the truthy guy lied about the ability of carry to be in acambodia in 68, a pr b would not have stoped him , and siwft boats where there...if hes lieing about that, a main point in his argument...well it calls his credability into question. If you are going after kerry go after his stance on issues....or at least if you want to lie about his past make sure its not that bad of a lie.

---

I think the issue here is not if swiftboats were in Cambodia in 1968. The issue is if Kerry was with those swiftboats in Cambodia.

TOUR OF DUTY author and John Kerry historian Doug Brinkley is rushing a piece for the NEW YORKER: to set-the-record-straight on Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia tale, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor.

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE.

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc93.htm

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

…would you believe….febuary!

On the senate floor:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me."

John Kerry 1986

Umm bushes recorders whee not released, his pay recordes where "lost" then mysteriously reapeard and showd that he didn't collect his pay check...now if he was where he was supposed to be at the time he would have collected them.

Now if kerry was in a swift boat stationd where even the swift boaters for the truth say he was satationd there is every possability he was in cambodia in 68, Look the MAVC-SOG was there in 68 december, they launched from the area he was stationd at there are no records of their excat missions or the personal they grabed to facilitate those missions...this was a CIA run op with an all volintear force of special forces and LRRP troops, they where fully outside of the chain of command, its well within the relm of possability that he was in cambodia..unfortunitly boefore 69 when Nixon admited to the existance of MAVC-SOG and he cambodian missions there where no records kept so there is no way t oprove that he was there...on the other hand for some one how was in swift boats in that area to claim that he would have been court martialed for being in that area, well that is a lie, and one that is easiy to disprove

Quote:

---

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January,

---

Perhaps Kerry is NOW telling the real story? Who knows but if you bring Bush into it – he isn't claiming to be a war hero, in fact he claims nothing other than he served in the guard. So let’s look at the supposed Vietnam status of both; Bush was a pussy and loosely admits it and Kerry is a story telling winy little bitch who came back and totally ****ed veterans right up the pooper.

//EDIT bballad, stop witht he 68 stuff man, everyone here agree with you on the issue of swiftboats and Cambodia. :)

Road the claim by the sift boats for the truth guys is that swift boats where not in cambodia in 68, thats clearly a lie. If he is lieing about that to try and force his point what else is he lieing about? More over how an you base an argument off of an unreliable source.

Nope bballad they are saying their little UNIT wasn't in Cambodia at Christmas time.
That Kerry lied to congress and the people about the whole story and now Kerry looks like he is changing the story a little.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Umm bushes recorders whee not released, his pay recordes where "lost" then mysteriously reapeard and showd that he didn't collect his pay check...now if he was where he was supposed to be at the time he would have collected them.

---

how much did the guard pay it's people back in the sixties/how much is his family worth? or rather, how much do you think he had at his disposal...do you file expense vouchers as soon as you return from a trip or do you let them accumulate if their small?

Quote:

---

is that swift boats where not in cambodia in 68, thats clearly a lie

---

Below is a quote from a swift boat guy, as I keep saying they aren't bitching about being in Cambodia or even making it an issue. Bold text placed by me.

Quote:

---

"I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.

This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight."

---

quote by William Shumadine

Quote:

---

Road the claim by the sift boats for the truth guys is that swift boats where not in cambodia in 68, thats clearly a lie. If he is lieing about that to try and force his point what else is he lieing about? More over how an you base an argument off of an unreliable source.

---

Dude...will you either wake up or grow up? They're not saying that swift boats were never in Cambodia. For the last time...JOHN KERRY was NOT in Cambodia during Christmas of 68, rather by his own words NOW he's saying he was there in January. The issue here bballad is that Kerry is quoted saying to the congress " I remember being in cambodia during the christmass of 68 getting shot at by the Vietnamese and the Cambodians"....but now he remembers it was january? DUDE....Stop beating on the dead horse.

GWB's military records were released. Google it up, I'm not going to bother with your imcompetency.