44 Senators Never Read Prewar Intel Report

[maineman]

I gave you my credentials in a personal message. I'm not going to post them in a public forum...

you said nothing about license plates!

 

[Alucard]

you said nothing about license plates!

Anyway how can you support the same people you condemn?

 

[maineman]

Anyway how can you support the same people you condemn?

because politics is always about more than one issue. And a democrat who votes with the republicans on the Iraq war is still infinitely better from my perspective than a republican who did or would have voted the same way.

 

[red states rule]

because politics is always about more than one issue. And a democrat who votes with the republicans on the Iraq war is still infinitely better from my perspective than a republican who did or would have voted the same way.

MM will always kiss the ass of any Dem and support them no matter how many people they drowned or how many crosses they have burned during their lives

 

[red states rule]

Well the votes were posted I didnt answer you but someone did... Should we all confirm the answer one by one?

The second question is addressed to yourself... But if you need me to answer it to yo for you I will!

The spin of MM continues, how is it that one can say information is a lie if one never read the information. Ergo, how does one say another is lying about said info without one reading said info?

 

[maineman]

The spin of MM continues, how is it that one can say information is a lie if one never read the information. Ergo, how does one say another is lying about said info without one reading said info?

I spin nothing.

1. I have been upset with any democrat - house or senate - that voted for the use of force resolution.

2. you have suggested that democratic senators were not giving due dilgence by failing to read the intelligence report before voting for the use of force.

3. I pointed out that those senators who did earned my ire, but that they were in the minority of the democratic congressional caucus.

4. you have also shown that you have absolutely no problem with republican senators voting to send our boys to war (and to die) without reading the intelligence report themselves.

5. That all pretty clearly makes you a disgusting partisan hack who would attack democrats while condoning republicans.

 

[red states rule]

I spin nothing.

1. I have been upset with any democrat - house or senate - that voted for the use of force resolution.

2. you have suggested that democratic senators were not giving due dilgence by failing to read the intelligence report before voting for the use of force.

3. I pointed out that those senators who did earned my ire, but that they were in the minority of the democratic congressional caucus.

4. you have also shown that you have absolutely no problem with republican senators voting to send our boys to war (and to die) without reading the intelligence report themselves.

5. That all pretty clearly makes you a disgusting partisan hack who would attack democrats while condoning republicans.

Anyone who posts facts and the truth that goes against MM's beloved Dems is a disgusting partisan hack

Anyone who sticks to the DNC talking pints and carries the water for the Dems is a true American patriot

 

[maineman]

Anyone who posts facts and the truth that goes against MM's beloved Dems is a disgusting partisan hack

Anyone who sticks to the DNC talking pints and carries the water for the Dems is a true American patriot

can you discuss any of those five points I made? Can you poke any holes in any of them?

 

[Edward]

How can you say the intel was hyped when you did not read it - like most of your beloved Dems?

I suggest you keep saying this because it proves to everyone how ignorant you are about the role of United States Senators and Congressman in our country. If a member of Congress cannot even have one person to assist them in analyzing data while Bush has literally dozens who pre-read, analyze, and summarize (WHAT DO YOU THINK THE PDB IS?) the information he receives then they can't be expected to take time away from their responsibilities to their constituents to read a report that Bush himself had someone brief him on. You cannot expect members of Congress to take the time to read an entire intel report anymore than you can expect them to read an entire bill because Bush doesn't do this and if you believe that Bush reads every bill, and every report that goes through the Oval Office you are ignorant. Also, the difference between the President and members of Congress is that they have to have a hands on approach to governing when it comes to their constituents while the President does not. This places them in a position where it is even more vital that they receive summaries of all bills, reports and constituents requests so that they can manage their offices with very little staff. Take Barbara Boxer who represents millions of people and the amount of staff she has to assist her with her responsibilities and you will see just how easy it is to be the President as compared to actually representing people.

 

[red states rule]

can you discuss any of those five points I made? Can you poke any holes in any of them?

I have and you keep ignoring the points made.