They gave the president the ability to wage war, not the green light to do so and in any manner. Bush did lie about the conditions under which he'd use that authority... Man it's just like the lame plot of the latest Star Wars series.
Well, you might find this link interesting reading.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&conten...
It's to the Democratic Leadership Council site, explaining the rationale for the "yes" vote authorizing force. Both Kerry and Edwards were and are members of the Democratic Leadership Council.
IMO, given the fact that as Senators, Kerry and Edwards had access to the same intelligence assessments as Bush, the "Bush lied" option lacks very much credibility. Let's examine the options:
1) Bush, Kerry ,and Edwards agreed at the time, based on what was known then, ...and I quote from the above site...that
"...Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious and continuing threat to world and Middle Eastern peace, and to U.S. national security interests..."
"...His efforts to develop and deploy chemical, biological and nuclear weapons pose an especially grave and growing threat..."
and therefore that
"...If the U.N. fails to take action to enforce its own resolutions... the United States should still act, with as many allies as possible, to disarm Iraq..."
Now, the full text at the link does contain other conditions, and
it is a legitimate debate as to whether they had been satisfied at the time the decision to attack was made. However, if Kerry/Edwards thinking in October 2002 is reflected above, the "Bush lied" option is not credible.
If Kerry/Edwards relied solely on Bush's word in crafting their vote, and did not examine the information they were privy to, they are either stupid, irresponsible, or both, having been fooled by the allegedly "dumb Texan" who proved, it seemed, clever enough to bamboozle his "betters". In that case, neither should be a Senator, much less President and Vice President.
Another option is that Kerry/Edwards assessment was that the conditions mentioned above did NOT exist, but they voted "yes" anyway. That would hardly be indicative of principled leadership, indeed it would be a craven, knowing capitulation to a President they knew was wrong and didn't agree with, but could not find the courage to oppose. Again, a disqualifying defect for someone seeking to be President.
Another option is they never believed force would actually be used, but the vote was merely symbolic. Again the allegedly "dumb Texan" fooled them. They should have known of his hawkish proclivities.
IMO the most likely option remains that Bush, Kerry, and Edwards acted on incomplete and conflicting information which in hindsight may not have been sufficient to justify the attack...but even this is debatable. Would Saddam still in power really be a better option ?
Perhaps those that were for the war from beginning to end, including afterward where 20/20 hindsight shows that the many people against the war had correctly assessed the outcome beforehand... and still think Bush never lied... should vote for Bush.
I am voting for Bush because I don't think Kerry is going to do any better, and would probably do worse. He has no strategy for Iraq other than to either parrot what Bush is doing, or make vague promises of increased foreign support (from where ? France won't, Germany probably can't according to thir own constitution, Russia is tied up in Chechnya, China lacks the logistical capability and needs to focus on their own region..India maybe ? Pakistan ? UK, Australia, Poland, Italy are already there. Canada? They need to rebuild a military. Anyone else ? I'm listening...)
I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.
That's an argument from personal incredulity. I can think of many things dumber, including confusing political opinions with intellectual capacity.
™ Version 4.2
