Are the democrats against this war in Iraq?

Question

"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998

Answer 1

The Democrats are against this current war.

So are Saddam, Mahmoud, and Osama.

Love the letter! Good touch.
The Democrats were FOR the war before they voted against it...

Answer 2

The Democrats managed the vote in Congress even as protection stress Engagement grow to be declared, and no a president can no longer merely say "good day lets bypass to conflict," Congress has to approve conflict, which the Democrats did. The Congress is the Senate and the abode mixed. definite, if a majority of the Democrats voted no then we doesn't be at conflict. No, if funding grow to be stopped then Bush might want to veto it. u . s . a . of america can no longer bypass to conflict without Congress approval. Adolf Schmichael- on the time Congress grow to be no longer managed by technique of Republicans, it grow to be the 107th Congress, and Democrats had majority vote.

Answer 3

Right. 1998. One set of factual circumstances. One perspective, leading to one conclusion.

2003. A different set of factual circumstances, and a different perspective. So, some people come to a different conclusion about what is best to do.

2005. And a completely different set of factual circumstances. So, some people again come to a different conclusion about what is best to do.

Whether the Democrats (or anyone else) agreed with deposing Saddam in 1998 or 2003 has nothing to do with them supporting or opposing remaining in Iraq on a nation-building exercise or getting involved in a sectarian/civil war years after Saddam is out of power. Just because the decisions all involve the same country doesn't mean that the other differences in years and facts are meaningless.

Different factual circumstances. Different decisions. That's the way good leaders are supposed to work.

Answer 4

Here's the difference:

In 1998, Saddam was refusing to let weapons inspectors into the country. In 2002, weapons inspectors were in the country but were pulled out before the bombing began.

That being said, now that we're there, whatever the pretense, "we broke it, we bought it." We need to fix what we broke and then leave them to their own devices. And we need to do it as rapidly as possible. The longer we are "occupiers", the more people will resent us, and the more people will die. We have become that which we sought to remove - the tyranical leadership.

p.s. I have little respect for any of the people on that list, and have never and will never vote for any of them, Kerry included.

Answer 5

yes,
and we bombed the remanants of thier programs in 99...remember the airstrikes.
case closed.


invading a counrty on lies is another thing.
hell, creating a new center of terrorism and training ground against our brave service men and women is wrong.
staying during a civil war and picking a side to oppress the other is wrong, its replacing saddam with us......seriously they are having a civil war and power grab....us there means we have to pick a side and just repeat history.


remember it said
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws,
not whatever bush want to do above the constitution.

Answer 6

Key terms:
"consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws"
Whether Bush acted within his powers is debatable.

"if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites"
Again, this does not contemplate a full-scale land invasion.

I am not in total disagreement with you, but a person should read things carefully.

Answer 7

Democrats are against Western Civilization in general.

Answer 8

As the letter indicates, there are cheap, effective ways to deal with weapons programs....Full-scale invasion isn't one of them....

Answer 9

democrats are against everything that could help this country to be as it was 'till now - the best and the strongest

Answer 10

"One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures."GWB