"Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War WASHINGTON, May 3 — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq"
2007-05-04 05:26:58 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/washington/04cong.html?hp
2007-05-04 05:27:18 · update #1
Yes. Especially when they find out the "facts" were "slanted".
2007-05-04 05:32:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They can agree or disagree with the President whenever they want to. However, I doubt very seriously that such a proposal would have any effect at this time. Its a little late to close the barn door when the horse is already out. This is just another political way of saying I voted for it but then I voted against it. For some unknown reason, some folks think that fixes everything and they are relieved of any responsibility. How convenient is that????
2007-05-04 13:18:10 · answer #2 · answered by Rich S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
She agreed right through the Clinton Administration and after 9/11 and Now changes her mind because the Polls say she should. An Argument even Benedict Arnold could use!
2007-05-04 12:46:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Put it this way.
Police and Social Services receive information that there is an abusive husband/father. In an almost unanimous decision, they decide to go in and remove the abuser. The abuser doesn't like it, but he knows he can't go toe to toe with all the law enforcement, so he waits until the family is under little supervision to attack. He doesn't just attack the family, but the law enforcement that is there as well. After seeing two of their officers assaulted, the board decides that it's too dangerous and that they don't want officers getting hurt. So in order to reduce assaults on officers, they just reduce the visibility of those officers. Instead of having 2 officers to protect the family, they only have 1. I mean, if they're going to get assaulted, it's better that only one gets hurt, right?
Turns out that the police officer's family doesn't like him being in a dangerous situation. I mean, he volunteered for police benefits, he didn't volunteer to be in the line of fire. So then that same board that wanted the abuser removed now decides that they shouldn't even be bothering in the security of that family, I mean... the abuser was only hitting his own family, right?
So the police pull out and the abuser goes back to his own house and everyone lives happily ever after.
2007-05-04 12:45:07 · answer #4 · answered by coqueto 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Don't be absurd. of course you can change your mind. the problem is how you represent the change. and the reason behind the change. (like to gain popularity).
The problem I have is that the idea of WMD pre-dated Bush but he's getting all the blame, The politicians who "changed their minds" were the same ones pushing for the war, and have really only changed their minds because it didn't go fast enough to suit then.
If we had been able to walk in and complete the invasion within say 30 day's...would the same politicians still think they made a mistake? Or would they be patting themselves on the back and drinking champagne in celebration?
2007-05-04 12:44:31 · answer #5 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you vote and authorize military action, Im sorry but you need to follow through on what you stood behind and not abandon it purely for politcal and poll-driven reasons.
2007-05-04 12:58:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely, people can change thier minds. It's just concurring with a decision when it's made, then criticising the decision, later, that's a little suspicious.
2007-05-04 12:32:45 · answer #7 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She saw the error in the decision and wants to correct it. Have you ever made a mistake and gone back to correct it? The Congress is made of human beings. Human beings make mistakes. When human beings make mistakes they need to go back and correct their mistakes and learn from them. That is how we learn.
It is like a baby learning to walk. He doesn't lay helpless in his crib and all of a sudden he is running everywhere. It may seem like that but it takes him time. First he needs to learn to turn over and then to crawl, pull himself up and walk. Each of these steps he learns through trial and error. When he makes a mistake he learns from it. It is how humans, and other animals learn.
2007-05-04 12:34:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not when it contravenes the US Constitution.
And come on! Do you really see this as anything other than electioneering?!
2007-05-04 12:43:32 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋