You will learn a lot more by reading than you will by running your mouth!

You stated: "What he *did* vote for was a congressional resolution to give
the Prsident the power to use military force in Iraq *if* it could be shown
that Iraq posed a credible threat to the national security of the United
States."

The word "credible" is not used in the Resolution; the word used was
"continuing". Very different.

Contrary to your statement: "*if* it could be shown that Iraq posed a
credible threat to the national security of the United States" there was no
such requirement. First of all, you didn't state who had to show it, but
that is immaterial, as shown in the following text from the Resolution.

"Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital
United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq
to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'
and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the
Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations".

I think that makes it obvious that it had been that the threat had been had
been recognized in the Resolution itself. And interestingly, part of the
threat was recognized by the Democratic Clinton Administration in 1998.

The President did not have to show any threat to anyone prior to using
force, he only had to make the following notifications within 48 hours of
the exercise of said authority.

(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 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.
So you will have the opportunity to properly research this matter, here's a
link to the Resolution:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107xmN8RC::

And next time, get your facts straight!



"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
In article , kontiki
wrote:

Tom Fleischman wrote:

Oh please! Your ignorance is really showing here.

Please elaborate... please describe my level of ignorance.


Your snip says it all...

The fact is that W IS doing what is needed on the terror front

Bush&Co's misguided nightmare in Iraq has only served to create *more*
terrorism and make the entire world much *less* safe. That is a
*fact*.

Just WHAT has Kerry done?? He was, after all, a member of the Senate
intelligence committee and did vote to approve the war in Iraq.

You've obviously been basing your opinions on fallacious information.
Kerry did *not* vote to approve "the war in Iraq". What he *did* vote
for was a congressional resolution to give the Prsident the power to
use military force in Iraq *if* it could be shown that Iraq posed a
credible threat to the national security of the United States. Bush&Co
then used cooked intelligence and *lied* about Iraq's possesion of WMD
to trigger the resolution and go in militarily.

The only thing that Kerry is guilty of is of trusting his President.

A year later

It's been *two* years since the vote was taken, numbnuts.

all Kerry talks about is how Bush screwed up and how
HE will di it "better and smarter". Sure... based on his less than
stellar perfomance in the US Senate for the past 20 years I won't
jold my breath.


Yeah, don't let facts get in the way of the disinformation you are
getting from the three-hour hate monger.


and is certainly much
more of a real person that Kerry is (or will ever hope to be).

I would be very interested in hearing you explain exactly what you
mean
by this statement.

I mean that GW's character impresses me much more than that of John
Kerry.
Most people seem to agree on that point... you being an exception of
course.


You mean the character of a guy who will willfully *lie* to the
American people so he could start a war against a country that had
*never* done anything to the U.S? You mean the character of a guy whose
sole agenda in office appears to be to steal the nations treasury and
hand it over to corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel? Yeah, it
takes real character to kill 30,000 innocent Iraqis and over 1000 of
our own young men and women based on a lie so that your Saudi
benfactors and oil baron friends can get richer while you cut benfits
for the wounded veterans and their families who believed that they were
making a real scrifice for our country based on a pack of lies. It
speaks volumes about the quality of your education that you are
impressed by such a character.


I think someone should have spent a few more dollars on *your*
----------^^^^^^^ ? ? ?
education.

I paid my way through college by working. Not one single taxpayer had to
fork over a dime for my education. Please don't illustrate your
arrogance
by insinuating you are somehow better educated than I am. Your posts
seem
to indicate otherwise.


I guess that means that you went to only private schools and colleges.

Listen, kid. I'm done with you now. I'll just finish by saying that you
may want to think about voting for your own best interests in the
upcoming election rather than continuing to parrot all of the crap that
comes out of the mouth of the three-hour hate monger.