Just what do liberals want?

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.

 

If we are talking about liberal congress men and women, then lets not forget that we are talking about the same war that almost all of them voted to get us into.

 

You're on a roll tonight, DeeJay, but I have to go to bed.:laugh:

 

I think they are getting ready to show us.

 

Many Democrats did indeed vote for the war. But if you'll check the October 2002 resolution that gave Bush the authoriziation to go to war with Iraq you'll find that in fact a majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the resolution. By way of contrast, six Republicans in the House and one Republican in the Senate voted against that same resolution.

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:

 

Not a 100% true, but you're on the right track.:smilewinkgrin:

 

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.

 

Not at all. What I am telling you is that a majority of Democrats voted against the 2002 resolution that authorized President Bush to go to war with Iraq. Unlike the situation with John Kerry, at no time did the Democratic majority who voted against the war also vote in favor of the war.

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.

 

But did you understand it? Do you even know what the two votes were about?

Why would anyone want to go to war with all its attendent death and destruction if there is a decent alternative?

Sometimes credible threats work; it's better if you do not have to follow through. The threat was actually working - Saddam had let the inspectors back in. Obviously, in retrospect, that was not what Bush cared about.

We were right for whatever that's worth.

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

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)

 

Why would something need TEETH. I supose so that it can bite.

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.

 

It's totally unfair of you to use facts on Daisy.

You should be ashamed.

 

Those numbers are correct. However, those are only the votes in the Senate. If you include the House votes on the same resolution you will find that a majority of Democrats did indeed vote against the resolution.

 

As I stated previously, regardless of the reasoning or excuse, I do not let off the hook those Democrats who voted to authorize the war against Iraq. Rather, I stand with those that had both the conviction and the backbone to oppose this war from the beginning.

 

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.