Reply #109: Well, perhaps you can explain it to me

[jpgray]

Sorry to get mad at you, but are you telling me a statement Graham made over eight months later is a more valid description of his motivation for voting 'no' than the long speech he gave to describe that very motivation on the actual day of the vote? That doesn't make any sense. He says in no uncertain terms:

"But Madam President, tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak."

"Madam President, the resolution that I had hoped we would pass would contain what the President has asked for, relative to the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq – and more. It also should provide the President all necessary authorities to use force against all international terrorists groups who will probably strike the United States as the regime of Saddam Hussein crumbles."

Now here was my post:

"Some, like Bob Graham, believed the resolution was too timid, and voted no for that reason."

You replied to this with "wrong". Can you explain how anything I said there was wrong? Do you believe any recent justification a politician makes is automatically his de facto stance even if there is a blatant disconnect from his statement on the DAY of the vote only a few months earlier? I'd like to hear your answer to this. Describe how my post was "wrong", and how a political reinvention on the IWR vote is fine and dandy to you.