You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #56: That is understandable [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-14-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. That is understandable
But to me, it's more important to expose Bush at this point. There was 6 months between the vote and the invasion. There were inspections and all kinds of information gathered. The vote has nothing to do with Bush lying about the need to go to war in March of 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
  -How many Democrats voted for "authorization" for war in Iraq because...? kentuck  Nov-14-05 11:00 AM   #0 
  - Those of us who were right about the Invasion of Iraq NEED to hear  patrice   Nov-14-05 11:05 AM   #1 
  - IMO we as a party should stay focused on what the authorization  wtmusic   Nov-14-05 11:06 AM   #2 
  - No kidding  Noisy Democrat   Nov-14-05 11:10 AM   #3 
  - Well said  wtmusic   Nov-14-05 11:16 AM   #4 
  - Read the IWR. It authorizes force without conditions. n/t  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 11:53 AM   #16 
     - Kerry pointed out at the time:  Noisy Democrat   Nov-14-05 12:39 PM   #40 
     - His determination was based upon mushroom cloud scaremongering.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 01:24 PM   #47 
     - No it does not. Go to my thread, I have posted the IWR  johnaries   Nov-14-05 01:31 PM   #49 
  - Thanks for pointing that out about the IWR! I remember, now,  patrice   Nov-14-05 11:43 AM   #8 
  - They should have voted on the bill in front of them.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 11:55 AM   #17 
     - Do you think they didn't think Bush would Invade another country  patrice   Nov-14-05 12:15 PM   #29 
     - I thought it was clear to anyone paying attention that Bush had  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 12:28 PM   #34 
        - He said he hadn't decided. He was saying that in Jan-Feb 2002.  patrice   Nov-14-05 12:58 PM   #44 
     - It said  Noisy Democrat   Nov-14-05 12:48 PM   #42 
  - None of those traitors are "my" people. n/t  greyhound1966   Nov-14-05 11:50 AM   #11 
  - Well Said, Ma'am!  The Magistrate   Nov-14-05 11:52 AM   #14 
  - The IWR says no such thing.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 11:52 AM   #15 
     - It's a LAW  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 12:03 PM   #22 
        - What are you talking about?  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 12:11 PM   #25 
           - "mere commentary"  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 12:22 PM   #33 
              - Does it ask for him to do it in writing?  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 12:29 PM   #35 
                 - yes  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 12:47 PM   #41 
                    - It said he would make available his determination to the  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 01:20 PM   #46 
                       - He LIED  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 02:06 PM   #51 
                          - Of course I hold him accountable for that.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 02:09 PM   #52 
                             - It won't work  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 02:25 PM   #53 
                                - You are right there.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 02:28 PM   #54 
                                   - That is understandable  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 02:34 PM   #56 
  - It authorized the use of military force in Iraq.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 11:50 AM   #12 
     - Not cut and dried  wtmusic   Nov-14-05 12:19 PM   #31 
        - True.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 12:32 PM   #37 
           - What's also interesting  wtmusic   Nov-14-05 12:52 PM   #43 
              - That is an excellent re-framing of the debate.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 01:19 PM   #45 
                 - Because the media and many on the left wouldn't let them be heard.  blm   Nov-14-05 01:24 PM   #48 
  - IWR got REAL intel reports from Weapons Inspectors for two months prior  blm   Nov-14-05 11:17 AM   #5 
  - Deleted message  Name removed   Nov-14-05 11:20 AM   #6 
  - Shouldn't redflags have gone up when Bush requested this "authority"?  kentuck   Nov-14-05 11:39 AM   #7 
  - Go ahead, but that attitude benefits Bush and further prevents substantive  blm   Nov-14-05 11:48 AM   #9 
     - Stick our heads in the sand ?  kentuck   Nov-14-05 11:50 AM   #13 
     - yes  sandnsea   Nov-14-05 12:00 PM   #20 
     - Because blaming IWR plays into THEIR spin and obscures the FACT that the  blm   Nov-14-05 12:06 PM   #23 
     - The attitude? The IWR explicitly authorized the use of the armed  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 11:57 AM   #18 
        - Bush's determination to make AFTER weapons inspections and diplomatic  blm   Nov-14-05 12:02 PM   #21 
           - Show me where the IWR required him to do so.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 12:06 PM   #24 
              - It's part of UN res that the IWR refers to. You think inspectors showed up  blm   Nov-14-05 12:12 PM   #26 
                 - The resolution was a parting of ways with the UN.  tasteblind   Nov-14-05 12:14 PM   #28 
                    - Did Dean forget that he supported Biden-Lugar which had nearly the same  blm   Nov-14-05 12:21 PM   #32 
  - The usual suspects, 5 DINO's  greyhound1966   Nov-14-05 11:48 AM   #10 
  - How many of them took Bush at his word when he said  ComerPerro   Nov-14-05 11:59 AM   #19 
  - I remember Kerry  PATRICK   Nov-14-05 12:13 PM   #27 
  - I can forgive one vote based on  wiggs   Nov-14-05 12:16 PM   #30 
  - I don't know either. And - Is ammending oneself possible without  patrice   Nov-14-05 12:31 PM   #36 
  - A lie is a lie is a lie -- no matter how much you try to dress it up.  The Stranger   Nov-14-05 12:34 PM   #38 
     - We did know  notsodumbhillbilly   Nov-14-05 12:38 PM   #39 
  - They voted to authorize an illegal pre-emptive war. WMD are irrelevant.  Tierra_y_Libertad   Nov-14-05 01:32 PM   #50 
  - all of 'em  KG   Nov-14-05 02:29 PM   #55 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC