Why won't the Republicans debate the war ?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
klaatu
Fusionist
Are you talking about people who post here or Repubs in congress? If you are talking about Congress .. have you ever heard of Chuck Hagel?
Look it .. back in 2002 I was a supporter and I make no bones about it. I pretty much supported the administration and the cause for a couple of years thereafter .. until it had become clear that there was no defined purpose for being there doing what we were supposed to be doing. There was/is no purpose of certainty. Whenever I challange a Bush supporter to come up with an answer with clear certainty for this Wars being.. all I get is dead silence.. because they cant. Therefore a War without certainty is not a War worth fighting .... thats my take..., this is where I stand.
Look it .. back in 2002 I was a supporter and I make no bones about it. I pretty much supported the administration and the cause for a couple of years thereafter .. until it had become clear that there was no defined purpose for being there doing what we were supposed to be doing. There was/is no purpose of certainty. Whenever I challange a Bush supporter to come up with an answer with clear certainty for this Wars being.. all I get is dead silence.. because they cant. Therefore a War without certainty is not a War worth fighting .... thats my take..., this is where I stand.
If you're talking about the filibuster in the senate, my guess is that the GOP senators are still mostly interested in providing cover for a President with a 30% approval rating.
It is part of their debate. If their reasoning is valid and such a vote would prove to the enemy that their tactics are working and thus enable them, stopping such "debate" would be a valid tactic to end such.
Suggesting that their action is a not action in a debate is simply spin.
Suggesting that their action is a not action in a debate is simply spin.
Everything you do is an action, especially in government. If Bush does nothing on the border, it is an action. So yes, in this case they are taking an active part on their side of the debate. They believe that the debate itself can cause harm to the effort, thus shutting it down is remaining true to that belief.
It is spin to suggest that they haven't made that point and that their action is just some sort of protest. They have made their point clear. I don't agree with it, nobody seems to be arguing the Declaration angle...
I understand their point. In Class 4 warfare your objective is to get the other side into just such a debate.
It is spin to suggest that they haven't made that point and that their action is just some sort of protest. They have made their point clear. I don't agree with it, nobody seems to be arguing the Declaration angle...
I understand their point. In Class 4 warfare your objective is to get the other side into just such a debate.
However, if they are true to their argument in this case their action is exactly following that.
They also were against nation-building then... The world changes. Sometimes for the worse.
Undeclared wars should always be avoided, they end like this all the time.
Duh...Bush was against nation building too, unless of course he lied
It was one of the things that enabled me to vote for him the first time. The whole 9/11 changed things angle is what caused me not to vote for him the second time.