Should we ask all senators Rep and Dem, who voted for this war it is time for them to step down?

Question

The most important vote they ever made was the yes or no they casted that gave this idiot the power to go to war. It's time for all of them to step down, including Clinton

We should all thank these Senators for thanking before give Bush the power to go to war. (hey how did one rep get in there, thank him too)

Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

thinking* ...

Answer 1

Why on earth would we want them to step down? They made it possible to free 30 million people from the yoke of one of the worst dictators of the Twentieth Century. Further, their votes made possible a war which will fashion a beach head of democracy in the Middle East. One day, this war will be remembered as the beginning of the end of tyrannical rule in the Muslim world. You nd your ilk will be remembered as the seditious lot who tried to block the path of freedom.

BTW, your list reads like a legislative "Addams Family".

Answer 2

Hindsight, the opiate of the masses. The President has always had the power to go to war, as you say, it is reserved in the constitution. Idiot? Hardly. Do you think this is the first time it ever happened? Do you know any history or do you just parrot others and what you have seen on here? Step down? What a joke, where do you get such drivel?
I guess in your way of thinking that the same should have happened with Adams, Monroe, Jackson, Taylor, Lincoln, Roosevelt (Both) Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton, Bush. They all used their "power" but I guess they were idiots too. Have you written your congress people? Do you know who they are?

Answer 3

For some reason, this room stays confused on this. You don't vote to go to war. The Congress and Senate can do a vote of confidence but it is non-binding. The President (head of Executive Branch) has the Constitutional authority and responsibility to deploy U.S. troops to defend our Nation. He can send members from any or all branches at any time--particularly during crisis action planning.

He does have Constitutional limits however; as to how many troops he can send and how long they can be gone without doing a partial or full mobilization. The Legislative branch has the authority to Declare War and owns the purse strings to fund or not fund any military operation(s).

Answer 4

Blacks largly shifted to the Democratic occasion after the Civil Rights Act which develop into championed and signed into regulation via a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson. He suggested that via doing so as that the Dems had lost the South for a era..that is strictly what befell...the racist Dixiecrats moved to the Republican occasion, the GOP exploited racial fears utilising the Southern physique of innovations and cemented the South for the Republicans...

Answer 5

Paul Wellstone is dead. Hard to properly thank him.

And what a list! Yikes.

Good thing 4 of em (besides Wellstone) are out of office: Lincoln Chafee, Mark Dayton, Bob Graham, Paul Sarbanes.

Answer 6

I have a few questions about your question, if you dont mind....?

Which "war" are you talking about? Democrats never said they were against going after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Democrats STILL aren't against US forces in AFGHANISTAN. Becuase Afghanistan is where AL Qaeda was sponsored and given aid, by the then government of Afghanistan, the Taliban lilitia (who Reagan put in power when he supported bin Laden's jihad against Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s-- If you remember, Rambo fights the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 3rd Rambo movie- the guy who leads him over the border to rescue Trautman could be Osama's brother).

The war everyone is objecting to is IRAQ. Everyone (Dems, some Republicans, the UN, the rest of the World, the woman who wrote the book, "My Pet Goat", EVERYONE) advised Bush to wait, to let more sanctions be put into effect (a wimpy solution sure, but better than dividing our forces and sending our soldiers to Iraq with no body or vehicle armor). The "Decider" said, "nope, we're gonna smoke Saddam outa his hole"... oh wait, that was OSAMA Bush was supposed to catch, wasnt it?

You got this nice little adobe house in pre invasion Iraq. A guy shows up at your door, tells you you have a cockroach infestation and he's here to kill them. He goes in, strangles your cat, comes out, says it's a bigger job than he thought, sends in buffalos to destroy the house, thus, in theory, destroying the cockroaches, then calls you anti business and has you arrested without trial when you protest about your house being destroyed.

As far as your list , do you mean to tell me with a Republican controlled White House, with a Republican controlled House of Representatives AND a Republican controlled Congress, you still could find only one Republican with enough backbone to support their Commander in Chief's decision to invade Afghanistan? That's pretty weak. I applaud those Dems who voted to invade a despotic country known to harbor the man who admitted his responsibililty for the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. I do fault Bush for not finding bin Laden after all the support he was given by the Democrats though. And I would hope Bush and his cabinet can be as generous and supportive when it comes THEIR time to do so.

This wasnt even a good try by the Spin Meisters.

Answer 7

It's time for a total,clean sweep of the American Government,Starting at the top,and working it's way though them all, Hold "ALL" accountable to their campaign speeches, or it's "out-a here !!" This country is in dire need of a fresh start,and preferably a strong third,or forth party,as well...There are just too many differing ideologies for a two party system to remain functional,in the best interest for all

Answer 8

How many of those Democrats based their decision on the information provided them by the president?

If the Dems would have voted NO on this war, you would've been the first American to call them 'traitors'.

You can't have it both ways.

.

Answer 9

I don't think you are smart enough to come up with this. Who put you up to it? It is one of the most ill conceived things on here so far. You like the word so I will apply it. What an IDIOT.

Answer 10

A Soldier on the ground's Commentary on Iraq



Following the article I sent about Bush's national address and
troop increase, I thought it was a good idea to let you all know what
the perspective is over here. I'm tired of hearing the media's skewed
version,
the politicians squabbling over what they read in a report, and
the average ill-informed American ranting about things he knows NOTHING about!




I've been over here a couple of months now, and I've learned
more about this country than a year's worth of watching CNN. I've sat in
mission briefs with Colonels, talked with village elders, had tea with
Sheiks, played with the kids. And I agree with the President. We need
more troops and we need to take greater action.



There are 3 major factions here. The Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds.
The Shiites are in the majority, but Saddam was a Sunni, so he kept the
Shiites in check. Everyone hates the Kurds, who are Christian and in the
vast minority. The Kurds received the brunt of Saddam's murderous
tyranny. Now that Saddam is gone, the Shiites have taken control of
Baghdad. The largely peaceful Sunnis are now the victims of radical
Shiite terrorism. So the young Sunni men, who can no longer go to work
and support their families, do what all young men would do. They join
the Sunni militia and battle the Shiites. And thus the country sits on
the brink of civil war.



But this war is between them. They largely do not concern
themselves with the U.S. troops. The insurgents who battle the Coalition
Forces are from outside the country. And the biggest problem down here
isn't the insurgents. Its the politicia! ns. The local politicians. Even
though the country is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,
downtown Baghdad is controlled by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The Shiites follow al-Sadr and thus the Prime Minister does what al-Sadr
says. Think of it as if a warlord controlled New York and blackmailed
the President into diplomatic immunity.



When 1st Cav (mainly 2/5 Cav) came here in 2004, they took
downtown Baghdad (known as Sadr City) by force. It cost many lives, but
after a year, we held an iron grip on the largest insurge! nt bree ding
ground in Iraq. The insurgents were afraid of the Horse People, and
rightfully so. But when 1st Cav left, al-Sadr influenced the Prime
Minister to kick out the Coalition forces from that area of Baghdad. He
said the Iraqi military forces could hold the city. But all that
happened was al-Sadr regained control of his city, and it is now a
heavily guarded fortress. A place where insurgents and terr orists can
train and stockpile arms. And we cannot go back in because the Prime
Minister won't let us. Our hands are tied.



So where does al-Sadr get his backing? From Iran and Syria. Iran
supplies him with money and Syria supplies the terrorists. The
insurgents that battle the Coalition Forces are from Syria, Somalia and
dozens of other places outside of Iraq. Iraq is literally a terrorist
breeding ground. They have terrorist and sniper schools here. Why not?
They train by teaching them to attack the military forces here. And they
have an endless supply of these training tools. They have factories in
Sadr City to build bombs. Both Iran and Syria have openly proclaimed
their number one goal in life is to destroy the great Western Devil and
the little Western Devil (America and Britain). Iran wants to control
Iraq to further this purpose. Al-Sadr ! will ge t to "run" the country
and live like a king, but in reality Iran will pull the puppet strings.
Iran will have access to thousands of radical Shiites who will do
whatever al-Sadr tells them to. And Iraq will be used as a breeding
ground for terrorism. Terrorism that will be targeted directly
at America and Britain. The Iraq Study Group advis! ed we s hould let
Iran and Syria help with rebuilding? Bravo to President Bush for
striking that idea down and vowing to keep those two countries out of
Iraq



So how do the Iraqi people feel about everything? Of course they
don't want the Americans here. But they would far rather have us here
than the Iranians. My platoon visited an average Sunni village on a
patrol a few days ago. Their only source of income was to farm, as they
could not go to the city to work for fear of violence. Many of the young
m en had already run off to join the militia for no other reason than to
feed their families. They had no school or hospital near them and the
community was dying. The village elder's granddaughter was very sick and
I was able to treat her. Afterwards he invited me and my Platoon Leader
to sit in his house and have tea with him, and we talked about the
situation.



The people want peace. The Shiites kill the Sunnis because
al-Sadr tells them to do so. The Sunnis fight back because they have no
choice. They are glad Saddam is dead (Sunni or not), but do not want to
replace him with another dictator in a politician's clothes (which is
what al-Sadr will become). And they especially don't want Iran in
charge. Many innocent Iraqis will die if this happens. These are the
words that came out of the elder's mouth:



"We do not want America here, and America does not want to be
here. But you cannot leave because the militias control the country.
America must use the might of its giant army and sweep through, root out
and destroy the militias. Then Iraq can be free and you can leave."



What appears to have happened within our diplomatic community,
is that Prime Minister finally realizes that his days are numbered. If
al-Sadr remains, he will be kicked to the curb. So hopefully he is about
to allow us to reenter Sadr City, root out and destroy the enemy. A
dramatic troop increase will allow us to do this. And the Horse People
are back and ready to finish what they started over 2 years ago.



If leave now, it will be a failure for democracy. Iran will
control Iraq and the end result will be more terrorist attacks on
America. The American people don't want soldiers dying over here, but
its better than American
civilians dying over there. Do NOT forget 9/11. They will do it
again. The moment we loosen our grip on the noose, they will do it
again. And the only way to root out the evil here is to stop beating
around the bush, increase troops and destroy the insurgents once and for
all. The Iraqi government cannot do this on their own. The Iraqi
security forces are inadequate for this task. We are the only ones who
can stop al-Sadr.



Feel free to share this with whomever wants a real soldier's
opinion about the war.



SPC "Doc" Shurley

2/5 Cav, 1st CB