Posted on 11/14/2005 1:59:44 PM PST by rightalien
A vote for war is the most sober, profound, consequential vote that a senator can make. No other vote in an entire career will be remotely as important. So, what is all this backsliding? What are Edwards, Kerry, Rockefeller, et al saying? That they didn’t do their homework? That they took a lax attitude to their duties?
They voted in the fullness of their maturity to send their countrymen – the sons and daughters of their constituents – off to danger, possibly death or maiming. And they didn’t consider the consequences? Is that their point?
Yes, there was uncertainty. In human affairs there is always uncertainty. You never know everything. The major point about Saddam was not the existence of WMD’s specifically, but that after 9/11 our margin for error had vanished, and we could not take Saddam’s recalcitrance as evidence of good faith. That has not changed.
"I'm not responsible for my vote". - Jay Rockefeller on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
Is it too un-PC to call them Native Indigeneous People Givers (formerly Indian Givers)?
"We are shameless, barefaced liars and hypocritical opportunists who don't even deserve to be US citizens, let alone leaders."
I say "Let's Roll" on this one. Let's just get a head count on how many Dims choose to vote themselves out of office!
Let there be no doubt that the Democrats would send your sons out onto the battlefield and abandon them there. If Vietnam didn't teach this well enough, this is a clear reminder.
I don't think we have ever had the dangerous group we have now. Many years ago we didn't have this threat, and besides, people were more American minded unlike these socialist globalists.
These people remind me of the loser kids on the playground who always wanted "do overs" when you played Jacks or Pick up Sticks! Guess they all grew up to be Democrats!
Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry in a letter to Bill Clinton: "We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.
Because it didn't declare war, it can now say that the President made the wrong decision in taking America into Iraq. Congress just gave permission, Bush picked up the ball and ran the wrong way.
Well, Bush let 'em get away with not declaring war and now he can put up with the consequences.
Then they grew up, became teachers and banned playground games that involved winning and losing.
Yep! those are the ones!!
Oh, and then became Teacher's union Leaders to make sure the Tenure rule stayed in place so they't always have a job!! LOL
"I voted for the war, before I voted against it."
Whether you meant it to be or not that is sophistry. Voting to give the President the authority and funding to go to war as he saw fit IS a vote for war. There is nothing in the Constitution that describes a specific means or formula for 'declaring war.' That is a myth.
Let there be no doubt that the Democrats would sell their own mothers up the river and they would send them C.O.D.
Some bells can not be unrung.
Democrats are accountable for their own votes. They are saying they were duped to appeal to their anti-war Democratic base.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.