Okay, sanity check:

Current Events » in reply to Kerry: Would have voted for Iraq resolution without WMDs.

Okay, sanity check:

Tom Brosz — 8/10/2004 12:42:09 AM (archived)

This is how I read that article:

Kerry would have gone to war against Iraq, WMD or no WMD, but he would have done it "better."

How else can you interpret the sentence, "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."

Is there another interpretation of using the authority to go to war "effectively?"

I'm open for other views.

The whole thread (10 posts)

Kerry: Would have voted for Iraq resolution without WMDs. - Tom Brosz - 8/10/2004 12:38:18 AM
- Interesting. The response to this in the media and the liberal blogosphere seems to be dead silence. - Tom Brosz - 8/10/2004 7:07:03 PM
- Okay, sanity check: - Tom Brosz - 8/10/2004 12:42:09 AM
  - Do you think the way it was done is the only, or best, way? - Bowser - 8/10/2004 3:32:16 AM
    - The Best Way - Tom Brosz - 8/10/2004 3:43:07 AM
      - Your fundamentalist black-and-white thinking precludes your understanding. - Bowser - 8/10/2004 3:54:20 AM
        
        A lot of adjectives and adverbs floating around. Still waiting. (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 8/10/2004 4:06:30 AM
        
        See what I mean. I did describe it, and you just can't understand. - Bowser - 8/10/2004 4:20:27 AM
        
        "[A] muted response, a targeted response" barely passes for a back-of-an-envelope jotting, much less a description. (n/t) - McFly - 8/10/2004 2:03:40 PM
        
        "Muted. Targeted." This is a description? - Tom Brosz - 8/10/2004 4:40:25 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Current Events

The whole thread (10 posts)