Have I mentioned how much I hate these people? (retort to freeper)

[noahmijo]

What he says:

The defining issue in this election is Iraq and the general war against Muslim extremism. John Kerry has said he voted to give the president authority to go to war. He voted against the 87 billion dollar special appropration. He has said he would have gone to war even knowing there were no WMD but he would have done it effectively. We are left to speculate on what that means.

By stressing his military service and neglecting to speak about his anti-war protest John Kerry has attempted to distract voters from the fact that he has not outlined a clear cogent response on the issues of the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general.

John Kerry is a very smart politician. But I don't believe his trip through this political minefield of the war in Iraq and the broader war against Muslim extremism has served him well. He unlikely to convince the hardcore supporters of the war and they are going to distrust his stories of battlefield valor. Those who don't think we should be in Iraq are going to figure out that he is going to see the situation through and there will be no withdrawal.

Sadly, this election is still about George Bush and the hope that John Kerry somehow looks like he can be a better and more trustworthy president. Regardless of the polls which show him marginally ahead, there are many who remain unconvinced. There are a few flag wavers who may be excited by John Kerry's military rhetoric. Most of the rest of us are slightly embarrassed.

Mel - Blogging at http://radio.weblogs.com/0137954/

My Response:

That is highly incorrect.

He would've voted for the authority which was necessary to back the inspectors. He would've supported the president having the authority to go to war IF it was a last resort and IF the president built a coalition as he promised.

BUSH is the one who fucked up and lied and took Kerry's vote and the other votes for authorization and went to war.

Read the IWR for yourself.


SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.


(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.


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and


(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

http://www.hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Clearly this is not a direct "Go To War With Iraq NOW" vote

QUOTE

"He voted against the 87 billion dollar special appropration."


Wrong again. BUSH threatened to veto the appropriations bill which would've made the $87 billion a loan. This bill was voted down. BUSH insisted that the $87 billion be put on the backs of taxpayers rather than his rich buddies, which making it a loan would've done since the bill called for repealing the tax cuts on the richest in order to pay for it.

Also the entire $87 was not for the troops. About $18.4-18.6 (senate and house respectively) billion was for rebuilding Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/...ngress.iraq.ap/

What Kerry voted against was putting this handout, this grant, on the backs of taxpayers especially knowing that the troops were going to get their funding anyway, and trusting Bush to properly fund the troops is like trusting a goat to tend the cabbage.

Now if you want to talk embarrasing why don't ask you why the hell Bush sent our troops to war without giving them proper equipment to begin with???





::Big Sigh:: HAVE I MENTIONED HOW MUCH I FUCKING HATE THESE PEOPLE????!!!!!

[TOhioLiberal]

1. Bravo!

Well said!

[Erika]

5. John Kerry Has Foreign Skills

He can enjoin the world with us to get out of this quagmire. Politically, he's the only hope we have to avoid our kids being killed and our taxes being usurped by Bush to pay to his globalist contractors.

[jdj]

6. as opposed to just 'four' skills:

drink
snort
smirk
choke

[noahmijo]

15. You forgot giggle!!

[Mz Pip]

2. Repeat often

"Now if you want to talk embarrasing why don't ask you why the hell Bush sent our troops to war without giving them proper equipment to begin with??? "

That is my retort to anyone who tries to use Kerry's vote against the 87 billion. Why is Bush's screw up suddenly Kerry's responsibility?

MzPip
:dem:

[ClassWarrior]

3. Yup. The $87 billion funding was never in question.

The question was HOW to pay for it. And guess what? From what I understand, most of it hasn't "trickled down" to the troops YET!!

[noahmijo]

10. That is true

I could've said that, but have no immediate proof, but I remember reading somewhere how now only $15 million has actually gone to the troops not NEARLY enough.

[ClassWarrior]

12. I think Biden cited a number a few weeks ago on Meet The Whores.

And for some reason I think it was even less than $15 million.

[noahmijo]

14. Probably was less I wouldn't be surprised I just play it safe

It's painful to know things that you can't offer immediate proof of, but I hold it in untill I can find outright proof.

It just looks better than stating something and having nothing to back it up. When I make a statement whether orally or typing it I want to be able to immediately say where and how I know x fact.

[jdj]

4. Horseshit from the very first line.

"The defining issue in this election is Iraq and the general war against Muslim extremism."

Sorry, I didn't even read any further.

You can't get much more extremist than the Sunni Wahabists that the Bush crime family have been butt-fucking for the last 20 or 30 years.

What is this, good fanatic/bad fanatic?

Thanks for taking them on though. The fact that Iraqi women didn't suffer the extremism of sharia law (until lately) is completely lost on these assholes.

[Erika]

9. Yes. Women's Rights Have Been Set Back

Bush has agreed to the Sharia law which places women as chattel and property of the Iraq men, as did the Taliban. Women's businesses in both Afghanistan and Iraq are largely closed down because of Sharia law. Mr. Bush doesn't tell you this. He thinks its fine for our women soldiers to go over there when women in the Iraq and Afghan governments are only tokens. The biggest sham in this war of "freedom".

[jdj]

13. The Saudis are Sunni Wahabists.

One author's glib description of these women walking around entombed in hijab sticks in my head, she said they look "like human nine-pins".

The Saudis have some of the most restrictive gov't around.

So don't tell me about the war for the poor little ladies, geedubya.

[lapfog_1]

16. Sorry,

even the BFEE is the "bottom" in that relationship.

They just take it out on us by screwing us as often as possible.

[jdj]

18. You're right, My bad. I guess. I'm a bottom.

And rather like it that way.

Now I'm thinking. Hey, nevermind, I was right all along.

[Nicholas_J]

7. There is also a big difference

Between giving the authorization to a president to utiize force as a last resort, and the way that authorization is used.

Kerry, as a senator, with an idea of what A president might need to be ablre to do under extreme circumstances, knows that a president needs certain authoristis under certain circumstances.

But this does not mean that the president MUST absolutely use that authorization unless the circumstances call for it

Every president has the authority to launch all of our ICBM's and fire every single nuclear weapon we have if he beleive that the circumstances warrant it. Just becasue he can doesnt mean that he does or should.

The facts are clear, Yes Kerry gave the president the authorization to use for if it was necessary. But that is a big and unproven if.

In fact, when we look at the situation, Kerry is correct in suggesting that Bush abused that authorization. The current situation regarding terrorism is a canse in point. Saddam did not present an immediate threat to us. It was not Sadddam Hussein who sent 19 people into the U.S. to destroy the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It can be argued that Saddam Hussein may have presented an eventual threat to the U.S.But prioritization would suggest that going after Osama Bin Laden first, as they were responsible for actual attacks on the U.S. the actual deaths of thousands of American citizens, and is still free to plan the deaths of thousands more. THe priority was not Saddam Hussein, but the priority was Osama. Had the billions that have been spent in Iraq been spent on hunting down Osama, it is far more likely that Osama would be sitting in jail. Then we could sit down and think about dealing with a growing threat, not an imminent, and still free and active one.

[kiahzero]

17. He did even less than that

Bush could already use force. All the IWR did was allow the troops to remain deployed for more than 60 days.

[Nicholas_J]

19. Nope

The more than 60 day thing is a reiteration of the War Powers Act passed during Nixons Administration. It is nothing new to the IWR, and if you go back and if you go back and check the resolution that authorized the Gulf War you will see the exact same wording, again reiterating the conditions set for presidents by Congress in the War Powers Act, which has never been accepted by presidents as constitutional anyway, ahd which the Supreme COurt has refused to rule on.

In any case, the War Powers Act doenst do much. It merely sets conditions for presidential comminication in the event that a president chooses to utilize military force without a congressional declaration of war, as it is filled with all sorts of things that they would like a president to do if he decided to use force without asking Congress first.

[bo44]

8. Mijo you are awesome

I know how much courage it has taken you to come out as a liberal to your family. You have wielded your intellect like a bolo and have begun slashing away at the jungle of bullshit shat by generations of greedy old prikkks and their flunkies. Keep up the fight.

[noahmijo]

11. Wow someone who remembers my story!

Thanks and believe me, if these people think for a second that they have it rough from nice (or mean) liberals who have been on the good side all this time, just wait, I'm just getting fired up, I plan on every chance I get not just on chatrooms or forumns either, every protest, every real life encounter, they're gonna see what it's like when someone who used to be of their camp comes out against them and I'm not the only one, I know lots of people out there have switched and already to strike back at those who lied to them and used them to help spread their lies.