- Joined
- Mar 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,536
- Reaction score
- 429
- Location
- Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Source: ABC News: Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter IraqSenate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq
By JAKE TAPPER
Jan. 5, 2007 — As the new Democrat-controlled House and Senate take power this month, the Iraq war will be the front-and-center issue.
And as President Bush prepares to announce his new strategy for Iraq, which may include a surge in troops, the attitude of the Senate towards the war — and whether its members regret their overwhelming 77-23 October 2002 vote to authorize the president to use force in Iraq — is critically important.
ABC News decided to survey the views of the senators who served in 2002, most of whom remain in the Senate. The survey indicates that those senators say that if they knew then what they know now, President Bush would never have been given the authority to use force in Iraq.
It's impossible, of course, to recreate all of the factors, pressures and information that went into this momentous vote. But given that President Bush may next week request that an additional 20,000 or more troops be sent to Iraq — to fight a war 7 in 10 Americans think he isn't handling well — we thought it might prove a significant indicator of the support for the war to see where these same senators from 2002 now stand. Regret, after all, may not be a valued commodity in politics, but it is not one that public officials express easily, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. That said, a surprising number of senators who voted for the war were willing to say that they, and the Senate, made a mistake.
By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 — at most — would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated. And at least 57 senators would vote against going to war, a number that combines those who already voted against the war resolution with those who told ABC News they would vote against going to war, or said that the pre-war intelligence has been proven so wrong the measure would lose or it would never even come to a vote.
So in other words ABC is lying about their Senate poll? Is that what you'd have us believe?I'm surprised. I didn't think in this day and age with the internet and all, that anyone listened to the MSM Alphabet news propagandists. I guess it's true what they say........there's a sucker born every day.
Isn't hindsight amazing? If I knew then, what I know now, I would have bought more shares of Google.
So in other words ABC is lying about their Senate poll? Is that what you'd have us believe?
Wouldn't that be a tad too easy to disprove? We're not talking about an opinion poll of 1000 Americans...the poll only includes the 100 US Senators...
So instead of posting BS like you just did please elaborate on how this is untrue and propaganda?
Don't you think people who bought Google shares early made a genius financial decision?
So you're one of those of Americans who live in the 51st state? The State of Denial?So tell me, as you claimed, where is your proof that the entire nation has turned against 'Bush's war'?
The MSM lies to you people all the time about everything. You are just to doltish to realize it. You are MSM alphabet fodder.
I remember when 70% of the nation was for the war and still people like you claimed Americans were stupid for it.........so now I can say the same thing....70% of Americans are stupid to believe the liberal media and liberals politicians who has politicized a war......So you're one of those of Americans who live in the 51st state? The State of Denial?
70% of America is against the Iraq War. 70% want us to find a way home sooner rather than later. Most of the nation does not live in the same state that you're inhabiting.
Your ridiculous comments about the media is pure speculation and you've not provided any proof of anything other than your singular opinion. I cited the opinion of the 100 US Senators...Wonder whose speaking creditability and who is speaking from the State of Denial?
This story speaks for itself. The Bush Administration is near war support "bankruptcy" and the good news is that as almost the entire nation turns against Bush's war we have a chance to end our involvement and bring our troops home so the needless deaths and maimings stop.
***Love it when you Monday morning quarterbacks step up to the plate after the fact. Just goes to show you how much credence one can put into the vote of a liberal. Why does John Kerry's flip-flopping campaign of 2004 come to mind here?
That article is bogus in the fact that the liberally controlled congress has no intention of touching America's most important issue of the war. The libs, i.e. Pelosi et al are stuffing a 100 hour agenda down our throats that deals with minimum pay hikes and an attempt to stop the tax cuts. And the new congress has already reneaged on its promise to work in a bi-partisan manner by shutting out the Republicans on their 100 hour agenda. How bi-partisan was it for Nancy Pelosi to send a letter to Bush stating that she and her cohorts would not back any plan to increase troop deployment in Iraq? This happened 5 days before Bush was to announce his plans on Iraq. Talk about spin! You need to focus on what looks to be a complete ineptness on the part of this new power hungry-issue depleted congress.
I dunno, aps.:shrug:Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.
If I marry a man I love and he then cheats on me--is it wrong for me to regret marrying him and subsequently divorce him? Is that Monday moring quarterbacking?
Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.
***Its not okay to change minds after the fact. The point being that these elected people represent our legislative power, and if they can't get their act together in the first place--they need to either resign their position or hand it over to a more capable Republican replacement.
If I marry a man I love and he then cheats on me--is it wrong for me to regret marrying him and subsequently divorce him? Is that Monday moring quarterbacking?
***This if where people need to do their homework before commiting to a marriage or a government policy. The first sign of liberalism from a potential date for me--means that she'll be better off joining her feminist lesbian sisters for a night of singing coom-bai-ya.
It is very easy to second guess the administration on the war after the fact.........
It's also easy to judge the administration based upon the intelligence it touted prior to the vote on the war.
May the hearings in Congress flesh out the deceitfulness of this administration. Oh, yeah, wasn't Bush supposed to restore integrity in the White House? LOL
How is a poll of the 100 US Senators bogus? Please explain exactly what you claim is untrue about the fact that 57 Senators now say that they would not have voted for the war had the truth that was KNOWN by Bush in 2002 been revealed then instead of now.That article is bogus in the fact that the liberally controlled congress has no intention of touching America's most important issue of the war.
No it is not when the Administration held back all of the intelligence and only shared the portion that backed their claims. That is simply known as MANIPULATING THE TRUTH and that is a whole lot different than "second guessing."It is very easy to second guess the administration on the war after the fact.........
aps take off your rose colored glasses, there is enough corruption to go around in both parties....
LOL Yes, I agree that the corruption goes both ways. However, I must point out that whatever Murtha, Hastings, and Jefferson did has not caused the death of 3000 soldiers.
You know what they say aps, Freedom is not free..............
By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 — at most — would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated.
Isn't hindsight amazing? If I knew then, what I know now, I would have bought more shares of Google.
:roll:
No one at this point...Iraq is in the early stages of what will most likely be a long civil war. No one is free in Iraq today. They've traded a dictatorship for a civil war...that's lose lose.Tell me who is benefitting from this alleged freedom...
Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?