Clue me in--Republicans keep making it a big deal that Liberal Democrats all voted to support the war in Iraq?

Question

Well, except for that Obama guy, who Busheviks say not to vote for on account of he's got a funny sounding last name.

So let me see if I've got this straight, Republicans. All of those Stinking, America Hating, Socialist, Homosexual Loving, Democrats voted to go to war in Iraq? And that wasn't enough to tip you off to the fact that it was a bad idea?

After all, a lot of them went along with the Beloved Leader's Amnesty Plan, and you saw through that, didn't you?

Possibly true, Prosperous Parent. There does seem to be some confusion on the Right between "Socialist" and "Social List."

And the Left for that matter, as Tom Wolfe detailed in his long ago book, "Radical Chic."

Libsticker, a lot of the opposition, and the high incidence of psychaitric problem and preventable injuries stem from poor planning and the lack of sufficient US troop strength to support this kind of war. This is the first war EVER in which US troops have spent more than a year continuously in a combat zone. In Vietnam, 1 year tours were broken up with an out of country furlough. And even in WWII, where some formations spent the entire war in Theatre, the policy was that units spent a maximum of 3 to 4 months on the line. That was the point at which General of all nations considered the formation "Redlined."

When you talk about protracted conflict, you need to remember that religious wars tend to last a hundred years or more. We need to either pick our battles more carefully, or have a military with at least 5 times the current troop strength.

Answer 1

Actually,the technical difference in it resided in the fact that the majority of dems who voted, voted for the 'support' of the president, not for any war in total. If you look at the bill that covers this, you'll see the demography of political wording that promotes a hard tact, but not the extreme views that Bush later took. The dem inadvertently enabled Bush's war by trusting Bush with the power they gave him to go ahead with 'a war'. Remember, hostilities started in Afghanistan, then proceeded to Iraq. Often against advise from the military. The dems stated categorically that only in the event of 'no other choice', if you read the actual events. Many cons refuse to accept the fact(s) that they were incorrect, even wrong on about every issue regarding Iraq, and terror and oil. They are just... stupid I guess.




(like that fox guarding the hen house.)

Answer 2

Democrats and Republicans are the same. Behind close doors Dems and Reps are always in agreement. To the rest of the world, they act like they are against each other. This creates the illusion there are two sides of ever issue. In reality, they are the same thing. The Central Government, run by bureaucratic servants called Democrats and Republicans, know that there is a 11% approval rate of the government by the US citizens. This is unacceptable to the Dems and Reps. They need away to show there power. So creating a fear atmosphere, will get the citizens attention. This will also let them portray they are doing something for the citizens that cannot be done without the government. I't is a forced recognition of power in all its tyranny. One of the rules of war when facing a stronger enemy is to divide and conquer, rather then to attack your enemies force as a whole. Knowing that citizens and there constitutional freedoms/rights are a thee governments greatest enemy, creating a diversionary tactic such as Republican and Democrat would divide the governments enemies "citizens + constitutional freedoms/rights" Once divided, the enemy is far easier to conquer. In this case, when we are divided, the Central Government can take away freedoms/rights, and implement tyrannous laws a lot easier than if we were united. Vote for ANYONE else besides Democrats or Republicans. I't can be anyone ranging from a third party candidate to Mickey Mouse. Just don't vote for Democrats or Republicans. They were bought and paid for a long time ago by bureaucrats. When Dems or Reps are elected, they serve the interests of transnational corporations that paid for them to get elected, not the citizens. I't is the greatest acting out of a "good cop bad cop" scenario in history. Just remember. The Tea Party is the Republican Party. "I'f your a multi-billion dollar transnational corporation and you pay for, 1 President + 435 Congressmen + 100 Senators + 9 Supreme Court Justices, then you have total power over 350,000,000+ citizens and all there resources."

Answer 3

I guess the part that confounds most people is the fact that, with a certain notable exception who may have had unterior motives, we all seemed to be working together in harmony, united against a common enemy, and then, all of a sudden, the people you so aptly described, went totally partisan on the whole issue and put their own political ambitions ahead of the safety & security of the Country.

To make things, worse, some of the Republicans started behaving like they were Democrats and were spening money like a bunch of drunken liberals (sorry Uncle Teddy), and that was compounded by the President's refusal to exercise the veto pen as often as he should have.

Now we have a situation where the frontrunning candidate on the left is a well-known and reputed criminal who, along with her husband, never saw a campaign contribution that they wouldn't accept and who, along with her husband, would sell their very souls (if in fact they came equipped with souls) for a few bucks in bribes from the Chinese Government. This harpie, and her fellow candidates, forgot their early pro-America stance and have suffered a convenience of memory as it pertains to their earlier speeches and vote.

On the other side, we have the erstwhile former mayor of New York, who is pretty much the ONLY candidate on either side of the aisle with even a modicum of executive experience. He ain't perfect, but he's still the best choice out there.

Answer 4

Oh, but it IS a big deal, Mad, to vote "aye" on a decision that will ultimately kill and maim thousands of troops, and even more thousands of innocent people. It's a big, big deal.
Democrats?? When Bush was throwing out all that jingoistic, garbled (but, extremely effective) rhetoric claiming that there were WMDs, they were the ones who were supposed to make sure that he KNEW what he was talking about - before they voted! When he misrepresented and refashioned (flip-flopped) his reasons for putting our troops in harms way; when he insinuated that Iraq was, in some way, connected to the attack on the World Trade Center (Yes, he did! And, there are people, to this day, who believe it's true.); when he redirected the efforts to find Osama Bin Laden... to, instead, capture and annihilate Sadam Hussein (just one of many evil, tyrannical dictators we need to be concerned about... Why him?); when he proudly asserted that democracy had been established in Iraq (Ha! Mission Accomplished.... Remember?); when he said that his decisions were based on his conversations with God (Right. As if... there is a God that would sanction this. Sounds like a line that some Mullah may be currently "brainwashing" HIS followers with...); and, when he began tossing about our tax dollars at a rate that (that aforementioned) God might find difficult to fathom..... where was the cacophony of questioning (albeit, homosexual-loving) Liberal voices then? Did you hear them? I didn't. Matter of fact, you might say... the SILENCE was deafening. I've been wondering, for years now, what those "stinkin' Democrats'" were thinking. Were they afraid of being called unpatriotic? unsuppotive of the troops? Or, were they so concerned about which side of their bread is buttered that they were willing to risk thousands of (other people's, of course) lives? Geez.... then why do we need Democrats at all? Isn't that what Republicans are for? (Or, is our's actually a one-party system cleverly disguised as "bi-partisanship"? If so.. um .. what became of "our" democracy?) And, let's face facts. Did those "Socialist Dems" really think that Republicans would overlook the opportunity to "rub their noses" in this vote-thing? (After what they went through because of a lousy bl*w-j*b??) The Republicans, after all, weren't the ones passing up chances to give "their" voters what they wanted...(i.e. asses to kick), and "their" contributors (or power base) what they wanted... (i.e., money in their pockets). Were they? On the other hand, did the Democrats let their voters down? Big time.... which is also a
"big deal".

P.S. I agree that troop size contributed to the inability to accomplish the necessary. However, troops in the numbers you suggest... Wouldn't that require a DRAFT? (OMG!) Do you think Republicans could pull this off if a draft was enacted? Huh?

Answer 5

Typically when you have a controversial decision to make, the more people that agree with one course of action the more likely that course is the best action. Not always, and in the case of Iraq, probably not.

This is America, we may have a two party system, but at the end of the day it's all just people running the government. Not everything the Democrats suggest as an idea is bad, it's just that they rarely come up with ideas (all I hear from them is criticism). Not every Republican opposed the amnesty plan either (I didn't).

When people try to pin this war as a Republican thing, I'll remind them that Democrats voted for it too, and they keep voting to fund it, despite the fact they have a majority in the house. They control the house, so as far as I am concerned they are responsible for its actions (oh no, responsible Democrats!).

Answer 6

First off Obama did not vote for the war because he was not yet in the Senate.

Republicans are not making a "big deal" that the Democrats voted to support the war, they are merely pointing it out. These people in congress, whether Democrat, Republican or whatever represent the people of their district or in the case of Senators, their state. On really important issues such as war one would expect unity.

The war on terror is a good idea. The amnesty plan is a bad idea. .

.

Answer 7

80% approval rating for Bush following entry into the war in Iraq. That either means that 8 out of 10 Americans were fools, or that they thought it was a good idea. I believe it was a good idea, and that the reason for the change, is because Americans don't have the stomach for a long protracted war, they liked the results of Desert Storm, and now expect all wars to go that quickly.

Answer 8

I am not a Bushovik, but you'd think, if he was serious about getting voted in...I.. mean come on it is a bad time to have that last name.

There is a saying. You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool a few of the people all of the time,all of the people a few times, and maybe fifty Conservatives most of the time, but they can't fool me ever.

Answer 9

If the President and his coterie keep saying that "America is in danger and the American way of life (whatever it may mean) is threatened,majority of the people will side with him and lynch the persons who speak against war. After all, US is famous for its McCarthyism- call some one a commy and finish him. So who would risk not supporting Bush especially after 9/11?

Answer 10

The Democrats are quoting the wrong person to rebutt those statements. They need to Quote PT Barnum. "You can fool ALL of the people SOME of the time" We were fooled ONCE. We se that now and you WON'T get to do it to us again.

BB,
Raji the Green Witch