Just words?

[Teri B.]

If you really want to know what Obama has done, simply look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Senate_career

I know all that. I was citing that to people a year ago. Very few know as much as they think they do about Clinton though.

http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43

This is a pretty comprehensive site. For example people talk about Obama being Harvard Law Review, she was Yale Law Review. She applied to be an astronaut but was told women couldn't be astronauts. She's done a hell of a lot of impressive things in her life that no one gives her credit for.

Funny thing is, I was an Edwards supporter, I'm THAT far left, lol. But when he dropped out and started trying to figure out which of the other two I would support, I was stunned at the animus against her within the Democratic party and media, and I can't figure out why. I understand conservatives dislike her . . . intensely, but what the heck did she ever do to liberals? And the media coverage is so skewed. I figured I'd take her side cause someone on the internet needs to.

 

[mattskramer]

I know all that. I was citing that to people a year ago. Very few know as much as they think they do about Clinton though.

http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43

This is a pretty comprehensive site. For example people talk about Obama being Harvard Law Review, she was Yale Law Review. She applied to be an astronaut but was told women couldn't be astronauts. She's done a hell of a lot of impressive things in her life that no one gives her credit for.

Funny thing is, I was an Edwards supporter, I'm THAT far left, lol. But when he dropped out and started trying to figure out which of the other two I would support, I was stunned at the animus against her within the Democratic party and media, and I can't figure out why. I understand conservatives dislike her . . . intensely, but what the heck did she ever do to liberals? And the media coverage is so skewed. I figured I'd take her side cause someone on the internet needs to.

She was married to Bill. Go figure. Anyway, I consider myself a thoughtful moderate. Nice to meet ya. I haven't decided who I’m going to vote for but I doubt that it will be Huckabee. I want someone a little bit left of Bush but not too far left.

 

[Teri B.]

She was married to Bill. Go figure. Anyway, I consider myself a thoughtful moderate. Nice to meet ya. I haven't decided who I’m going to vote for but I doubt that it will be Huckabee. I want someone a little bit left of Bush but not too far left.

Nice to meet you too. I voted for Edwards, so it's all out of my hands anyway.

 

[jillian]

She was married to Bill. Go figure. Anyway, I consider myself a thoughtful moderate. Nice to meet ya. I haven't decided who I’m going to vote for but I doubt that it will be Huckabee. I want someone a little bit left of Bush but not too far left.

You think Huckabee is left?? Or am I misreading?

 

[mattskramer]

You think Huckabee is left?? Or am I misreading?

You misread or I failed to communicate well. Huck would be near the bottom of my list.

 

[jillian]

You misread or I failed to communicate well. Huck would be near the bottom of my list.

It was just the way the sentences went together. That's why I asked. Thank you for clarifying.

Huckabee's just plain scary.

 

[Teri B.]

It was just the way the sentences went together. That's why I asked. Thank you for clarifying.

Huckabee's just plain scary.

Ain't that the truth! Sounds like he wants a theocracy.

 

[jillian]

Ain't that the truth! Sounds like he wants a theocracy.

He wanted to be our national preacher...

Halelujah Sister!

 

[Meemer]

Speaking of words, words, words, CharlestonChad, you stated that Obama voted against the war. No, he did not. As an Ill. legislator, he opposed the war, as did I and as did millions of other thinking Americans.
So, if you want substance, Chad, you'll have to have your facts straight first.
I do agree that Obama's ideas are not fleshed out. Clinton does flesh out her ideas. Honestly I have no clear idea what McCain fleshes unless there is something to that lobbyist story.
But, if you all will be realistic for a moment or so, what grabs the people? One of two things gets people's attention amidst all the campaign rhetoric and it is words, words, words. One word is HOPE. The other is FEAR. How did Bush manage to win in '04 (putting the Ohio election corruption aside for the time)? He turned his unpopular, illegal war into FEAR of gays and the hype for a marriage amendment. And that's what people voted for. They came out in droves in many, many states to vote to add a prejudicial amendment to their state constitution. Are you not seeing the fear machine gaining momentum again? Just today Bush hyped for FISA. We're in danger if we cannot wiretap and easvedrop. There he goes again.
Adding: Obama offers the majority of the people what they want. What they want is the promise of an end to our frustrations with a government in which 70% have lost confidence. He can probably be elected on the basis of that promise. How he delivers does depend upon whom he selects to be in his government. I seriously doubt if he'll surround himself with people from the Clinton administration or from the good ol' boy/girl people of his home state as Bush did with Reaganites and Texans.

 

[Teri B.]

Speaking of words, words, words, CharlestonChad, you stated that Obama voted against the war. No, he did not. As an Ill. legislator, he opposed the war, as did I and as did millions of other thinking Americans.
So, if you want substance, Chad, you'll have to have your facts straight first.
I do agree that Obama's ideas are not fleshed out. Clinton does flesh out her ideas. Honestly I have no clear idea what McCain fleshes unless there is something to that lobbyist story.
But, if you all will be realistic for a moment or so, what grabs the people? One of two things gets people's attention amidst all the campaign rhetoric and it is words, words, words. One word is HOPE. The other is FEAR. How did Bush manage to win in '04 (putting the Ohio election corruption aside for the time)? He turned his unpopular, illegal war into FEAR of gays and the hype for a marriage amendment. And that's what people voted for. They came out in droves in many, many states to vote to add a prejudicial amendment to their state constitution. Are you not seeing the fear machine gaining momentum again? Just today Bush hyped for FISA. We're in danger if we cannot wiretap and easvedrop. There he goes again.
Adding: Obama offers the majority of the people what they want. What they want is the promise of an end to our frustrations with a government in which 70% have lost confidence. He can probably be elected on the basis of that promise. How he delivers does depend upon whom he selects to be in his government. I seriously doubt if he'll surround himself with people from the Clinton administration or from the good ol' boy/girl people of his home state as Bush did with Reaganites and Texans.

And Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kerry, Cleland, and a majority of Dems in the House and Senate, all sincere, thoughtful, responsible, intelligent legislators voted for the RESOLUTION, not the war. Obama, that's right. He didn't have any responsibility, just the privilege of saying I told ya so. Hmmmm . . .

Well, technically, Clinton could say I told ya so too, cause she warned Bush against using this resolution to unilaterally invade without U.N. support:

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

 

[Meemer]

Since we're off on the war, let's get something straight about all members of Congress who voted for the resolution. The key word bandied about at the time was patriotism, if you recall. All those whom you named wanted to be re-elected so they could continue the good fight as they saw it. Being unfairly labeled as unpatriotic was hardly an ideal to which many aspired. Most will recall how often the word patriotic was used to describe bills, actions, almost everything that eminated from DC for months and months after 9-11.
We all know what was in the resolution and what it did not contain. We all know how Bush abused that resolution.
I'd like to hear each of the people you named, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, et al (obvious that you omitted GOP names) admit their vote was for political expediency. I did not favor Edwards. One reason was his constant apology for his vote. Why did he vote for the resolution? My guess is because it was expedient for his career. He gambled; they all gambled; they lost.
Obama opposed the war. Today that is politically expedient for his campaign and he says he would have voted against the resolution. I wonder.

 

[Teri B.]

Well, Edwards too a lot of flack for admitting his vote was a mistake, but he took it. I thought it showed a lot of political courage. Everyone else who followed suit was just riding his coat tails.

I understood their not wanting to put our national security interests, strictly in the hands of the UN and wanting to give Bush that leverage. Despite his assurances, he abused that leverage.

I didn't list the GOP names, cause virtually all of them did vote for it. But here's the link if you want a list.

I just find it annoying that Clinton is being singled out and condemned for this vote when the majority of those in Congress also voted for it. Again, Obama didn't have that responsibility.

But there's always this:

Obama: Well, he's partially quoting me. This was an interview that I did with Meet the Press at the 2004 convention when Tim Russert, after having shown a clip where I explicitly opposed the war, then said, 'How is it that you seem to anticipate all these problems and your nominees, John Kerry and John Edwards, did not?' And out of an interest in supporting my nominees, I said, 'Well, look, I don't know exactly how I would have voted if I had been in the Senate. What I do know is that, from where I stood, the case was not made.' Now, Bill Clinton always leaves that second part out, which is convenient, but I think that anybody who has examined this issue recognizes that my position on Iraq has been consistent.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17957910

So, he said what he did then, for political purposes, or he's saying what he is now, for political purposes? My point is, he's a politician just like the rest of them.

 

[maineman]

Well, Edwards too a lot of flack for admitting his vote was a mistake, but he took it. I thought it showed a lot of political courage. Everyone else who followed suit was just riding his coat tails.

I understood their not wanting to put our national security interests, strictly in the hands of the UN and wanting to give Bush that leverage. Despite his assurances, he abused that leverage.

I didn't list the GOP names, cause virtually all of them did vote for it. But here's the link if you want a list.

I just find it annoying that Clinton is being singled out and condemned for this vote when the majority of those in Congress also voted for it. Again, Obama didn't have that responsibility.

But there's always this:



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17957910

So, he said what he did then, for political purposes, or he's saying what he is now, for political purposes? My point is, he's a politician just like the rest of them.

I will point out that a majority of democrats in congress DID vote AGAINST the war resolution. FWIW

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I will point out that a majority of democrats in congress DID vote AGAINST the war resolution. FWIW

And yet you keep claiming they were all worried about their reelection. That this alone explains why they fell for the supposed lies and "doctored" intelligence.

The reality is only 14 Democratic Senators were up for reelection in 2002 yet a majority of them voted FOR the resolution. And in the House EVERY member was up for reelection yet a majority of the Democrats voted AGAINST the resolution.

Come on get it straight, did Bush LIE to Congress? Were the Democrats hoodwinked by him and afraid of being voted out of office? Neither of those claims survives the REALITY of the vote or the documented fact that Congress receives independent intel from the President.

Then we have your incessant claim that Bush lied to Congress and got 16 Intelligence Agencies to doctor intel to Congress ( you know, lie) Both accusations are illegal. Neither the President nor those Intelligence Agencies can legally LIE to Congress. Yet you insist they can and did. You ignore the fact that every committee formed to investigate EXACTLY those claims has repeatedly STATED for the Record NO ONE lied to Congress. Including the Democrats on those committees. When pressed for even one shred of legal evidence you always resort to the claim " well gee , it is just my opinion" followed shortly by you once again claiming it is a proven fact that the President, his Executive Officers and 16 Intelligence Agencies all conspired to LIE to Congress.

 

[maineman]

And yet you keep claiming they were all worried about their reelection. That this alone explains why they fell for the supposed lies and "doctored" intelligence.

The reality is only 14 Democratic Senators were up for reelection in 2002 yet a majority of them voted FOR the resolution. And in the House EVERY member was up for reelection yet a majority of the Democrats voted AGAINST the resolution.

Come on get it straight, did Bush LIE to Congress? Were the Democrats hoodwinked by him and afraid of being voted out of office? Neither of those claims survives the REALITY of the vote or the documented fact that Congress receives independent intel from the President.

Then we have your incessant claim that Bush lied to Congress and got 16 Intelligence Agencies to doctor intel to Congress ( you know, lie) Both accusations are illegal. Neither the President nor those Intelligence Agencies can legally LIE to Congress. Yet you insist they can and did. You ignore the fact that every committee formed to investigate EXACTLY those claims has repeatedly STATED for the Record NO ONE lied to Congress. Including the Democrats on those committees. When pressed for even one shred of legal evidence you always resort to the claim " well gee , it is just my opinion" followed shortly by you once again claiming it is a proven fact that the President, his Executive Officers and 16 Intelligence Agencies all conspired to LIE to Congress.

I have never claimed that Bush lied to congress. I have claimed that he lied to the American people by making statements that served to convey a false impression... and that false impression was the impression of certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's...and the impression that there was some connection between Iraq and 9/11.

And a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war resolution. I am proud of all of them.

 

[Teri B.]

I will point out that a majority of democrats in congress DID vote AGAINST the war resolution. FWIW

22 democratic senators voted against - weren't there 48 at the time? Look at who they were, Boxer, Reed, Kennedy, Byrd, Durbin - all considered pretty to the far left.

And I haven't sat there and counted up the House numbers, but if you have, please share your math.

 

[jillian]

23 democratic senators voted against - weren't there 48 at the time?

And I haven't sat there and counted up the House numbers, but if you have, please share your math.

He said Congress... not the Senate. Congress is composed of two houses.

 

[Teri B.]

And yet you keep claiming they were all worried about their reelection. That this alone explains why they fell for the supposed lies and "doctored" intelligence.

The reality is only 14 Democratic Senators were up for reelection in 2002 yet a majority of them voted FOR the resolution. And in the House EVERY member was up for reelection yet a majority of the Democrats voted AGAINST the resolution.

Come on get it straight, did Bush LIE to Congress? Were the Democrats hoodwinked by him and afraid of being voted out of office? Neither of those claims survives the REALITY of the vote or the documented fact that Congress receives independent intel from the President.

Then we have your incessant claim that Bush lied to Congress and got 16 Intelligence Agencies to doctor intel to Congress ( you know, lie) Both accusations are illegal. Neither the President nor those Intelligence Agencies can legally LIE to Congress. Yet you insist they can and did. You ignore the fact that every committee formed to investigate EXACTLY those claims has repeatedly STATED for the Record NO ONE lied to Congress. Including the Democrats on those committees. When pressed for even one shred of legal evidence you always resort to the claim " well gee , it is just my opinion" followed shortly by you once again claiming it is a proven fact that the President, his Executive Officers and 16 Intelligence Agencies all conspired to LIE to Congress.

Lol, Chaffee was the only Republican Senator who voted against it, and we all know what happened to him.

 

[Teri B.]

He said Congress... not the Senate. Congress is composed of two houses.

Lol, ya think?

Yeah, he's right.

There were 81 dems who voted for it, and 126 who voted against.

So, let me rephrase, close to half of the Dems in the Congress voted for it. Can we please demonize all of them?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have never claimed that Bush lied to congress. I have claimed that he lied to the American people by making statements that served to convey a false impression... and that false impression was the impression of certainty regarding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's...and the impression that there was some connection between Iraq and 9/11.

And a majority of democrats in congress voted against the war resolution. I am proud of all of them.

So lets get it straight right now.... You have never claimed Bush lied to Congress, even though you claim his State of the Union Speech had lies in it. You never claimed Bush had the Intelligence Agencies withhold ( you know lie) information from Congress? Bush never lied to Congress to trick them into voting for a war they did not want? He never had any of his Executive Officers lie to Congress in the run up to the vote? He never had the Intelligence agencies lie to Congress by purposefully withholding critical information when they briefed or reported to Congress?

Further you have never claimed that the Democrats that voted for war were afraid they would not get reelected if they did not vote for war?