Get out and vote!

[trez]

Voted for Ben Cardin, Martin O'Malley, Chris Van Hollen and all the other democrats on my ballot. Go Dems!

[Commander PK]

Pakistan has WMDs and has 10000x the terrorist connections that Iraq ever had. The Bush administration is clearly gutless for failing to invade, and instead pointing us towards Iraq. Same goes for Iran. North Korea was a much bigger threat. Gutless, gutless, gutless.

Last time I checked, Pakistan is one of the biggest reasons we have caught the terrorists we have. Without listing them. Looks like not invading Pakistan, and destabalizing the government of now one of our biggest allies in the War on Terror. WAS a good idea. The Iran/North Korea issues aren't even close to being resolved yet.

I would love to be able to ask Ben Cardin back in 2003, why he wasn't voting for War with Iraq. I doubt, "because I don't believe they have WMD's" would have been his answer.

and yes Sarge I heard the same thing.

[alexey]

Yes I did vote for Steele.

I voted for Steele because I believe a man (Ben Cardin) who did NOT vote for the Iraq war, based off of the intelligence that we had prior to the war, AND that the rest of the world agreed with is gutless. Even thought the stockpiles of WMD's were NOT found. EVERYBODY thought that he had them, and to have voted to do nothing is gutless.

No, not everybody thught he had them. Perhaps everybody you know thought so, but that's far, far from "everybody"

Weapon inspectors did not think he had them, for exmaple...

Weapon inspectors who in March 7 2003 (16 days before the start of the war) said things like:

Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process' date=' notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [u.N. Special Commission'] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.

As I noted on the 14th of February' date=' intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist.

[b']Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.[/b]

While during our meetings in Baghdad' date=' the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council. The calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision.

The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament, indeed the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks; lethal weapons are being destroyed.

[/quote']

March 7, 2003. Weapon inspectors were making great progress. No traces of WMDs were found anywhere. Saddam started to disarm. The window of opportunity to invade was closing fast.

[Commander PK]

No, not everybody thught he had them. Perhaps everybody you know thought so, but that's far, far from "everybody"

Weapon inspectors did not think he had them, for exmaple...

If you believe the inspections were "working" then I don't even know where to begin with you. :doh:

[alexey]

If you believe the inspections were "working" then I don't even know where to begin with you. :doh:

Begin by addressing this:

As I noted on the 14th of February' date=' intelligence authorities have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks, in particular that there are mobile production units for biological weapons. The Iraqi side states that such activities do not exist.

[b']Several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.[/b]

Sounds like:

1) we told inspectors where to look

2) inspectors looked there

3) no traces of WMDs were found

Agree/Disagree/Comment please.

Full text of the transcript is here:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/index.html

Another quote you may desire to ignore:

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions' date=' but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance. [/quote']

Perhaps by saying that weapon inspections were not working you mean they were not finding any WMDs or traces of WMDs?

Mind you the above quote was made on March 7, 2003. Chief Weapon Inspector Mr. Blix saying they have full no-notice access anywhere in Iraq. This is 16 days before we invaded. There was no good reason to invade. There was no good reason for 2837 of our people to die and tens of thousands to be permanently maimed. History will not be kind to George W. Bush.

[Zen-like Todd]

Last time I checked, Pakistan is one of the biggest reasons we have caught the terrorists we have. Without listing them. Looks like not invading Pakistan, and destabalizing the government of now one of our biggest allies in the War on Terror. WAS a good idea. The Iran/North Korea issues aren't even close to being resolved yet.

Wait. You just said not invading a country with terrorist ties and WMDs was the right choice. Think about that. Think about what you just said. Hypocrisy alert, anyone?

I would love to be able to ask Ben Cardin back in 2003, why he wasn't voting for War with Iraq. I doubt, "because I don't believe they have WMD's" would have been his answer.

So since you don't know, you should admit you don't know. Dude, it's pretty shameful to attribute motives like "gutlessnss" when you essentially just admitted you have no idea why he didn't vote for the resolution, particularly given the outcome of the campaign up to this point.

[Commander PK]

Wait. You just said not invading a country with terrorist ties and WMDs was the right choice. Think about that. Think about what you just said. Hypocrisy alert, anyone?

Pakistan didn't have Saddam Hussein as president. A proven Mass Murderer, who used WMD's on his own people. Hardly hypocrisy.

So since you don't know, you should admit you don't know. Dude, it's pretty shameful to attribute motives like "gutlessnss" when you essentially just admitted you have no idea why he didn't vote for the resolution, particularly given the outcome of the campaign up to this point.

What other reason could there be, besides gutlessness? Most of his party voted for the resolution, and he did not. Enlighten me, if you know. Why didn't Ben Cardin vote for the war in Iraq, and I want a quote from that time, not what he might have said sometime in the last couple years, when the Polls started shifting to "unpopular," and he realized there was political capitol to be gained.

[Beaudry]

Maybe Cardin voted against the war before he voted for the war before he voted against it.

[Zen-like Todd]

Pakistan didn't have Saddam Hussein as president. A proven Mass Murderer, who used WMD's on his own people. Hardly hypocrisy.

What other reason could there be, besides gutlessness? Most of his party voted for the resolution, and he did not. Enlighten me, if you know. Why didn't Ben Cardin vote for the war in Iraq, and I want a quote from that time, not what he might have said sometime in the last couple years, when the Polls started shifting to "unpopular," and he realized there was political capitol to be gained.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You accused him of gutlessness, so support your argument. No one is going to do your work for you. Perhaps you should have considered these things before you walked into your polling place, and before you started spouting your tripe. Seeing a talkingpoint on a RNC flier doesn't make it true.

[Commander PK]

http://www.bencardin.com/issues?id=0006

Opposed Bush Use Of Force In Iraq: In October 2002, Cardin voted against authorizing the use of force for Iraq. On the House floor, Cardin said the Bush administration should further pursue diplomatic negotiations and international inspections regarding Iraq's weapons programs. He also expressed concern over the consequences of unilateral preemptive military attack by the United States, which Cardin said could set a dangerous precedent in international law. Cardin also warned against overlooking the costs the U.S. would undertake in a post-Saddam regime. (HJRes 114, Vote #455, 10/10/02; Cardin statement, Congressional record, page H7330, 10/9/02)

For me, there it is in black and white. "On the House floor, Cardin said the Bush administration should further pursue diplomatic negotiations and international inspections regarding Iraq's weapons programs.

Like I said, GUTLESS, because even when the large majority of his own party believed negotiations, and diplomacy had failed, and would continue to fail, he STILL voted against the war.

[Zen-like Todd]

http://www.bencardin.com/issues?id=0006

For me, there it is in black and white. "On the House floor, Cardin said the Bush administration should further pursue diplomatic negotiations and international inspections regarding Iraq's weapons programs.

Like I said, GUTLESS, because even when the large majority of his own party believed negotiations, and diplomacy had failed, and would continue to fail, he STILL voted against the war.

Actually, what you quoted showed that he wanted to look for evidence of the weapons.... funny how that works. It must hurt to know that he was right.

[DCsportsfan53]

http://www.bencardin.com/issues?id=0006

For me, there it is in black and white. "On the House floor, Cardin said the Bush administration should further pursue diplomatic negotiations and international inspections regarding Iraq's weapons programs.

Like I said, GUTLESS, because even when the large majority of his own party believed negotiations, and diplomacy had failed, and would continue to fail, he STILL voted against the war.

He didn't fall for Bush's propoganda. it's obvious now that Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq for some time. Kudos to Cardin for not buying it. I hardly see that as gutless. The gutless ones were all the other Dems who bought what Bush was selling :2cents:

[alexey]

I suppose Nazis who refused to kill Jews were also gutless :doh:

Painkiller... Cardin was right. Gutless were those who did not stand up against the war. read this. address it or go away. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3181977&postcount=155

[Commander PK]

The burden of proof is on the accuser. You accused him of gutlessness, so support your argument. No one is going to do your work for you. Perhaps you should have considered these things before you walked into your polling place, and before you started spouting your tripe. Seeing a talkingpoint on a RNC flier doesn't make it true.

He didn't vote against the war, because he believed Iraq had no WMD's. He voted against it, because even when nearly everybody in our government had crossed party lines, and voted for the Iraq War. When everybody else thought that force was becoming the only viable option. Cardin wanted more negotiations, more inspections. More nonsense.

Gutless. Happy now?

[Spaceman Spiff]

you guys take this **** too seriously.

[Commander PK]

He didn't fall for Bush's propoganda. it's obvious now that Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq for some time. Kudos to Cardin for not buying it. I hardly see that as gutless. The gutless ones were all the other Dems who bought what Bush was selling :2cents:

Well, to use your talking point. Most of the Dems did, and now you want us to put them in office?

[Zen-like Todd]

He didn't vote against the war, because he believed Iraq had no WMD's. He voted against it, because even when nearly everybody in our government had crossed party lines, and voted for the Iraq War. When everybody else thought that force was becoming the only viable option. Cardin wanted more negotiations, more inspections. More nonsense.

Gutless. Happy now?

Dude, logic doesn't work that way. You still have no evidence to support your conjecture, so you just repeated it, and said happy now? Sorry, you lose.

[alexey]

you guys take this **** too seriously.

Almost as many died in Iraq as on 9/11/2001. It seems this **** not being taken seriously enough.

This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional, no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance.

[Predicto]

It is kind of a interesting argument.

If a Demo voted AGAINST the war, he or she was gutless - so vote Republican.

If a Demo voted FOR the war, he or she is a flip flopper now to criticize the president - so vote Republican.

Pretty convenient.

[DCsportsfan53]

Well, to use your talking point. Most of the Dems did, and now you want us to put them in office?

Believe me, if there was another option right now, I'd prefer not to vote for either. I just dislike most of the dems less than repubs. Besides, Bush is just terrible, I don't like the thought of another 2 years of guys who will rubber stamp everything he does. The repubs are party first, period. The country, the people, all that is secondary to the party, that's where their allegiance lies. It's a lesser of two evils thing. But on Cardin, I have to give him credit for not succombing to the pressure by the Bush administration when most Dems betrayed their better insticts and then acted ignorant later.

[Commander PK]

Dude, logic doesn't work that way. You still have no evidence to support your conjecture, so you just repeated it, and said happy now? Sorry, you lose.

I have evidence taken from Cardin's own website, which cleary states WHY he did not vote for the war in Iraq. Nowhere, does it say that he did NOT believe Iraq had WMD's. He wanted more diplomacy. More negotiations. When nearly everybody else, Dems and Repubs, believed that both diplomacy, and negotiations had failed/were failing, and that Saddam had WMD's, and he was a grave threat. Whether or not that proved to be true is irrelevant, it's what we believed at the time that counts with this argument.

[Commander PK]

It is kind of a interesting argument.

If a Demo voted FOR the war, he or she is a flip flopper now to criticize the president - so vote Republican.

Not a flip flopper...but trying to divert their share of the so-called "blame" and place it all on Bush and the Republicans?

ABSOLUTELY

[alexey]

When nearly everybody else, Dems and Repubs, believed that both diplomacy, and negotiations had failed/were failing, and that Saddam had WMD's, and he was a grave threat.

Bull****.

Dems and Reps voted for Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in October 2002.

The resolution was meant to scare Saddam into cooperation with weapon inspectors, and invade if he did not.

Saddam started cooperating.

We invaded.

[Zen-like Todd]

I have evidence taken from Cardin's own website, which cleary states WHY he did not vote for the war in Iraq. Nowhere, does it say that he did NOT believe Iraq had WMD's. He wanted more diplomacy. More negotiations. When nearly everybody else, Dems and Repubs, believed that both diplomacy, and negotiations had failed/were failing, and that Saddam had WMD's, and he was a grave threat. Whether or not that proved to be true is irrelevant, it's what we believed at the time that counts with this argument.

When nearly everyone else was railroaded by the administration, he wanted further inspections, as was mentioned in what you quoted and bolded. And you can't fall back on the "we" argument. When you say "we", you mean YOU, and some people who expressed that viewpoint. Again, you don't have any evidence to support your claim. Man up.

[Commander PK]

Bull****.

Dems and Reps voted for Joint Resolution to Authorize the use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in October 2002.

The resolution was meant to scare Saddam into cooperation with weapon inspectors, and invade if he did not.

Saddam started cooperating.

We invaded.

Yeah, we should have just trusted him because after years of jerking us off, he decides to cooperate for two weeks, oh excuse me 16 days. :doh: Wow, lets give him another year or two before he kicks them out again, and then how long before he lets them return? We had played this game with Saddam since the end of the Gulf War. How much longer were we going to play?