• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Tide is Turning, Mr. President

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
While Rumsfeld was callously comparing the deaths of our soldiers to the number of people killed in traffic accident, a mother went ballistic that her son should be considered by the Bush administration as a mere statistic. Her son shed his blood for America, and what thanks does he get? He gets to be nothing more than a statistic in the Bush propaganda machine.

President Bush had better start listening to the mothers, fathers, and even the soldiers, who now realize that this war is immoral. This is not about numbers, Mr. President. Its about doing the right thing for a change. If you really supported the troops, you would not have EVER sent them into harms way in such a flippant manner. Shame on you. And shame on the Democrats too for not having the cajonas to prevent it, but to put the pettiness of keeping their jobs ahead of their country. I am sorry, but I must say it. While the Republican party promoted this shameful act, the Democratic leaders showed all America the gutless worms they really are. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but too many of our soldiers are unnecessarily standing at their final roll call, and it is the fault of our own petty leaders, both Republican and Democratic, who sent them there.

Open letter to President Bush from a Gold Star Mom, along with the article, is here.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I think people are beginning to realize that they can't trust the president. Especially with Sheehan, the Karl Rove thing, and the WMD-Are-Not-There-So-Lets-Justify-IT-Some-Other-Way thing.
 

taxpayer

Active member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
271
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Forget it! You cannot shame Bush!
The only way to get to Bush is by hitting him in his pocketbook.
Bush was bred for and is still only for "$$$$$$$$$$$."

BTW: Why are you blaming the Dems in congress?
Like us and the rest of the world, they were LIED to by Bush about the reasons we had to rush into Iraq.
Like Bush saying that Iraq had WMD and that Iraq was an imminent threat to us.
Bush is a good scam artest.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
yes, not to mention the fact that congress voted to go into Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction period. There wasn't a list of things, as some conservative radio hosts say.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
yes, not to mention the fact that congress voted to go into Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction period. There wasn't a list of things, as some conservative radio hosts say.

Actually, Congress never voted. They passed a resolution granting the president the power to decide, with the hope that the president was going to get the UN's approval before going into Iraq.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes, the tide may be turning thanks to H.RES.375

Here is the text of the Resolution:

109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. RES. 375

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution all information in the possession of the President and the Secretary of State relating to communication
with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Ms. LEE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on _________________

RESOLUTION

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution all information in the possession of the President and the Secretary of State relating to communication
with officials of the United Kingdom between January 1, 2002, and October 16, 2002, relating to the
policy of the United States with respect to Iraq.

Resolved, That not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution—

(1) the President is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession of the President relating to communications with officials of the United Kingdom from January 1, 2002, to October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq, including any discussions or communications between the President or other Administration officials and officials of the United Kingdom that occurred before the meeting on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street in London, England, between Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom intelligence officer Richard Dearlove, and other national security officials of the Blair Administration; and

(2) the Secretary of State is directed to transmit to the House of Representatives all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, memos, and records of internal discussions, in the possession of the Secretary relating to communications with officials of the United Kingdom from January 1, 2002, to October 16, 2002, relating to the policy of the United States with respect to Iraq, including any discussions or communications between the Secretary of State or other officials of the Department of State and officials of the United Kingdom that occurred before the meeting on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street in London, England, between Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom intelligence officer Richard Dearlove, and other national security officials of the Blair Administration.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, Congress never voted. They passed a resolution granting the president the power to decide, with the hope that the president was going to get the UN's approval before going into Iraq.
Please provide a link for this or some evidentiary support? Thanks
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ban.the.electoral.college said:

Actually, Congress never voted. They passed a resolution granting the president the power to decide, with the hope that the president was going to get the UN's approval before going into Iraq.
Declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued.

Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the end of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States. Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war" brings with it many logistical complications involving the established laws of war and other complex political issues.

In democratic nations, a Declaration of War customarily has to be passed by the legislature. Today, the legislature will often simply pass an "authorization for the use of force" instead. In both cases such resolutions serve to empower the national Commander in Chief to use his war powers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_War

Now let's see if "Congesss never voted" and only passed a resolution...

Military engagements authorized by Congress
Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

And down at the bottom of this chart...what do we see?

War or conflict --------Iraq War
Enemy or enemies------Iraq
Initial authorization-----H.J.Res. 114
Senate vote-----------77-23
House vote------------296-133
Conclusion-------------ongoing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Well how about that?!?!? A Military Engagement authorized by Congess....

What are those little words next to "Senate" & "House"??? Looks like "vote" to me...what were those words used by ban.the.electoral.college again?

ban.the.electoral.college said:

Actually, Congress never voted. They passed a resolution granting the president the power to decide, with the hope that the president was going to get the UN's approval before going into Iraq.
So how do they pass a "resolution"?...Tea leaves?...Do they go outside and play H.O.R.S.E.?

My guess is they...(trumpets blaring)...VOTE!:2wave:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
FinnMacCool said:
yes, not to mention the fact that congress voted to go into Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction period. There wasn't a list of things, as some conservative radio hosts say.
Swing and a miss!!...I put the numbers in myself...

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was a resolution passed in October 2002 by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002

The act cited several factors to justify a war:

1)Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire

2)Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"

3)Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"

4)Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"

5)Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War

6)Iraq's connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda

7)Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq

Ok...so now we stop the bullcrap...

#1)I think we can all agree on..if it weren't true, the UN would've had the sanctions off years ago...

#2)Anyone notice the part "programs to develop such weapons"...I hear alot of yelling, "He didn't have WMD!!!"...Is anyone yelling, "He didn't have the programs to DEVELOP THEM!!!"????...I think not...

#3)"brutal repression of its civilian population" - Ya know how everyone is screaming how we've CHANGED our goal?...Then this would not have existed...sorry...your claims have been debunked..."Liberation" was already included...nice try, though...carry on....

#4)I think we can all agree that that has been physically demonstrated...

#5)I think we can all agree that that has been physically demonstrated...
I love the part where people scream, "He's trying to get revenge for Saddam trying to kill his daddy!"...But if were trying to kill a different past President, it would be OK?!?!?!?

#6)"including Al-Queda"...Important piece here, kids...Even if there was NOT a connection with Al-Quada, it stands that there are OTHER terrorist groups.(Abu Nidal, Ansar al-Islam, Mujahedin-e-Khalq, etc...)

#7)see number 2...

So enough with this "just WMD and nothing else" whines...It was wrong then, its wrong now, and its gonna be wrong tomorrow...

This isn't a case where if you say something enough times, it may come true...
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
cnredd said:
Declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued.

Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the end of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States. Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war" brings with it many logistical complications involving the established laws of war and other complex political issues.

In democratic nations, a Declaration of War customarily has to be passed by the legislature. Today, the legislature will often simply pass an "authorization for the use of force" instead. In both cases such resolutions serve to empower the national Commander in Chief to use his war powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_War

Now let's see if "Congesss never voted" and only passed a resolution...

Military engagements authorized by Congress
Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

And down at the bottom of this chart...what do we see?

War or conflict --------Iraq War
Enemy or enemies------Iraq
Initial authorization-----H.J.Res. 114
Senate vote-----------77-23
House vote------------296-133
Conclusion-------------ongoing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Well how about that?!?!? A Military Engagement authorized by Congess....

What are those little words next to "Senate" & "House"??? Looks like "vote" to me...what were those words used by ban.the.electoral.college again?



So how do they pass a "resolution"?...Tea leaves?...Do they go outside and play H.O.R.S.E.?

My guess is they...(trumpets blaring)...VOTE!:2wave:
Yes, they vote to give up their Constitutional responsibility, and allow the executive branch to make the decision for them. That way, if things go bad, they can always pin it on the president. Bottom line, while Bush's war may be wrong on many fronts, Congress is gutless, and only looking at future election cycles instead of doing their duty.
 

ban.the.electoral.college

Progressive, Green
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
Location
Maryland, U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
cnredd said:
Declarations of war have been acceptable means and diplomatic measures since the Renaissance, when the first formal declarations of war were issued.

Declarations of war have been phased out as a diplomatic tool since the end of the Second World War, particularly in the case of the United States. Among other reasons, this is because the legal concept of a "state of war" brings with it many logistical complications involving the established laws of war and other complex political issues.

In democratic nations, a Declaration of War customarily has to be passed by the legislature. Today, the legislature will often simply pass an "authorization for the use of force" instead. In both cases such resolutions serve to empower the national Commander in Chief to use his war powers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_War

Now let's see if "Congesss never voted" and only passed a resolution...

Military engagements authorized by Congress
Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

And down at the bottom of this chart...what do we see?

War or conflict --------Iraq War
Enemy or enemies------Iraq
Initial authorization-----H.J.Res. 114
Senate vote-----------77-23
House vote------------296-133
Conclusion-------------ongoing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

Well how about that?!?!? A Military Engagement authorized by Congess....

What are those little words next to "Senate" & "House"??? Looks like "vote" to me...what were those words used by ban.the.electoral.college again?



So how do they pass a "resolution"?...Tea leaves?...Do they go outside and play H.O.R.S.E.?

My guess is they...(trumpets blaring)...VOTE!:2wave:
FYI, wikipedia is not a valid source for debate. Anyone can edit a wiki.:2wave:
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
ban.the.electoral.college said:
FYI, wikipedia is not a valid source for debate. Anyone can edit a wiki
ban.the.electoral.college said:
Check this information out, for starters:

http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/1657

"...Bush actually violated the war resolution in the way he went to war in Iraq."
Let me get this straight...You say that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source...and then you use a WEBLOG?!?!?!

My God! Look at your comment that "Congress never voted", then look at Wikipedia's Number of Congressional votes...No slant...no bias...fact...

You want reliable? How about from the Senate's own website? Will you accept THAT as proof you lied??????

"Congress never voted" my white, Irish butt....



U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 77 NAYs 23 (author's note...Same as Wikipedia's, howz about that!)
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Bad source again?...Sorry if I didn't get it from "HowardDeansButtSmellsLemonyFresh!.com"....they're the only place you want to believe in...

Now it's your turn to start another 534 threads and dilute this forum some more with your personal complaints...

What will you start a thread on now?...Don't like GWB's hair color?....His tie is crooked?...He lied when he said he tackled someone at the 47 yard line in 1968, but it was really the 46 and a half?
 
Last edited:

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,985
Reaction score
6,088
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The arguement isn't IF it was voted on - it's WHAT was voted on.

On one hand, congress granted President the power to engage in a war against Sadam - if he needed to.

On the other, some folks believe that the President didn't justify those new powers thus it was not "what they voted on" - after the fact.

This is what Kerry's famous arguement is about - "I voted for it, before I voted against it".

This created a big falsely created loophole from folks agains the war.

In short, the "I didn't vote for that" arguement doens't hold water because it's it their signatures on the document.
 
Last edited:

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
vauge said:
The arguement isn't IF it was voted on - it's WHAT was voted on.

On one hand, congress granted President the power to engage in a war against Sadam - if he needed to.

On the other, some folks believe that the President didn't justify those new powers thus it was not "what they voted on" - after the fact.

This is what Kerry's famous arguement is about - "I voted for it, before I voted against it".

This created a big falsely created loophole from folks agains the war.

In short, the "I didn't vote for that" arguement doens't hold water because it's it their signatures on the document.
I think your argument just about sums it up. While I am very much against Bush for the Iraq fiasco, I must hold Congress to an even lower opinion, since it was they who played politics with the Constitution. All Bush did was ask for the Constitution to be violated. Congress did not have to agree to give up their responsibility, but they did. The reason? To avoid any flak hitting them if things should go wrong. Guess what? Things went wrong, and now these same gutless people are pinning it all on Bush? At least with Bush, I knew which side of the fence he was on all along, even if I think it is the wrong side.
 
Top Bottom