Skip to comments.
Bill Would Repeal (Congressional)Resolution Authorizing Military Action
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 2/06/03
| Robert B. Bluey
Posted on 02/06/2003 3:19:08 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
1
posted on
02/06/2003 3:19:08 AM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Unfriggin real is all I can say.
To: kattracks
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was on O'Reilly last night. O'Reilly had him in a corner. He was sputtering. Hard to believe these jerks are Congressmen........... well, on second thought............
3
posted on
02/06/2003 3:26:41 AM PST
by
Linda
To: kattracks
once again and again and again... the dems and dems-witted are not rallying around the flag ...rto
4
posted on
02/06/2003 3:27:40 AM PST
by
visitor
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
I would say a check of U.S. Reps. Ron Paul's and Peter DeFazio's backers/financial supporters is in order. A check of their sanity might not be a bad idea either.
6
posted on
02/06/2003 3:28:58 AM PST
by
Humal
To: kattracks
U.S. Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced a resolution that would repeal the vote Congress took last October giving Bush the power to wage war. A handful of liberal Democrats joined Paul and DeFazio, claiming the administration has consistently failed to make its case. consistently failed to make its case ???
Paul .. you are an IDIOT!
7
posted on
02/06/2003 3:31:23 AM PST
by
Mo1
(I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
To: kattracks
Some members of Congress used Secretary of State Colin Powell's United Nations speech Wednesday to call for a new vote on whether President Bush should have the authority to use military action against Iraq.
I am at a complete loss here as to what exactly they would use from Powell's presentation to support rescinding the previous resolution.
8
posted on
02/06/2003 3:32:25 AM PST
by
Green
To: Green
Maybe the congress is starting to take their job seriously. It is after all THEIR place to declare war and not just military action.
Powells case was very good, and I took it as "we are going to war because." This was not a plea to go to war or to ask support. We are going and congress should step up and say it in writing or reign in Bush. I am really hopefull that this is actually good news.
9
posted on
02/06/2003 3:46:50 AM PST
by
duk
To: Mo1
"Paul .. you are an IDIOT!"
Well, seeing that R. Paul is really a libertarian who uses Republicans' $$$ to get elected - Um, unethical, yes - an idiot, no.
10
posted on
02/06/2003 3:49:39 AM PST
by
Psalm 73
To: duk
I understand what you are saying but that is not what this article addresses. It says they are going to use Powell's presentation to support their position of no war. That is what has me puzzled. There was nothing in his presentation, that I recall, that would support their resolution of no war.
11
posted on
02/06/2003 3:50:42 AM PST
by
Green
To: Psalm 73
Personally I don't care what party he is from or who's money he is using
This is about the safety and welfare of our country and he doesn't think Powell made a case??
Sorry but IMO the man needs to have his head examined
12
posted on
02/06/2003 3:53:45 AM PST
by
Mo1
(I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
To: conservativecorner
"Unfriggin real is all I can say." Yup. All I can do is sigh and shake my head. ~ America doesn't need foreign enemies; we've got them in our own Congress.
13
posted on
02/06/2003 4:12:45 AM PST
by
Right_in_Virginia
(May God bless President Bush and our troops)
To: kattracks; RonPaulLives
INDIANGIVERS!!
RPL Ping!!
14
posted on
02/06/2003 4:28:52 AM PST
by
upchuck
(TSCG: Flies dance operas to your wisdom.)
To: kattracks
Why is all this argle-bargle so "imperative" in Iraq, when there was virtually no hesitation in Afghanistan? Could it be that the memory of 9/11 was that much fresher, and our resolve had not yet been diluted by partisanship?
15
posted on
02/06/2003 4:46:55 AM PST
by
IronJack
To: upchuck
The Nov. election is passed and they can renig on a measure they passed just to help get votes. Now they don't have to act like they support the protection of our country.
To: IronJack
Could it be that the memory of 9/11 was that much fresher, and our resolve had not yet been diluted by partisanship?
Ahhh grasshopper, you have swerved into the truth!
To: conservativecorner
"If you believe the United States should have a war, then be willing to vote for war," DeFazio said. "The president should be willing to come to Congress and make a case for war because that is indeed what this is about."What about that is difficult to understand?
IF, and I say IF, one truly believes in the Constitution and one truly believes in supporitng the troops, then an unambiguous decalratin of war is the best way to go.
The US did not have a stellar record when conduction "police actions", containment, or other non-declared war actions.
How many Freepers would have allowed clinton to attack and invade without a declaration of war?
18
posted on
02/06/2003 4:59:46 AM PST
by
Eagle Eye
(There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
They're either with US or against US. No middle of the road. We are RIGHT, they be Left. WAKE UP AMERICA.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-166 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson