Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clinton, Obama criticized over war vote

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #61
    Edwards was criticizing the fact that they didn't invest very much political capital in backing the measure, appearing to vacillate on the question.
    If that is what he meant, it sure isn't what he said.

    Hilary is a joke, I am watching her right now and she is crap. Obama might be an empty suit, but at least he looks the part.
    "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

    Comment

    • #62
      No, it's pretty close to what he said. Here's the article's summary:

      John Edwards [...] said the votes by Clinton and Obama, while the right thing to do, were done too quietly and without firm leadership.
      Your interpretation of what he said is absurd. To anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention, the outcome of the vote was never in doubt (the vote for Feingold-Reid being the upper bound on opposition to the supplemental).
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment

      • #63
        Originally posted by Wiglaf


        people who don't want iraq to completely self destruct overnight?
        And it's not self-destructing RIGHT NOW?

        Comment

        • #64
          Originally posted by DinoDoc
          And the Senate. Bonus points if you can tell me who currently controls both.
          The Dems in the senate have to deal with Joementum DINO Loserman, though.

          Comment

          • #65
            Originally posted by Berzerker

            Now, this raises an interesting question: if the inspectors did such a good job - and western intel agencies were privy to what Saddam had and what the inspectors destroyed - why did certain western countries continue to beat a dead horse? I know regime change was our stated policy since '98, so did the west maintain the bugaboo of WMD just to keep its nose in the Middle East? Saddam was our buffer to the Iranians but he was no longer "desired" as that buffer, now the US is that buffer. I wonder how much outcry from Europe is feigned, for public consumption, while in private western leaders tell us they're glad the US went in.
            Saddam insinuated that he had WMDs even though he didn't in order to preserve face with the rest of the Arab world. At least that's what a new book out called Honor: A History contends.

            Comment

            • #66
              Originally posted by Odin


              And it's not self-destructing RIGHT NOW?
              this is nothing compared to what you would see if the us withdrew

              Comment

              • #67
                Saddam insinuated that he had WMDs even though he didn't in order to preserve face with the rest of the Arab world. At least that's what a new book out called Honor: A History contends.
                Where did he insinuate this? His people kept saying they couldn't produce what had been destroyed.

                Comment

                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                Working...
                X