|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 25, 2008 9:31:25 GMT -5
*TNG slaps his forehead repeatedly and reaches for more duct tape- realizing he's in a battle of wits with an unarmed woman*  |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 27, 2008 13:21:58 GMT -5
Here is an interesting fact, that most of you may not be aware of.
There has only been one President who committed troops to a regional conflict that did not ever receive Congressional approval. That was our entering into the Kosovo conflict, under William J. Clinton, for 78 Days of hostility, which included the bombing of civilians by the way. And, those troops never made it home for Christmas, and are in fact still there. Though the conflict is over, but may well be brewing again.
By contrast, the following wars received the following levels of approval by Congress:
Vietnam: Senate 88 aye, 2 nay - House 416 aye, 0 nay (Senate 63 D, 37 R - House 259 D, 176 R)
Multinational Force in Lebanon: Senate 54 aye, 46 nay - House 253 aye, 156 nay (Senate 45 D, 55 R - House 272 D, 163 R)
Operation Desert Storm: Senate 52 aye, 47 nay - House 250 aye, 183 nay (Senate 56 D, 44 R - House 270 D, 164 R)
Operation Enduring Freedom: Senate 98 aye, 0 nay - House 420 aye, 1 nay (Senate 50 D, 49 R - House 210 D, 219 R)
Operation Iraqi Freedom: Senate 77 aye, 23 nay - House 296 aye, 133 nay (Senate 49 D, 49 R - House 208 D, 222 R)
So, an unapproved war is seen as less wrong then a war that won approval in congress, according to Constitutional requirements. And, this President receives far more wrath then the last, even though he went to congress for approval.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 27, 2008 13:29:22 GMT -5
Can you tell me exactly what date we left Afghanistan? No, I'd have to look that up, but that's not the point. We all know Bush didn't totally abandon Afghanistan, but he left right when they claimed we had BL cornered. They outsourced "the" job to warlords and suddenly created Shock-n-Awe in Iraq. By splitting our limited volunteer military, we now have bigger problems than resolving 9/11. The need for troops in Iraq exceeded the need for troops in Afghanistan at the time. War is not a precise occurrence you know, sometimes you have to shift troops from one theater to the other. If congress had spent more time approving funds for our troops, then perhaps some of it could have been avoided. But, the focus of the Democrats was to demonize Bush and win the back the White House. They spent more time bottling up his appointments then doing the peoples business, it is that simple. The simple fact is, we have never left Afghanistan. Nor should we abandon them a second time, as we did during the last major conflict in the area, which the Russians were involved in. This time we should follow through on our commitment. After all, it is important what the rest of the world thinks of us, as the progressives often point out. Let's start with keeping our promise to Afghanistan and Iraq. |
|
|
|
Post by iraqvet2003 on May 27, 2008 14:37:54 GMT -5
Bolverk-
It seems you and I are on the same page on this issue.
Question: Your numbers for the D's and R's in congress fail to reflect Independents, where do they fall in?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 27, 2008 15:21:22 GMT -5
It depended on the Independent. In most cases, Independents weren't really Independent, they only registered as such. They usually voted with one side of the isle or the other regularly.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 18:11:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 28, 2008 18:19:46 GMT -5
No one said that. Although, it seems odd to me that he did not express his concerns until he had the opportunity to get rich off a book. If he is in it for America, then he should have questioned the decisions or not taken the job. I question his motives. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 18:24:26 GMT -5
If he were lying, the White House would come out an call him a liar. They didn't, instead they chose to act "puzzled by his behavior." It's obvious that this war was built on a lie.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 28, 2008 18:36:32 GMT -5
Oh, you read the book then? Are all of the Democrats that voted to go into Iraq liars as well? Or just to stupid to do the research on their own? If they are so smart, then why did the rely on the word of a man who is less intelligent?
So, which is it? Bush is so smart he duped the entire world? Or Bush is so dumb that he stumbled us into a war with Democrat votes? Please, set me straight on the issue. Who is dumber? The person who makes a bad decision, or the capable people who follow him?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 28, 2008 18:38:29 GMT -5
As far as being puzzled, what would you be? Someone dedicates their career to you, and then without saying anything they allow things to happen and decisions to be made without protest? We call that bovine scat my friend. He is jumping on an opportunity to make money off of the unpopularity and bad decisions of a person he once called a friend. That is a low down scumbag in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 18:57:33 GMT -5
More like he's revealing the truth. Something many liberals have known for a long time and many conservatives are in denial about. I thought you'd try spinning this around on Democrats somehow and you did. Bravo!
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 28, 2008 20:01:45 GMT -5
yeah, once again we see that these amazing revelations always seem to be perfectly timed with the release of a new book. hmmmm???
follow the money.
|
|
