oldreliable67 said:
There are lots and lots more examples of Dems making public statements in support of Bush seeking a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Saddam. For an extensive listing, go
here. It is a biased site, but in this case, it provides an extensive listing of quotes and references.
oldreliable67,
If you've got other quotes, present them. I'm not going to do your research for you.
But your first quote is from a letter to Clinton, not Bush.
As for your Kerry quote, it's out of context, here's the full text:
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.
Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq , and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions."
oldreliable67 said:
Bush complied with the wishes of Congress and asked for a resolution. He got it. He subsequently exercised the authority expressely given to him by the Constitution as Commander in Chief and the Congressional resolution. How was that a 'trap'?
Bush asked Congress for the resolution, but don't take my word for it. Here's a quote for you, direct from the
jackass's mouth:
"
I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance -- his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that choice is limited."
So according to Bush himself, he asked for the resolution, and a vote for it was NOT a "vote for war." He's saying precisely the opposite, that it’s a vote to put our money where our mouths are, to show Saddam and the UN that we mean business. That's how Bush sold the resolution, so he can’t now throw the vote back in Democrats’ faces, saying “You voted for the war.” Either he was lying then, or he's lying now. (We know he was lying then, because according Bob Woodward, he had already decided to attack Iraq on Sept. 12, so the whole resolution pantomime was just a charade.) And Democrats, including Kerrry, can rightly claim they were taking the president at his word and were not indeed "voting for war." Bush wanted a Congressional resolution to cover his ass if things went south, and to use as a cudgel in the upcoming election, which is exactly how he's using it now. That's why it was a trap.
