When is the GOP going to recover?? - Page 3

Bush and cronies lied to take the country to war in Iraq. How could anyone doubt that they would try to mislead anybody and everybody on everything?

I'll give the dems the benefit of the doubt on this one; GW and Cronies, Inc lowered the bar on morality beyond comprehension.

I don't. Couple of reasons. First, it's a highly convenient excuse. Second, these are people that are supposed to be more in the know on these topics than the average American citizen. Finally, if they are this easily duped and or brow-beaten into going along, then they don't deserve to be in office.

You know it's actually quite interesting to me that Bush was portrayed as this evil, untrustworthy moron for most of his time in office, and yet the Democrats chose to believe what he and his administration always told them without question.

This is all fucking bullshit. It is political theater. They all knew what they were doing and what was going on. Let's stop pretending (and defending) one group vs. another and recognize the common maladies among them all...the thirst for power, control...the tenuous relationship with the truth (and even then only partial)...the back-stabbing, responsibility-avoiding, gutlessness that they all seem to suffer from.

I remember listening to c-span radio (90.1 FM Baltimore) as the votes were taken to effectively go to war in Iraq and being amazed so many democrats would give Bush the go ahead. I don't buy that they were helplessly mislead one bit, they played their part in initiating the war and for that I will forever mistrust them.

I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone who voted for change will eventually have none. The problem isn't the person occupying the office, it's the system. The system eventually crushes all individuals and everyone opposing it. There are no kings or saviors here for the US, just "machinery" driven by special interests that keeps grinding us down.

I think all politicians need to be handled carefully. My above comment was more out of stunned shock at how immoral Bush and his camp were than out of support for the dems.

Yeah, I was stunned by how many voted for it, too.

Senate 77 to 23 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...0237&session=2
House 296 to 133
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

The U.S. Government has become one giant clusterf**k, with the Republicans leading the charge and brainless Democrats following them over the cliff.

The kind of change we need will probably not happen unless the general population becomes better educated and we stop injecting religious dogma into the discourse. Unfortunately, it seems like 20% of the population is intent on keeping the other 80% in misery.

You do of course realize by saying this you're admitting the Democrats were " duped " by the wrongly movtivated ( evil ) Republicans?

Which in turn means that if they don't deserve to be in office then the people who duped them don't either.

It's a tricky thing using that reverse logic on your opponent.

No. Reading helps here. This is what I wrote:


I actually don't think they were duped. I think that's a convenient (but quite unbelievable) lie to try and simultaneously absolve them of any guilt and complicity and to focus blame on someone else. It's "The Devil Made Me Do It!" defense. But the irony you failed to grasp is that if they were, then this clearly disqualifies them to hold office.



Indeed, if they were duped and brow-beaten into this, they don't deserve to be in office, and the dupers and brow-beaters do not deserved to be in office either.



Uh huh.

Oh please! Now you're just being obtuse! Why would they go along with it then? What possible motivation?

You see when you remove the " Duped " part your argument gets pretty silly.

Speaking of duped, you voted for Obama, right? 'Nuff said.

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH! You really got me there didn't you?

I happen to think that anyone who didn't vote for Obama ( considering what we've just been through ) seriously missed the boat! That is assuming they're interested in trying to fix this mess.

It's really been years now since I've been able to wake up, turn on the tv, see the president and not feel the sudden urge to revisit my breakfast! It's really kind of nice for a change.

Well in keeping with our recent discussion of religion and the GOP here's something I caught from io9 about an editorial on FOX news!

http://io9.com/5256346/thank-god-for...trek-literally



Now meaning no disrespect for those Church goers out there but this is just stupid! I loved the new movie! It's the freshest thing Star Trek has done in a long time. Aside from some groan worthy science moments it was wonderful! Now this guy ( James P. Pinkerton ) tries to connect this to god ( And the republicans ) and ride with it. I swear! They'll say anything!

It doesn't take a genius to see that after 911 there was public support for a show of agression from the US and those that voted yeah on the Iraq vote could have had no doubt how easy the war would be to enact and how those opposing it would be marginalised as unpatriotic. If they were duped they were duped that the public would be with them for long.

Following the desires of their constituency.

And who did you vote for?

Chuck Baldwin

That's really not a good enough motivation. Please explain in more detail why this would happen?

Now that's more likely than duped. Duped at the beginning perhaps.

Elected officials serving those folks they are obligated to represent isn't a good enough reason?

Your opinion on the role of a public servant seems radically different than the one I have. Given that, I don't believe I can explain it to you.

FAVORS AND VOTES-

More than half of the Democratic Senators votes cast, who were not up for re-election voted nay, and it would have been higher, if that group didn't include the most right leaning Democrats ,John Breaux and Zell Miller and big time players like Daschle, Schumer and Bayh, who all voted yeah.
Those who were up for immediate (1 month away) election voted 10:4 yeah.
It would be interesting to see how many were in tight races as apposed to those who had stronger chances of winning and compare how they voted.
6 of the 7 Democrats who ran for president voted yeah


"In October 2002, there were 50 Democratic senators and one left-leaning independent. Of them, 29 supported the war resolution, and 22 opposed. At first glance, it seems most Democratic senators backed war.

Now, check a more trustworthy barometer of beliefs — the votes of senators who faced no re-election race a month later and have not run for president. These included 31 Democrats and one independent.

Of them, 17 voted against the war resolution, 15 in favor. Voting no were sober-minded Robert C. Byrd, Kent Conrad and Patrick J. Leahy. Voting yes were near-Republicans — John B. Breaux and Zell Miller — and upwardly mobile Evan Bayh, Tom Daschle and Charles E. Schumer.

That is, among Democratic senators free to vote their consciences, opinion tilted decidedly against war. But of 14 Democrats facing re-election fights that November, 10 voted for the war resolution, only four against.

And here are the numbers that matter most: Of seven Democratic senators who have since run for president, six supported the resolution. Only brave Bob Graham opposed.

Why did Graham alone make the right call? As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, he was perhaps the best informed. He was one of very few senators to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction available to all senators 10 days before the vote. Graham said the 90—page report failed to persuade him that Iraq had WMD.

But the six future presidential candidates who voted yes — Joseph R. Biden Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton, Christopher J. Dodd, John Edwards, John Kerry and Joseph I. Lieberman — were hardly ill informed. They were among the smartest senators. Their yes votes were striking because these senators rarely played hawk. Kerry and Clinton in particular came of age denouncing the Vietnam War."
~seacoastonline
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/p...2300331&sfad=1

These are from the only Republican senator who opposed the war, Chaffe.

They were afraid that Republicans would label them soft in the post-September 11 world, and when they acted in political self-interest, they helped the president send thousands of Americans and uncounted innocent Iraqis to their doom."

"A bewildered Chafee, seeking an explanation, turned to an unnamed Democratic senator who opposed the war but was well-respected by his partys leaders. This senator tells Chafee in confidence what concerned the Democrats. They are afraid the war will be over as fast as Gulf One. Few will die, the oil will flow and gasoline will cost 90 cents a gallon. I wander who could have given them that impression?!

Politicians doing what the voters want? Wow! I'd never thought of that!

My take on this is that at first Bush releases evidence that seems to show that Saddam had WMD. I mean you want to believe something that comes from the President! Then of course we find out the intel was half baked. Still the democrats didn't want to appear soft so the republicans could say " They're not supporting the troops! Both sides did the wrong thing here but bottom line the president followed questionable intel to futher his agenda.

Pelosi, too.

I don't think anyone will end up in prison - I think the threat to initiate an investigation was floated to try to quiet criticism from Cheney and that threat backfired with respect to Pelosi.

Biden, however, might be criticized next for releasing secret information.

And of what crime, exactly, do you expect to see her convicted?

Of course Obama is a likeable, intelligent guy... I wouldn't understand anyone who would argue on that point. That said, would you concede that it's possible to be intelligent or popular and still do the wrong thing? Just like the Republicans, he attacks the symptoms, not the cause of our current problems. Our current problems are magnified by government manipulation of the money supply. Fact.

Wow, a mega homophobe and religious fruitcake.

So, who duped who??

Care to quantify this magnification factor with time (independent variable) with a peer reviewed referenced link?

What peers?

Apparently you've duped yourself.

Whatever crime(s) Cheney would get convicted of.

And why pray tell is that?

And a 3rd party candidate is the only answer?

Asking too many questions.

Pelosi is playing the Republimbecils like a fiddle. Now they want an investigation. HAHA.
They are really that stupid to fall for this, amazing.

Well done Ms. Speaker.

Oh my God. That made me laugh so hard I almost pissed my pants. That is priceless. I'm not sure which is funnier, the fact that you said it, or that you actually believe it.