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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JakeStraw who wrote (258778)	11/7/2005 2:19:24 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572578

Uh,..I think we'd already INVADED by then Jake. I won't defend the Dems - only a couple had enough spine to to called America hating traitors when it counted. BTW - I'm NOT a Dem! I often find myself voting Dem because they seem less evil than the Repugnicans, and that's all the choice we get here for our "freedom".

To: JakeStraw who wrote (258778)	11/7/2005 5:41:39 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1572578

The Democrats were all gung ho to invade Iraq when it was politically popular... Heck, why do you think they ran that boob Kerry... Huh? Are you just plain stupid or do you like spreading lies? Thirty three Dem. Senators and 133 Dem. Congresspeople opposed invading Iraq. Few if any were gung ho to invade. Only GOPers are stupid enough to be gung ho to start a war. Read some of the commentary from back then.........maybe it will help to refresh your memory. I started out with a rightwinger slinging some lying hash at liberals........I thought you might enjoy it for old times sake: "The latest line from the left about the ‘War on Terrorism’ has been that we need to ‘have a debate’ about invading Iraq. Of course, Conservatives have been holding up their end of the debate since shortly after Sept 11th. Here’s a quote from a column of mine that I wrote on Sept 16, 2001…" rightwingnews.com "The vote on invading Iraq was 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House." 66.102.7.104 Of the ten, only Conyers remains in the Congress. And, on Friday, he again cast his vote against a presidential demand for the appropriation of money to fund a distant war that critics have begun to refer to as a "quagmire." A fierce critic of the Bush Administration's domestic and international policies -- Conyers likes to say, "We need a regime change in the United States" --the Congressman voted against the Bush Administration's request for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation, most of which will be used to fund the continued occupation of Iraq. "(The Administration is) adding $87 billion on top of the $67 billion already spent, and there is no end in sight," Conyers said, echoing his criticism of appropriations for Vietnam. thenation.com "Republican candidates are beating the war drums just as support for invading Iraq is dissipating. Whereas a Gallup Poll last November revealed 74 percent in favor of a ground invasion of Iraq and 20 percent opposed, this August the percentage of those in favor plummeted to 53, with 41 percent opposed -- roughly the same margin that existed before September 11. Moreover, the profile of those who favor war versus those who oppose it increasingly resembles the electoral breakdown of the mid-1990s. The opponents are disproportionately women, minorities, senior citizens, the college-educated and residents of the Northeast, Midwest and Far West. The administration's core supporters are rural, white, male, southern Republicans without a college diploma. That's not a good recipe for building a national consensus and may not help the Republicans in November. Here, based on materials specially provided by polling organizations, is a rundown of who is opposing and who is supporting the administration's rush to war in Iraq. prospect.org "Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who opposed invading Iraq, stood alongside the Iraqi leader but said nothing." npr.org This might explain why the rest of the Dems did not vote against invasion although it doesn't excuse them: "Data compiled by a Democracy Matters student at Columbia University, Max Lyons, may provide insight into the failure of the Democratic Party to mount an effective opposition to the Bush war plans. Lyons collected data on three sources of campaign contributions - petroleum and energy, defense-related, and pipeline construction industries - and found that the Senators who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq received, on average, almost four times the level of these contributions as those who voted against. I used Lyons data in the table below but confined my analysis to Democratic senators and to the energy and pipeline sectors alone. My hope was to determine whether there was a basis in the evidence to connect campaign finance contributions from the energy and the related pipeline industry with the failure of the Democratic Party to oppose a war with Iraq. As the table indicates, the pattern is as clear as it could be. Those Democrats who supported the President's position received more than seven times the level of support as did the Democrats who were in opposition. The meaning of a pattern like this, of course, is open to interpretation. That is especially so in this case where the underlying hypothesis - that the policy toward Iraq is being driven by a desire to secure future petroleum sources - is itself speculative. Nevertheless the fact that pro-war Democrats are so disproportionately funded by the energy sector compared to anti-war members of the same party is important. No one would be surprised that the Bush presidency is particularly responsive to the oil industry. What is a shock is to see that its contributions to candidates also represent an important fault-line within the opposition party with regard to the question of war and peace." democracymatters.org