What will the democrats do? (1 Viewer)

[Topsez]

If the Dem’s win a majority in the House and the Senate and Prez Bush makes a statement that it is time for the Congress to decide victory in Iraq or leave what will the Dem’s do?

I think Prez Bush is a man of his conviction as far as the statement he made to the effect that … as long as I’m president we will seek victory in Iraq.

If Prez Bush lays out a statement asking the congress to affirm they will support victory in Iraq or he will recall all troops immediately what will the left do? Will they support the mission or agree with immediate withdraw?

I think Prez Bush will not allow soldiers to remain on the battlefield if victory isn’t supported by Congress… so given the choice will the Dem’s agree to support victory or agree to immediate withdraw with them to take credit for the withdraw?

 

[afr0byte]

Another pointless poll...

 

[Topsez]

Another pointless poll...

I don't think so ... I don't think Prez Bush will allow soldiers and Marines to stay on the battlefield to die and be injured if victory isn't the clear goal... If Prez Bush says no timetables and no set dates to leave ... simply support victory or I'll recall the troops upon your decision ... what will the Dem's decide...

I honestly don't think Prez Bush will allow one soldier to die or be wounded if it is not the will of America we leave in victory... do you have a different opinion?

 

[Navy Pride]

They will try and cut off funding for our troops in Iraq.......

 

[afr0byte]

I don't think so ... I don't think Prez Bush will allow soldiers and Marines to stay on the battlefield to die and be injured if victory isn't the clear goal... If Prez Bush says no timetables and no set dates to leave ... simply support victory or I'll recall the troops upon your decision ... what will the Dem's decide...

I honestly don't think Prez Bush will allow one soldier to die or be wounded if it is not the will of America we leave in victory... do you have a different opinion?

I thought Bush said he doesn't govern using polls? (the will of the people)

 

[jfuh]

I don't think so ... I don't think Prez Bush will allow soldiers and Marines to stay on the battlefield to die and be injured if victory isn't the clear goal.

Yet, that is what he has done thus far.

I honestly don't think Prez Bush will allow one soldier to die or be wounded if it is not the will of America we leave in victory... do you have a different opinion?

You're right, he won't, he'll allow more than 3000 soldiers to die even against the will of the ppl.

 

[BWG]

As was predicted long ago, the cons are positioning themselves to deflect the blame over to someone else. Guess who that might be?

And if the Dems let them do it, shame on them.

Like all the wingnuts calling for Kerry to apologize and then when he does he still gets ragged on. Why apologize?

Cons will never take responsibility for their actions.

 

[Topsez]

I thought Bush said he doesn't govern using polls? (the will of the people)

Still, the choice is clear, Prez Bush will not allow the mission to be hijacked in a method that leaves another thousand soldiers dead if the Democrats decide the funding will only go forward with gradual pull down of troops...

I think Prez Bush will address the nation and clerly state what is at stake and then tell congress to decide to cut and run or to stay until victory... there simply isn't a middle choice... The prez has already chosen the best possibility for success so why should he choose the least distasteful for defeat at the cost of additional casualties? Victory or defeat is going to be the choice regardless who holds the majority.

If the choice is defeat and cut and run then we will leave... Iran and Syria will take Lebanon and Iran will try to take Iraq... perhaps 2,000,000 people will die in the bloodbath as we view the ME in the rearview mirror... Israel will attack Iran and Syria. Oil transport will come to a halt and Americans will stand in lines for hours waiting to fill up thier cars as the economy declines in a spiral... What's the plan Stan if the plan includes defeat and Prez Bush refuses to accept defeat?

 

[Goobieman]

Another pointless poll...

Hardly.

The dems keep whining about the war - about how we're losing, about how we need to leave, about how much it costs, etc - and if Bush does this, he'll be forcing them to decide to put up or shut up.

Its a good move.

 

[Goobieman]

I thought Bush said he doesn't govern using polls? (the will of the people)

Congress isn't a poll. If a Dem-controlled Congress has the balls to back up liberal Dem rhetoric (and I'll bet it doesnt, BTW), then there will be little choice but to bring the troopps home -- after all, Congress authorizes the spending, and w/o the funds to support them, the troops can't be kept there.

 

[Goobieman]

Cons will never take responsibility for their actions.

You mean like all the liberals that voted to go to war in Iraq?
All the liberals that lied to the US about the dangers of Saddam and his WMDs?

Oh wait -- that's different.

 

[BWG]

You mean like all the liberals that voted to go to war in Iraq?
All the liberals that lied to the US about the dangers of Saddam and his WMDs?

As I was saying.

Cons are so predictable, pass the buck. :lol:

 

[aps]

As I was saying.

Cons are so predictable, pass the buck. :lol:

It's why I hardly read Goobieman's posts. They're all the same--slam liberals--no substance.

 

[Gibberish]

They will support victory by finally ending the war in Iraq. That does not mean they will end all the insurgent activity, that is impossible. That also does not mean it will end quickly. Iraq is so messed up because of the way we invaded that it will take time to fix all the wrong that occurred.

 

[Topsez]

It's why I hardly read Goobieman's posts. They're all the same--slam liberals--no substance.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.
Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm

Bush Lied? Quotes from Democrats About the Threat of Iraq-Truth!

Ugh… ugh damned con’s! Please explain the absense of substance.

 

[Gibberish]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

It's obvious this resolution was built to confirm a War. The whole vote was based on a double negative which leads to only one outcome. Saddam could never prove he didn't have WMD, the same way he couldn't prove he wasn't the easter bunny. He could of opened all of Iraq up to UN inspectors and we would have still invaded saying they were hiding somewhere.

The creators wanted a war, which is why it was worded this way. The resolution seems like war would be a last resort but in reality it is the only resort no matter what the outcome.

 

[Goobieman]

As I was saying.
Cons are so predictable, pass the buck. :lol:

And as -I- was saying:
When it comes to responsibility, liberals give other liberals a pass.

 

[Goobieman]

It's why I hardly read Goobieman's posts. They're all the same--slam liberals--no substance.

Sorry that the substance wasnt clear enough.

Let me restate it in more simple terms:

Liberals are happy to hold conservatives resposnible for their actions, but give their own people a pass.

Don't agree?
How many of the liberals that supported the war in 2002 were replaced by other liberals in 2004?

 

[Goobieman]

Saddam could never prove he didn't have WMD, the same way he couldn't prove he wasn't the easter bunny.

Absolutely false.
He was known to have them. You can prove you got rid of something you were known to have had. He didnt.

He could of opened all of Iraq up to UN inspectors and we would have still invaded saying they were hiding somewhere.

He could have produced records and witnesses and videos all proving the destroyed what he was known to have had and what he claimed to have destroyed. He didn't.

And that's why, on 26 FEB 2003, Hans Blix said that "Iraq has nto made the fundamental decision to disarm".

The creators wanted a war, which is why it was worded this way.

Only for people that dont understand the issue.

 

[Topsez]

It's obvious this resolution was built to confirm a War. The whole vote was based on a double negative which leads to only one outcome. Saddam could never prove he didn't have WMD, the same way he couldn't prove he wasn't the easter bunny. He could of opened all of Iraq up to UN inspectors and we would have still invaded saying they were hiding somewhere.

The creators wanted a war, which is why it was worded this way. The resolution seems like war would be a last resort but in reality it is the only resort no matter what the outcome.

Oh really? If Saddam had ofered his personal guarantee that UN inspectors could travel throughout his nation in safety... if he said send in a thousand if you like and I'll give them VIP badges... let them break off locks... enter and inspect ... notify him within two hours of completion ... if he had sent the scientists along with their families to a neutral nation to be questioned by a disinterested third party... Or, in other words fully complied with his ceasefire agreement there is no way in hell the American people wouldn't have impeached Prez Bush within days... But he didn't do that now did he?

Please note on the CNN link that this was a "Vote of confidence" and not a vote for war... which leads me to think we were already at war with Iraq... so, the Prez did not invade Iraq but merely restarted hostilities due to Saddam failing to comply with his defacto ceasefire agreement with the US and the Ceasefire UN resolution.

 

[Goobieman]

How many of the liberals that supported the war in 2002 were replaced by other liberals in 2004?

John Kerry argued that Saddam and his WMDs were a threat and needed to be dealt with. He voted for the war.
How did the liberals hold him responsible?
They moninated him for President.

Hillary Clinton argued that Saddam and his WMDs were a threat and needed to be dealt with. She voted for the war.
How did the liberals hold her responsible?
They're going to elect her to the senate in 2006 and probably nominate her in 2008.

 

[Hatuey]

Oh really? If Saddam had ofered his personal guarantee that UN inspectors could travel throughout his nation in safety... if he said send in a thousand if you like and I'll give them VIP badges... let them break off locks... enter and inspect ... notify him within two hours of completion ... if he had sent the scientists along with their families to a neutral nation to be questioned by a disinterested third party... Or, in other words fully complied with his ceasefire agreement there is no way in hell the American people wouldn't have impeached Prez Bush within days... But he didn't do that now did he?

Please note on the CNN link that this was a "Vote of confidence" and not a vote for war... which leads me to think we were already at war with Iraq... so, the Prez did not invade Iraq but merely restarted hostilities due to Saddam failing to comply with his defacto ceasefire agreement with the US and the Ceasefire UN resolution.

North Korea has proven they have WMDs. Are they getting rid of them? You're retarded if you think so. Let's restart hostilities with them. But we wont you know why? Cause they're more then willing to send a few nukes over to South Korea. It's called hypocrisy. We couldnt prove he had them so we attacked. I would like to know where these massive stockpiles of WMDs have gone. Where is the yellowcake? You'd think with all the intelligence we had on Iraq we'd be able to tell where he hid them. I mean we did find the ****er in a whole in the middle of nowhere. But we cant find all this yellowcake he supposedly had?

 

[Saboteur]

I'd like to know what exactly 'victory' is to be defined as. Currently our troops are quelling an insurgentcy in Iraq and fighting terrorists. Other than that Iraq is already a 'victory', Saddam has been captured, his sons are dead, there have been successfull elections, we're training an army and police... the mission's accomplished. If it's not to be considered a victory then are we to assume that despite the elections and the training of Iraqi authorities that it's not acceptable if Iraq doesn't adopt a Jeffersonian Democracy and just elect someone who'll turn the country into a Theocratic Dicatorship like the rest of the middle east?

Also, for some reason the media keeps the war in Iraq and the war on terror separate when they're really one in the same right now. Except for the vengence killings and terrorist attacks the U.S. has done it's job in Iraq, not that the troops should be pulled out any time soon, I'm just wondering what we should call victory.

 

[Gibberish]

Absolutely false.
He was known to have them. You can prove you got rid of something you were known to have had. He didnt.

How can you prove you don't a collection of something to someone that is convinced you do? Yes you can show destroying a few things, but did you destroy all of them?

Don't get me wrong. I was all for going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was a great thing. I am just not proud of the decisions after we took Baghdad and the massive amounts of false intel that led to those decisions.

He could have produced records and witnesses and videos all proving the destroyed what he was known to have had and what he claimed to have destroyed. He didn't.

How would that prove he was completely disarmed? Do you really thinkg we would haev believed him by showing us a few papers that said he had no weapons and a video of some being destroyed?

 

[Goobieman]

How can you prove you don't a collection of something to someone that is convinced you do? Yes you can show destroying a few things, but did you destroy all of them?

Proving that you have destroyed a known quantity of material is completely, totally, and absolutely possible -- and when done, is irrefuteable.

You are known to have 100 eggs.
How do you prove to someone that you got rid of 100 eggs?
What do you say when you have proven that you destroyed those 100 eggs when someone says you haven't?