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.
No. More democrats voted against than for the war. That's not a bi-partisan effort.
Fortunately I am old enough to remember it and it was never a bi-partisan effort: republicans pushed for war in Iraq and some democrats simply tagged alone, scared to be as branded cowards and "unpatriotic" by republican propaganda machine. We all remember proud " Mission Accomplished" event and many others. You'll have to wait with rewriting history at least another 50 years. Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
29 of 50 D Senators voted YES. 82 of 201 D House members voted YES. That's bipartisan. The YES votes came from a passel of admired D's who still are leaders of the party, Clinton, Kerry, Biden, and Reid among them. You can run, but you can't hide.
It wasn`t a declaration of war. How many times do you need to have that explained to you?
No kidding; this country doesn't declare war any more, unless it's against something like terrorism, drugs, obesity.
All those D party leaders voted to give Bush authority to 'use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.' The D's voted to fund the war.
Sure, Bush as the final decision-maker is mainly responsible, but giving Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Biden, etc. a pass is the definition of party hack.
No. More democrats voted against than for the war. That's not a bi-partisan effort.
Fortunately I am old enough to remember it and it was never a bi-partisan effort: republicans pushed for war in Iraq and some democrats simply tagged alone, scared to be branded cowards and unpatriotic by republican propaganda machine. We all remember proud " Mission Accomplished" event and many others. You have to wait with rewriting history at least another 50 years. Lol
You really need to look at how bipartisan is used in this country. When ever you get a yes from both parties for something, even if it is just 1 member it is described as receiving bipartisan support.
You might have a different definition, but it is wrong.
All one had to do was read the paper. Invading soldiers didn't even bother with these alleged weapons depots. Invading soldiers went right for the oil ministry building. Some people might believe they did so because the US had no interest in Iraq's resources, but I can't see why.
Also, Cheney fed information to the New York times, then pretended when it was printed that this information constituted independent verification of his claims.
There are no good words to describe the Bush Administration's actions, except maybe now "over" can be used.
I give left-wing Truth-Out credit for admitting D's share the blame for the war:
But we should only hold Republicans responsible when we go to the voting booths.
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.
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.
