<p>The American people have spoken. They have had it with this war. It is the will of the people to bring our soldiers home and end this folly.</p>
<p>Bush just won’t listen. He wants to be a dictator, not a president.</p>
<p>“Check the vote for war - the majority of the Democrats in the Senate also voted for war.”</p>
<p>Not only did they vote for the war, they supported the bombing of Iraq beginning in February 1998, based on the Clinton/Tenet lies about WMD, delivery systems, and imminent threat. By the time 2002 rolled around, there was no way the “senior” Democrats (Biden, Levin, Lieberman et al.) could oppose war, having made their own “finding” on WMD and imminent threat four yours earlier.</p>
<p>But we are not in a war now. The war ended in 2003. Now it is just the escalation of a hostile, aggressive occupation. And it doesn’t matter whether Iraqis are pro-Al Qaeda or anti-. What they share in common is, having experienced our Dick Morris suicide death squads up close and personal, they all want to kill Americans.</p>
<p>“Wasted lives,” as that great American has said.</p>
<p>
Yet another Democratic fallacy. Were it not for “makkaka”, the Republicans would still hold the senate. Were it not for stem cell research, the Missouri Senate seat would be in Republican control. Were it not for petty ante corruption of Governor Taft, the Ohio senate seat would likely be under republican control. The one state where the war was the front and center issue was Connecticut - and guess who won there?</p>
<p>So no, the American people have not “spoken” against this war.</p>
<p>“The American people have spoken. They have had it with this war. It is the will of the people to bring our soldiers home and end this folly.”</p>
<p>Really? I’ve read plenty of polls that don’t say that. I’ve recently read several that have said that many don’t favor a date certain for withdrawal and don’t favor eliminating funding. Reading the attached <a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm[/url]”>http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm</a> it seems to me that people feel that since we’re there, we may as well win. One could also read Congressional approval polls (which are lower that President Bush’s numbers) as opposition to the democratic position on the war. I’ve never been a supporter of the war, but President Bush was elected to his position for four years, so that doesn’t make him a dictator.</p>
<p>“So no, the American people have not “spoken” against this war.”</p>
<p>There isn’t any war, but your sentiment is correct. In fact, the leading Dem candidate for Pres favors long-term maintenance of a U.S. occupier presence in Iraq to protect “U.S. vital interests” in the region (she won’t say what they are.)</p>
<p>" people feel that since we’re there, we may as well win."</p>
<p>Win what? :eek:</p>
<p>“Wasted lives”.</p>
<p>If the American people have spoken, then why can’t the Democrats get a bill through that would hasten the withdrawal of troops? Today’s Senate vote of 29 to 67 included only 28 Democrats in favor. <a href=“HeadlineAlley”>HeadlineAlley;
If the American people felt as strongly as you suggest, there would be massive demonstrations, along the lines of what we saw in the 60’s. I think people are actually ambivalent. Even those who support the war would like to see it end, but will not support a rush to defeat.</p>
<p>One more reason I have issues with the Democrats is what I perceive to be a tendency to play with the rules in order to get what they want. <a href=“http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm[/url]”>http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm</a>
This kind of thing just rubs me the wrong way.</p>
<p>We will have another Republican President next term. No question about that.</p>
<p>mini: Carl Levin voted against the war authorization in 2002.</p>
<p>fundingfather: You are a virtual treasure trove of Bush administration talking points. You do know where the tip that led to the capture of KSM came from, right? If so, I think you can appreciate the importance of not compromising our relations with the countries of the middle east.</p>
<p>“mini: Carl Levin voted against the war authorization in 2002.”</p>
<p>Yes, but as I remember, on procedural grounds, not because he didn’t believe in the WMD, delivery systems, or imminent threat. (Even today, when he repudiates it, he never refers back to his statements of February 1998.)</p>
<p><a href=“she%20won’t%20say%20what%20they%20are.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, she has answered that question.</p>
<p>First, her website has an unequivocal statement on permanent bases:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Second, she gave a specific answer in a Town Hall meeting in Iowa last weekend as recounted in Time Magazine this week:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about you, but along about now, I’m not going to object to votes against war authorization for whatever the reason. Hell, if a Senator’s intern mistress told him to vote against it if he wanted a little sumpthin’ sumpthin’ that night, that would be fine with me.</p>
<p>I’m just a nuts and bolts guy. Just tally the votes. I don’t really care about the reasons.</p>
<p>BTW, Hans Blix gave an interesting answer on this topic last week. He was asked whether, in his gut, he expected to find WMD in Iraq when he returned with the inspectors in the fall of 2002. He said that he did, because he could think of no rationale explanation for Sadaam booting the inspectors in 1996 unless he had active programs he was trying to conceal. He then explained that they made 700 inspections at 500 sites, including specific sites where Western intelligence (i.e. the CIA) told them to look. They found nothing. He came to the conclusion that Sadaam had hung a “Beware of Dog” sign for his neighbors to see, even though he didn’t have a dog.</p>
<p>Henry Waxman got taken in by the Clinton/Tenet lies as well:</p>
<p>“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.”</p>
<p>We now know that the real liars and cheaters were Clinton and Tenet, although the former is guilty of much, much more than that, even at a time when there were international weapons inspectors in Iraq, and telling him that no such chemical or biological weapons, or nuclear capacity, existed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhhh. They did. Majority of both houses. The Commander Guy vetoed it.</p>
<p>Beat me to it, ID.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve got your timelines a little mixed up. The UN sanctions were put in place during the Bush I adminstration. Clinton didn’t take office until January 1993. Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out in 1996. They didn’t return until fall 2002. Clinton had no international inspectors telling him the weapons programs didn’t exist for most of his administration. In fact, he had Sadaam completely refusing to cooperate with the UN inspection programs for reasons that were extremely unclear (see Blix above).</p>
<p>fundingfather says:
</p>
<p>Well, based on that, I guess maybe terrorism isn’t the main driving force behind how people vote.</p>
<p>zoosermom says:
</p>
<p>Obviously LOTS of people disagree with me. That doesn’t mean that they are all necessarily well informed. </p>
<p>I do not mean to minimize the terrorist threat, as obviously it is real, but terrorism has been around a very long time - it’s only new to us. </p>
<p>I just happen to believe, though, that there are many other issues that are a bigger threat to our country, but they lack the fear factor and media focus.</p>
<p>
I will assume you are not deliberately taking my comment out of context. I was referring to today’s vote, as you would see if you followed the link or read the next sentence. In any case, they couldn’t get enough votes to override the veto – sounds like the American people are a little divided.</p>
<p>
As I see it, you can’t even begin to address any of the other issues that are important if the national security piece isn’t in place. It’s like the first item in a decision tree.</p>
<p>“I just happen to believe, though, that there are many other issues that are a bigger threat to our country, but they lack the fear factor and media focus.”</p>
<p>I didn’t that everyone who disagrees with you is well-intentioned, but many are. I happen to think that terrorism is the single greatest threat to our country, my city, and my office building.</p>
<p>" Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out in 1996. They didn’t return until fall 2002."</p>
<p>The inspectors left on December 16th, 1998, immediately preceding the Christmas bombing. During the entire episode of the Clinton Genocide, during which a million people died, half of them children, Clinton had weapons inspectors telling him repeatedly that they had no evidence of biological weapons, no chemical weapons, no plants, no delivery systems, and no nuclear weapons. In 1997, U.S. inspectors were told to leave, but UNSCOM remained. Following the failed Christmas bombing of December 16-19, Iraq announced that UNSCOM would not be invited back.</p>
<p>I think it is YOU who has the timeline wrong.</p>