When the Democrats Pass this Bailout
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
It's also total rubbish. I have directly stated that all "wars" we have gotten into without declaration are the responsibility of the CIC and the Congresses who put us there. It isn't very hard to understand why you hadn't thought of it before, you are usually less disingenuous than Cypress.
How? By blaming the President and the Congress for getting us into an undeclared war? Show me where Dixie has done that and I'll even state that it is so.Damo is getting more like Dixie as the election gets closer
You are taking lessons from Cypress again, but you better get out of the conversation if this is the best you can do.
I've already addressed all of this over and over, and you keep lying about what i said, because you have no answer for it, but must have the last word damo.
Oh let me guess, you are an Austrian boy? Whatever.
KingCondanomation
New member
And did you hear ever hear anyone blame the DEMOCRAT senators for the Gulf of Tonkin either?
MOST people blame/credit the president for everything. RS and Bac are not conspiring against Dems, they are being honest and blaming all involved based on their vote.
uscitizen
Villified User
By trying to justify your position by increased verbosity and shifting around the issues.
So, in other words. "Not at all, but I thought I'd try to distract from the conversation by attempting a witty remark at the expense of another, but when I was caught instead of slinking away I tried to do it again, even more poorly than the first time!"
My point: Congress has Constitutional authority over war declarations, they have accountability for wars too, even those who weren't in the majority who voted with it. They are the last protection we have, and instead of doing their job they sought excuses that they founded in the ignorance of their constituency.
You know why history doesn't hold the Tonkin Gulf Resolution GOP senators to the same level of accountability as they do LBJ and McNamara?
Because they were lied too.
Gee, doesn't that sound like a movie we've seen before?
Cue Damo, to say the GOP senators in 1964 should have run down to the CIA, and poured over intelligence reports themselves, to see it was based on lies.
No, it's very simple. Just blame everything on a group that's different than them (e.g., muslims, brown people, greedy suits, Jews, neocons, liberials, etc.), while absolving them and they will hang just about any scapegoat you choose.
Yes. They should have. However I'd use the Military intel guys rather than the CIA as they were the ones who would have the information.
I blame the minority of Dems on capitol hill who voted for the resolution of cowardice, and elevating political interests over the nation's interests. Some of us, like myself, Darla, Barack Obama, and Howard Dean had a visceral sense that we were being lied too. That something didn't smell right.
I blame Bush/Cheney/Rice and Powell for war crimes, and for intentional manipulation of intelligence to sell a war.
That's a huge difference.
KingCondanomation
New member
Maybe you should try smelling some older BS rather than just the fresh stuff:
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
To quote Damo THIS
It isn't that I don't blame them, it's that when you claim they are anywhere near as responsible as the monsters who plotted to lie trick terrorize forger and steal their way into this war, you are doing something really horrible, and that is letting them off the hook. And that is exactly what has been done. They have been let off the hook.
Anyone who believes wanting the actual monsters who plotted to lie trick terrorize forger and steal their way into this war, is "scapegoating" is a fucking loony toon period. that's rs.
Damo is just a sneaky fuck. He pisses me off far more.
I have no anger towards you. Only explanations of my position. It is the reason I want the War Powers Act replaced with something that doesn't allow these sorry excuses and returns the check that Declaration was meant to be. I seek a solution for the future so that this will not happen again rather than blissfully use it to excuse anybody at all.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
You made up the story that everyone must believe, or you will have a fit at them - Obama is a bigger war monger than mcCain. Man never voted to start a war. You can say it, but asking people, or demanding even, to believe it, that's another story.
I have help! Thanks!
How in the fuck is saying that Obama is a warmonger a "story" ???
.. and I have never asked or demanded that anyone believe anything I say. I post my opinions just as you do .. except you believe yours are more important.
I present evidence and documemntation that support what I believe .. not just some emotional outburst.
Can you deal with facts .. I'm betting you can't.
Obama says he's going to invade Pakistan anytime he has "actionable intelligence"
Is that a lie .. did I make that up.
Feel free to point out the lies here ..
In the course of his campaign, Obama has pledged his fealty to the US Zionist lobby, while echoing the Bush administration’s threats to launch military strikes against Iran. He has called for US military strikes in Pakistan.
He has spelled out the real significance of his primary campaign rhetoric about an end to the war in Iraq, making it clear that his call for withdrawing “combat troops”—16 months after taking office—envisions leaving a “residual force” consisting of tens of thousands of US military personnel and mercenaries to continue the colonial-style occupation.
Moreover, those troops that are “redeployed” from Iraq, under Obama’s plan, are to be dispatched to Afghanistan in order to escalate the brutal campaign to suppress the resistance of the Afghan people to foreign occupation.
He has likewise called for the augmenting of America’s bloated war machine with an additional 100,000 soldiers and Marines, as well as for increased military spending.
Finally, over the past two weeks, Obama has thrown himself fully into the aggressive US campaign against Russia, competing with his Republican rival Senator John McCain in belligerent denunciations of Moscow and demands for retribution over the events in Georgia.
This is a calculated policy. As the Washington Post reported earlier this week, a substantial section of the Democratic Party had urged Obama to oppose McCain on Georgia and cast him as a trigger-happy militarist bent on plunging the US into yet another war. Obama rejected this advice, choosing instead to solidarize himself with the aggressive campaign against Russia.
This last development is the most ominous. Those who have managed to delude themselves into believing that Obama represents some means of countering the policy of aggressive war implemented by the Bush administration should consider it carefully.
What is unfolding in the confrontation over Georgia and its extension in the form of the agreement signed Wednesday to deploy a new US missile system in Poland is the bipartisan buildup to a potential third world war, posing the threat of nuclear annihilation.
As in every election since George W. Bush took control of the White House, the Democratic Party has facilitated the war drive and systematically defused and suppressed the mass opposition to war among the American people.
In 2002, on the eve of the mid-term election, the Democrats voted to grant Bush authorization to launch the unprovoked war on Iraq, thereby getting the issue “off the table” before the vote was held. Its cowardly attempt to contest the election solely on domestic issues failed badly, ensuring Republican control of both houses of Congress.
In 2004, mass antiwar sentiment was diverted into the Democratic Party via the primary campaign of Howard Dean, only to have Dean’s candidacy aborted and the party nominate Senator John Kerry, who had voted for the war and who vowed to escalate it.
Finally, in 2006, the overwhelming hostility to the war yielded a Democratic victory in the mid-term election, securing the party’s control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Nonetheless, the Democratic leadership ensured that funding for the war and its escalation in the so-called “surge” continued unabated, while it categorically ruled out any attempt to impeach Bush or Cheney for dragging the American people into a criminal war based on lies.
In this election, once again, the vast majority of the American people who oppose the war in Iraq and the global escalation of American militarism are to be politically disenfranchised.
This was a central purpose of the Obama campaign from the outset. While Obama secured his primary victory largely thanks to criticism of the vote cast in 2002 by his principal rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, to authorize the Iraq war, his campaign never represented an anti-war insurgency from below. Indeed, given his record of voting repeatedly to fund the slaughter in Iraq, there is every reason to believe that Obama would have joined in issuing Bush the blank check for war, had he been a member of the US Senate at the time.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/obam-a22.shtml
Please don't tell me you can't
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I'm betting there's nothing to complain about.
I don't think there is personally, but was compared to another poster that uscit has little respect for because I was verbose in a thread. I'm waiting to see if he spreads that kind of "love" around.
I don't even feel bad with the comparison, it was just his little attempt at a jab.