I think for two reasons, a) they were given bad intelligence by Bush and Co. regarding WMDs, etc. b) Bush's strong rhetoric of either being w/ him or the terrorists gave them little choice. They are only guilty of trusting Bush, sounds like you are guilty of the same thing.
2007-04-05 16:06:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by ♥austingirl♥ 6
·
8⤊
3⤋
They didn't vote to go to war. They voted to give Bush the authorization to use military force if necessary where Iraq was concerned. I found an old internet report on it when the vote went through. It makes for interesting reading. I think a lot of us have forgotten exactly what all this vote entailed and what it did not. I found the following comment particularly interesting, as it comes from a Democrat that seems to be expressing his party's position on why they approved it:
"Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations."
It takes intelligence and common sense to take stock of bad situations and admit that change is required. Anyone so constipated mentally that they cannot or will not change their mind when the situation calls for it is useless to us as a government representative. Refusal to acknowledge the bad planning and the resulting chaos in Iraq is status quo for Bush because he is incapable of admitting that he has been wrong. Even when saying "mistakes have been made" in his SOTU Address he didn't have the stones to take personal responsibility, although he has informed us that he is The Decider. Seems a little contradictory doesn't it? He insists that he and he alone is The Decider. This is Bush's War, make no mistake about that. Pretty cut and dried.
2007-04-05 23:29:24
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
0⤋
The House of Representatives passed the Resolution by a vote of 296 to 133. In the House, six Republicans (Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee) joined 126 Democrats in voting nay.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, (D-OH), said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
That's far from 98%. And, they didn't vote for the war. They voted to give Bush permission if he needed to.
And, the book of intelligence they received was cooked by Dick Cheney.
2007-04-05 23:08:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
0⤋
Bush & Cheney lied about the Iraqi's involvement when that vote was taken - everyone was willing to go to war - but the truth came out about Bush / Cheney, and all the other Republican scandels have caused the political balance to change - now we have goverment oversight - no longer rubber stamping anything Bush / Cheney wants - even the republicans are against the war's current mission - policing a civil war, not stopping terrorism.
2007-04-05 23:29:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by geosworld 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
The truth came out slowly, and as it did most politicians realized that they look like a bunch of jackasses for voting yes on a package of lies and manipulations and that the people were starting to question the veracity of a system that made no sense. They then claim they were fooled, when they should have asked harder questions from the git go. Many lost their jobs over it....boo ho....I say dump them all and get new honest people in there. but that's another story.
2007-04-05 23:11:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I know Republicans are answering believing Democrats "flip-flopped", but the Republicans had control of Congress during that time, so it would be the Republicans who "flip-flopped".
I also love how some of the sheep, I mean, Republicans use the word "flip-flop" because they heard bush and the Republican media (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, O'reilly) use it, but I've seen many people change their mind when they find out their opinion is wrong instead of continuing down the same wrong path. It's called common sense. It would be senseless to continue the same wrong path, wouldn't it?
Bottom line: Changing their minds (BOTH Republicans and Democrats) when they were LIED to makes sense, bush and his administration is senseless...
2007-04-05 23:22:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by linus_van_pelt_4968 5
·
5⤊
0⤋
Well, let me take some other's logic if that was Bush. It sounds like 98% of congress just flip flopped.
2007-04-05 23:04:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by az 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
They voted for funding because the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense and other "Leaders" conspired, lied, decieved the Congress and the American people in their lust for oil.
If they hadn't practiced treason by lying, Congress wouldn't have approved the funding.
The truth has been slow to come out but now we all know we were lied to by those leaders who swore to uphold the Constitution...those who have our very lives in their hands. We have found them to be arrogant, uncaring - and they ALL continue to lie to us..except Colin Powell who had the good sense to resign when he found out about the lying.
Congress will bring this mess to a screeching halt. Bushie and boys are all over........
Aren't you just a little bit mad that the highest leaders in our country perpetrated a complete deception upon us????? That over 3000 of our young soldiers have been killed? Tens of thousands permanently and seriously maimed and crippled? Over 100,00 Iraqis dead?
If you are not mad as hell, you should be.
2007-04-05 23:19:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
1⤋
It was kind of a sham really. Bush presented it during Christmas while most of congress were on vacation. Also it was right after the "False Flag" Terror Attacks so everyone was all hyped up anyway.
2007-04-05 23:17:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ugly Betty 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
Patriotic fervor after 9/11!
2007-04-05 23:08:00
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
You will be surprised but it was far from 98%!
(But I have a feeling you already know this and jut exaggerating the numbers)
2007-04-05 23:11:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋