Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jan 23, 2007.
Turn tail and run...
if these obstacles were so predicted, why didnt Democrats suggest ideas to avoid them when they came up?
Please do not intimate that you are taking Webb seriously? He's a poseur.
It is comforting to know though that the AP has such non biased writers such as Laurie Kellman to provide this type of balanced and accurate reporting.
"smiley face puking on itself"
I still don't see why Jim Webb, of all people, was chosen for this. He's a nOOb.
Maybe it's because he has "a son fighting in Iraq" but if President Bush dares to ask Webb about him, Webb gets his panties in a bunch.
His response was really nothing but another liberal bitchfest that Bush's plan is a miserable failure in Iraq, no matter at least he has one, and that their answer is socialized medicine and increased spending on "education".
Its because every experienced Democrat voted for the war.
Methinks they did make a suggestion. Don't invade Iraq.
Not quite true, they voted for the war.
That isnt exactly what they said in the vote. In fact, the president didn't even need a separate Iraq authorization vote because the post 911 authorization for the use of force against any nation that President determined supported terrorism more than granted him the authority to do so. But the Democrats insisted on having a second vote just so they could claim to have voted for it and supported it. So he gave them what they wanted.
So the difference isnt that they didnt want to go to war, its, to put it crudely, the fact that they dont have the balls to see any of their decisions through.
Actually, congress doesn't need to vote at all to give the President authorization to use force. The Constitution gives him that power. Congress just has the authority to declare war.
Separate names with a comma.