Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm seeing something today that I've never seen in 8 years of a Republican White House, members of the Presidents own party publicly expressing doubt about military action.
We are talking about air strikes launched by Navy warships or Air Force bombers, both safely out of range of Syrian countermeasures. But when it was time to invade and occupy a foreign land, with only the flimsiest of reasons to do so, with little or no plan on what to do once "regime change" was complete, I don't seem to recall any Republicans who spoke out against it prior to the invasion (with the exception of the courageous Lincoln Chaffee, former Rhode Island Senator, the lone "nay" vote)
It really does show a stark contrast between parties. Republicans are too scared to go against how their leadership tells them to vote, or were there others who voted against invading Iraq?
There were a few Republicans that opposed Iraq. To be fair there were very few Democrats that opposed it either. When it comes to war, both parties love it.
I'm seeing something today that I've never seen in 8 years of a Republican White House, members of the Presidents own party publicly expressing doubt about military action.
We are talking about air strikes launched by Navy warships or Air Force bombers, both safely out of range of Syrian countermeasures. But when it was time to invade and occupy a foreign land, with only the flimsiest of reasons to do so, with little or no plan on what to do once "regime change" was complete, I don't seem to recall any Republicans who spoke out against it prior to the invasion (with the exception of the courageous Lincoln Chaffee, former Rhode Island Senator, the lone "nay" vote)
It really does show a stark contrast between parties. Republicans are too scared to go against how their leadership tells them to vote, or were there others who voted against invading Iraq?
The difference is that Barack is a proven LIAR and is not qualified to launch his own war. We see this as a personal attack to save his non-existent credibility. The NATION does not care what happens to him.
Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate who voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002,[317][318] and he opposed the U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties.
Always ran as a republican and always elected as a republican.
True, unfortunately that does not mean he IS a Republican. He is a Libertarian and that bunch claim him as their own. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it a woman but it is still a pig.
I'm seeing something today that I've never seen in 8 years of a Republican White House, members of the Presidents own party publicly expressing doubt about military action.
We are talking about air strikes launched by Navy warships or Air Force bombers, both safely out of range of Syrian countermeasures. But when it was time to invade and occupy a foreign land, with only the flimsiest of reasons to do so, with little or no plan on what to do once "regime change" was complete, I don't seem to recall any Republicans who spoke out against it prior to the invasion (with the exception of the courageous Lincoln Chaffee, former Rhode Island Senator, the lone "nay" vote)
It really does show a stark contrast between parties. Republicans are too scared to go against how their leadership tells them to vote, or were there others who voted against invading Iraq?
So you are going to pay the bill? Sweet!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.