Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (45141)	10/25/2005 11:13:08 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362511

The war powers vote was not voting FOR THE WAR. As I've tried to explain, it was a formality and only gave Bush the option for using force, which he has anyway. Clinton did the Kosovo thing without such permission. Bush could have and would have invaded anyway. At the time though Bush was promising not to invade unles absolutely necessary as a last resort and then only with the UN and a broad coalition. Of course he was lying, and many people knew he was, but still, the vote was not FOR WAR necessarily. Also remember that Saddam was a legit threat, needed to be frisked down and we needed to find an endgame for him. Oil for food was not working very well. Saddam was a threat just just not an imminent one and nothing like the Bushies were describing him. He was about 20% of what Bushies were saying he was. Also remember, this was not long after 9-11 and Afghanistan. The country was in a "go get 'em GW" mood. His approvals were sky-high and anyone who defied him was smeared. When you have 80% approvals woe be to anyone who opposed you too much. And, you saw what happened to the only Dem presidential candidates opposing taking out Saddam. They got creamed. Did Dean win a single primary? I think he won Vermont and that was about it. Dean would have lost 45 states if he'd been nominated.