Just what do liberals want?
I have heard folks saying that Pres. Bush was wrong and there were not enough troops in Iraq . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/iraq.bush/index.html
He has said that.
Now they say it is the wrong direction . . .
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/us.iraq/index.html
What do they really want?
Just what do liberals want?
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by El_Guero, Jan 10, 2007.
Page 1 of 2
-
They want Bush to be wrong.
-
It didn't take you long.:thumbs: -
They want to end US involvement in an unjust, immoral, and unnecessary war of choice that we should have never been involved with in the first place. And that's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
-
-
You're on a roll tonight, DeeJay, but I have to go to bed.:laugh:
-
I think they are getting ready to show us.
-
As for those Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution, many stated at the time that they did so in order to give President Bush the clout he needed to push pressure on the Saddam regime. Tragically, hindsight shows us that those same Democrats (and Republicans) were foolish to have trusted this President in such matters. -
So they voted for the war before they voted against it. I have heard that before. :laugh:
They voted for the war, but did not want to really go to war. They just want to make empty threats. Your right they are foolish. -
Remember, folks: Republicans good, Democrats bad.
:laugh: -
-
There is not a dimes bit of difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans controled senate, Clinton in white house. Clinton bad.
Republicans controled senate, Bush in white houes. Bush bad.
Democrats controlled senate, Reagan in white house. Reagan bad.
Democrats controlled senate, Bush in white house. Bush bad.
and on and on and on.....
Go figure. -
As to the "empty threat", it was President Bush who made the case that he needed the resolution so that his efforts with regard to Iraq would have some teeth. That the President was lying about this when in fact he planned to attack Iraq along is where the Democrats were foolish to have trusted this President. Even so, that does not mean that Democrats who voted for the war should be let off the hook. -
-
I count 29 Dem YEAs and 22 NAYs
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR) -
Any reasonable person knows that when you use the expression "give a rule teeth" the expression means that there is consiquenses to breaking the rule.
A resolution without teeth would be one without consiquenses. To give it teeth would be to put consiquenses behind the resolution. These are people who speak for a living they know what give it teeth means.
Congress authorized WAR, and you want me to believe they did not know what they were doing. What a bunch of dimwitts if that is true. -
You should be ashamed. -
-
-
I'm not sure what they want, but apparently most of them need a spine. But then again, so do most of the Republicans that managed to survive the mid-term elections.
Page 1 of 2