Kerry: Still Would Have Approved Force for Iraq

By Patricia Wilson
GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Taking up a challenge from President Bush, whom he will face in the Nov. 2 election, the Massachusetts senator said: "I'll answer it directly. Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

Speaking to reporters from the Powell's Landing on the rim of the Grand Canyon above a mile-deep drop, Kerry also said reducing U.S. troops in Iraq significantly by next August was "an appropriate goal."

"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said. Note: This is contrary to what Kerry has been saying for the past several weeks

On that timetable, Kerry's aim would be to pull out a large number of the 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq in the first six months of his administration.

"Obviously, we'd have to see how events unfold," he added. "I intend to get more people involved in that effort and I'm convinced I can be more successful than President Bush in succeeding in doing that. It is an appropriate goal to have and I'm going to try to achieve it."

Kerry refused to say if he had any private assurances from Arab or European nations that they would help with security and reconstruction in Iraq but said "right now the administration ... is scrambling and struggling to try to find a way to do that."

"All of this should have happened in the beginning, all of these things should have been achieved beforehand," he said. "American presidents should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace."

BUSH CHALLENGE

Bush last week challenged Kerry, who Republicans accuse of flip-flopping on Iraq by voting for the war resolution and against the $87 billion request to fund operations, to say straight out if he would have voted the same way if only to eliminate the danger that Saddam Hussein could have developed weapons of mass destruction.

"Now, there are some questions that a commander-in-chief needs to answer with a clear yes or no," Bush said. "My opponent hasn't answered the question of whether knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq."

"I have given my answer," Bush said. "We did the right thing, and the world is better off for it."
Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.

"There are four not hypothetical questions like the president's, real questions that matter to Americans and I hope you'll get the answers to those questions, because the American people deserve them," he told reporters.

Kerry, who is on day 11 of a two-week coast-to-coast campaign trip, used the majestic backdrop of the Grand Canyon to criticize Bush for neglecting America's national parks system and pledged to restore $600 million he said the president had cut from the budget.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5915798&pageNumber=1

 

Well he is a military guy himself.
I personally don't love this guy - he's too far in to the middle for my taste. I'm really voting against Bush more than voting for Kerry.
Now Kucinich - that guy would have been the shit! I would have voted for him proudly - just like I did for Paul Wellstone in MN.

 

what's wrong with being in the middle,politically?

I would rather have someone who not completely partisan on all issues.

In other words...I dont want a president that's too conservative and I dont want a president that's too liberal.

I want a president who actually agrees with his own opinions on individual issues rather then someone who settles for the opinions stated by his party or "label".

I am a moderate..I agree with some liberal things and I agree with some conservative things. I'm not going to bend my true feelings to adhere to a liberal/conservative platform and agenda.

I would prefer a president who felt the same way. Which is why I really liked John McCain. He's not really a republican(pro-choice,pro-gay,supports seperation of church and state...ect) and he's not really a liberal either(will go to war if need be..though he is against Iraqi war)

He stands for what Republicans used to be...back in the day before old-money conservative corruption of the party. Alot of people forget that it was the Republicans who wanted to give women and blacks the right to vote, and they were opposed to going into WW1. Ironic? you bet.

I wish he would have considered running on an independent ticket this year.

 

Come on, man.
you're from Cleveland. You HAVE to like Kucinich!

 

Nothing is wrong with it.

It's not really about that, though.

Yeah, but in the end they're ultimately all the same if you look at the big picture. I know you won't agree, but that's how I feel. There seems to not be a whole lot of difference between mainstream liberals and mainstream conservatives these days anyway (except maybe on certain social issues).

Good luck!

Well, same here. I don't adhere to the liberal/conservative label. I simply consider myself to be Independent with libertarian views. Libertarianism is really neither inherantly liberal or conservative. Libertarianism is libertarianism.

I just think it's rather odd that people are going so wild over someone that has virtually the same foreign policy as the incumbent, especially when you look at the situation over in Iraq right now. Continuing on the same path is not going to get us anywhere.

McCain isn't bad. He is more respectable than most of 'em. I wouldn't vote for him, though, if he was running.

 

I do like Kucinich. I was on his local campaign and I am old family friends with one of his head guys. My parents got to dine with Kucinich at this guy's wedding and I got to meet him. He's a great guy.

he's really not that liberal. He's definitely independent..not a partisan.

I would vote for Kucinich if it wasnt such an important year to oust Bush. If he runs against Kerry in 2008...I will gladly vote for him. The media screwed Dennis like they screwed Dean this year and McCain in 2000. The media chose Kerry as the democratic representitive by demonizing Dean and any other of the candidates.

 

I'm not going wild over Kerry. I didnt choose Kerry, the media chose Kerry for me. But I will vote for Kerry during this important election year.

But Kerry better no get too comfortable because in 4 years...he's out with the garbage.

The liberals,democrats,and libertarians will let one slide for the sake of trimming the Bushes...take one for the team...but in 2008?

It's on!

 

ummm didn't you just describe Nader? Lol I'm just teasin' you otter. But Nader has rejected all labels.

Like the Rat said there isn't anything "wrong" with being in the middle, my views just don't fall in the middle, so I don't want a candidate whose views do is all. I think Kerry is wishy washy and fake. Just my personal opinion. Why do we have to wait til 2008? Why can't it "be on" now!!! More and more of our soldiers, quite possibly your friends and family are going to have to die, just because voters here can't use the few brain cells they have left. It is so sad. Don't let the media decide this one for you dear... vote with your heart.

I was leaning toward Kerry just to get Bush out too, like many others here who are trying to convince me, but honestly I cannot do it. I refuse to vote for that man, it is my opinion that you might as well be voting for Bush, because nothing will change.

 

i listened to kerry saying that we will have more allies with us rebuilding iraq, and i must confess it made my eyebrows twitch uncontrollably. what does russia, france and germany say about that? are their people willing to have their citizens and soldiers targetted but jihadists wanting all of us out of there?

 

Kerry is just as full of shit as Bush. It should be OBVIOUS that Kerry wouldn't even be the candidate in the first place if he weren't willing to follow the status quo, which at the moment is controlling the oil resources in Iraq by oppressing that country with violence. I wouldn't vote for Kerry if he were handing out $100 bills on my local street corner.

 

Heheh...

Right on.

 

That pisses me off, Whatever happened to canidates who disagree with eachother? It seems ever since the 2000 election, all the canidates are the same, it's a one party system, and it doesn't matter who we vote for because our vote doesn't count for shit, its Bush's Daddy's friends on the supreme court who really choose the president. Kerry is a fucking pussy democrat, either too scared to stand up against Bush's Foreign Policies, or he's actually dumb enough to believe them. I don't get it, EVERYBODY else in the world fucking hates Bush and his administration, but for some reason The american people can't understand what a fucking douch bag this guy is. Maybe it's because what the power elite feed them on the daily news, sorry if i sound hostile but this pisses me off, his decision to say that he would authorize Bush to go to Iraq is just like saying that The democrats can't make up their mind, and that no democrat can actually lead a country, they need to follow and be a republican's bitch.

Peace and Love,
Dan