The Dems lined up for war before

Iraq presented no threat to the United States. Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for the Duopoly's catastrophic, insane Iraq stupidity. They have only succeeded in creating another Iran clone.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Iraq presented no threat to the United States. Republicans and Democrats alike are responsible for the Duopoly's catastrophic, insane Iraq stupidity. They have only succeeded in creating another Iran clone.
Click to expand...

Now the Warlord Obama says "attack" Syria, so he won't look weak.
 
congressional republican support for the Iraq war was nearly unanimous whereas a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. even those who did vote for it were clear that their vote was an authorization to use force only when all other methods had been completely exhausted. Bush violated the spirit of the use of force resolution.

Regarding Syria... there is no doubt that it puts all of the civilized western world between a rock and a hard place. Obama certainly did not put us there... and we are certainly not alone there. Dealing with Assad's barbarism is pretty much a lose-lose situation, because neither side of that conflict looks to become our allies at the end of it all, regardless. I think that the US must, therefore, stand with those Syrian citizens who were killed with chemical weapons and do what we can to see that no more of their fellow countrymen are slaughtered that way.
 
maineman said:
congressional republican support for the Iraq war was nearly unanimous whereas a majority of democrats in congress voted against it. even those who did vote for it were clear that their vote was an authorization to use force only when all other methods had been completely exhausted. Bush violated the spirit of the use of force resolution.

Regarding Syria... there is no doubt that it puts all of the civilized western world between a rock and a hard place. Obama certainly did not put us there... and we are certainly not alone there. Dealing with Assad's barbarism is pretty much a lose-lose situation, because neither side of that conflict looks to become our allies at the end of it all, regardless. I think that the US must, therefore, stand with those Syrian citizens who were killed with chemical weapons and do what we can to see that no more of their fellow countrymen are slaughtered that way.
Click to expand...

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The Warlord Obama won't get that same blank check, will he?

He wanted to interfere in Libya. He wanted to interfere in Egypt.

Now he wants to interfere in Syria.
 
maineman said:
so what? I didn't say he violated the letter of the resolution, only the spirit of it.
Click to expand...

What part of "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"...is confusing you?

Now it seems The Warlord Obama wants to attack Syria without allies, public support or Congressional approval.
 
Big money said:
What part of "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"...is confusing you?

Now it seems The Warlord Obama wants to attack Syria without allies, public support or Congressional approval.
Click to expand...
1. not a thing.
2. he is going to congress, or didn't you hear?
 
Yeah its how you want your dem presidents to act.

But you like it when the R ones go all cowboy huh?

what a fucking idiot you are
 
Big money said:
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate"...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

The Warlord Obama won't get that same blank check, will he?

He wanted to interfere in Libya. He wanted to interfere in Egypt.

Now he wants to interfere in Syria.
Click to expand...

Bush got the resolution based upon outright lies and information falsified by his administration...................fact.
 
The only reason that R's are against Obama bombing Syria is because of.........Obama, he's a Democrat, if this was Mitt "tax cheat" Romney they'd be 100% for it.

Its like healthcare, the ACA is originally a Republican idea, Mitt Romney's to be exact, they were good to go with it while he was in Mass. and would be good to go today if he was pres., its all partisan bullshit, always is on the part of Repubs. I'd be willing to bet that on 9/11 if Gore were pres. Repubs would've been against going after Bin Laden
 
evince said:
Yeah its how you want your dem presidents to act. But you like it when the R ones go all cowboy huh? what a fucking idiot you are
Click to expand...

Can you cite any evidence to support your unfounded assertion that I "like it when the R ones go all cowboy"?

Did Bush ask for and get Congressional approval to go into Iraq with a majority of Americans supporting his actions?

Why didn't Obama ask Congress before he was forced to?
 
Big money said:
Can you cite any evidence to support your unfounded assertion that I "like it when the R ones go all cowboy"?

Did Bush ask for and get Congressional approval to go into Iraq with a majority of Americans supporting his actions?

Why didn't Obama ask Congress before he was forced to?
Click to expand...

Was the support based upon lies and falsified info.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top