On The 'Surge'

[maineman]

and do not forget the fact, I know you want to, alot of Dems said Saddam had WMD's as well

sure they did. I have never disputed that.

don't YOU forget that the republican party was nearly unanimous in their support for the use of force resolution, while a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.

 

[red states rule]

sure they did. I have never disputed that.

don't YOU forget that the republican party was nearly unanimous in their support for the use of force resolution, while a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.

Not many Dems voted against it, that is why libs are trying to rewrite history

Senate approves Iraq war resolution
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.

The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice."

"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."

While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature.

The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed.

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days.

The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

"If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said.

The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq.

Resolution sharply divides Democrats
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."

Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."

Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a "blank check" for the White House
"This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again," Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution."

But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.

"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.

"All across this land Americans are insisting on a peaceful resolution of matters in Iraq," he said. "All across this land, Americans are looking towards the United States to be a nation among nations, working through the United Nations to help resolve this crisis."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

 

[glockmail]

again...from the party whose leaders told us they were certain that Saddam had WMD's and even knew where they were, accusations of "misleading" are cause for raucus bellylaughs.

I have never misled anyone about Iraq...and if you think that "if it bleeds, it leads" is a recent phenomenon of the media in America, or if you think such a philosophy has anywhere near as much to do with political perspective as it does with selling stuff, you really need to take a journalism class or two... "if it bleeds it leads" is as time honored in broadcast journalism as "tits above the fold" is in print journalism.

Still waiting for quotes/ links to "certain" or "absolute".

Dooes not surprise me that you'd be blind to the MSM deliberate misleading the public.

 

[maineman]

Still waiting for quotes/ links to "certain" or "absolute".

Dooes not surprise me that you'd be blind to the MSM deliberate misleading the public.

I gave you links...if you don't know how to find words on webpages, I really am not inclined to give lessons.

It does not surprise ME that you would be blind to the Bush administration's deliberate misleading the public on Saddam's WMD's as well as his links to 9/11.

 

[red states rule]

Still waiting for quotes/ links to "certain" or "absolute".

Dooes not surprise me that you'd be blind to the MSM deliberate misleading the public.

It took awhile but he finally fessed up Dems were saying the same thing about WMD's that pres Bush was saying

He may be thrown out of his local Dem party

 

[glockmail]

sure they did. I have never disputed that.

don't YOU forget that the republican party was nearly unanimous in their support for the use of force resolution, while a majority of congressional democrats voted against it.

Sure about that?

 

[maineman]

Sure about that?

wanna bet $500?

 

[glockmail]

wanna bet $500?

No. I am honestly unsure. That's not what I remembered.

 

[maineman]

No. I am honestly unsure. That's not what I remembered.

I AM sure. but you can go get your own damned links yourself. I am sick of having to provide documentation for what ought to be common knowledge.

 

[red states rule]

I AM sure. but you can go get your own damned links yourself. I am sick of having to provide documentation for what ought to be common knowledge.

Liberal debate tactic number 5. When you're losing, and you usually will be, abruptly change the subject. Again the object of this is to distract and deflect attention from your opponent's argument.

 

[glockmail]

I AM sure. but you can go get your own damned links yourself. I am sick of having to provide documentation for what ought to be common knowledge.

I didn't ask for links. Other posters have said the exact opposite, and I don't remember it that way. No biggie, Yankee.

 

[Vintij]

Whats the point of electing dems who speak for the majority of the american people if they wont stand up and speak!?!?!?

Everyone knows this administration is out of touch with the american people, so why does bipartisan mean Bi bush-ism now? He already indicated that they will go ahead with this surge no matter what congress says (non bipartisan) He knows congress wont cut off funding because they want to look like the good guys and get elected in 2008. Well congress is spineless if they dont stop this surge in its tracks and realize this will do literally nothing to slow extreme century old violence in iraq.

 

[red states rule]

Whats the point of electing dems who speak for the majority of the american people if they wont stand up and speak!?!?!?

Everyone knows this administration is out of touch with the american people, so why does bipartisan mean Bi bush-ism now? He already indicated that they will go ahead with this surge no matter what congress says (non bipartisan) He knows congress wont cut off funding because they want to look like the good guys and get elected in 2008. Well congress is spineless if they dont stop this surge in its tracks and realize this will do literally nothing to slow extreme century old violence in iraq.

dems wil not cut off funding because a MAJORITY of Amercians want to win in Iraq

Only a MAJORITY of Dems want the US to lose in Iraq because they see it as a defeat for Pres Bush and that is what libs live for

 

[Vintij]

i agree, dems are too busy trying to get obama elected and Iraq to fall apart, to make a difference.

But for god sakes its not that hard to get elected, all you have to do is have a nice smile, slurr your speach, say "i gots values and junk" and your the man.

Come on dems, just get someone smart, strategic, open minded and educated like you want.....but make him look and act like a hillbilly, and boom your in.

Jeez america please stop electing yourself, the idea is to elect someone better. Im just waiting for bush to pass the law that states if your name is bush, you can serve 3 terms. And for everyone to agree with this idiot.

 

[glockmail]

....

Everyone knows this administration is out of touch with the american people, .....

It appears that you are the one who is out of touch.

 

[Vintij]

Yea your right, i am out of touch. Im not two sided enough, i guess i should choose a side and fall in line.

Sorry, even if im not a hick, the MAJORITY of america, (even the die hard republicans) are calling BUSH a lame duck. Im not on anybodys side, im just someone who believes one day that christians and non believers can co-exist, that the two party system will be one. That our military will be used to keep peace and not stay on the offensive, that the middle class will drive the economic, that the federal tax dollars will be used for security/intel at our ports and boarders not bombs, that oil profits will be used for education. Your right im way out of touch with everyone else.

I guess i should ask everyone to volunteer there child to die in iraq and just support our presidents mediocracy because "people die in war, its gonna happen" -bush Well people dont have to die if there's no war, thats something new. And if there is a war, get in there, take care of buisness and get out, dont adopt a country.

 

[glockmail]

Yea your right, i am out of touch. Im not two sided enough, i guess i should choose a side and fall in line.

Sorry, even if im not a hick, the MAJORITY of america, (even the die hard republicans) are calling BUSH a lame duck. Im not on anybodys side, im just someone who believes one day that christians and non believers can co-exist, that the two party system will be one. That our military will be used to keep peace and not stay on the offensive, that the middle class will be the economic divers of this country, that the federal tax dollars will be used for security not bombs, that oil profits will be used for education. Your right im way out of touch with everyone else.

I guess i should ask everyone to volunteer there child to die in iraq and just support our presidents mediocracy because "people die in war, its gonna happen" -bush Well people dont have to die if there's no war, thats something new. And if there is a war, get in there, take care of buisness and get out, dont adopt a country.

You’ve already chosen sides you just don’t have the balls to admit it. It’s reflected in everything that you said above. Diagnosis: Liberal.

1. “Hick”, as in “if conservative, then a hick”. Classic, bigoted, hateful Lib.
2. Not taking sides: ball less, weak kneed, a Liberal trait.
3. Christians have always been the one main religion that is willing to tolerate other religions, even atheists like yourself.
4. The role of the military is to break things and kill people. It ain’t the Peace Corps or the UN. War is diplomacy by force and violence, and is a necessary tool when the bad guys come to kill you and take your stuff. The goal is to inflict more shit fire on them that they can stand, so they’ll stay hoe and not bother you anymore. Libs can never understand these basic tenets.
5. “The Rich” that you libs demonize make a lot of money for a reason, and money buys influence. Get over it. You ain’t poor because someone else is rich, in fact, you probably have a job because some rich guy hires you. This simple economic fact is unfathomable by a Lib, ie: you.
6. Bombs are security. See item 4.
7. Profits, including “oil profits” are not the property of the government; they belong to those who earned them.
8. We don’t volunteer our children to die. Our children volunteer to go kill our enemies before they come kill you. Sometimes our kids die and that’s tragic. They give their lives so you can be free and spout your fool mouth off.
9. The situation in Iraq is not as simple as you Libs make it out to be. Yeah we could have done a lot of things different but hindsight is always 20-20 and you ain’t the one qualified to make a decision. So buck up and deal with it.

 

[Annie]

i agree, dems are too busy trying to get obama elected and Iraq to fall apart, to make a difference.

But for god sakes its not that hard to get elected, all you have to do is have a nice smile, slurr your speach, say "i gots values and junk" and your the man.

Come on dems, just get someone smart, strategic, open minded and educated like you want.....but make him look and act like a hillbilly, and boom your in.

Jeez america please stop electing yourself, the idea is to elect someone better. Im just waiting for bush to pass the law that states if your name is bush, you can serve 3 terms. And for everyone to agree with this idiot.

May I ask how old you are? It may effect my response. If it does, I'll explain.

 

[maineman]

It appears that you are the one who is out of touch.

if this administration were indeed in touch with America, they would not have lost the midterms. deal with it...

but if the truth be known, I hope you don't deal with it at all and keep puffing up your chest like you all know what the fuck is goin' on..... it will only make the filibuster-proof democratic senate in '08 that much sweeter for those of us democrats who have labored in the vineyards for lo, these many years.

 

[Annie]

if this administration were indeed in touch with America, they would not have lost the midterms. deal with it.

So you agree, the democrats were out of touch in 2004?