The Dems mostly voted FOR the Iraq War in 2002.
But when it got tough in 2004 and went sour in 2005-7 they all said they were really against it. It was BUSH'S WAR.
And some of their leading stars said they'd wished they voted against it and/or were hoodwinked by Bush.
BOTTOM-LINE: they wanted a do-over.
(Now, that we're winning again, they ignore it altogether!)
But there is a pattern here:
They wanted a DO-OVER in Florida in 2000.
They wanted a DO-OVER in Ohio in 2004.
Now, many of them want a do-over in Michigan and Florida.
I think the Dems are like this because they are fundamentally like CHILDREN - most postmodern leftists are.
When they lose they want to re-write the rules to suit them. And they claim they are entitled because as losers... they're victims.
Victimized by Bush or Diebold, or arcane party rules, blah-blah-blah.
You now what all this really is a symptom of? Democrat childishness.
Some say that the GOP is the daddy party and the Dems the mommy party.
I think that's no longer operative.
I think the GOP is the ADULT party and the Democrat Party is for adolescents, at best. (Many of them are teens who are still in diapers - figuratively speaking!)
There are no "do-overs" in real life. When things get tough, adults bear down and get tougher.
2008 will pit an adult - McCain - against one of two children: Hillary or Obama. Each of whom wants the federal government to play nanny.
If you think you can take care of yourself, mostly, and if you want the government run by people who believe most people can and should, then you must vote GOP and McCain.
Either that or vote Democrat and demand your pacifier. And a do-over whenever things get tough.
4 comments:
"The Dems mostly voted FOR the Iraq War in 2002."
Actually, if you read the AUMF, they voted for giving the president the power to decide when and if invasion/military action was warranted, which was of course a big mistake.
chenny u r a real HOOOOOOOOT!
the aumf was a declaration of war.
unscr #1441 gave saddam one final chance to comply with the 17 unscr's which functioned as the de facto armistice for the Gulf War in 1991.
Both blix and David Kay have TESTIFIED that Saddam was in violation of unscr #1441.
therefore, the armistice was nullified and the aumf actionable.
PERIOD.
any dem who voted for it knew that.
don't be a dupe.
don't fall for their slithering.
LINK FOR DAVID KAY:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
excerpt of Kay:
In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441.
Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities -- one last chance to come clean about what it had.
We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.
chenny: wake up or shut the fu*k up.
and google/word search iraq ,unscr 1441, at this blog.
"the aumf was a declaration of war."
Then why did we bother sending in inspectors?
Also, Kay didn't go into Iraq until after we invaded, so it's pretty tough to argue that the aumf was deemed actionable based on testimony that he hadn't given yet.
You have read the AUMF, right?
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.
[[Page 116 STAT. 1501]]
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
Now, if you read that as an explicit declaration of war, I'm sorry. Perhaps you should try it in CAPITAL LETTERS.
The congress gave Bush the sole power to determine that diplomatic efforts had failed and we had no choice but to invade. The mistake (and the reason why they would want a "do over") was that most of them didn't know that Bush had no interest in a diplomatic solution.
u r an ass and a troll chenny.
of course kay testifed AFTER the war, u fucking jerk.
my point was he PROVED the war was justified.
are you really so dense or just duped beyond any possibility of recovery!?!?!
AUMH = authorization to use FIORCE.
wtf do u think that means!?!?
another hollow warning!?!?
sheesh.
u r an ass.
scuse me: U R AN ASS.
the war was justified and legal.
the aumf authorized the potus to use force.
that is a declaration of war FAIP.
go away.
Post a Comment