Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
there has never been, nor will there be, a vote taken on whether or not Bush misled congress. With which vote am I supposed to be squaring anything?
the fact is: I fully explained the house vote to you - where you called me a bald faced liar...and once again, you just weasel away. pathetic.
You don't get to claim the looming election was such an overriding factor in JUST the Senate. If in fact the "fear" was a loss of congressional seat it would have been more true in the House not the Senate, since EVERY house seat was up for reelection and only 33 Senate seats were up.
Further you do not get to keep claiming that Bush lied to Congress and cherry picked the intel BUT somehow those wily Democrats in the house knew better but the Senators did not.
In fact only 14 Democrats were up for reelection in 2002 Seante and one of them was forced to retire.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/blcandidates.htm
So remind us how only those 14 Senators voted for the war.
Like I said, many democratic congressmen were in safe seats... many of THEM were in safe seats in districts where their constituency was against the war.... many democrats in the house voted for the war in order to hold their seats just as senators voted for the war to hold theirs (and to continue their presidential aspirations). How many of the senators who voted AGAINST the war were up for election in 2002? How many of them had solid republican opponents? How many of them were from deep blue states?
The analysis of the variables in this situation is closer to a calculus problem and you want to deal with it using addition and subtraction.
give it up.
In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states had enough information and personal insight and wisdom to make the correct decision for our national and the world community.
13 of the 14 voted for war. One of the 14 was forced to retire by the way so had no reason to be forced to vote for the war ( he had announced his "retirement" BEFORE the vote)
Further since at the time the Democrats maintained a slim control of the Senate they easily could have simply avoided the voted. And since there at my count 28 Democrats that VOTED FOR war that means 15 of them had no fear what so ever of being hurt by elections of ANY kind.
Sources are also clear that your claim of cherry picked intel and lies by our intel service had nothing what so ever to do with the vote. Most of the Congressional voters failed to even READ the intel provided.
Here lets provide some insight for your ignorant claims about cherry picked and untrue intel.
from....
http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm
Hardly a site that would be favorable to the Republicans or Bush.
you site is honoring those who voted no.
And it clearly states they had the INFORMATION to make an INFORMED decision. No claims they ferreted out the illegal lies the CIA provided or the illegal action the Executive preformed to prevent the Congress from independent fact gathering.
All necassary for your " Bush lied" claim.
I would have made the same decision at that time regardless of whether or not I believed George Bush had lied or not. Their voting the way they did does not prove that George Bush did NOT make statements designed to convey a false impression about the certainty of Saddam's WMD stockpiles. I say, quite simply, that when Team Bush conveyed the false impression that there was absolute certainty about the existence and location of Saddam's stockpiles, that those statements were, in fact, lies simply because they conveyed that false impression. That is one of the definitions of the word "lie".
And I have never suggested that Team Bush conveyed those false impressions to prevent Congress from independent fact gathering. Never. I have always only suggested that those false impressions were conveyed for the purpose of gaining support from the American people... and they clearly served their purpose.
They pulled and pushed the American People into a war we didn't need. They used whatever means needed. To include hints of a fucking mushroom cloud and the actual places we would find the WMDs.
It's called deception if you can't deal with the word lie. Tell that to the 4000 dead Americans who believed this bullshit.
12/16/98 Bill Clinton..
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I realize the exact words, "mushroom cloud" wasn't used, so the threat expressed by Bush might not penetrate your skull...
Bullshit....those "same impressions" were the same exact beliefs being put out by Dims, world leaders, and the UN for the previous 10 years and suddenly when Bush repeats those beliefs, as if by magic, they become lies and false impressions....
Whats amazing is that these facts have been proven to you, probably 100 times and you still spew the bullshit.....
Its time to wipe to wipe your lips, clean your chin, and get a new schtick....
You're in a rut....
What is your point? Lobbing a few bombs, rightfully or wrongfully, does not constitute a war especially when your opponent practically does not fight back?
I guess that would be your view of Dec. 7, 1941 too....whats a few bombs!
Guess that depends on who is doing the 'lobbing".....
Come back when you get beyond your adolescence .... I can deal with adult ignorance but not with childish nonsense....
if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.
if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.
Pearl Harbor was limited, tactical air strikes...
on a handful of installations (ships)
Only alittle over 2000 killed (less than the 9\11 WTC)....
if you cannot see the difference between limited tactical airstrikes on a handful of installations and a major ground war that costs hundreds of billions and 32K dead and wounded, you are the ignorant child, not him.
Get a clue...
When one country "lobs" a few bombs on another country THAT is an ACT OF WAR...period...the number of casualties is irrelevant.....the chosen response of that other country is irrelevant...Yugoslavia's response to US bombing was zero, but that little ditty is still referred to as a war.....
