bread_and_roses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Mar-25-06 08:05 AM
Response to Original message |
| -the Iraq War Resolution WAS a vote for war.... |
mike_c |
Mar-24-06 10:44 PM |
#0 |
 -
kick |
wuushew |
Mar-24-06 11:09 PM |
#1 |
| -
It took you 3 years to figure that out??? |
pocoloco |
Mar-24-06 11:20 PM |
#2 |
  -
no, I've known that from the beginning-- this was in response to... |
mike_c |
Mar-24-06 11:27 PM |
#5 |
| -
K & R. nt |
nonconformist |
Mar-24-06 11:22 PM |
#3 |
| -
Thank you for explaining this so clearly and concisely. A very |
Dhalgren |
Mar-24-06 11:22 PM |
#4 |
| -
Everyone of those who voted for the war should resign or lose next |
cantstandbush |
Mar-25-06 08:30 AM |
#20 |
| -
Very simple. K&R |
Crazy Guggenheim |
Mar-25-06 12:41 AM |
#6 |
| -
Does This Give * Any Right To Invade Iran? ....... |
global1 |
Mar-25-06 01:07 AM |
#7 |
| -
I don't see how.... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 01:20 AM |
#9 |
| -
I believe it does |
GreenArrow |
Mar-25-06 12:24 PM |
#37 |
| -
that troubled me too... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 12:44 PM |
#39 |
| -
you're probably right |
GreenArrow |
Mar-25-06 12:52 PM |
#40 |
| -
It would be nice if we would put our blame and anger where it lies... |
politicasista |
Mar-25-06 01:14 AM |
#8 |
| -
where exactly is "the hook...?" |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 01:27 AM |
#10 |
| -
It is NOT a literal equivalent to a declaration of war |
sandnsea |
Mar-25-06 01:41 AM |
#11 |
| -
have you read the War Powers Resolution that makes this beast work...? |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 02:09 AM |
#12 |
| -
OR, or or or or or |
sandnsea |
Mar-25-06 03:11 AM |
#13 |
| -
Bush was not required to do anything. |
SOS |
Mar-25-06 11:16 AM |
#22 |
| -
exactly.... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 11:35 AM |
#26 |
| -
Yeah, HE went to war |
sandnsea |
Mar-25-06 02:28 PM |
#48 |
| -
did you stamp your feet when you wrote that...? |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 11:39 AM |
#27 |
| -
Beats twisting my brain into a pretzel n/t |
sandnsea |
Mar-25-06 02:29 PM |
#49 |
| -
And anyone who disagreed could have spoken up... |
killbotfactory |
Mar-25-06 03:59 AM |
#14 |
| -
I agree, but to even go further in the line of Bushian thought |
tritsofme |
Mar-25-06 04:05 AM |
#15 |
| -
Another reminder |
Disturbed |
Mar-25-06 06:01 AM |
#16 |
| -
Good reminder. Thanks., nt |
glitch |
Mar-25-06 11:31 AM |
#24 |
| -
that's an excellent point.... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 11:41 AM |
#29 |
| -
Yep. (n/t) |
kenzee13 |
Mar-25-06 08:05 AM |
#17 |
| -
Anyone who claims they didn't see the war coming as a result |
Tierra_y_Libertad |
Mar-25-06 08:15 AM |
#18 |
| -
Don't agree with you at all |
merh |
Mar-25-06 08:24 AM |
#19 |
| -
the WPR might not be "legitimate," but it remains the law... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 11:45 AM |
#30 |
| -
It is the active usage of the word "support" |
merh |
Mar-25-06 12:14 PM |
#36 |
| -
agreed, Congress "supports" diplomacy... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 12:37 PM |
#38 |
| -
But see, you can't approach the issue as "it hasn't been |
merh |
Mar-25-06 01:35 PM |
#42 |
| -
I'm sorry merh, I just can't agree.... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 01:49 PM |
#43 |
| -
I am not taking anything out of context. |
merh |
Mar-25-06 02:03 PM |
#44 |
| -
Exhibit A: Downing Street Memo (7/ 23/02).Exhibit B: I.W.R. (10/10/02). |
oasis |
Mar-25-06 09:34 AM |
#21 |
| -
Tell you what... you stay here and look backwards and point fingers... |
ClassWarrior |
Mar-25-06 11:20 AM |
#23 |
| -
take back our country from WHOM...? |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 11:49 AM |
#31 |
| -
I agree. You show me the proof that was someone's motive, and I'll be... |
ClassWarrior |
Mar-25-06 11:59 AM |
#34 |
| -
Yes, it was, |
notsodumbhillbilly |
Mar-25-06 11:33 AM |
#25 |
| -
How about the |
warrior1 |
Mar-25-06 11:40 AM |
#28 |
| -
Of course they lied |
notsodumbhillbilly |
Mar-25-06 11:52 AM |
#32 |
| -
the preamble to the IWR expresses Congress' full participation... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 11:54 AM |
#33 |
| -
Got it. |
warrior1 |
Mar-25-06 12:02 PM |
#35 |
| -
Perhaps your excellent post |
ronnie624 |
Mar-25-06 01:00 PM |
#41 |
| -
Have YOU read the conditions? The claims Bush made were false. |
mzmolly |
Mar-25-06 02:14 PM |
#45 |
| -
oh of course they were false-- utter lies.... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 02:23 PM |
#46 |
| -
No they did not. They affirmed that under X circumstances they |
mzmolly |
Mar-25-06 02:27 PM |
#47 |
| -
I edited the prev response to include the definition... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 02:33 PM |
#50 |
| -
But, the facts were not "factual" thus the yea was in response to a fairy |
mzmolly |
Mar-25-06 02:38 PM |
#52 |
| -
ok-- I certainly don't argue that any of that pack of lies was truthful... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 02:53 PM |
#55 |
| -
We'll have to agree to disagree? |
mzmolly |
Mar-25-06 02:57 PM |
#56 |
| -
ok.... n/t |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 03:11 PM |
#58 |
| -
"I'm convinced that many of them did know they were utter whoppers." |
ClassWarrior |
Mar-25-06 02:34 PM |
#51 |
| -
OK-- that's a bit OT, but here are some of my reasons.... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 02:48 PM |
#53 |
| -
"Knowing that the clauses in the preamble were lies is a bit off topic..." |
ClassWarrior |
Mar-25-06 03:23 PM |
#59 |
| -
The problem was that no one believed |
annabanana |
Mar-25-06 02:53 PM |
#54 |
| -
yep-- when the LAWMAKERS don't pay attention to the fine print... |
mike_c |
Mar-25-06 02:57 PM |
#57 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread