Liberal logic: Bomb Syria, kill civilians to punish Assad for killing civilians

[Crackerjaxon]

Saddam killing his own people was what? Reason 5 for invading? I remember it eventually ended up as the main reason after all the other reasons went to shit.

...and when we go down that same road with Dear Leader Obama, all is well.

Don't lie about where I stand, little person.

So, you think Obama should not attack Syria?

Is that it?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I think Obama's plan is turn all of the rightwingers-formerly-known-as-neocons into Rand Paul fanatics,

so he'll get the 2016 nomination and thus guarantee that another Democrat wins the presidency.

It’s as if we’ve gone through the foreign policy looking glass, where warmongering neo-cons and hard-line republican hawks have suddenly become doves and bleeding-heart peaceniks – all a consequence of knee-jerk opposition to everything Obama.

The sound of the flip-flopping is almost deafening.

I see. Anyone who believes in a sane foreign policy is a fanatic now.

The man is against the wholesale slaughter of Arabs. He's crazy as hell.

I get it.

 

[Plasmaball]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. And I can't.

I was reading at France24 that civilians in Damascus who support Assad are waiting to die.

This is madness.

And all I've heard from the arrogant and pompous world police who now inhabit the White House is that Assad must be punished.

AND he must be punished now before the results of the UN Investigation are known.

you cant wrap your head around this because you are a moron.
Its rather straight forward. Assad killed a bunch of people, Chemicals where used ( by who is up in the air). Things are getting dicey, Obama wants to act and have the world stop this before it gets further out of hand in his opinion.

The difference between this and iraq is we are not claiming Saddam supported terrorists, kind of suggested he had a hand in 9-11, has WMD and then killed a bunch of people a few decades ago.

We kind of have evidence that 100k have been recently killed, and some weapons in the chemical nature was used. Again by who is being argued right now.

Anyways people who use chemical or threaten nukes should be removed period. The affects will hurt just more than the region. BUT that is something the world should be doing and not just the US. Thats the difference in policy.

Obama should not act alone in this, he should be getting support from other nations to stop any use of chemicals.

 

[007]

Interestingly enough you have the citizens of America and Britain completely against this "punishment" and check out this new poll in France.

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande's insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad's regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France's armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today's BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital's daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are 'hostile' to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria's civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

'We now know Brits cannot be counted on': White House snub as US and France prepare to strike Syria as early as TOMORROW over chemical attack that killed 1,429 | Mail Online

Since when has Barry or the lunatic left given a rats ass about the opinion of Americans?

Answer: THEY DON'T. If they did we wouldn't have oBAMALAMADINGDONGCARE.

This DISASTER of a president is going to fuck up not only America, but the WORLD. I hope the UN calls for his ARREST if he acts BEFORE their report comes out.

 

[Plasmaball]

I think Obama's plan is turn all of the rightwingers-formerly-known-as-neocons into Rand Paul fanatics,

so he'll get the 2016 nomination and thus guarantee that another Democrat wins the presidency.

It’s as if we’ve gone through the foreign policy looking glass, where warmongering neo-cons and hard-line republican hawks have suddenly become doves and bleeding-heart peaceniks – all a consequence of knee-jerk opposition to everything Obama.

The sound of the flip-flopping is almost deafening.

I see. Anyone who believes in a sane foreign policy is a fanatic now.

The man is against the wholesale slaughter of Arabs. He's crazy as hell.

I get it.

They are not wrong. Many of the same people against Syria where for Iraq and are just playing partisan politics. The same goes for any dems who where against Iraq and now for Syria.

The OP was one of those people who supported Iraq.

Once you get past those useless drones of people, you can actually try to deal with the issue at hand.

 

[Plasmaball]

Interestingly enough you have the citizens of America and Britain completely against this "punishment" and check out this new poll in France.

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande's insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad's regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France's armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today's BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital's daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are 'hostile' to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria's civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

'We now know Brits cannot be counted on': White House snub as US and France prepare to strike Syria as early as TOMORROW over chemical attack that killed 1,429 | Mail Online

Since when has Barry or the lunatic left given a rats ass about the opinion of Americans?

Answer: THEY DON'T. If they did we wouldn't have oBAMALAMADINGDONGCARE.

This DISASTER of a president is going to fuck up not only America, but the WORLD. I hope the UN calls for his ARREST if he acts BEFORE their report comes out.

^^ was for the war with Iraq.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. And I can't.

I was reading at France24 that civilians in Damascus who support Assad are waiting to die.

This is madness.

And all I've heard from the arrogant and pompous world police who now inhabit the White House is that Assad must be punished.

AND he must be punished now before the results of the UN Investigation are known.

That's not a liberal issue!

That's the neocon foreign policy agenda.

Don't believe me?

Then explain the following letter to the President...

Neocons Push Obama to Go Beyond a Punitive Strike in Syria

August 27, 2013

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has once again violated your red line, using chemical weapons to kill as many as 1,400 people in the suburbs of Damascus. You have said that large-scale use of chemical weapons in Syria would implicate "core national interests," including "making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies [and] our bases in the region." The world—including Iran, North Korea, and other potential aggressors who seek or possess weapons of mass of destruction—is now watching to see how you respond.

We urge you to respond decisively by imposing meaningful consequences on the Assad regime. At a minimum, the United States, along with willing allies and partners, should use standoff weapons and airpower to target the Syrian dictatorship's military units that were involved in the recent large-scale use of chemical weapons. It should also provide vetted moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition with the military support required to identify and strike regime units armed with chemical weapons.

Moreover, the United States and other willing nations should consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime. The objectives should be not only to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons no longer threaten America, our allies in the region or the Syrian people, but also to deter or destroy the Assad regime’s airpower and other conventional military means of committing atrocities against civilian non-combatants. At the same time, the United States should accelerate efforts to vet, train, and arm moderate elements of Syria’s armed opposition, with the goal of empowering them to prevail against both the Assad regime and the growing presence of Al Qaeda-affiliated and other extremist rebel factions in the country.

Left unanswered, the Assad regime's mounting attacks with chemical weapons will show the world that America's red lines are only empty threats. It is a dangerous and destabilizing message that will surely come to haunt us—one that will certainly embolden Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons capability despite your repeated warnings that doing so is unacceptable. It is therefore time for the United States to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the Assad regime’s relentless aggression, and help shape and influence the foundations for the post-Assad Syria that you have said is inevitable.

Sincerely,

Ammar Abdulhamid
Dr. Robert Kagan
Elliott Abrams
Lawrence F. Kaplan
Dr. Fouad Ajami
James Kirchick
Michael Allen
Irina Krasovskaya
Dr. Michael Auslin
Dr. William Kristol
Gary Bauer
Bernard-Henri Levy
Paul Berman
Dr. Robert J. Lieber
Max Boot
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Ellen Bork
Tod Lindberg
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer
Mary Beth Long
Matthew R. J. Brodsky
Dr. Thomas G. Mahnken
Dr. Eliot A. Cohen
Dr. Michael Makovsky
Senator Norm Coleman
Ann Marlowe
Ambassador William Courtney
Clifford D. May
Seth Cropsey
Dr. Alan Mendoza
James S. Denton
Dr. Joshua Muravchik
Paula A. DeSutter
Andrew Natsios
Dr. Larry Diamond
Governor Tim Pawlenty
Dr. Paula J. Dobriansky
Martin Peretz
Thomas Donnelly
Danielle Pletka
Dr. Michael Doran
Dr. David Pollock
Mark Dubowitz
Arch Puddington
Dr. Colin Dueck
Karl Rove
Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt
Randy Scheunemann
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman
Dan Senor
Douglas J. Feith
Ambassador John Shattuck
Reuel Marc Gerecht
Lee Smith
Abe Greenwald
Henry D. Sokolski
Christopher J. Griffin
James Traub
John P. Hannah
Ambassador Mark D. Wallace
Dr. William Inboden
Michael Weiss
Bruce Pitcairn Jackson
Leon Wieseltier
Ash Jain
Khawla Yusuf
Dr. Kenneth Jensen
Robert Zarate
Allison Johnson
Dr. Radwan Ziadeh
Ambassador Robert G. Joseph

Name one liberal on that list.

And don't you dare mention "Frog-face!"


Many are the same players from the PNAC letters to Bill Clinton in 1998 that started regime change in Iraq.

When are idiots going to stop listening to the neocons?

 

[The T]

Interestingly enough you have the citizens of America and Britain completely against this "punishment" and check out this new poll in France.

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande's insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad's regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France's armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today's BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital's daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are 'hostile' to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria's civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

'We now know Brits cannot be counted on': White House snub as US and France prepare to strike Syria as early as TOMORROW over chemical attack that killed 1,429 | Mail Online

Since when has Barry or the lunatic left given a rats ass about the opinion of Americans?

Answer: THEY DON'T. If they did we wouldn't have oBAMALAMADINGDONGCARE.

This DISASTER of a president is going to fuck up not only America, but the WORLD. I hope the UN calls for his ARREST if he acts BEFORE their report comes out.

Obama just stated he is not going to listen to the UN as they are 'paralyzed'...

 

[Plasmaball]

Interestingly enough you have the citizens of America and Britain completely against this "punishment" and check out this new poll in France.

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande's insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad's regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France's armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today's BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital's daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are 'hostile' to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria's civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

'We now know Brits cannot be counted on': White House snub as US and France prepare to strike Syria as early as TOMORROW over chemical attack that killed 1,429 | Mail Online

Since when has Barry or the lunatic left given a rats ass about the opinion of Americans?

Answer: THEY DON'T. If they did we wouldn't have oBAMALAMADINGDONGCARE.

This DISASTER of a president is going to fuck up not only America, but the WORLD. I hope the UN calls for his ARREST if he acts BEFORE their report comes out.

Obama just stated he is not going to listen to the UN as they are 'paralyzed'...

no you dumb ass he said he will not be paralyzed on the issue.

furthermore:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he has decided that the United States should take military action against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack.

But he says he will seek congressional authorization for the use of force.

He says congressional leadership plans to hold a debate and a vote as soon as Congress comes back in September.

Obama says he has the authority to act on his own, but believes it is important for the country to have a debate.

Military action would be in response to a chemical weapons attack the U.S. says Syrian President Bashar Assad's government carried out against civilians. The U.S. says more than 1,400 Syrians were killed in that attack last week.

keep lying drunk

 

[Vox]

I would literally be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time I had to tell some retard like you the fact:

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

YOU are a liar.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. THAT IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM!!!
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

Bush had a BIPARTISAN yes from the Senate and the House - 77 votes in the Senate; here are the dems who voted FOR it:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

and here are the results from the House:

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate:

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

IF that is NOT a bipartisan support - NOTHING is.

But a libtard LIAR is a libtard LIAR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It’s as if we’ve gone through the foreign policy looking glass, where warmongering neo-cons and hard-line republican hawks have suddenly become doves and bleeding-heart peaceniks – all a consequence of knee-jerk opposition to everything Obama.

The sound of the flip-flopping is almost deafening.

I see. Anyone who believes in a sane foreign policy is a fanatic now.

The man is against the wholesale slaughter of Arabs. He's crazy as hell.

I get it.

They are not wrong. Many of the same people against Syria where for Iraq and are just playing partisan politics. The same goes for any dems who where against Iraq and now for Syria.

The OP was one of those people who supported Iraq.

Once you get past those useless drones of people, you can actually try to deal with the issue at hand.

Ah, you can see into the minds of people. Wonderful talent.

 

[Plasmaball]

I see. Anyone who believes in a sane foreign policy is a fanatic now.

The man is against the wholesale slaughter of Arabs. He's crazy as hell.

I get it.

They are not wrong. Many of the same people against Syria where for Iraq and are just playing partisan politics. The same goes for any dems who where against Iraq and now for Syria.

The OP was one of those people who supported Iraq.

Once you get past those useless drones of people, you can actually try to deal with the issue at hand.

Ah, you can see into the minds of people. Wonderful talent.

the minds? Tiny and i debated on the issue over on the hannity boards years ago. I dont need to mind read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would literally be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time I had to tell some retard like you the fact:

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

YOU are a liar.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. THAT IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM!!!
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

Bush had a BIPARTISAN yes from the Senate and the House - 77 votes in the Senate; here are the dems who voted FOR it:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

and here are the results from the House:

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate:

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

IF that is NOT a bipartisan support - NOTHING is.

But a libtard LIAR is a libtard LIAR

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol, if I say most Democrats in Congress voted against it,

and 147 voted against it, and 110 voted for it,

where's the lie exactly?

 

[Vox]

I would literally be a millionaire if I had a dollar for every time I had to tell some retard like you the fact:

Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization.

YOU are a liar.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. THAT IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM!!!
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

Bush had a BIPARTISAN yes from the Senate and the House - 77 votes in the Senate; here are the dems who voted FOR it:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

and here are the results from the House:

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate:

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

IF that is NOT a bipartisan support - NOTHING is.

But a libtard LIAR is a libtard LIAR

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol, if I say most Democrats in Congress voted against it,

and 147 voted against it, and 110 voted for it,

where's the lie exactly?

here is your lie:"Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization." - which was not a question and my statement - I stated that Bush had a bipartisan support for the Resolution not, that majority of Dems voted for it.
29 of the 50 Senators voted for it

Last time I checked - Senate is a part of Congress

plus I have never stated that the majority of the dems voted for it - I have said that Bush had a bipartisan support for the resolution.

here are my EXACT words:

we did not have 12 years of war behind us, Bush had a bipartisan blessing from Congress

58% of dem Senators and 40% of Dem Representatives IS a bipartisan support.
you've been caught in a lie

 

[Billo_Really]

IF that is NOT a bipartisan support - NOTHING is.

But a libtard LIAR is a libtard LIAR[/B]

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a second here, let's not forget they were voting on a "lie" from the President.

 

[Billo_Really]

Judging from this thread and some of its responses, it re-confirms my position that many on the right do not have the balls to take responsibility for their own actions.

Blaming the Iraq war (and what may soon happen in this Syrian conflict) on liberals, is the mark of a true coward. Because the ideology of foreign intervention, is a neocon driven policy.

And for the few liberals who do support this, well, they can go to hell, as well.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this. And I can't.

I was reading at France24 that civilians in Damascus who support Assad are waiting to die.

This is madness.

And all I've heard from the arrogant and pompous world police who now inhabit the White House is that Assad must be punished.

AND he must be punished now before the results of the UN Investigation are known.

"Liberal logic: Bomb Syria, kill civilians to punish Assad for killing civilians"

Oh give me a break.

What the fuck is this then: "Bomb Iraq, kill civilians to punish Saddam Hussein for killing civilians"

Really. Stupidest post this week.

Saddam killing his own people was what? Reason 5 for invading? I remember it eventually ended up as the main reason after all the other reasons went to shit.

You mean when Bush finally admitted in 2004 (2005?) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?
The reasons were WMD and Iraq was a haven for Al Queda but primarily he was a bloody dictator bullshit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

YOU are a liar.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. THAT IS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM!!!
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.

Bush had a BIPARTISAN yes from the Senate and the House - 77 votes in the Senate; here are the dems who voted FOR it:

Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

and here are the results from the House:

Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate:

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

IF that is NOT a bipartisan support - NOTHING is.

But a libtard LIAR is a libtard LIAR

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol, if I say most Democrats in Congress voted against it,

and 147 voted against it, and 110 voted for it,

where's the lie exactly?

here is your lie:"Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization." - which was not a question and my statement - I stated that Bush had a bipartisan support for the Resolution not, that majority of Dems voted for it.
29 of the 50 Senators voted for it

Last time I checked - Senate is a part of Congress

plus I have never stated that the majority of the dems voted for it - I have said that Bush had a bipartisan support for the resolution.

here are my EXACT words:

we did not have 12 years of war behind us, Bush had a bipartisan blessing from Congress

58% of dem Senators and 40% of Dem Representatives IS a bipartisan support.
you've been caught in a lie

When you can prove 110 is more than 147, you'll win the argument.

 

[Vox]

lol, if I say most Democrats in Congress voted against it,

and 147 voted against it, and 110 voted for it,

where's the lie exactly?

here is your lie:"Most Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war authorization." - which was not a question and my statement - I stated that Bush had a bipartisan support for the Resolution not, that majority of Dems voted for it.
29 of the 50 Senators voted for it

Last time I checked - Senate is a part of Congress

plus I have never stated that the majority of the dems voted for it - I have said that Bush had a bipartisan support for the resolution.

here are my EXACT words:

we did not have 12 years of war behind us, Bush had a bipartisan blessing from Congress

58% of dem Senators and 40% of Dem Representatives IS a bipartisan support.
you've been caught in a lie

When you can prove 110 is more than 147, you'll win the argument.

LIAR, 110 votes out of the 147 is a BIPARTISAN support. And that is all I have stated.

And I won the argument long time ago

 

[Vox]

IF that is NOT a bipartisan support - NOTHING is.

But a libtard LIAR is a libtard LIAR[/B]

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What a second here, let's not forget they were voting on a "lie" from the President.

no they were not.

failed simple logic on your part and other low information voters for dems is not a proof Bush "lied"