by The Angry Liberal


Ain't politics fun?


Last week, presidential candidate George W. Bush decided to make Iraq the
centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Forgetting that the war was based

series of lies and twisted intelligence

, has alienated the rest of the world,
and will soon kill America's 1,000th serviceman/woman, the King Chicken

charged ahead with a plan to make John Kerry's vote on the war look

seems that when Kerry charges Bush with presiding over a complete disaster

war, Bush gleefully responds with, "Oh, yeah? Well, you were dumb enough

support me! "That's telling him, George.


So Bush, while on the campaign trail last week, threw down the gauntlet:


My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know

he would have supported going into Iraq. That's an important question and

American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer.


Why Bush, whose entire Iraq strategy has been laid to waste by the passage

time, would want to play the hindsight game is completely unknown. But

decided to play along:


"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Mr. Kerry

referring to the joint resolution. "But I would have used that authority,

have said throughout this campaign, effectively."


To which Bush responded triumphantly:


Almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days

switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent

found a new nuance, he now agrees it was the right decision to go into

I don't know which is worse: The notion that the President of the United

could be that stupid or that almost half of the nation supports him.


I hate to break it to Dubya, but Kerry didn't vote to go into Iraq. He

a joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And if

at the White House had actually read that resolution, here's an

passage that they would have discovered:


(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of

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

Iraq.


In other words, John Kerry voted to allow Bush to attack Iraq only if Bush
determined that Iraq presented a threat to the United States, and used the
guise of security council resolution enforcement as an attempt to

that attack. In hindsight, since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no
significant threat after all, Bush couldn't have provided the

that Iraq was a danger to the United States. Let me rephrase that: Bush

provide the determination, but he would have been laughed out of

Ladies and gentlemen, when Bush's question to Kerry is turned on him,

what we know today about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction and

involvement with terrorism, the joint resolution wouldn't have provided

authority for Bush to declare war on Iraq. In effect, the resolution says

going to war in Iraq, knowing what we know now, would not be justified.

Bush waves the resolution around as if it actually supported the war.


I encourage you to read the entire resolution. Note that it is riddled

inaccuracies and misstatements about Iraq. Even though it was written by a
Republican congress being fed misleading and false information by the CIA

the Bush administration, the resolution does not authorize Bush to declare

under the circumstances we now know existed at the time that Bush climbed
aboard his hobby horse and charged up Sand Juan Hill. The resolution says

Bush was wrong to go to war.


Bush will never admit this, however. When you see Dubya on the campaign

today, you'll notice that he never mentions exactly what threat Iraq posed

the U.S. No talk about weapons of mass destruction or terrorist links now.

9/11 Commission slammed the door on that ploy in its report. Bush now

says that attacking Iraq was "the right thing to do," as if saying it

times will eventually make it true. And unfortunately for us liberals,

letting him get away with it. Kerry is refusing to question the wisdom of

war even though we are now almost certain that there was no basis for it.

I miss Howard Dean.


Okay, Georgie, here's my question to you: Knowing what we know now, do you

the joint resolution authorized you to go to war in Iraq? And if so, why

you make public the determination that you were forced to provide to

You know, the one mandated by the joint resolution:


In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a)

use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there

may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such

make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

pro tempore of the Senate his determination that


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful

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

to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq, and


(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United

other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against

terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,

or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists

that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Let's see the pack of lies that you provided to congress to justify your

war. Let's make that public. And as long as you're coming clean, wouldn't

be a good time to admit that you were 100% wrong in going to war in Iraq

those of us on the left who opposed you were 100% right? As long as we're
examining Kerry's actions from 2002, wouldn't this be a good time to admit

your own moronic strategy of preemptive war, combined with your complete

of understanding of the world's threats, has led the United States into a
needless nightmare in Iraq? Wouldn't this be a good time to admit that you

wrong, to apologize to Americans and to the world, and to resign?


In the immortal words of Steve Martin as Theodoric of York, Medieval

"Naaaaaahhh!"


. . .The Angry Liberal

http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/04/08/tal04009.html

by The Angry Liberal


Ain't politics fun?


Last week, presidential candidate George W. Bush decided to make Iraq the
centerpiece of his reelection campaign.

series of lies and twisted intelligence, has alienated the rest of the world,
and will soon kill America's 1,000th serviceman/woman, the King Chicken Hawk
charged ahead with a plan to make John Kerry's vote on the war look foolish. It
seems that when Kerry charges Bush with presiding over a complete disaster of a
war, Bush gleefully responds with, "Oh, yeah? Well, you were dumb enough to
support me! "That's telling him, George.


So Bush, while on the campaign trail last week, threw down the gauntlet:


My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now,
he would have supported going into Iraq. That's an important question and the
American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer.


Why Bush, whose entire Iraq strategy has been laid to waste by the passage of
time, would want to play the hindsight game is completely unknown. But Kerry
decided to play along:


"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Mr. Kerry said,
referring to the joint resolution. "But I would have used that authority, as I
have said throughout this campaign, effectively."


To which Bush responded triumphantly:


Almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after
switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has
found a new nuance, he now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq.


I don't know which is worse: The notion that the President of the United States
could be that stupid or that almost half of the nation supports him.


I hate to break it to Dubya, but Kerry didn't vote to go into Iraq. He supported
a joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And if somebody
at the White House had actually read that resolution, here's an interesting
passage that they would have discovered:


(a) 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 continuing
threat posed by Iraq; and


(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding
Iraq.


In other words, John Kerry voted to allow Bush to attack Iraq only if Bush
determined that Iraq presented a threat to the United States, and used the
guise of security council resolution enforcement as an attempt to legitimize
that attack. In hindsight, since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no
significant threat after all, Bush couldn't have provided the determination
that Iraq was a danger to the United States. Let me rephrase that: Bush could
provide the determination, but he would have been laughed out of Washington.
Ladies and gentlemen, when Bush's question to Kerry is turned on him, knowing
what we know today about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction and lack of
involvement with terrorism, the joint resolution wouldn't have provided any
authority for Bush to declare war on Iraq. In effect, the resolution says that
going to war in Iraq, knowing what we know now, would not be justified. Yet
Bush waves the resolution around as if it actually supported the war.


I encourage you to read the entire resolution. Note that it is riddled with
inaccuracies and misstatements about Iraq. Even though it was written by a
Republican congress being fed misleading and false information by the CIA and
the Bush administration, the resolution does not authorize Bush to declare war
under the circumstances we now know existed at the time that Bush climbed
aboard his hobby horse and charged up Sand Juan Hill. The resolution says that
Bush was wrong to go to war.


Bush will never admit this, however. When you see Dubya on the campaign trail
today, you'll notice that he never mentions exactly what threat Iraq posed to
the U.S. No talk about weapons of mass destruction or terrorist links now. The
9/11 Commission slammed the door on that ploy in its report. Bush now simply
says that attacking Iraq was "the right thing to do," as if saying it enough
times will eventually make it true. And unfortunately for us liberals, Kerry is
letting him get away with it. Kerry is refusing to question the wisdom of the
war even though we are now almost certain that there was no basis for it. God,
I miss Howard Dean.


Okay, Georgie, here's my question to you: Knowing what we know now, do you think
the joint resolution authorized you to go to war in Iraq? And if so, why don't
you make public the determination that you were forced to provide to congress?
You know, the one mandated by the joint resolution:


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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Let's see the pack of lies that you provided to congress to justify your little
war. Let's make that public. And as long as you're coming clean, wouldn't this
be a good time to admit that you were 100% wrong in going to war in Iraq and
those of us on the left who opposed you were 100% right? As long as we're
examining Kerry's actions from 2002, wouldn't this be a good time to admit that
your own moronic strategy of preemptive war, combined with your complete lack
of understanding of the world's threats, has led the United States into a
needless nightmare in Iraq? Wouldn't this be a good time to admit that you were
wrong, to apologize to Americans and to the world, and to resign?


In the immortal words of Steve Martin as Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber,
"Naaaaaahhh!"


. . .The Angry Liberal

http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/04/08/tal04009.html

by The Angry Liberal

Ain't politics fun?

Last week, presidential candidate George W. Bush decided to make Iraq the
centerpiece of his reelection campaign. Forgetting that the war was based on a
series of lies and twisted intelligence, has alienated the rest of the world,
and will soon kill America's 1,000th serviceman/woman, the King Chicken Hawk
charged ahead with a plan to make John Kerry's vote on the war look foolish. It
seems that when Kerry charges Bush with presiding over a complete disaster of a
war, Bush gleefully responds with, "Oh, yeah? Well, you were dumb enough to
support me! "That's telling him, George.

So Bush, while on the campaign trail last week, threw down the gauntlet:

My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether, knowing what we know now,
he would have supported going into Iraq. That's an important question and the
American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer.

Why Bush, whose entire Iraq strategy has been laid to waste by the passage of
time, would want to play the hindsight game is completely unknown. But Kerry
decided to play along:

"I believe it's the right authority for a president to have," Mr. Kerry said,
referring to the joint resolution. "But I would have used that authority, as I
have said throughout this campaign, effectively."

To which Bush responded triumphantly:

Almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after
switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has
found a new nuance, he now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq.

I don't know which is worse: The notion that the President of the United States
could be that stupid or that almost half of the nation supports him.

I hate to break it to Dubya, but Kerry didn't vote to go into Iraq. He supported
a joint resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And if somebody
at the White House had actually read that resolution, here's an interesting
passage that they would have discovered:

(a) 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 continuing
threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding
Iraq.

In other words, John Kerry voted to allow Bush to attack Iraq only if Bush
determined that Iraq presented a threat to the United States, and used the
guise of security council resolution enforcement as an attempt to legitimize
that attack. In hindsight, since we are nearly certain that Iraq posed no
significant threat after all, Bush couldn't have provided the determination
that Iraq was a danger to the United States. Let me rephrase that: Bush could
provide the determination, but he would have been laughed out of Washington.
Ladies and gentlemen, when Bush's question to Kerry is turned on him, knowing
what we know today about Iraq's lack of weapons of mass destruction and lack of
involvement with terrorism, the joint resolution wouldn't have provided any
authority for Bush to declare war on Iraq. In effect, the resolution says that
going to war in Iraq, knowing what we know now, would not be justified. Yet
Bush waves the resolution around as if it actually supported the war.

I encourage you to read the entire resolution. Note that it is riddled with
inaccuracies and misstatements about Iraq. Even though it was written by a
Republican congress being fed misleading and false information by the CIA and
the Bush administration, the resolution does not authorize Bush to declare war
under the circumstances we now know existed at the time that Bush climbed
aboard his hobby horse and charged up Sand Juan Hill. The resolution says that
Bush was wrong to go to war.

Bush will never admit this, however. When you see Dubya on the campaign trail
today, you'll notice that he never mentions exactly what threat Iraq posed to
the U.S. No talk about weapons of mass destruction or terrorist links now. The
9/11 Commission slammed the door on that ploy in its report. Bush now simply
says that attacking Iraq was "the right thing to do," as if saying it enough
times will eventually make it true. And unfortunately for us liberals, Kerry is
letting him get away with it. Kerry is refusing to question the wisdom of the
war even though we are now almost certain that there was no basis for it. God,
I miss Howard Dean.

Okay, Georgie, here's my question to you: Knowing what we know now, do you think
the joint resolution authorized you to go to war in Iraq? And if so, why don't
you make public the determination that you were forced to provide to congress?
You know, the one mandated by the joint resolution:

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 there after 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 resolution is consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Let's see the pack of lies that you provided to congress to justify your little
war. Let's make that public. And as long as you're coming clean, wouldn't this
be a good time to admit that you were 100% wrong in going to war in Iraq and
those of us on the left who opposed you were 100% right? As long as we're
examining Kerry's actions from 2002, wouldn't this be a good time to admit that
your own moronic strategy of preemptive war, combined with your complete lack
of understanding of the world's threats, has led the United States into a
needless nightmare in Iraq? Wouldn't this be a good time to admit that you were
wrong, to apologize to Americans and to the world, and to resign?

In the immortal words of Steve Martin as Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber,
"Naaaaaahhh!"

. . .The Angry Liberal

http://www.buzzflash.com/theangryliberal/04/08/tal04009.html