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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (44826)	10/23/2005 6:51:21 PM
From: SiouxPal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362398

Can you post Kerry's exact words about that? Did Kerry say he would have invaded Iraq for the same reasons Bush did? Did Kerry say he would have pursued the facts first? What was Kerry's timeline? Just go in by ourselves? My memory ain't what it used to be.

To: sea_biscuit who wrote (44826)	10/23/2005 7:31:39 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 362398

Voting to approve war powers for the president in order to threaten Saddam (but only invade as a last resort if there was an imminent threat) is not the same as "voting for the war". Manipulators on the left and right are trying to misrepresenmt that vote as either "pro war" or "against war". In fact the correct vote was in the middle. It was fine to disarm Saddam and pressure him with real force. What was not fine was to invade and occupy Iraq without any proper plan, and based on hyped intelligence and outright lies. It was also not fine to ignore the potential threat of Saddam. Kerry's speech after he voted was right-on. He promised he would hold Bush's feet to the fire if he didn't keep his promise to invade only as a last resort and with UN and major coalition partners. This is very different that, say Lieberman who was definitely pro war, thinking of Israel not the US.