A SeRIOUS QUESTION ABOUT DEM CANDIDATES?

Question

OK, the scenario pitched by Pretty Boy (Edwards), Hillary, et al, is that they voted for the Iraq War because they were fooled and misled by Bush (he lied/kids died) and the "Slam Dunk" CIA. The Senate was "lied" to.
My questions is two-fold:
1. Will not the winner encounter other heads of state that will try to "fool" them too (North Korea and Iran). Being gullible is not a great quality for a president.
2. Why did 'Barak Osama Obama Hussein Kim Jong-Il" vote against the War Resolution? Wasn't he fooled like the rest? Why was he different from Kerry, Biden, Edwards, Hillary etc??
Can we say he is smarter than the rest- or a total loser for ignoring what should have been compelling info provided.

Correct- Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002- I can't believe he only has two years in). He went on the record in interviews that he would vote against going to war. He never shifted. Durban also voted against.

Answer 1

Swoosh! You had a slam dunk with this question!

I for one don't want a President that can be fooled. Thanks for pointing out their obviously flawed personality to all of us. Now anyone who votes for them can be considered FLAWED too since you warned us!

Answer 2

OK, HERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS:

1) There used to be a big difference between trusting the leader of the US and trusting the leader of North Korea and Iran. Nice job comparing the lies of Bush and the GOP to the lies of the leaders of Iran and North Korea. The American people will NEVER make the mistake of trusting Republicans more than other evil tyrants AGAIN. The lesson has been LEARNED.

2) Obama was not IN the Congress when the lie-based war was voted on by the Congress. Are you really ignorant of this fact?

Answer 3

1. I agree with this one, gullability is not a good trait.

2. Barack Obama voted against it because he's a true american. He knew why Bush wanted over there. As for the rest of them, despite what the media will have you believe today, the Clinton's, along with the other people you mentioned, were good friends with president Bush. The only reason they disclaim anything now, is because the 2008 elections are coming up. They don't want to seemed linked to the Bush's for the 'television voters'. It was actually known that they didn't have any WMD's. I'm in the military, and can tell you, we definitely have the technology to know this. Have you ever used "Google Earth"? Quite detailed for the public. You can just imagine how detailed it is for the CIA.

Answer 4

anyone watch the news ever?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070209/pl_nm/iraq_usa_report_dc_3

basically the CIA shouldn't be TRYING TO FOOL THEM...
hmm... do you know the difference between North Korea, Iran and the CIA? one should be on our side?

Bush and all the Republicans were clearly fooled too? DUH? unless they did it on purpose.. and that would be worse...

so are you saying that only those that voted against it should get votes? or everyone should be gullible?

the simple truth is... in hindsight, Obama (if he even voted? did he?) did make the right decision... you can cry about the why and how, but no one usually cares if you're just lucky or good... as long as you get the job done...

Answer 5

I cannot believe them that they were fooled, because when I listened to the senate debate on giving bush the war powers he asked for, I remember being utterly disgusted by Hilary and by Kerry. They clearly lacked the guts to tell the truth to the country and vote against bush and his criminal plans. I knew the day they voted for war that Bush had been lying to them - and they did, too.

The American people responded so eagerly, with such bloodthirstiness, to bush's war drumming, Kerry and Clinton thought they'd have to be warmongers, too, to get elected. They demonstrated they do not care about the country first, but about themselves first. Despicable. Kennedy voted against the war, as did a significant number of brave democrats. And one honorable Republican.

Answer 6

That's what Dems say, but there is absolutely no proof of that. There are other Dems that reside on the SSI committee that say everyone seen the same Intel President Bush seen. NO PROOF OF THEIR CLAIMS. I wish they'd stop saying it, and start with hearings proving as much, but they can't, because there is none.

Just like to add Hillary's quote. Now, she says for the last 4 years. That was in 02, and 4 years prior to her quote it was her husband's intel. This pretty much makes the Dems claim NULL AND VOID.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Answer 7

First you have to remember the entire congress is filled with bloated idiots that have acid reflux from eating to much caviar.

The bills they vote on are so vast (10,000 pages average) it would take a year to read it. So they just belch out deals with each other and vote. Apologizing for the fish breath.

Go big Red Go

Answer 8

For your information Obama wasn't in the Senate when the vote was made to create a preemptive stroke, breaking the 2ND Constitution. He never had a chance to vote because he wasn't a senator during that terrible lie vote.

Answer 9

1. As President, they will have access to all intelligence, not just the cherry picked stuff.

2. Obama wasn't in the Senate in 2002 when the resolution in question was passed, so he didn't vote on it at all. Your knowledge in this area leaves a bit to be desired. Also, your cute name for Obama is juvenile.

As far as no proof of doctored intell is concerned http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2007-02-09T182248Z_01_N08313529_RTRUKOC_0_UK-USA-IRAQ-REPORT.xml

Answer 10

I heavily doubt it. not because of any personal opinion I surely have of her, or because of any critique of her political beliefs, yet because once someone has "failed" on that element, it type of feels that they could't get themselves re-nominated, now to not indicate elected. i do not comprehend why - perchance the activities in basic terms regard them as "non-electable". this isn't quite an same as a former vice-president operating as a candidate after the president less than which they served will not be in workplace (as became the case with former vice-presidents Walter Mondale in 1984, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and Al Gore in 2000). someone proposed that a extremely parallel case may be Dan Quayle, a Republican, who had already served as vice-president, and became operating back because the vice-presidential candidate on a cost ticket that lost in 1992. yet he wasn't nominated as a presidential contender in 1996 like Walter Mondale became in 1984. a miles extra effective parallel may be Bob Dole, who ran as vice-president on the price ticket with President Ford adversarial to Jimmy Carter and his vice-presidential candidate Walter Mondale in 1976. President Carter and Vice-President Mondale ended up triumphing the election, yet we said Dole - the "failed" vice-presidential candidate - nominated for president in 1996, a race which he then lost. So it may not be not obtainable that, 20 years down the line, like Sen. Dole, the nomination may flow to Sarah Palin. yet, on condition that today even one-time presidential applicants like Al Gore or Bob Dole at the instantaneous are not later re-nominated, it type of feels that we choose not concern now-vice-presidential-candidate Palin being a severe contender for president at any time interior the close to destiny if Sen. McCain isn't elected.

Answer 11

Barak voted as most Muslims do, against America . While the
rest of the Democrats, tell us how dumb President Bush is, but
crafty enough to fool them. How could you look in the mirror,
after you vote for a Democrat.