jamesrage

Of course the democrats do not want to win the war in Iraq,winning would only make them look like all the pussy isolationist,enemy sympathizers and pacifist in the past who wanted the US to sit by while hitler was trying to take over Europe.

__________________

Iriemon

It would only be in your rulebook that "authorization to use force" means the same as agreeing to invade.

You're welcome!

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Iriemon

Or those pussies who didn't want to start a nuclear war with Russia.

Iriemon

That is true, he didn't need congressional authorization for that.

In Oct 2002, the US and Iraq were engaged in tough negotiations about WMDs and inspections, and voting against the president's authority to use force would have stripped him of leverage in those negotiations. Congress (including the Dems who voted for it though it would have passed regardless), punted and passed the buck of decision making on war to the President. In hindsight, that was a tragic mistake for which I fault the Dems, most of whom bowed to the political pressure caused by 9-11, and didn't stand up and didn't ask the hard questions.

The joint resolution gave the president authority to use force against Iraq if diplomacy failed and he believed it was necessary. It was not, when passed in October 2002, a vote by Congress of approval to invading and occupying Iraq when the Bush Administration did it in March 2003, and IMO it is misleading to contend that it was by saying the "Congress voted to invade in 2003."

Navy Pride

There could never be nuclear war with the USSR........Both sides knew it would be destruction for both sides......That is not the case if a terrorist group gets a nuke.......

__________________
http://www.swiftvets.com/

vetsforfreedom.org

buttonpsi

It was obviously in the Administration's rulebook though. They use phrases like "Operation Iraqi Freedom"...hehe...just makes me laugh.

__________________
Waiting for the point and time when I can call myself an idiot and finaly get away with it once and for all.

buttonpsi

Didn't crippling the USSR's economy in the cold war lead to a big possibility they would sell their weapons for cheap prices to terrorist regimes we created to combat with them?

mikhail

I guess if Iraq suddenly became alot more peaceful it would do alot of political damage to the Democrats.

Its difficult to say i dont wanna say they dont however there are people who put a negative spin on any good news that comes out of Iraq.If anyone invests alot of time and effort into proving something i think they endanger themselves to become more interested in seeing what backs up their arguement rather than the truth.

__________________
The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

mpg

NOW I get it. They authorized the invasion but they didn't agree to it. Therefore they share no responsibility whatsoever. Nevermind the fact that they funded it in 2007 without any timetable for withdrawal, and they also unanimously approved Petraeus. Yep, it's a Republican war alright.

__________________
"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." - Eric Hoffer

Iriemon

Close. They authorized the invasion, if diplomacy failed and the president determined that the use of force was necessary. There was no vote on the actual decision to attack and invade so we don't know what they agreed to or not short of looking at individual positions.

Authorization does not equal approval. I may authorize my spouse to use a credit card, but that would not mean I'd approve of her purchasing a $10,000 mink coat.

I stated in the preceding post the fault that IMO the Dems share. However, this was the neocon/Republican/Bush administration war all the way. It was their baby, they wanted it, they pushed it, the misimplied the facts so that most folks thought Iraq was involved in 9-11, in bed with Al-Queda, and an urgent threat to the US.

I can certianly understand why you'd want to try to spread the blame on the Dems for this fiasco, though.

The Dems don't have the power to pass legislation over President Bush's veto.