SkinsHokieFan Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 Yea, like Clinton and Kerry. . . they're radical lefties ShF, you keep on professing this, yet you have absolutely nothing to back it up. The far left is non-existant, so this language is absolutely false. The far RIGHT is in control of the country, do you honestly thing there is a "far left" anymore? If you do, then what do you have for proof other then idle words which have been long gone. Saying this is akin to saying conservatives are fiscally responsible. I'm calling you out now because you keep on saying it, yet you have absolutely nothing to back it up. In fact, the democrats are mostly moderate. The ones running for president, Kerry, Clinton, Biden, Bayh, ALL are moderates, and they are the ones that are in control of the party. You need to come up with some facts if you are going to continue to profess this false claim, because frankly, I am sick of reading it. And how is it the democrats fault? They were not the ones that voted to go to war. Do you really want me to bring up the vote? Do you really want me to bring up the EXACT language Bush used to get people to pass? Do you really want me to bring up how the extreme right slandered democrats in the election saying they were soft? Do you want me to bring up the viscous language used, and how the American public bought into it? Do you need to be reminded what was said about the Dixie Chicks? How about if you are against the war, you are with the terrorists? How anout every democrat called a terrorist lover for actually calling Bush on his BS? How about when the republicans put out a campaign commercial morphing Max Cleeland into Bin Laden? They were going along because it was their only hope of survival. Chom honestly, sometimes I worry about you man Do you honestly believe what you say? Do you honestly believe the DLC controls the democratic party and not the "Democratic Wing of the democratic party" Its like you constantly harping on "the GOP is about to split and lose election" No its not, people like you have been saying that for years Look, do I really need to bring up quotes from key Democrats on Saddam Hussein? Really do I? I could do a quick search on this site and find them. The Democrats went along with Iraq, voted for it, except for people like Robert Byrd, and for as much as I dislike the guy, I'll give him credit for that Do I need to bring up quotes again from key Democrats? Quotes not only from fall of 2002, but how about justifying random missles into Baghdad during Ramadan in 1998? Should I bring up quotes then? Good lord man, wake up, take your party back. If you want to be the party of Liberman and Biden, DO IT. But your party doesn't. Lieberman was killed by the far left in the primaries, just as Biden will be in 2008. Seriously, take it down a level, step back and see what happened. I don't think George Bush was pushing around Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1998 when they justified missles into a few neighborhoods in Baghdad by talking about WMD's and inspections Really man, its the same damn cyclical argument all the time with you, it never changes, you see the world through some completely different lens then I do and I don't think anything will change that. Does the DLC control the Democratic party? No Is the GOP on the verge of a split because of GWB? No Here is an article on the Iraq War Resolution vote. Now if I recall correctly, in October of 2002, Democrats controlled the Senate. So half of the Senate Dems went along with the Iraq War resolution. Step back from the ledge here man. As I have said in other posts I have been there, met people who want to destroy us, and understand a lot of the politics of the area, and WAS SO DAMN HAPPY THE REGION IS DESTABLIZED Like I said my motiviations on this are far different from yours, however if you let the Dean wing control the party, you are going to have things like the 1990s where terrorism was viewed as a law enforcement issue, rather then the war it is. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/ Senate approves Iraq war resolution Administration applauds vote WASHINGTON (CNN) --In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133. The president praised the congressional action, declaring "America speaks with one voice." "The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must." While the outcome of the vote was never in doubt, its passage followed several days of spirited debate in which a small but vocal group of lawmakers charged the resolution was too broad and premature. The resolution requires Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days. The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate. The Bush administration and its supporters in Congress say Saddam has kept a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons in violation of U.N. resolutions and has continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Bush also has argued that Iraq could give chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations "lies" Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. "If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they're welcome to come over and have a look for themselves," he said. The White House immediately rejected the offer, saying the matter is up to the United Nations, not Iraq. Resolution sharply divides Democrats The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage. Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment." Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse." Daschle had expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution last week. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote. Cut per new rules......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.