Can the Democrats win in 2008, when their warmonger candidates voted for war in Iraq ?

Question

.
And the Republican candidates didn't vote for the war.

Answer 1

Edwards didn't vote for the war ?? since when ??

If the war is the issue of the 2008 race.

I don't see how a democrat candiate, who got us in the war, can win against a republican who didn't get us in the war.

I noticed the one poster, didn't include the name of the Iraq war resolution.

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

Now how can anyone vote for a resolution with that name, and not know force wasn't gonna be used.

Especially since bush had already sent an additional 70,000 soldiers to kuwait by the time of that resolution.

Answer 2

Well, let's see, Obama and Edwards DIDN'T vote for the war, McCain did, Rudy and Romney didn't since they weren't in the congress but they have indicated that they strongly support the war.

Bottom line if a person is anti-war, they are going to be much more likely to vote Dem.

BTW, this is what "voting for the war" actually meant. It gave the Pres. authority to go to war, among other diplomatic means to get Iraq to comply.

" SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

Answer 3

Towelie and the other guy is right on the money. Democratic candidates are showing how truly two faced they are. First the want war, then it becomes unpopular, so they dont want it. Then they want a slow troop withdrawal, but then the Republicans say okay, and magically, the Dems dont want it anymore and are finding ways to be against it....I dont think this nation could handle a Democratic president right now.


EDIT: SPLEENWATER:
You name his lies with reputable evidence, and I will sure go along with ya, but there is none. Its easy to call someone a liar, but having evidence for backing it up...thats a whole different story. He made decisions that HAD to be made at that given time on information that he was given at that given time. HE DIDNT MAKE THE ADVISORY REPORT!

If he truly lied, then he would be impeached right now, just like, UH OH, BILL CLINTON! Didnt think we would forget do you?


EDIT: Timmy...did you even think before you wrote that response? Okay...we are in a little thing called a war. NO PRESIDENT has EVER decreased the deficiet by a significant amount..EVER! much less in times of war. Clintons administration raised the Deficiet as well, but I dont hear you screaming at him for it. Funds are needed in a war. Bush has so far: pulled us through a hard time emotionally-9/11, and stimulated to economy with various tax cuts and breaks to help the little people that scream at him constantly, he pulled us from a recession, he defended our country, he stood up to Saddam Hussein, something Clinton was terrified to do. He has stuck to his guns, quite literally, his whole presidency...think before you post things.

Answer 4

Hitlery became never my candidate. neither is RON PAUL! i like this usa and understand that worry are incorrect for our destiny. I doubt that a liberal electorate could evaluate Paul. You men ought to experience desperate for votes to signify something like that. And no, we are no longer petrified of Ron Paul. it quite is impossible for him to get sufficient votes to get the nomination, THANK GOODNESS! unquestionably all and sundry that asserts Ron Paul is an ideal tier candidate is observing emotion, is dreaming or merely no longer observing information! How can a candidate that has a pair of million% of the vote on valid polls be considered perfect tier? answer - they are in a position to"T!!!!!!! the only polls that Paul come out looking solid are the two biased, text cloth-message variety, internet pushed or from straw polls. NONE are valid independent polls! Sorry to burst your bubble yet Paul is so far down that there is no longer lots under him. I relatively doubt that he gets even one delegate on the convention. he won't in any respect have sufficient help to win ANY state. those ARE information, no longer EMOTION! EDIT: good day Jessica, Hitlery Rotten Clinton is has never been a reasonable! do no longer insult our intelligence.

Answer 5

I doubt they can win As Since Bush isn't running in 08 why keep bashing him> Look at what's running for Pres== what a mess we have to pick from>The amnesty sellout group> Spineless,do nothing till they have to>Maybe 1 will have some standards and want to help the USA & citizens and not themself> The more they talk the more trouble they get into>

Answer 6

Rest assured, if a Demorat was in the White House on 9/11 and made every single decision that Bush has made, the newspapers and the Demorats would be praising him as the greatest President in the history of the world.

"SAY NO TO WAR - UNLESS A DEMOCRAT IS PRESIDENT"

Answer 7

I know that if a Dem wins in 2008, he/she will do a whole hell of a lot more good for the U.S. in four years than George did in 8. All Walker Bush has done for us is put us in trillions of dollars of debt, pissed off many different countries, and make about 10 minutes of great blooper clips.

Answer 8

they made a mistake, and have recognized that they were lied to by Bush.

Bush hasn't taken responsibility for either his mistakes or his lies.

is that clear enough for you?