1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[maineman]

Sorry being a stupid Marine I do not know what time that is, could you tell me in the 24 hour clock please?

It comes down to a simple fact , You believe if Bush intervenes it is bad, if the Dems do it, it is good.... simple enough to understand, even a 5 year old can get that from your "talking points"

1900...but my wife took my out to a cute little restaurant for dessert and an after dinner drink, so I was delayed an hour or so...

But to your point....no.... at some point, you can "oversimplify" and you have here.

Bush invaded a sovereign nation that had no connection to the attack against us. He was able to do so only because a majority of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with the attacks on us. You and I can have a difference of opinion about how that majority of Americans came to believe that inaccurate connection, but there really is little doubt, I would think, that had an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that the public will to put our search for AQ on the back burner and, instead, invade, conquer and occupy Iraq for four plus years because he had been in violation of some UN sanctions would NOT have been there. But alas, a majority of the people did NOT believe the truth, they believed a fiction and that belief gave Bush the public support he needed to put the pressure on the congress to authorize his use of force and he DID invade, conquer, and occupy that sovereign nation. THAT is one form of "intervention".

Now that we are there....now that we have suffered 31K dead and wounded Americans...now that we have wasted four plus years spinning our wheels in the real fight against our real enemies...now that we have tried our damnedest to get these three ethnic sects who hate one another to try to get along and create some semblance of democracy.... now that we have spent a TRILLION dollars trying to facilitate that democratic group hug, the democrats in congress are looking at reports that show that the failure of the Maliki government to make any meaningful progress in solving the political issues that separate those sects is the MOST serious roadblock to success in Iraq - greater even than foreign insurgents or sectarian violence - those democrats are beginning to look at all that time and all those casualties and ALL THAT MONEY that we flush down this toilet called a Maliki administration in this shithouse called Iraq - and they are critical of this yahoo's lack of leadership...lack of progress.... lack of any real hope that he will ever turn this thing around...and they are asking if maybe things might go a little better if some OTHER shiite politician were trying to make it all work. Now THAT is also "intervention".

But for you to oversimplify that to say that those interventions are, in any substantive or ethical way, similar is silly....and deep down, you know it.

 

[Alpha1]

1900...but my wife took my out to a cute little restaurant for dessert and an after dinner drink, so I was delayed an hour or so...

But to your point....no.... at some point, you can "oversimplify" and you have here.

Bush invaded a sovereign nation that had no connection to the attack against us. He was able to do so only because a majority of Americans believed that Saddam had something to do with the attacks on us.

Not quite....he was allowed to do so because he asked Congress to vote on an authorization to remove Saddam, etc......had absolutely nothing to do with what Americans believed or didn't believe at the time....


You and I can have a difference of opinion about how that majority of Americans came to believe that inaccurate connection, but there really is little doubt, I would think, that had an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11, that the public will to put our search for AQ on the back burner and, instead, invade, conquer and occupy Iraq for four plus years because he had been in violation of some UN sanctions would NOT have been there. But alas, a majority of the people did NOT believe the truth, they believed a fiction and that belief gave Bush the public support he needed to put the pressure on the congress to authorize his use of force and he DID invade, conquer, and occupy that sovereign nation. THAT is one form of "intervention".

And again...Congress VOTED on an authorization for Bush to use force on Saddam ... Americans beliefs had NOTHING to do with passage of that little tidbit....


Now that we are there....now that we have suffered 31K dead and wounded Americans...now that we have wasted four plus years spinning our wheels in the real fight against our real enemies...now that we have tried our damnedest to get these three ethnic sects who hate one another to try to get along and create some semblance of democracy.... now that we have spent a TRILLION dollars trying to facilitate that democratic group hug, the democrats in congress are looking at reports that show that the failure of the Maliki government to make any meaningful progress in solving the political issues that separate those sects is the MOST serious roadblock to success in Iraq - greater even than foreign insurgents or sectarian violence - those democrats are beginning to look at all that time and all those casualties and ALL THAT MONEY that we flush down this toilet called a Maliki administration in this shithouse called Iraq - and they are critical of this yahoo's lack of leadership...lack of progress.... lack of any real hope that he will ever turn this thing around...and they are asking if maybe things might go a little better if some OTHER shiite politician were trying to make it all work. Now THAT is also "intervention".

But for you to oversimplify that to say that those interventions are, in any substantive or ethical way, similar is silly....and deep down, you know it.

Some may oversimplify issues...you seem to just mis-state facts.....

 

[maineman]

Some may oversimplify issues...you seem to just mis-state facts.....

and you, for some reason, don't think that politicians listen to their constituents when casting such a vote?

 

[Alpha1]

and you, for some reason, don't think that politicians listen to their constituents when casting such a vote?

Almost never....thats about average.....if they actually did.....the southern border would be closed....the Dims would have us out of Iraq....taxes would be lower....etc. or is this rhetorical hyperbole ? Or am I not allowed to use that ?

 

[maineman]

Almost never....thats about average.....if they actually did.....the southern border would be closed....the Dims would have us out of Iraq....taxes would be lower....etc. or is this rhetorical hyperbole ? Or am I not allowed to use that ?

I am suggesting that popular opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of attacking Saddam. The vote was taken less than a month before the midterm elections. Congress was well aware of that fact. I guess you weren't?

 

[Alpha1]

I am suggesting that popular opinion was overwhelmingly in favor of attacking Saddam. The vote was taken less than a month before the midterm elections. Congress was well aware of that fact. I guess you weren't?

Well, mate..you've a right to suggest any damn thing you want....

Believing what I do about a majority of Americans....most didn't know who the hell Saddam was, couldn't tell you if Iraq was in the middle east or Africa, didn't have a clue who attack the WTC....couldn't name even one of their Senators, or who the VP was at the time......some I would bet wouldn't even know who the serving President was ...... so I'll take you suggestion with a huge grain of salt, as they say....

 

[Alpha1]

And I might add.....those that voted AGAINST the resolution were still reelected for the most part.....so you suggestion defies the facts, no ?

 

[maineman]

And I might add.....those that voted AGAINST the resolution were still reelected for the most part.....so you suggestion defies the facts, no ?

only if you are of the belief that public opinion was uniformly homogenous across all congressional districts and that the strength of incumbents who voted against it was equally uniform as was the attractiveness of all of their opponents.

for you to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect.

edit: it was getting late...the italicized sentence above is, in retrospect, nonsensical and Alpha is "right" to question it. What I was trying to say - and failed miserably at - was that many democrats did vote for the legislation out of political expediency and many of those that voted against, and still kept their seats, considered the strength of public opinion in their states and districts prior to casting that vote... and some of those who voted against it, did so clearly out of conscience and let the midterm votes fall where they may. see #831 below.

 

[maineman]

Well, mate..you've a right to suggest any damn thing you want....

Believing what I do about a majority of Americans....most didn't know who the hell Saddam was, couldn't tell you if Iraq was in the middle east or Africa, didn't have a clue who attack the WTC....couldn't name even one of their Senators, or who the VP was at the time......some I would bet wouldn't even know who the serving President was ...... so I'll take you suggestion with a huge grain of salt, as they say....

shit, write...you wouldn't admit I made a point if your life depended on it.

 

[Alpha1]

only if you are of the belief that public opinion was uniformly homogenous across all congressional districts and that the strength of incumbents who voted against it was equally uniform as was the attractiveness of all of their opponents.

for you to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect.

Well just the hell is your point....first you claim the resolution passed because the Congress voted the "will of the people" in an election year....

THEN you claim, "for me to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect", which of course I didn't claim in the first place.....

So which is it...?
You talk out of both sides of your pie hole.....
----------------------------------------
What I did claim is that most Americans don't really know very much about what the hell is going on around the world or about politics in general....and their so called representatives don't give a rats ass what they say for the most part.....IMO, of course....

\But you Liberal hacks will back them and defend them and make all kinds of excuses for them when they screw up...

 

[maineman]

Well just the hell is your point....first you claim the resolution passed because the Congress voted the "will of the people" in an election year....

THEN you claim, "for me to suggest that many democrats voted for the resolution out of political expediency and survival is incorrect", which of course I didn't claim in the first place.....

So which is it...?
You talk out of both sides of your pie hole.....
----------------------------------------
What I did claim is that most Americans don't really know very much about what the hell is going on around the world or about politics in general....and their so called representatives don't give a rats ass what they say for the most part.....IMO, of course....
But you Liberal hacks will back them and defend them and make all kinds of excuses for them when they screw up...

Let me try this again. The republican administration, in concert with the republican floor leaders in congress, wrote the use of force resolution and scheduled it immediately prior to the 2002 midterm elections.

It may come as a surprise to you, but most members of congress have these things called "staffs"... part of which work in Washington, and the other parts work, oddly enough, in the states and districts represented by the congressmen. Those "staffers", as they are called, who work back home are tasked with ascertaining the mood there. On this issue, those "staffers" measured the will of the people back home and then, the congressman/senator and his/her "staffers" in DC looked at what sort of lead over their general election opponent they may have had in pre-election polling, looked at their opponent's positions on the war, considered the depth of their own feelings about the issue, and after all that deliberation, they decided whether they could afford to vote against the president's use of force resolution and still keep their seats, and/or whether they could afford to vote FOR the resolution and still be able to look themselves in the mirror. There were a large number of democrats who decided that the could not afford to go against the president on this issue because of the breadth - if not depth - of public opinion going the president's way... and that tide of public opinion was there because nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had his hand in 9/11 and the proposed invasion was seen as revenge and payback and certainly a "logical" response - to attack the guy who attacked us. HAD THAT UPSWELLING OF PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST SADDAM NOT BEEN PRESENT, MANY IN THAT LARGE NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS WOULD NOT HAVE FELT COMPELLED TO VOTE FOR THE RESOLUTION. In fact, I would imagine that there were a number of republicans in less than safe seats who might not have voted for a resolution to attack Saddam if nobody in America thought Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I would imagine that even getting congress to consider such a detour in our search for our attackers would have been a hard sell for the president

 

[M14 Shooter]

On this issue, those "staffers" measured the will of the people back home and then, the congressman/senator and his/her "staffers" in DC looked at what sort of lead over their general election opponent they may have had in pre-election polling, looked at their opponent's positions on the war, considered the depth of their own feelings about the issue, and after all that deliberation, they decided whether they could afford to vote [for/]against the president's use of force resolution and still keep their seats

So, rather than taking for a position dictated by their conscience, they chose a position that would most likely keep them elected.

That is, their political power, personally, and as a party, was more important to them than 'the right thing to do'.

This is a common trait among Democrats and Liberals -- the only thing that REALLY matters to them is their own political power, and they do everyting they can to gain/retain it.

Voting to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?
How despicable is that?

 

[maineman]

I am quite pleased that my congressman voted against the use of force... my senators are both republicans, alas.

but I would suggest that there were republicans who voted FOR the resolution - even though THEY had misgivings - just to keep THEIR seat (kinda like Senator Craig voting against gay rights legislation), so what is your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am quite pleased that my congressman voted against the use of force... my senators are both republicans, alas.

but I would suggest that there were republicans who voted FOR the resolution - even though THEY had misgivings - just to keep THEIR seat (kinda like Senator Craig voting against gay rights legislation), so what is your point?

Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?

 

[maineman]

Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?

are you or are you not implying that only democrats voted in such a manner?

do you or do you not think that the sum total of anyone's career in congress is more than just one vote?

 

[M14 Shooter]

are you or are you not implying that only democrats voted in such a manner?

You were asked a direct question.
Don't try to dodge your way out of it.

Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?

 

[maineman]

You were asked a direct question.
Don't try to dodge your way out of it.

Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?

and you were asked a direct question as well. Don't try to dodge your way out of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and you were asked a direct question....

...by you as you were trying to dodge my question.

Please answer my question:
Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?

 

[maineman]

I will say this: I know full well that most every elected official casts votes for a variety of reasons. Some of the votes I like, even if the reason for them I don't....some of the votes I don't like, even if I can respect the reason for it.

No politician is going to vote the way I want them to vote all the time. No politician is going to develop the same rationale for his vote as I have developed all the time.

When I look at that vote in particular, and know that there were enough genuine pro-war hawks on the democratic side of the aisle to guarantee passage when their votes were added to the nearly unanimous republican caucus, and I think of a democratic congressman in a district with strong pro-war leanings, I do not think it is despicable that that congressman might have held his nose and voted along with the pre-ordained majority in order to keep his seat and to continue to work for the issues that he believed in for his district.

Does that mean that I am not upset with many democrats for many of their votes at many times? no. I am.

I learned long ago, however, that the only way to ensure that your congressman votes the way you want him to each and every time is to challenge him in the next primary or general election and win the seat for yourself.

 

[maineman]

...by you as you were trying to dodge my question.

Please answer my question:
Do you or do you not find it despicable to vote to go to war - even though you think it was wrong to do so, for whatever reason - just because you want to keep your seat?

answered. now please answer mine:

are you or are you not implying that only democrats voted in such a manner?

do you or do you not think that the sum total of anyone's career in congress is more than just one vote?