Would the cowards be more cowardly?

[Topsez]

The things I was talking about were known at the time. And what President Bush said about propping up dictators didn't apply to Iraq - we weren't propping them up. Actually, we were keeping Hussein down.

You do understand that President Bush held no real threat to go into Iraq without approval from Congress. So most of the members of Congress voted to make that threat real, so Hussein could be intimidated. I don't think a majority would have voted for an immediate war.

Congress clearly knew they did not ammend the authorization to require the President to return to congress prior to restart of hostilities. The minority had resolve to block judicial nominations so there is no excuse for them not asking for an amendment requiring the Prez to return to congress prior to invasion, this would in no way weaken the prez's ability to intimidate Saddam. They could have had the vote of confidence (which was to show they would fund and support war that was in ceasefire condition for over a decade) and on that vote had an ammendment requiring the Prez to return to congress to present reasoning as to why diplomacy broke down requiring militry action. Any person who is honest with themselves would admit that when congress voted for the words on the document lying on the table they knew exactly what they were voting for. I don't want to go through the timeline but congress knew exactly what Prez Bush's resolve was as did Saddam. The only action on Saddam's part to prevent war was to send out the scientists to a third and neutral country with their families to be interviewed by the UN. He refussed!

The congress knew exactly that they were approving hostilities when they voted... what counts in the House and Senate is only the words written on the paper lying on the table. Senator Kerry argued both sides of the issue in front of the senate mostly in doubt of the action but much in clear support of hostilities... other senators did the same but none took the initiative to offer an amendment requiring the congress bless the restart of hostilities when the Prez determined negoiations broke down. It was a damned important vote, they knew people would die if Saddam didn't fold... they placed no restrictions on the prez... If they can block a judicial nomination on reservations they sure as hell can block a vote on war without an amendment requiring return prior to action. Don't make excuses for the liars that said, if I had known the prez would have done that then... these congressional guys are lawyers and gamblers and they deserve to be cheerleaders if they voted yes, not excused.

 

[tryreading]

Congress clearly knew they did not ammend the authorization to require the President to return to congress prior to restart of hostilities. The minority had resolve to block judicial nominations so there is no excuse for them not asking for an amendment requiring the Prez to return to congress prior to invasion, this would in no way weaken the prez's ability to intimidate Saddam. They could have had the vote of confidence (which was to show they would fund and support war that was in ceasefire condition for over a decade) and on that vote had an ammendment requiring the Prez to return to congress to present reasoning as to why diplomacy broke down requiring militry action. Any person who is honest with themselves would admit that when congress voted for the words on the document lying on the table they knew exactly what they were voting for. I don't want to go through the timeline but congress knew exactly what Prez Bush's resolve was as did Saddam. The only action on Saddam's part to prevent war was to send out the scientists to a third and neutral country with their families to be interviewed by the UN. He refussed!

The congress knew exactly that they were approving hostilities when they voted... what counts in the House and Senate is only the words written on the paper lying on the table. Senator Kerry argued both sides of the issue in front of the senate mostly in doubt of the action but much in clear support of hostilities... other senators did the same but none took the initiative to offer an amendment requiring the congress bless the restart of hostilities when the Prez determined negoiations broke down. It was a damned important vote, they knew people would die if Saddam didn't fold... they placed no restrictions on the prez... If they can block a judicial nomination on reservations they sure as hell can block a vote on war without an amendment requiring return prior to action. Don't make excuses for the liars that said, if I had known the prez would have done that then... these congressional guys are lawyers and gamblers and they deserve to be cheerleaders if they voted yes, not excused.

Do you think all of the members of Congress who voted yes would have done the same if they knew there was to be an immediate war?

 

[Topsez]

Do you think all of the members of Congress who voted yes would have done the same if they knew there was to be an immediate war?

You're serious aren't you? You and who else didn't see there was an iminate war waiting for the vote?

Look at the timeline leading up to the restart of the hostilities if you must but I think 99% of the American population knew when the congress voted that if Saddam didn't drop to his knees we were going to war.

To be fair, the vote in the Senate was submitted clean not allowing amendments to be submitted. As mentioned earlier the Senate is the one place where the minority or any member for that matter may just about stop the show. Any member could have fillabustered prior to closing debate for the right for an amendment to address concerns or adding restrictions prior to actual introduction of troops. The Democratic Party made a cacus deal so the Repubs would not label them weak on defence that they would not block the vote but they could reserve to chang their mind if the conflict turned to sh!t... I saw it and still can't believe the American public forgave the Senators that voted for the war and then changed their minds. A few chants of Bush lied and people died and wallah ...Don't blame me soldier if you don't have legs... bush lied. Bush don't have a frigging checkbook to pay for war.

 

[tryreading]

You're serious aren't you? You and who else didn't see there was an iminate war waiting for the vote?

Look at the timeline leading up to the restart of the hostilities if you must but I think 99% of the American population knew when the congress voted that if Saddam didn't drop to his knees we were going to war.

To be fair, the vote in the Senate was submitted clean not allowing amendments to be submitted. As mentioned earlier the Senate is the one place where the minority or any member for that matter may just about stop the show. Any member could have fillabustered prior to closing debate for the right for an amendment to address concerns or adding restrictions prior to actual introduction of troops. The Democratic Party made a cacus deal so the Repubs would not label them weak on defence that they would not block the vote but they could reserve to chang their mind if the conflict turned to sh!t... I saw it and still can't believe the American public forgave the Senators that voted for the war and then changed their minds. A few chants of Bush lied and people died and wallah ...Don't blame me soldier if you don't have legs... bush lied. Bush don't have a frigging checkbook to pay for war.

Right. There was a good chance the vote would have been negative. As far as the Congress goes, I disagree with anybody who voted for the war, whatever their party affiliation. They were wrong. We went in in 1991, played it smart, devastated Iraq's military, and got out without having to take ownership of that country. We learned that we could conduct a war and win without actually occupying the real estate of our opponent. Lesson learned, no reason to go backwards and do it again the wrong way.

 

[DeeJayH]

Right. There was a good chance the vote would have been negative. As far as the Congress goes, I disagree with anybody who voted for the war, whatever their party affiliation. They were wrong. We went in in 1991, played it smart, devastated Iraq's military, and got out without having to take ownership of that country. We learned that we could conduct a war and win without actually occupying the real estate of our opponent. Lesson learned, no reason to go backwards and do it again the wrong way.

and just how were we to decimate the military that shed their uniforms and mingled with the general population this time?

 

[tryreading]

and just how were we to decimate the military that shed their uniforms and mingled with the general population this time?

This doesn't apply to the argument if we don't go into the cities, which is what I'm saying.

So it wouldn't matter about the soldiers. Why would they hide? There's nothing to hide from.

 

[Topsez]

Right. There was a good chance the vote would have been negative.

Now you are just being silly... both sides know how a vote will come out before the vote is cast within a margin.

As far as the Congress goes, I disagree with anybody who voted for the war, whatever their party affiliation. They were wrong.

The vote was correct, Saddam failded to live up to his ceasefire and the UN was looking like morons... It was simply a matter of time before one of our planes was shot down over his goat smelling country. And then there were the casualties balanced against the ceasefire. Had one of these been your dad, brother or anyone you love would you support Saddam thumbing his nose at the grave?

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths
• Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
• Navy 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
• Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
• Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
• Women killed, 15
U.S. wounded in action: 467.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2000/n08082000_20008088.html

Why do you feel the majority of the congress was wrong? I have earlier clearly explained that Saddam projected himself as either an insane person or a threat and either choice considering the US had decided he would never run free in the Clinton administration was justification for him to use the enemy of his enemy to strike the US.

What is wrong is politicians that vote for war and then say to fallen soldiers it's not my fault you have no legs or to the parents of fallen soldiers saying it's not my fault your son/daughter is dead. Once the majority vote is cast the yes voters should be cheerleaders for victory. There simply isn't an excuse that will sell to a man with no legs or to parents with a dead child... a majority sent them to war. The president has no funds to go to war.

We went in in 1991, played it smart, devastated Iraq's military, and got out without having to take ownership of that country. We learned that we could conduct a war and win without actually occupying the real estate of our opponent. Lesson learned, no reason to go backwards and do it again the wrong way.

The war was put on pause, unfinished waiting for a ceasefire to be lived up to to prevent continued hostilities. Since it was so easy in 91 we should have stayed there until Saddam lived up to his ceasefire agreement... Are you just anti war or is there some other justification as to why we should not have dealt with the unresolved issue with Iraq?

 

[jamesrage]

There is talk that the Democratic led congress may introduce a vote of confidence on President Bush’s plan for troop reinforcement for the Iraq conflict. Should this happen and a bipartisan majority support failure in Iraq by voting for the resolution what would President Nancy Pelosi’s administration do to solve the conflict in Iraq when President Bush and Vice President Cheney resigned?

Logically Bush and Cheney would resign considering the nation supports defeat so how would Nancy and company deal with the mess? What is the Democratic plan for peace in the Mid East?

Please explain how a Nancy Pelosi administration would handle Iraq and Iran.

Since I didn't bother to read every single post on this thread I do not know if anyone else has pointed this out but the option "Bring the troops home and build a wall around America" is somewhat inaccurate considering the fact they do not give two shits about our sovereignty and border security.

 

[Topsez]

Since I didn't bother to read every single post on this thread I do not know if anyone else has pointed this out but the option "Bring the troops home and build a wall around America" is somewhat inaccurate considering the fact they do not give two shits about our sovereignty and border security.

Well, yes it has been pointed out, and my point wasn't that the left desires to build a wall but to use isolationism as a foreign policy and to spend money only in Homeland Defense.

There is no logical reason why the Democratic Party will not support the Iraq conflict they voted for other than politics. They were too stupid to vote on the issue of war or they are only concerned about political power at whatever costs to military on the battlefield where they sent them to fight, neither qualifies them for public office.

 

[jamesrage]

Well, yes it has been pointed out, and my point wasn't that the left desires to build a wall but to use isolationism as a foreign policy and to spend money only in Homeland Defense.

They do not care about those things,most likely they will want to hand out more of our money to foreign nations and to open our borders up even more and perhaps let anyone in the country with no questions asked.

There is no logical reason why the Democratic Party will not support the Iraq conflict they voted for other than politics. They were too stupid to vote on the issue of war or they are only concerned about political power at whatever costs to military on the battlefield where they sent them to fight, neither qualifies them for public office.

The are some reasons why they oppose the war in Iraq.

1.Partition politics.If it was a liberal democrat instead of a liberal republican they and the media wouldn't say **** about Iraq and instead of hearing how many troops died today or how many innocent people were bombed in a market would be hearing how many rat terrorist our troop/coalition forces and iraq forces killed today.Heck they would even call the terrorist "terrorist" instead of some term that elevates their position like "militant".

2.They are stupid.Darwinian oddities.If they were animals in the forest they would be extinct right now because they would have appeased the predators until every last one of their own was gone or instead of immediately running when they see a predator in the distance they would wait until the predator took a chunk out of them before deciding to run to safety..

3.they are trying to cater to the anti-war rats who think war doesn't solve a thing.They actually think there is enough of these morons out there to make a decent size group of voters to cater too. However being the loudest does not make one in the majority if that was true then more people in America would be gay,most people in America would support illegal immigration,most people would be like Fred Phelps or any other small group of people that yelled the loudest.

 

[tryreading]

Now you are just being silly... both sides know how a vote will come out before the vote is cast within a margin.?

What I said was if they knew there was to be an immediate war after the vote some would have voted no.

The vote was correct, Saddam failded to live up to his ceasefire and the UN was looking like morons... It was simply a matter of time before one of our planes was shot down over his goat smelling country. And then there were the casualties balanced against the ceasefire. Had one of these been your dad, brother or anyone you love would you support Saddam thumbing his nose at the grave??

Was it you that said below we attacked Saddam mainly because of his arrogance? Somebody said that below. If we did that, we are fools. Chavez is arrogant, remember his UN speech? We're not attacking him. Il in Korea is arrogant. Want to attack him? Achminadinjihad is arrogant as hell. We may attack him at some point. Want to attack all the countries with arrogant leaders? I hope not.

Why do you feel the majority of the congress was wrong? I have earlier clearly explained that Saddam projected himself as either an insane person or a threat and either choice considering the US had decided he would never run free in the Clinton administration was justification for him to use the enemy of his enemy to strike the US.?

Congress was wrong for voting for a war with a country we had already beaten and had under our thumb. We had fought that country the smart way in 1991 and rendered it impotent. Then we went back in 2003 and chose to go into the nationbuilding business. Not as smart.

What is wrong is politicians that vote for war and then say to fallen soldiers it's not my fault you have no legs or to the parents of fallen soldiers saying it's not my fault your son/daughter is dead. Once the majority vote is cast the yes voters should be cheerleaders for victory. There simply isn't an excuse that will sell to a man with no legs or to parents with a dead child... a majority sent them to war. The president has no funds to go to war. ?

The politicians were wrong to vote for it, the President was wrong to push it, and any hawks who became doves were wrong too. Also, the war wasn't run properly. Lots of wrongs, in my opinion, none of them making any rights.

The war was put on pause, unfinished waiting for a ceasefire to be lived up to to prevent continued hostilities. Since it was so easy in 91 we should have stayed there until Saddam lived up to his ceasefire agreement... Are you just anti war or is there some other justification as to why we should not have dealt with the unresolved issue with Iraq?

I was completely pro war in Afghanistan, and I still am. The government that was in power at the time was an ally of our enemy who attacked us on 9/11, and was sheltering them in its country. That was not an elective war. It was absolutely necessary that we decimate Al Quida, or raze Afghanistan trying. And it was critical that we show the Arabic world that we would never allow any act against us to go unpunished tenfold.

Also, I'm 100% pro war against terrorism in general. I think Iraq distracts us from that.

And I want our borders secured. That will not be done. The Republican Congress didn't do anything about it, the President didn't care enough to act either. Will the new Democratic Congress do anything? I doubt it.

As far as the unresolved issue thing, let the impotent deal with the impotent. In other words, allow the useless UN to deal with the powerless Saddam. They wrote resolutions, he blustered helplessly with our foot on his neck. It was tiresome, but our people weren't dying. Its easy to say 'This isn't working, send in the troops.' But then, what if things go wrong? What if the war is conducted badly? What if it turns out to be a mistake? In a necessary war, these questions don't mean much. In an elective war, they define it.

 

[DeeJayH]

What I said was if they knew there was to be an immediate war after the vote some would have voted no.

sooooooooooooo
you think some congressmen voted for war, just not yet? :roll:
when was the last time they voted for war and the war did not happen
i would be interested to see if it has ever happened

 

[dragonslayer]

some how I think that bringing the troops home and not building a wall around America would be better choice.

then we can start to repair the damage, done to our nation by Bush.
We use to be well respected nation, we use to be a leader nation. Now we are fast becoming a very well armed outlaw, and unpredictable nation.
911 was horrible, and the next attack will be horrible. We need to try to prevent the next attack, talk and negoiate with others. It is not appeasement, it is smart and even intelligent. Not talking could well lead to an Atomic bomb in some American city with hundreds of thousands killed.
If that is what right wings want for America, then call talking, to potential enemies appeasement.

I bet your answer will be No talk, No talk, go ahead set off an atomic bomb in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, or Seattle, etc etc. We still won't appease you,,, so set off another atomic bomb in another city. I dare ya. I dare ya.:2wave:

 

[dragonslayer]

sooooooooooooo
you think some congressmen voted for war, just not yet? :roll:
when was the last time they voted for war and the war did not happen
i would be interested to see if it has ever happened

I am really sorry your Daddy never hugged ya, and that you are compensating for short comings, but Therapy is Available.

I am sorry but your post does not even make any sense.

 

[Topsez]

some how I think that bringing the troops home and not building a wall around America would be better choice.

Because you feel guilty. You feel guilty that the war was founded on the wrong reasons. You feel guilty that America was founded by people who held slaves, killed Indians and conquered Mexico and you want to give it back!

then we can start to repair the damage, done to our nation by Bush.

It's people like you that are undeserving of a president like Bush... You hate America!

We use to be well respected nation, we use to be a leader nation. Now we are fast becoming a very well armed outlaw, and unpredictable nation.

Who used to respect us? And, why did they respect us? Is China building a large military, yes and why? Is Russia trying to assert its power? How about Iran, North Korea and Syria are they the ones who used to respect us?

911 was horrible, and the next attack will be horrible. We need to try to prevent the next attack, talk and negoiate with others. It is not appeasement, it is smart and even intelligent. Not talking could well lead to an Atomic bomb in some American city with hundreds of thousands killed.
If that is what right wings want for America, then call talking, to potential enemies appeasement.

You apparently have a death wish because you have no right to exist in your own mind the land should be given back to the Indians and Mexicans... Your rights are based on an aggressive male who stole the land so you desire to give it back... in a shortest form you need theorpy or a ticket to a land that used to respect America.

I bet your answer will be No talk, No talk, go ahead set off an atomic bomb in New York, Cleveland, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, or Seattle, etc etc. We still won't appease you,,, so set off another atomic bomb in another city. I dare ya. I dare ya.:2wave:

Don't let one American service member die for a person who thinks like you! America hater!

 

[Topsez]

Because you feel guilty. You feel guilty that the war was founded on the wrong reasons. You feel guilty that America was founded by people who held slaves, killed Indians and conquered Mexico and you want to give it back!

It's people like you that are undeserving of a president like Bush... You hate America!
Who used to respect us? And, why did they respect us? Is China building a large military, yes and why? Is Russia trying to assert its power? How about Iran, North Korea and Syria are they the ones who used to respect us?
You apparently have a death wish because you have no right to exist in your own mind the land should be given back to the Indians and Mexicans... Your rights are based on an aggressive male who stole the land so you desire to give it back... in a shortest form you need theorpy or a ticket to a land that used to respect America.

Don't let one American service member die for a person who thinks like you! America hater!

The only thing I could add to that is he sounds a lot like Paula... Liquid Generation: Paula Abdul Talks Crazy On Iraq

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What about the Bush Admin's proven track record in Iraq encourages confidence?

Pre-war the SECDEF was repeatedly telling us we'd be in Iraq for "days, weeks or months."
Boy, was he wrong.

A Presidential Defense Policy advisor said Iraq would be a "cakewalk."
Boy, was he wrong.

The Veep was telling us that the connection between Atta and Iraqi intelligence was "pretty well confirmed."
Boy, was he wrong.

Almost four years ago the PotUSA was telling us that major combat operations are over.
Boy, was he wrong.
​

So, it's not at all clear that a vote of confidence in the Admin is a vote for victory at all so much as a vote on willingness to trust folks who've shown themselves to be less than acceptably competent.
Further, it's not established that a vote of no-confidence is a vote for failure.

Perhaps you're presenting a false dichotomy. Apparently, YMMV.

 

[Topsez]

What I said was if they knew there was to be an immediate war after the vote some would have voted no.

You are way to ready to offer an excuse for those who voted. There was absolutely no doubt war would happen if Saddam didn’t fold. There is no excuse for a vote for hostilities without definition of the vote after Vietnam. I just watched Blackhawk Down on the History Channel and see little difference if the congress were asked. You either vote to send the military to chance death or you vote against it.

Was it you that said below we attacked Saddam mainly because of his arrogance? Somebody said that below. If we did that, we are fools. Chavez is arrogant, remember his UN speech? We're not attacking him. Il in Korea is arrogant. Want to attack him? Achminadinjihad is arrogant as hell. We may attack him at some point. Want to attack all the countries with arrogant leaders? I hope not.

I think what I said was that Saddam was belligerent while in a ceasefire condition and had the motive and ability to strike America through her enemies.

Congress was wrong for voting for a war with a country we had already beaten and had under our thumb. We had fought that country the smart way in 1991 and rendered it impotent. Then we went back in 2003 and chose to go into the nationbuilding business. Not as smart.

But they were not impotent, Saddam could have given terrorists wmd’s to strike America… he was our declared enemy. I don’t think anyone in congress thought he had an intercontinental nuke that he would aim at American cities… but they did think that maybe he would give nukes, dirty nukes or other wmd’s to terrorists to strike America. Senator Kerry, in his speech was concerned about the UAV’s giving thought that he worried about Saddam’s UAV’s flying over Boston spraying chem./bio… that seems totally logical to me.

The politicians were wrong to vote for it, the President was wrong to push it, and any hawks who became doves were wrong too. Also, the war wasn't run properly. Lots of wrongs, in my opinion, none of them making any rights.

The vote was correct because Saddam was a threat… The prez followed the guidance of his commanders on the ground giving them the benefit of the doubt… terrorists stirred up turmoil between sects by blowing up a mosque. Yes, lots of wrongs but nothing that can’t be fixed with the support of the congress and the American people.

I was completely pro war in Afghanistan, and I still am. The government that was in power at the time was an ally of our enemy who attacked us on 9/11, and was sheltering them in its country. That was not an elective war. It was absolutely necessary that we decimate Al Quida, or raze Afghanistan trying. And it was critical that we show the Arabic world that we would never allow any act against us to go unpunished tenfold.

I saw Iraq equal to Afghanistan as a threat and see Iran equal to both now. Thank God Bush is pressuring Iran now and it seems to be having an affect.

And I want our borders secured. That will not be done. The Republican Congress didn't do anything about it, the President didn't care enough to act either. Will the new Democratic Congress do anything? I doubt it.

The only hope is for a Republican hero to filibuster the oncoming flood. Perhaps the upcoming election will show the interest in ending illegal Mexican’s in our country… there is one candidate running solely on that issue that may sway congress if given time.

As far as the unresolved issue thing, let the impotent deal with the impotent. In other words, allow the useless UN to deal with the powerless Saddam. They wrote resolutions, he blustered helplessly with our foot on his neck. It was tiresome, but our people weren't dying. Its easy to say 'This isn't working, send in the troops.' But then, what if things go wrong? What if the war is conducted badly? What if it turns out to be a mistake? In a necessary war, these questions don't mean much. In an elective war, they define it.

Leave nothing to the UN or America will be attacked … Iran has to fold or be attacked just as Iraq had to be dealt with… no one but America has America’s interests at heart. They need to fold or bomb their oil fields keeping them too poor to buy weapons from Russia.

What about the Bush Admin's proven track record in Iraq encourages confidence?

His unwavering resolve to leave in victory! As mentioned above there have been problems in the management of hostilities. Who would have thought the Democratic Party would have divorced the war they supported? We have just over 3,000 deaths in this action… in that same period those same soldiers in peacetime would have had at least 1,500 deaths in normal highway accidents… the other 1,500 were killed by the Democratic Party supporting the enemy… begging the enemy to just kill some more US soldiers and the people will not support the President. The deaths of half of our soldiers can be attributed to the “failure quest of the left”!

Pre-war the SECDEF was repeatedly telling us we'd be in Iraq for "days, weeks or months."
Boy, was he wrong.

A Presidential Defense Policy advisor said Iraq would be a "cakewalk."
Boy, was he wrong.

The Veep was telling us that the connection between Atta and Iraqi intelligence was "pretty well confirmed."
Boy, was he wrong.

Almost four years ago the PotUSA was telling us that major combat operations are over.
Boy, was he wrong.
​

So, it's not at all clear that a vote of confidence in the Admin is a vote for victory at all so much as a vote on willingness to trust folks who've shown themselves to be less than acceptably competent.

Then why do you suppose the American people voted for the Democrats… they voted for a war that couldn’t have happened without their votes… The American people have to be extremely stupid to buy that “Bush tricked me into voting for war” and still support those who were tricked… The so called tricked are saying I wasn’t smart enough to be President Bush’s equal, he out smarted me… Knowing Bush was going to go to war I not only voted for war but I didn’t even try to place any restrictions on him… no amendments to require him to come back to congress prior to the restart of hostilities because “everyone knows” if I did that the right would say I’m weak on national defense… imagine that a Democrat weak on national defense?

Further, it's not established that a vote of no-confidence is a vote for failure.

Perhaps you're presenting a false dichotomy. Apparently, YMMV.

Nancy P. held a press conference a couple days ago and said “our plan” doesn’t support an increase in or escalation in troop strength… what do you suppose “our plan” means? Could that be out in six months? Timetable to failure? Just what do you think “our plan” has to do with a better plan than that of the Prez?

 

[tryreading]

You are way to ready to offer an excuse for those who voted. There was absolutely no doubt war would happen if Saddam didn’t fold. There is no excuse for a vote for hostilities without definition of the vote after Vietnam. I just watched Blackhawk Down on the History Channel and see little difference if the congress were asked. You either vote to send the military to chance death or you vote against it.

I think what I said was that Saddam was belligerent while in a ceasefire condition and had the motive and ability to strike America through her enemies.

But they were not impotent, Saddam could have given terrorists wmd’s to strike America… he was our declared enemy. I don’t think anyone in congress thought he had an intercontinental nuke that he would aim at American cities… but they did think that maybe he would give nukes, dirty nukes or other wmd’s to terrorists to strike America. Senator Kerry, in his speech was concerned about the UAV’s giving thought that he worried about Saddam’s UAV’s flying over Boston spraying chem./bio… that seems totally logical to me.

The vote was correct because Saddam was a threat… The prez followed the guidance of his commanders on the ground giving them the benefit of the doubt… terrorists stirred up turmoil between sects by blowing up a mosque. Yes, lots of wrongs but nothing that can’t be fixed with the support of the congress and the American people.

I saw Iraq equal to Afghanistan as a threat and see Iran equal to both now. Thank God Bush is pressuring Iran now and it seems to be having an affect.

The only hope is for a Republican hero to filibuster the oncoming flood. Perhaps the upcoming election will show the interest in ending illegal Mexican’s in our country… there is one candidate running solely on that issue that may sway congress if given time.

Leave nothing to the UN or America will be attacked … Iran has to fold or be attacked just as Iraq had to be dealt with… no one but America has America’s interests at heart. They need to fold or bomb their oil fields keeping them too poor to buy weapons from Russia.

His unwavering resolve to leave in victory! As mentioned above there have been problems in the management of hostilities. Who would have thought the Democratic Party would have divorced the war they supported? We have just over 3,000 deaths in this action… in that same period those same soldiers in peacetime would have had at least 1,500 deaths in normal highway accidents… the other 1,500 were killed by the Democratic Party supporting the enemy… begging the enemy to just kill some more US soldiers and the people will not support the President. The deaths of half of our soldiers can be attributed to the “failure quest of the left”!

Then why do you suppose the American people voted for the Democrats… they voted for a war that couldn’t have happened without their votes… The American people have to be extremely stupid to buy that “Bush tricked me into voting for war” and still support those who were tricked… The so called tricked are saying I wasn’t smart enough to be President Bush’s equal, he out smarted me… Knowing Bush was going to go to war I not only voted for war but I didn’t even try to place any restrictions on him… no amendments to require him to come back to congress prior to the restart of hostilities because “everyone knows” if I did that the right would say I’m weak on national defense… imagine that a Democrat weak on national defense?
Nancy P. held a press conference a couple days ago and said “our plan” doesn’t support an increase in or escalation in troop strength… what do you suppose “our plan” means? Could that be out in six months? Timetable to failure? Just what do you think “our plan” has to do with a better plan than that of the Prez?

You seem to appreciate politicians more if they stand by their decisions, no matter what, than respect the ones who can learn from their mistakes and say they were wrong. Stubborness is not such a good trait. It was wrong to entrust the current President with the authority to attack Iraq, and its not just Democrats who have changed their minds to that end, but also many Republicans. It is always better to not make mistakes, but when you do admit it and try to repair the damage. You say Saddam could have given WMDs to our enemies, but he never showed an interest in doing that.

How was Saddam Hussein going to get UAVs close enough to our country to launch and fly them over us?

A Republican hero stopping the traffic? The Republicans had complete control since 1991. They chose to do nothing. They aren't any better than the Democrats on illegals.

You want to bomb Iran's oil fields? I know you are big on alternative energy, but damn! Want to take the fast track, I guess. That would do a number on the price of crude, so we'd better have an alternative.

 

[tryreading]

sooooooooooooo
you think some congressmen voted for war, just not yet? :roll:
when was the last time they voted for war and the war did not happen
i would be interested to see if it has ever happened

Oh, you're right. The vote wouldn't have been yea if the prewar information had been accurate is the way I started the argument, but then I went too far.

The Democrats didn't want to appear soft, like somebody else said earlier. So they voted for war too, with the Republicans. Both parties were wrong in my opinion. There were people who saw through the prewar info, I think it was 156 Congressmen and 23 Senators. The others didn't, but should have. I'm just a layman, and not so smart, but I didn't believe it. Politicians lie, history repeats. We didn't learn from the Gulf of Tonkin about manufactured intelligence, probably won't learn from Iraq either.

 

[DeeJayH]

Oh, you're right. The vote wouldn't have been yea if the prewar information had been accurate is the way I started the argument, but then I went too far.

The Democrats didn't want to appear soft, like somebody else said earlier. So they voted for war too, with the Republicans. Both parties were wrong in my opinion. There were people who saw through the prewar info, I think it was 156 Congressmen and 23 Senators. The others didn't, but should have. I'm just a layman, and not so smart, but I didn't believe it. Politicians lie, history repeats. We didn't learn from the Gulf of Tonkin about manufactured intelligence, probably won't learn from Iraq either.

as far as change goes
days change
the scenery changes
people can, but rarely do change
even more so for politicians

a politicians first priority is to assure he/she is re-elected
everything else is a chess game to get re-elected

 

[DeeJayH]

I am really sorry your Daddy never hugged ya, and that you are compensating for short comings, but Therapy is Available.

am i the only one who thought that car commercial was funny
everybody driving around in their fancy cars yelling into a megaphone the quotes in my sig

 

[Topsez]

You seem to appreciate politicians more if they stand by their decisions, no matter what, than respect the ones who can learn from their mistakes and say they were wrong. Stubborness is not such a good trait. It was wrong to entrust the current President with the authority to attack Iraq, and its not just Democrats who have changed their minds to that end, but also many Republicans. It is always better to not make mistakes, but when you do admit it and try to repair the damage.

There was no mistake, there was inaccurate Intel but no mistake... Well yes, if the nation sends soldiers off to war then they should stand behind them no matter what, be stubborn to the extreme, demand victory. You can't take back dead or injured soldiers so you have to make it worth the sacrifice turn it into something worthy of the sacrifice.

You say Saddam could have given WMDs to our enemies, but he never showed an interest in doing that.

He was insane or he would have dissarmed within the 90 days following the Gulf War.

How was Saddam Hussein going to get UAVs close enough to our country to launch and fly them over us?

I recall a news report that stated UAV's could be lunched from cargo container ships as they approached our mainland... these UAV's are small enough to be placed in a container and could easily be assembled on a container ship and launched from the top of the containers into the wind. Container ships have a very small crew and could easily be overpowered. Thus Kerry feared Boston being the victim of a Saddam wmds fueled UAV he provided to OBL.

A Republican hero stopping the traffic? The Republicans had complete control since 1991. They chose to do nothing. They aren't any better than the Democrats on illegals.

Republicans are the only reason the amnesty bill wasn't alread approved.

You want to bomb Iran's oil fields? I know you are big on alternative energy, but damn! Want to take the fast track, I guess. That would do a number on the price of crude, so we'd better have an alternative.

What would Iran's navy mining the gulf cost the price of oil? What if Iran said we will only allow oil to leave the gulf if the price is over $300 a barrel? We could bomb Iran's ports to prevent them loading oil for the world market breaking their backs financially without killing many civilians after notice that it will happen if they don't cooperate with the UN on their nuke program. Some $5.00 gas would be great to cause both parties to compromise on domestic drilling and development of Alternative Energy.

 

[tryreading]

as far as change goes
days change
the scenery changes
people can, but rarely do change
even more so for politicians

a politicians first priority is to assure he/she is re-elected
everything else is a chess game to get re-elected

And the country suffers. In the end though, its our fault that they get away with this.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

We have just over 3,000 deaths in this action… in that same period those same soldiers in peacetime would have had at least 1,500 deaths in normal highway accidents…

I call Stinky Bullshit on this made up statistic.
Back it up if you can

The deaths of half of our soldiers can be attributed to the “failure quest of the left”!

Sure it can be if you ignore the reality of the actual bits of shrapnel, bullets etc that are the real reason these folks died. If you're willing to make that leap, then why not attribute it to any old thing that melts you butter?
Not that such attributions will help you make informed decisions based in reality or anything, but you're right those deaths may be attributed to that, or invisible pink unicorns for that matter.

Then why do you suppose ...

I'm not sure how your question relates to the Admin's uninspiring record of wrongness in re Iraq. Nor is it clear what relevance an answer to your question would have.
Please explain.

Nancy P. held a press conference a couple days ago and said “our plan” doesn’t support an increase in or escalation in troop strength… what do you suppose “our plan” means? Could that be out in six months? Timetable to failure? Just what do you think “our plan” has to do with a better plan than that of the Prez?

So, you don't really know. So it is just a false dichotomy.