Us presidential election 2004

[Akira 0]

Source

Quote[/b] ]Bush Again Confuses IDs of Two Terrorists

By DEB RIECHMANN

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - President Bush might have been able to say it was simply a slip of the tongue when he confused two terrorists in a campaign speech Monday in New Hampshire. Trouble is, he's made the same misstatement at least 10 times before.

During remarks in Derry, N.H., Bush said the late terrorist Abu Nidal killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Jewish American who died after being tossed - along with his wheelchair - off a hijacked cruise liner named Achille Lauro in 1985.

"Do you remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked the crowd. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. Leon Klinghoffer was murdered because of his religion. Abu Nidal was in Baghdad, as was his organization."

He repeated the mistake Monday evening at a campaign event in New York City: "Abu Nidal was a cold-blooded terrorist killer who killed Leon Klinghoffer."

Actually, it was Abul Abbas, the leader of a violent Palestinian group, who killed Klinghoffer.

The White House had no immediate comment on the mix-up.

Abbas, who was captured in Baghdad last year, was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking. His faction of the Palestinian Liberation Front operated out of Tunisia until the cruise ship attack, then relocated to Iraq. U.S. officials say Abbas died of heart disease on March 10 while in U.S. custody in Iraq.

Abu Nidal, a Palestinian renegade, died in Baghdad in 2002. His terrorist organization had been blamed for scores of atrocities, including the 1985 attacks on Rome and Vienna airports in which 20 people were killed and the 1986 attack on a synagogue in Istanbul in which 22 Jewish worshippers were massacred.

Bush's mistake, overlooked for weeks, is buried in his stump speech - in the section where he makes a case that Saddam Hussein had links to terrorist groups. Indeed, Abu Nidal is believed to have had connections to the former Iraqi leader. But he didn't kill Klinghoffer.

"Remember Abu Nidal?" Bush asked Aug. 28 in Lima, Ohio. "He's the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer because he was Jewish? He found safe haven in Iraq. In other words, terrorist groups were in this guy's country."

"We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and his support for terror," he told another crowd Sept. 13 in Battle Creek, Mich. "Abu Nidal, the guy who killed Leon Klinghoffer, he and his organization were in Baghdad."

"He had terrorist ties," Bush told an audience Sept. 16 in Blaine, Minn. "Remember Abu Nidal? He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was in Baghdad, and so was his organization."

Yeah. America is safer with him in charge. :rollseyes:

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah. America is safer with him in charge. :rollseyes:

By this logic, wouldn't John Kerry's "We will double SF to conduct terrorist operations" make him unfit to be commander-in-chief of US SF ?

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Yeah. America is safer with him in charge. :rollseyes:

By this logic, wouldn't John Kerry's "We will double SF to conduct terrorist operations" make him unfit to be commander-in-chief of US SF ?

...Maybe, if Kerry continued to make the same mistake 10 times over.  

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]...Maybe, if Kerry continued to make the same mistake 10 times over.

Well, Kerry has insulted the National Guard at least 10 times. Perhaps he's not fit to lead them ?

[Bernadotte 0]

Here is an interesting map (118K) showing how Bush and Gore did in each county during the 2000 election.

Quote[/b] ]As can be seen, Bush won the vast majority of counties, in fact, virtually all of them except the ones where a lot of people live. Although it is not discussed much, in 2000, the country is polarized into the red rural, conservative, religious counties and the blue urban, liberal, secular counties.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]...Maybe, if Kerry continued to make the same mistake 10 times over.

Well, Kerry has insulted the National Guard at least 10 times. Perhaps he's not fit to lead them ?

And Bush has constantly used them as the primary fighting force of this nation, a use they were not designed nor intended for.

And given the present situation, clearly he is unfit to command them and this Nation.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And Bush has constantly used them as the primary fighting force of this nation, a use they were not designed nor intended for.

Bush is not using them like a primary force....it is more like 60 (regular)-40(NG) in Iraq...not primary

[denoir 0]

Billybob, do you know why they are called the "National Guard"?

[Frisbee 0]

Quote[/b] ] He found safe haven in Iraq. In other words, terrorist groups were in this guy's country."

Wow, like there were in virtually every country with at least a respectable muslim population?

Heck there were people tied to terrorist groups in Belgium. *gasp*

And Bush making the same critical mistake ten times in a row isn't throwing mud at Bush, it's just a sign of how incompetent not only him, but his whole administration is.

But what can one expect, Abu, Abul, who cares about a terrorists name, right? Such a minor detail, he's a terrorist, he's evil and we should go kick his ass, there, all we need to know.

[denoir 0]

Given the choice between Gore and Kerry, I'd vote for Gore.

Really? Why?

Gore couldn't even defeat Bush in his home state.

Ok, first about Gore. Although he lacked any form of charisma, he had an excellent track record on environment, support for technological growth, social security etc Now it may be my limited knowledge, but I can’t think of anything directly negative about Gore’s stance on various political issues. The down side with him was that he was not at all charismatic and a very boring candidate. That still made him a much better choice than the likable but empty-headed Bush (at that time Bush’s neoconservative buddies were still very much in the background).

As for Kerry, he rubs me the wrong way in two aspects. First of all, he apparently has problems making up his mind on what position he wants to take. One day he says that knowing what he knows today he would have still supported the Iraq invasion. The other he says that Bush mislead the UN and that had the inspections gone through, there would have been no need for a war. That America should only go to war when it absolutely has to, not when it wants to.

Now this is what you get from the media. It’s possible that the bits and pieces are taken out of context, but that’s not what it seems like. Now I don’t oppose a person changing his mind- on the contrary – it’s far better than running into a wall full-speed a la Bush. Kerry has however changed his statements on the Iraq war several times during the campaign. So it’s not correlated to any reality, but to what he thinks at the moment would give him a popular boost. Now I fully understand that some 80% of Americans supported the war, so it puts him in a difficult position. That’s however hardly an excuse for not coming up with a consistent policy.

The second thing is that he looks very much like an empty suit to me. I’ve watched interviews with him and appearances on talk shows and I got a very plastic image. He seems pretentious, unmotivated and most of all fake. When Bush speaks to a crowd, you can see him really connecting, projecting a really likable human warmth. Kerry on the other hand is trying to emulate some form of charisma, making it look just fake.

[Apollo 0]

Yeah i agree ,i don't like both candidate's really.I actually had wished the democrats would have nominated Howard Dean for candidate ,now there was a guy who's thoughts and oppinion's i really liked.

But howard Dean was to much left to the oppinion of the democratic party (wich to European standards still isn't really that left) ,IMO Dean was more centre-left while Kerry is actually a centrist. (like Clinton was to)

The thought that the republican party often refers to Kerry as a real liberal ( pot smoking hippy is almost an sinonym to liberal in America apparently) is kinda farfetched ,Kerry is more like a centrist while Bush is actually far right ,more right than many many people in the Republican party.Kerry was chosen by the democrats to appeal that large centre mass of the poppulation like Clinton did. (an wich was key to his succes)

[xawery 0]

The second thing is that he looks very much like an empty suit to me. I’ve watched interviews with him and appearances on talk shows and I got a very plastic image. He seems pretentious, unmotivated and most of all fake. When Bush speaks to a crowd, you can see him really connecting, projecting a really likable human warmth. Kerry on the other hand is trying to emulate some form of charisma, making it look just fake.

This kind of logic would eliminate Gore as a candidate also. The man was positively a textbook example of a person who has had "leadership courses". You know what I mean, those horrible 'workshops' management consultants make such disgusting large sums of money with;)

[Akira 0]

Actually Kerry's stance on the war has been pretty much the same, its Bush and the media trying to define it as flip flopping. He's said from day one that he did not authorize immediatly going to war with his vote, he authorized the use of force if necessary, after all avenues were exhausted, and many others that voted "Yes" have stated the same thing. His stance has always been that he would have done the war differently. When he says that he woud still vote Yes, he's not saying he would still go to war, he's saying that he would still authorize force. Least this has been his position since the 60 minutes interview months ago, and before. Bush and Co. take certain sound bites from his speeches to make it sound like he is still flip flopping, when he actually isn't.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Billybob, do you know why they are called the "National Guard"?

http://www.ngb.army.mil/about/

Quote[/b] ]

About the National Guard

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 367th birthday on December 13, 2003. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.

Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War. In 1903, important national defense legislation increased the role of the National Guard (as the militia was now called) as a Reserve force for the U.S. Army. In World War I, which the U.S. entered in 1917, the National Guard made up 40% of the U.S. combat divisions in France; in World War II, National Guard units were among the first to deploy overseas and the first to fight.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.  

[denoir 0]

The second thing is that he looks very much like an empty suit to me. I’ve watched interviews with him and appearances on talk shows and I got a very plastic image. He seems pretentious, unmotivated and most of all fake. When Bush speaks to a crowd, you can see him really connecting, projecting a really likable human warmth. Kerry on the other hand is trying to emulate some form of charisma, making it look just fake.

This kind of logic would eliminate Gore as a candidate also. The man was positively a textbook example of a person who has had "leadership courses". You know what I mean, those horrible 'workshops' management consultants make such disgusting large sums of money with;)

Yeah, but Gore didn't even try too hard to hide his personality. At least I don't recall him looking as phony as Kerry does.

The real thing however is still a choice between a man who started an illegal war that killed tens of thousands of civilians, made the world a more dangerous place, brought America back in time socially and economically and one whose image I find phony. Not quite comparable.

Dean was the best candidate IMO, but he never stood a chance in America. Too much ahead of his time. Nader is actually not so bad either, if you just look at his program - but in the end of course, a vote for Nader is more or less equal a vote for Bush.

[Apollo 0]

Well IMO to european standards Kerry is a centrist ,and flip flopping is what centrists do a lot actually ,they act more on the specific situation and circumstance rather than from an ideoligy.But that also means that his ideolify ain't that strong ,and i like politician's with a strong ideoligy ,partly because in my country almost all the party's have lumped towards the centre and politics are full of day by day policy's rather than a defined plan to develop the country further.

I really like French internal politics ,full of people with strong  ideoligy from all side's of the spectrum ,full of intellectual men also actually ,and intellectual debate's between polician's.Compared to so many other country's in the democratic world in France they actually look ten years ahead in their policy's ,and people are much more voted in on true capabilety's rather than poppularity.I think it's because of France it's historical role from the French revolution onwards that politics in france is so much more refined than so many other country's.

[Bernadotte 0]

First of all, he apparently has problems making up his mind on what position he wants to take. One day he says that knowing what he knows today he would have still supported the Iraq invasion. The other he says that Bush mislead the UN and that had the inspections gone through, there would have been no need for a war. That America should only go to war when it absolutely has to, not when it wants to.

Having read Kerry's statements and heard him in debates I've found his Iraq position to be at least consistent and at worst only vague.  On his original war vote I replied to billybob as follows:

Kerry is responsible for the deaths of those people because he would of still voted for the "authorizing" of the Iraq war still knowing what he knows.

You've heard the expression, "speak softly but carry a big stick."  Well, that was yesteryear.  These days it's "speak loudly and with one voice so you might not have to use the big stick."  And that's exactly what Congress and the UN did in the face of Iraqi hesitation to comply with inspections.  The more powerful the threat, the less likely it would need to be carried out.  That's what was in the minds of Kerry and everyone else who spoke out with one loud unanimous voice.  Authorising war as a means of averting it to save the lives of Iraqi civilians and US servicemen is what was on their minds.

So before you go and simply put Kerry's name in place of Bush's, think about the difference between authorising action and actually taking action.  Kerry agreed with authorising action, but not taking action.  The difference is enormous and can be measured in human lives.

Now this is what you get from the media. It’s possible that the bits and pieces are taken out of context...

Yup.

The second thing is that he looks very much like an empty suit to me. I’ve watched interviews with him and appearances on talk shows and I got a very plastic image. He seems pretentious, unmotivated and most of all fake.

Far less so than Gore, but that's just personal opinions I guess.  Let's return to this point after you've seen Kerry in one of the upcoming debates.  Actually, I felt exactly the same as you do about Kerry before seeing him in one of the primary debates.

[Bernadotte 0]

Dean was the best candidate IMO, but he never stood a chance in America. Too much ahead of his time. Nader is actually not so bad either, if you just look at his program...

Nader and Dean are, in many ways the right men caught in the wrong system.

[denoir 0]

On his original war vote I replied to billybob as follows:

Except that I never heard Kerry say that. Furthermore, it is a very dangerous game to play, especially with people in the executive part of the government that wish nothing more than to get their war. The approval of Congress was a clear go-ahead for the war. And by the time of the vote, it was very evident what Bush wanted.

Quote[/b] ]Nader and Dean are, in many ways the right men caught in the wrong system.

Give it 20-50 years until America has developed more socially. The problem is not just in the system today, but with the country. America is still a traditional society in many ways and modernization takes time. Religious fundamentalism, nationalism and raw laissez faire economy are all elements a society has to grow out of. I’m confident that they will some day, but it will take some time. It is a process that has been going on for decades and apart from some bumps in the road, it is going in the right direction. For instance America grew out of the most overt racial segregation, it has done some progress in the areas of medical and social protection for its citizens. Dean and Nader want now what the population is not ready for.

I suppose that Europe as America’s biggest trading partner should try to speed up the process through economic encouragements, but I don’t see that happening for a while either. Europe has a shitload of internal issues that it has to work out before we can take real interest in a positive development in America. Besides, such influencing can backfire etc Bottom line is that I think that over time America will evolve to a more modern society.

The only thing is that it sucks for the relatively large minority that is more than ready for it. C'est la vie.

[Akira 0]

Dean was the best candidate IMO, but he never stood a chance in America. Too much ahead of his time. Nader is actually not so bad either, if you just look at his program...

Nader and Dean are, in many ways the right men caught in the wrong system.

Interesting factoid.

The lawyer that represented Bush during the 2000 election fiasco is also the same lawyer, hired by an "independant" group, that represented Nader in getting him on many of the ballots, including Florida for the 2004 election.

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]By the way, I believe the (Republican controlled) Senate, where Kerry sat, only voted after the Congress voted.

Think you mean House of Representatives....."Congress" is both the Senate and the House of Reps.

[Bernadotte 0]

Except that I never heard Kerry say that.

He has, but it's about bluffing, something political leaders try to avoid admitting.  He prefers to emphasize that he would have persued all means available to resolve the standoff peacefully before putting American soldiers in harm's way, blah blah blah...

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, it is a very dangerous game to play, especially with people in the executive part of the government that wish nothing more than to get their war. The approval of Congress was a clear go-ahead for the war.

Perhaps in spirit, but the text of the motion was full of "as a last resort" and "only after exhausting all other options" and "with full UN support" etc.  I find it difficult to share much of TBA's blame with the rest of the government.  And if TBA had not received authorisation to take action then Iraq would have had very little motivation to comply further with the inspectors.  No doubt the greatest sin was that TBA utterly abused the spirit, intent and wording of that authorisation.

By the way, I believe the (Republican controlled) Senate, where Kerry sat, only voted after the Congress voted.

[Bernadotte 0]

Interesting factoid.

The lawyer that represented Bush during the 2000 election fiasco is also the same lawyer, hired by an "independant" group, the represented Nader in getting him on many of the ballots, including Florida.

Oh it's already quite well known that FL gov Jeb Bush has invested all kinds of resources in support of Nader getting on the FL ballot.  Afterall, Nader scored ~100,000 votes there in 2000, when Bush beat Gore by 537.  Given that Nader is further left than Gore, it's a safe bet that most of those 100,000 votes would have gone to Gore.

And it remains a great mystery how the FL supreme court could still decide in favour of Nader even though his party remains in clear violation of eligibility rules.  Well, actually it's not very mysterious at all.

[xawery 0]

Well IMO to european standards Kerry is a centrist ,and flip flopping is what centrists do a lot actually ,they act more on the specific situation and circumstance rather than from an ideoligy.But that also means that his ideolify ain't that strong ,and i like politician's with a strong ideoligy ,partly because in my country almost all the party's have lumped towards the centre and politics are full of day by day policy's rather than a defined plan to develop the country further.

I really like French internal politics ,full of people with strong ideoligy from all side's of the spectrum ,full of intellectual men also actually ,and intellectual debate's between polician's.Compared to so many other country's in the democratic world in France they actually look ten years ahead in their policy's ,and people are much more voted in on true capabilety's rather than poppularity.I think it's because of France it's historical role from the French revolution onwards that politics in france is so much more refined than so many other country's.

I think you may be confusing two concepts, Apollo: ideologies and ideals.

Ideologies are paradigms, frames of thinking one imposes onto each problem one is faced with. The doctrine of ideologies assumes that ideologies (to generalise: left- and right-wing ideologies) both have solutions for all possible problems. It also assumes that the solutions of both ideologies (to continue with our simplification) are equally as viable, and only differ in whose interests they champion (left: the working class, right: the middle and upper class).

As my usage of 19th/20th century class-terminology clearly shows, this mode of thinking is completely outdated. Yet, it still characterises most political systems. Parties still think in terms of a one-dimensional political spectrum.

Needless to say, this does not work. This way of thinking results in impragmatic solutions, guided by pre-established beliefs. It disregards the simple fact that real-life situations are far more complex and require a pragmatic, contingent approach.

That's why ideals are better guidelines than ideologies. Ideals simply dictate what one wants to achieve. How does one achieve it? That depends on the situation. In my eyes, this is the only way to govern in a sensible way.

Naturally, this approach to politics is unappealing to the masses. Let's be quite frank: masses do not appreciate nuance. They do not appreciate complexity. They want clear-cut, black-and-white thinking. They believe it to be a sign of resolve, of powerful leadership, while in fact it is nothing more than the inability to see the world for the complex entity that it is. Oversimplification is not a sign of strength, it's a sign of limited cognitive capacity.

But that's what the masses prefer. There are studies showing that intelligence is not a trait appreciated by the electorate. The average voter wants to be able to relate to his president, and the average voter isn't that intelligent. To quote the NRC: as long as "who would you like to have a beer with?" is the prime criterion of the people, Bush is going to win. The sad thing is, it is.

[Akira 0]

More interesting information for the Bushites. The Iraq War resolution that they say Kerry is flip flopping on. The relevant parts:

Quote[/b] ]SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Also:

Quote[/b] ]SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(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.

and the kicker:

Quote[/b] ] (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.

© War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Obviously the phrase that Bush was able to use in order to start the war even though he hardly did any diplomacy, adn what diplomacy he did do was to get support for the war, not get compliance by Iraq.

Also notice the Sept. 11th reference. I thought the TBA said they didn't tie Sept 11th and Iraq? Well it says right here in the Congressional Record that they did.

House Vote Oct. 10 2002:

Quote[/b] ]---- YEAS 296 ---

Ackerman

Aderholt

Akin

Andrews

Armey

Bachus

Baker

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bentsen

Bereuter

Berkley

Berman

Berry

Biggert

Bilirakis

Bishop

Blagojevich

Blunt

Boehlert

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Boozman

Borski

Boswell

Boucher

Boyd

Brady (TX)

Brown (SC)

Bryant

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Cannon

Cantor

Capito

Carson (OK)

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Clement

Coble

Collins

Combest

Cooksey

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crenshaw

Crowley

Cubin

Culberson

Cunningham

Davis (FL)

Davis, Jo Ann

Davis, Tom

Deal

DeLay

DeMint

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dicks

Dooley

Doolittle

Dreier

Dunn

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

Engel

English

Etheridge

Everett

Ferguson

Flake

Fletcher

Foley

Forbes

Ford

Fossella

Frelinghuysen

Frost

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Gephardt

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gillmor

Gilman

Goode

Goodlatte

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Granger

Graves

Green (TX)

Green (WI)

Greenwood

Grucci

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hansen

Harman

Hart

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Herger

Hill

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoeffel

Hoekstra

Holden

Horn

Hoyer

Hulshof

Hunter

Hyde

Isakson

Israel

Issa

Istook

Jefferson

Jenkins

John

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (IL)

Johnson, Sam

Jones (NC)

Kanjorski

Keller

Kelly

Kennedy (MN)

Kennedy (RI)

Kerns

Kind (WI)

King (NY)

Kingston

Kirk

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Lampson

Lantos

Latham

LaTourette

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Linder

LoBiondo

Lowey

Lucas (KY)

Lucas (OK)

Luther

Lynch

Maloney (NY)

Manzullo

Markey

Mascara

Matheson

McCarthy (NY)

McCrery

McHugh

McInnis

McIntyre

McKeon

McNulty

Meehan

Mica

Miller, Dan

Miller, Gary

Miller, Jeff

Moore

Moran (KS)

Murtha

Myrick

Nethercutt

Ney

Northup

Norwood

Nussle

Osborne

Ose

Otter

Oxley

Pascrell

Pence

Peterson (MN)

Peterson (PA)

Petri

Phelps

Pickering

Pitts

Platts

Pombo

Pomeroy

Portman

Pryce (OH)

Putnam

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Rehberg

Reynolds

Riley

Roemer

Rogers (KY)

Rogers (MI)

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Ross

Rothman

Royce

Ryan (WI)

Ryun (KS)

Sandlin

Saxton

Schaffer

Schiff

Schrock

Sensenbrenner

Sessions

Shadegg

Shaw

Shays

Sherman

Sherwood

Shimkus

Shows

Shuster

Simmons

Simpson

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Souder

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Sullivan

Sununu

Sweeney

Tancredo

Tanner

Tauscher

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Terry

Thomas

Thornberry

Thune

Thurman

Tiahrt

Tiberi

Toomey

Turner

Upton

Vitter

Walden

Walsh

Wamp

Watkins (OK)

Watts (OK)

Waxman

Weiner

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

Wexler

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson (NM)

Wilson (SC)

Wolf

Wynn

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

---- NAYS 133 ---

Abercrombie

Allen

Baca

Baird

Baldacci

Baldwin

Barrett

Becerra

Blumenauer

Bonior

Brady (PA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Capps

Capuano

Cardin

Carson (IN)

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Condit

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Cummings

Davis (CA)

Davis (IL)

DeFazio

DeGette

Delahunt

DeLauro

Dingell

Doggett

Doyle

Duncan

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Filner

Frank

Gonzalez

Gutierrez

Hastings (FL)

Hilliard

Hinchey

Hinojosa

Holt

Honda

Hooley

Hostettler

Houghton

Inslee

Jackson (IL)

Jackson-Lee (TX)

Johnson, E. B.

Jones (OH)

Kaptur

Kildee

Kilpatrick

Kleczka

Kucinich

LaFalce

Langevin

Larsen (WA)

Larson (CT)

Leach

Lee

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lipinski

Lofgren

Maloney (CT)

Matsui

McCarthy (MO)

McCollum

McDermott

McGovern

McKinney

Meek (FL)

Meeks (NY)

Menendez

Millender-McDonald

Miller, George

Mollohan

Moran (VA)

Morella

Nadler

Napolitano

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Paul

Payne

Pelosi

Price (NC)

Rahall

Rangel

Reyes

Rivers

Rodriguez

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanchez

Sanders

Sawyer

Schakowsky

Scott

Serrano

Slaughter

Snyder

Solis

Stark

Strickland

Stupak

Thompson (CA)

Thompson (MS)

Tierney

Towns

Udall (CO)

Udall (NM)

Velazquez

Visclosky

Waters

Watson (CA)

Watt (NC)

Woolsey

Wu

---- NOT VOTING 3 ---

Ortiz

Roukema

Stump

Vote on Oct. 11, 2002 (Senate):

Quote[/b] ] YEAs ---77

Allard (R-CO)

Allen (R-VA)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Bennett (R-UT)

Biden (D-DE)

Bond (R-MO)

Breaux (D-LA)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burns (R-MT)

Campbell (R-CO)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Carnahan (D-MO)

Carper (D-DE)

Cleland (D-GA)

Clinton (D-NY)

Cochran (R-MS)

Collins (R-ME)

Craig (R-ID)

Crapo (R-ID)

Daschle (D-SD)

DeWine (R-OH)

Dodd (D-CT)

Domenici (R-NM)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Edwards (D-NC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Fitzgerald (R-IL)

Frist (R-TN)

Gramm (R-TX)

Grassley (R-IA)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hagel (R-NE)

Harkin (D-IA)

Hatch (R-UT)

Helms (R-NC)

Hollings (D-SC)

Hutchinson (R-AR)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lieberman (D-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Lott (R-MS)

Lugar (R-IN)

McCain (R-AZ)

McConnell (R-KY)

Miller (D-GA)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Nickles (R-OK)

Reid (D-NV)

Roberts (R-KS)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Santorum (R-PA)

Schumer (D-NY)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Smith (R-NH)

Smith (R-OR)

Snowe (R-ME)

Specter (R-PA)

Stevens (R-AK)

Thomas (R-WY)

Thompson (R-TN)

Thurmond (R-SC)

Torricelli (D-NJ)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23

Akaka (D-HI)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Byrd (D-WV)

Chafee (R-RI)

Conrad (D-ND)

Corzine (D-NJ)

Dayton (D-MN)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Graham (D-FL)

Inouye (D-HI)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Reed (D-RI)

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Wellstone (D-MN)

Wyden (D-OR)

EDIT: I love tags but tags don't love me.

[denoir 0]

Perhaps in spirit, but the text of the motion was full of "as a last resort" and "only after exhausting all other options" and "with full UN support" etc.  I find it difficult to share much of TBA's blame with the rest of the government.  And if TBA had not received authorisation to take action then Iraq would have had very little motivation to comply further with the inspectors.  No doubt the greatest sin was that TBA utterly abused the spirit, intent and wording of that authorisation.

In that case Kerry and his campaign are morons. That is the card they should have played "Bush mislead the Ameircan people and Congress. I voted for authorizing the war because the Bush Administration said "only after..." etc etc

Instead the it looks now like he was for war, then against war then for war again.

I mean, talk about incompetence - Bush started an unnecessary war, hasn't delivered on his promises (no Osama, no WMD etc), Iraq is a complete mess where Americans are dying every day.... and still, the country is split 50/50. What well-informed person would in their right mind vote for Bush? Any semi-competent Democratic candidate should be with minimal effort be dancing on Bush's political grave..