Yes. Both John McCain and Barack Obama skipped the vote. I think they were the only two who ducked it. I remember Biden actually got up the balls to vote against it. It was a pretty wide landslide though. The dems fell in line, by and large, once again. It is bipartisan all the way.
Will we make it to the end of the year without attacking Iran?
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
Yes. Both John McCain and Barack Obama skipped the vote. I think they were the only two who ducked it. I remember Biden actually got up the balls to vote against it. It was a pretty wide landslide though. The dems fell in line, by and large, once again. It is bipartisan all the way.
It's sad. The Dems are such scaredy cats on national security now. The right has been incredibly effective in painting Democrats as "surrender monkeys" and weak on defense. They're absolutely petrified to stand up to anything that might be used against them in this way.
We have never had an honest conversation on terror & national security since 9/11, because everything is wrapped in the flag & in being "tough." It's a real shame.
I poo-pooed it because it's stupid. Why would you think that the passing of a sense of the Senate resolution or failure to pass such a resolution would have even the slightest impact on President Bush? He asserts that he has the authority to attack Iran irrespective of any act of Congress. If the Senate passed a resolution stating flatly that the President cannot attack Iran it would similarly have no impact on this President. He says he has that authority as commander in chief and that no act of Congress can restrict that authority.
Where have you people been for the past 7 years?
They were prepared to claim that the Iraqi resolution gave them the authority, or maybe it was even the Afhganistan one, I have lost track. So you are right. It wasn’t going to stop them.
But…this was some gravy, and anyone who voted for it is a real freaking political hack in my opinion.
Yeah, you can tell that by the fact he sought their approval for war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Stunning how the actual evidence shows that votes in Congress have importance whether you want to dismiss them or not. This pretty much handed him the authority without the need for any further vote because of previous votes.
Damo, don’t make me google what we all lived through. I am so sick and tired of the mass amnesia. You know full well, as I do, that this administration claimed they did not need “further” congressional approval to go into Iraq, because the resolution to respond to 9/11, implicitly gave them that authorization.
It was politically helpful for them to get that resolution, but they claimed not to need it, and that is what they have always claimed. This is an outlaw administration. They don’t even follow Supreme court rulings. Stop pretending not to know, it’s gross. Americans have sat back and let this political hack shit on their constitution, and called it "patriotism".
The actions of Lame Duck Bush Sr. who sent us to Somalia got President Clinton blamed for the bad outcome.
Damm "Liberal" media.
Well you seem to think that a dumbass sense of the Congress resolution is akin to the AUMFs for Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't. At all. Not even close. For one, the AUMFs for Iraq and Afghanistan actually authorized the use of force. The sense of the Congress resolution does not. In fact, an earlier provision of the bill that referred to military force was stripped out, leading to the obvious conclusion that the use of military force was not authorized by Congress. That's one pretty huge difference between them.
In any event, this President has repeatedly asserted that Congress cannot restrict his commander-in-chief powers in any way. If he wants to bomb Iran he will and no act of Congress would prevent that.
Yet they did find importance in getting that vote, right? So, what I said actually did happen, and the actual votes they sought showed that they found importance in those votes. Stop attempting to attack me at agreement points.
Clinton got blamed for the outcome because he didn't send support. He just left those kids high and dry.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yes, there you have it.There ya have it folks.
If, well let's say a phone company, begins work to build infrastructure in new territory, then the next CEO totally doesn't support that and it fails do you blame it on the first CEO? Or do you recognize that success depends on support?
According to USCit, you give the next guy a pass on something they seemed determined to ruin.
Clinton got "credit" for the outcome because he contributed to the outcome.