Shut Up! You Voted for the War.

[piercehawkeye45]

Well analogies are never perfect but basically, educated people knew the Earth was round.

[glatt]

I don't know what Hillary's position was at the time, but I think I remember at least some of the other Democrats who voted "for the war" stated that they didn't want to go to war and didn't approve of going to war, but they were voting "to give the president authority to go to war" so that Bush would have that threat of war as a negotiation tool when dealing with Saddam during the cat and mouse game leading up to the war. They (the democrats) were foolish and should have known that Bush wouldn't try to negotiate as soon as he had war approval. But that's a different complaint about the Democrats.

[Aliantha]

So as far as education goes Pierce, is it the evolutionists who are clever or the creationists? Are you suggesting that one group is 'educated' and the other is not?

[piercehawkeye45]

Why are you pulling the politically correct card on me?

Yes, I am saying the majority of people that are 'educated' in Biology will be evolutionists. That doesn't mean there aren’t any smart creationists or dumb evolutionists though. Evolution is as well accepted as gravity when it comes to theories in the scientific community so you can not say that 'education' doesn't have a part in it.

[Aliantha]

I'm not suggesting that education doesn't play a part. I just wondered if you thought creationists were uneducated in general.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't know what Hillary's position was at the time, but I think I remember at least some of the other Democrats who voted "for the war" stated that they didn't want to go to war and didn't approve of going to war, but they were voting "to give the president authority to go to war" so that Bush would have that threat of war as a negotiation tool when dealing with Saddam during the cat and mouse game leading ...

Hilary's position, as I understand it, is tenuous. Today, we measure who is and is not leadership material because we have almost none. George Jr lied. There is no way around that fact. A real leader states that fact bluntly. Then a leader demands viable solutions. How many demonstrate balls and honesty?

Currently, America's only viable solution is found in 79 objectives from the Iraq Study Group. But even many Democrats also are not being honest with us. Many Republican who know this president is still lying are still playing politics. That was the point of Sen Chuck Hagel of Nebraska who demands every party member be formally committed rather than play politics. Every Senator and Congressman should be held personally accountable to a solution - and their entire Congressional reputation should be tarnished accordingly.

This is no time to play politics. We need leaders in part because the Eisenhower and Stennis are not on a training cruise. Do you remember how much you feared on 10 September? Better remember. Things are only getting worse.

Hilary's position is not defensible. A leader called Hilary would instead campaign incessantly for 79 objectives from the Iraq Study Group ... and demand what only leaders have the balls to do. Her only hope is a strong offense - to act like a leader - to join the ranks of honest Americans who finally acknowledge this president lied. She is not doing that.

Too many Democrats and Republicans fear to ask THE question every week: "When do we go after bin Laden?" We don't demand they act as leaders. So they let us forget the only reason that justified any current war. When do we go after bin Laden - a question that only those with leadership abilities dare ask? Bin Laden is the only smoking gun that justifies any war. Somehow everyone forgets the only smoking gun that justified any war. So bin Laden runs free. And we have a government full of backboneless or self serving corrupt leaders.

"When do we go after bin Laden" ... and why am I the only one asking the only fact in the world that justifies any American war.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

"When do we go after bin Laden" ... and why am I the only one asking the only fact in the world that justifies any American war.

Good questions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

When do we go after bin Laden - a question that only those with leadership abilities dare ask?

Nobody will openly ask that question because they know the answer is most likely, to do that we have to go to Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes and zealots and is a strategic ally.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I just wondered if you thought creationists were uneducated in general.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Nobody will openly ask that question because they know the answer is most likely, to do that we have to go to Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes and zealots and is a strategic ally.

India will not even comply with the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty - so we will give them what they most need - nuclear material? Pakistan was proliferating nuclear technology all over the world - and they too are called an ally?

Meanwhile, America announces intent to 'Pearl Harbor' Iran and N Korea. Therefore both must develop nuclear weapons - as Putin so accurately noted. Therefore these countries are evil?

As long as bin Laden runs free, then George Jr can justify any actions. No wonder no one asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?" It’s just too convenient to let bin Laden run free - and to ignore event in India and Pakistan that create nuclear instability and that America endorses.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by glatt

I don't know what Hillary's position was at the time, but I think I remember at least some of the other Democrats who voted "for the war" stated that they didn't want to go to war and didn't approve of going to war, but they were voting "to give the president authority to go to war" so that Bush would have that threat of war as a negotiation tool when dealing with Saddam during the cat and mouse game leading up to the war. They (the Democrats) were foolish and should have known that Bush wouldn't try to negotiate as soon as he had war approval. But that's a different complaint about the Democrats.

Namely, that they are either being disingenuous -- IOW, lying to the American people -- or they are incompetent at foreign policy. Big surprise there, as Democratic Administrations have tottered from incompetence to failure at foreign policy for the last fifty-three years, perhaps the last fifty-seven depending on how you score the Korean War. They've fallen a long way since FDR. Kennedy may have been the last decent foreign-policy President they had.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw mistakes catching a terrorist figurehead -- OBL -- for destroying the terror groups, which is what would really bring about the peace. Poor analysis, tw. Your errors always redound towards our not winning the war. We've got your number, you anti-patriot.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Big surprise there, as Democratic Administrations have tottered from incompetence to failure at foreign policy for the last fifty-three years,..

Let's see 2007 - 1913 = 94 years since Taft showed good us what good Republican foreign policy looked like. Seriously dude, if you cannot see that Bush is a collosal Wilsonian level failure, you are hopeless.

[footfootfoot]

I love how she's being crucified for voting for the (i.e. Bush's) war and no one is saying shit about the fact Bush started the whole thing, despite Scott Ritter's saying there wasn't a single iota of evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

She attracts more shit than flies, or something like that.

Come election time we'll be reading about how she masterminded the WTC attacks and the Iraq invasion. Regardless of her possible abilities as POTUS, she shouldn't run because she isn't likeable enough. I mean, folks just plain hate her.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I love how she's being crucified for voting for the (i.e. Bush's) war and no one is saying shit about the fact Bush started the whole thing, despite Scott Ritter's saying there wasn't a single iota of evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

This is true, but her job as Senator is to make sure Congress does its job as a co-equal branch. She failed to do her job in the Senate so she wants a promotion... I don't think so.