Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (590505)	7/13/2004 9:22:48 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 769670

georgewbush.com Morning Reads: The Mother of All Flip-Flops Over the last several months, we've documented a number of John Kerry's flip-flops, but this one takes the cake: Kerry refuses to reveal his position on the war in Iraq itself, and on Sunday night, came closer than ever before to declaring himself explicitly against the war he voted for.

To: jlallen who wrote (590505)	7/13/2004 9:52:19 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Kerry voted for it when it was paid for, then voted against it when it was put on the national Mastercard. How about YOU jlallen? Would YOU be willing to pay some taxes to cover the war cost? That's all Kerry wanted..

To: jlallen who wrote (590505)	7/14/2004 12:24:30 AM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

jlallen, The resolution voted on was not a blank check for military action. It was not, contrary to what we reed and what is produced for mass consumption, a simplistic yes/no vote on sending troops. It was, in part, a resolution that in its very text says that the president is authorized to use force against Iraq if he determines that Iraq aided, authorized, or committed the acts of 9/11. What, never heard that version? Read for yourself. 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 threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. the President shall make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his Determination that-- Reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq AND acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. Stop for a minute and review the preceeding passage. Have you heard the president make such a determination? Is pursuing the resolution consistent with taking necessary actions against terrorists who helped or committed the attacks on 9/11? How about this statement 'Diplomacy will not protect us from the threat posed by Iraq'? If we act again as we did in Iraq, is every nation with a few shells of nerve gas and a few scuds is beyond the reach of our diplomacy? Those who blindly quote the press say "The resolution to go to war", but these requirements are not trivial, they are the law of our land. And these requirements have not been met. In fact, 'We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th' - GWB 9/18/2003 And 'We never said Iraq was an imminent threat' - George Tenet Clearly, Kerry could have taken a stronger stance against the war. But so could Schwarzkopf ('we should wait...it will be chaos'), Brent Scowcroft, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Gen. Wesley Clark, Gen. Jack Sheehan, Gen. John Shalikashvili, Gen. James Hoar, etc (all of whom had reservations about the war). Ask yourself? How could anybody reasonably vote against a resolution that in its very text says that the president is authorized to use force if he determines that Iraq aided, authorized, or committed the acts of 9/11?