PDA

View Full Version : BUsh keeps saying "Kerry saw the same intelligence I did"


Volcana
Oct 13th, 2004, 12:46 AM
But if that's true, something is very, very wrong. The President has clearances the members of the Senate Intelligence Committee do not have. Ordinarily, the President sees the names of sources. The Senate Intelligence Committee does not. Legally, the Senate Intelligence Committee CAN-not. But of course, it may be true that Bush sees the same intelligence as the Senate Intelligence Committee. and somebody else REALLY makes the decisions.

But beyond that, there's a difference between believing the President SHOULD have authority to threaten war, and, as the President, abusing that authority by going to war unprepared, and lying about why. There's a difference between believing the President should have the authority to go war, and going to war while being completely wrong in every reason you give to do so.

However, in one particular way, I hold Kerry MORE accountable for HIS poor decision to GIVE Bush this authority, than I do Bush for HIS poor decision to GO to war.

Kerry's BEEN to war. He's BEEN in combat. He was in contact with Army generals in 2002. He KNEW Bush was already massing troops to go to war. He KNEW it cost millions of dollars a day just to keep our Army stationed to invade. He KNEW we were completely unprapred to occupy a country the size of Iraq. And he KNEW Bush didn't have a fucking clue about combat, war, or occupation.

Bush is an ignorant fool.

Kerry is neither. Why did he vote to give a man he KNEW to be an ignorant fool that authority? His given reason is 'I felt that was the authority the President should have.' Well-reasoned. Heart-felt. But WRONG.

THIS president should not have had that authority. Kerry argues Bush lied to us. Kerry dealt with Bush on regular basis. Is it fair to asked, should he have KNOWN Bush was lying?

*JR*
Oct 13th, 2004, 12:54 AM
No President has accepted the authority of the War Powers Act in the 30 years since it was passed. So if one sends troops somewhere claiming an emergency, Congress can only do 2 things. (Either way being blasted for "undermining our troops in the field"). Go to the Supreme Court re. to test that law, or refuse funding. (Don't hold your breath).

Volcana
Oct 13th, 2004, 01:13 AM
I'd have an easier time accepting, "The President sees information I don't see. If he says there's a threat, how can I know he's lying til after the fact." I understand he's trying not to demean the office by calling Bush an incompetent fool, but sometimes, avoid the blunt truth just makes matters worse.

Garnet
Oct 13th, 2004, 01:22 AM
Things were quite entangled at the time. Somehow, Congress had to give Bush that kind of authority so he could project credible power in his dealings on the international arena and in his tough talk about terrorism and WMD. From the authority to wage war and actually waging war, there is a vast gulf. People expected better judgement from the President and his horde of advisers. Kerri was just one Senate member among 100.

lakeway11
Oct 13th, 2004, 01:41 AM
since Congress by its Constitutional duty has to declare war they are more responsible than Bush for the Iraq fiasco/Serbia wrongs...if they pass the buck it does not change that fact

Fingon
Oct 13th, 2004, 03:50 AM
I am not american, and I really think Bush fucked up by the way he handled the Iraq affair.

but really, this phrase 'I felt that was the authority the President should have', did he really say that?, Bush may not be very good, but Kerry? give me a break,
he felt that was the authority the president should have? first, that what the congress is for, if they are going to be a bunch of yes man then why are they there?

Second, he supported the war even thinking it was wrong just because he thought it was up to the president? it wasn't about choosing the wine for dinner, it was about a war of major consequences and that costs tens of thosands of lives.

Kerry does not have a clear position, and that's more dangerous than Bush, with Bush at least you know what to expect, with Kerry? depends on the day.

the statement that he let the country go to war even thinking it was wrong because it was the president's prerrogative tells me that he is a man unable to make the kind of decisions that are required to be a president.

Bush is unable to, but others make the decisions, with Kerry, who knows?

After the Gore fiasco, couldn't the democrats find someone better? is there only one Bill Clinton?

lakeway11
Oct 13th, 2004, 05:17 AM
thought that someone was Howard Dean...but Dean got beamed by the Establishment media

Volcana
Oct 13th, 2004, 06:11 AM
thought that someone was Howard Dean...but Dean got beamed by the Establishment mediaDean was WAY too outside-the-Establishment. Kerry is as much an insider as Bush himself. The AMerican media are NOT interested in radical change of ANY sort.