PDA

View Full Version : Elections CRUSHING Repudiation of BushCo


Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:25 PM
First, congrats to Obama on a well run campaign. Condolences to McCain for being a Republican at about the worst possible time. I'm not sure any Republican could possibly win in the current environment.

Second, a great big F U to all on this board, and around the country, who said a bunch of REALLY stupid things about how Democrats were politically irrelevant after the 2004 elections. We heard it all. Now, the 2006 and 2008 elections are, within a scant 2 years, the most profound political annihilation in US history. The Presidency lost along with majorities in both the House and Senate totalling something on the order of 15 Senate Seats and 50 House seats.

Finally, good luck to the new Administration and Congress. You are inheriting a massive pile of steaming crap that has been left to you by Bush and his horrendous policies. You will need to be both brilliant and lucky to succeed in the near term.

Oh, one more note -- Iraq is a credit or debit against Bush ALONE. Whatever happens going forward. Perhaps the current trajectory will continue and long-term success will be achieved. I certainly hope so. But Nixon doesn't (and shouldn't) get much blame for Vietnam, but rather LBJ gets the vast lion's share of that. The same is true here. Iraq was defining for Bush. It won't and shouldn't define the Obama Presidency.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:27 PM
Yes, no Dems voted for Iraq....

munkey
11-04-2008, 10:28 PM
Iraq was defining for Bush. It won't and shouldn't define the Obama Presidency.


That depends on how he handles it IMO...Only history will tell

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:30 PM
That depends on how he handles it IMO...Only history will tell

I disagree. Given the repudiation of the war by the American electorate, Obama would be within his rights to order immediate withdrawal from Iraq if he chose. I doubt he will, but regardless, the American electorate has not exactly been shy about what it's opinions are in this matter.

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:31 PM
Yes, no Dems voted for Iraq....

How does that matter? Democrats turned against it long ago, and you know as well as I that Bush's mismanagement of Iraq is one of the foundation stones of tonight's election.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 10:32 PM
Yes, no Dems voted for Iraq....

Obama did not, however.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:33 PM
How does that matter? Democrats turned against it long ago, and you know as well as I that Bush's mismanagement of Iraq is one of the foundation stones of tonight's election.

How does that matter? Yea, turned against it after they voted for it, we all know the story. I won't pretend Bush handled Iraq well if you don't pretend Democrats didn't vote for Iraq.

Part of the mismanagment of Iraq was because the Dems who voted for it even pulled a 180 claiming they were lied too and all that bullshit.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:33 PM
Obama did not, however.

Obama couldn't fool. He wasn't around to be able to vote. Duh.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 10:33 PM
Obama couldn't fool. He wasn't around to be able to vote. Duh.

Doesn't change his vote.

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:33 PM
How does that matter? Yea, turned against it after they voted for it, we all know the story. I won't pretend Bush handled Iraq well if you don't pretend Democrats voted for Iraq.

Part of the mismanagment of Iraq was because the Dems who voted for it even pulled a 180 claiming they were lied too and all that bullshit.

How did any of that impact BushCo's (mis)management of the war, the occupation, and their TOTAL LACK OF A PLAN FOR WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY KNOCKED OFF SADDAM? They botched the whole thing, and when they did, the Democrats (rightly) told them to f' off.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:36 PM
How did any of that impact BushCo's (mis)management of the war, the occupation, and their TOTAL LACK OF A PLAN FOR WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY KNOCKED OFF SADDAM? They botched the whole thing, and when they did, the Democrats (rightly) told them to f' off.

Poltical infighting during a time of war, i.e. Harry Reid and Co. out in front of the camera every chance they could calling the war several oh their poarty voted for a failure.

You are making my point for me though with your rant. Keep it up.

Need I remind you Dems voted for Iraq once more? Hindsight is bullshit.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:37 PM
Doesn't change his vote.

Cause he didn't have one.

Please provide the link to his official vote against Iraq.


Otherwise you can chalk it up to political expediency.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 10:38 PM
Poltical infighting during a time of war, i.e. Harry Reid and Co. out in front of the camera every chance they could calling the war several oh their poarty voted for a failure.

You are making my point for me though with your rant. Keep it up.

Need I remind you Dems voted for Iraq once more? Hindsight is bullshit.

The minor flaw in your argument is that there is a position called Commander in Chief. This is the guy who commands the army. This is the guy who decides to push an initiative to Congress to go to war. It's the "buck stops here" guy.

That minor flaw in your argument happens to be Bush. And that was what his entire argument was.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 10:39 PM
Cause he didn't have one.

Please provide the link to his official vote against Iraq.


Otherwise you can chalk it up to political expediency.

Does it change his vote?

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 10:42 PM
Poltical infighting during a time of war, i.e. Harry Reid and Co. out in front of the camera every chance they could calling the war several oh their poarty voted for a failure.

You are making my point for me though with your rant. Keep it up.

Need I remind you Dems voted for Iraq once more? Hindsight is bullshit.

ROFL Whatever. You're not pissing on anyone's parade tonight. The American people disagree with Bush, and you.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

kcfanintitanhell
11-04-2008, 10:43 PM
Obama couldn't fool. He wasn't around to be able to vote. Duh.
What the hell exactly is your point?

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:44 PM
The minor flaw in your argument is that there is a position called Commander in Chief. This is the guy who commands the army. This is the guy who decides to push an initiative to Congress to go to war. It's the "buck stops here" guy.

That minor flaw in your argument happens to be Bush. And that was what his entire argument was.

ACtually the CiC is in charge of the Marine Corps and needs Congressional Approval outside of a Presidential Order in which he has x days to get said Congressioanl approval.

Or are you just going to pretend that Dems didn't vote for Iraq? I mean if you are going to live in imagination land we can stop this now.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:44 PM
What the hell exactly is your point?

He said Obama's vote was against Iraq. I was pointing out that Obama was not in the Senate to even vote on Iraq.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 10:51 PM
ACtually the CiC is in charge of the Marine Corps and needs Congressional Approval outside of a Presidential Order in which he has x days to get said Congressioanl approval.

Or are you just going to pretend that Dems didn't vote for Iraq? I mean if you are going to live in imagination land we can stop this now.

You are missing the point, but that is to be expected. You don't really want to see the point.

I understand how we go to war, so no need to put up this false front that you're talking to someone who's beneath you.

Many democrats voted with the war. However, the CiC brought and marketed the intelligence to Congress. The buck, ultimately, stops with the CiC. Even if Congress declared war, he could have decided not to do it. The buck stops there.

That's the point. The semantics you want to play is just sour grapes for a huge repudiation of the Republican party of the last 8 years. The party of Fear.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 10:51 PM
He said Obama's vote was against Iraq. I was pointing out that Obama was not in the Senate to even vote on Iraq.

If you could read, that's not what I said.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:54 PM
You are missing the point, but that is to be expected. You don't really want to see the point.

I understand how we go to war, so no need to put up this false front that you're talking to someone who's beneath you.

Many democrats voted with the war. However, the CiC brought and marketed the intelligence to Congress. The buck, ultimately, stops with the CiC. Even if Congress declared war, he could have decided not to do it. The buck stops there.

That's the point. The semantics you want to play is just sour grapes for a huge repudiation of the Republican party of the last 8 years. The party of Fear.

The intelligence that Hillary herself said she verified with her own resources? Intelligence that matched almost tic for tac that her hubby Bill claimed to have only a few years prior?

I expect people to take repsonsiblity for their actions. In the case of Iraq that is Bush and all those that voted for it.

You just want to point the finger at Bush and that's it.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 10:55 PM
If you could read, that's not what I said.

Yes you said he voted against Iraq, and then re-iterated he had some form of a vote. Though he has no official vote on record cause he was not in the Senate so....


ok you win....:rolleyes:

Nightwish
11-04-2008, 10:56 PM
Yes, no Dems voted for Iraq....
Dems voted for a war that had been sold to them under false pretenses, and then turned against it en masse when the truth became known. Conversely, even with the truth known, the Republican party still stood by their debacle, although eventually several of them wised up and turned away from it too.

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-04-2008, 11:02 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lRdG4Q3vJGc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lRdG4Q3vJGc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

petegz28
11-04-2008, 11:02 PM
Dems voted for a war that had been sold to them under false pretenses, and then turned against it en masse when the truth became known. Conversely, even with the truth known, the Republican party still stood by their debacle, although eventually several of them wised up and turned away from it too.

Righhht....the idiot Bush duped everyone, with Clinton's own CIA guy....ok

Amnorix
11-04-2008, 11:04 PM
The Iraq war was Bush's. He owned it from the beginning. He led, and asked Congress to follow. They did. Or are you suggesting anything different?

Nightwish
11-04-2008, 11:05 PM
Obama couldn't fool. He wasn't around to be able to vote. Duh.
He did vote, and it is on record. The US Senate was not the only congressional body to hold a vote on the war in Iraq. Several state legislatures also voted for whether or not they would support the war, and Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate at the time of their vote.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 11:06 PM
The Iraq war was Bush's. He owned it from the beginning. He led, and asked Congress to follow. They did. Or are you suggesting anything different?

Well yes. You are half right. He asked they followed. Now I am willing to hold him accountable for leading and them for following.

You on the other hand want to treat the Dems who voted for Iraq like they were idiots with no clue who blindly voted.

petegz28
11-04-2008, 11:08 PM
He did vote, and it is on record. The US Senate was not the only congressional body to hold a vote on the war in Iraq. Several state legislatures also voted for whether or not they would support the war, and Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate at the time of their vote.

Sorry, voting as a State senator and a at the Fed level are two different things. All kinds of other politics involved. So I will half cede and say he had a vote that didn't count and was a little less politicaly threatening to him as say to Hillary.

Nightwish
11-04-2008, 11:08 PM
Righhht....the idiot Bush duped everyone, with Clinton's own CIA guy....ok
Bush sold the war with "evidence" he knew was suspect, with documents that were known to be forgeries, and by presenting evidence known to be true several years before during the Clinton administration as if it still remained true in 2003 (such as the presence and location of chemicals and weapons stores in Iraq), which in fact were no longer true.

Nightwish
11-04-2008, 11:12 PM
Sorry, voting as a State senator and a at the Fed level are two different things. All kinds of other politics involved. So I will half cede and say he had a vote that didn't count and was a little less politicaly threatening to him as say to Hillary.
Whether they are meaningful on the same level or not is irrelevant. You said he did not vote and could not have voted. You were wrong, plain and simple. And you're also wrong that the vote didn't count for anything. A war vote in a State legislature is not a meaningless and symbolic gesture. They control the national guard, and a significant portion of the nation's armaments, for instance.

irishjayhawk
11-04-2008, 11:17 PM
The intelligence that Hillary herself said she verified with her own resources? Intelligence that matched almost tic for tac that her hubby Bill claimed to have only a few years prior?

I expect people to take repsonsiblity for their actions. In the case of Iraq that is Bush and all those that voted for it.

You just want to point the finger at Bush and that's it.

No, I'm pointing out that the buck stops there.

Yes you said he voted against Iraq, and then re-iterated he had some form of a vote. Though he has no official vote on record cause he was not in the Senate so....


ok you win....:rolleyes:

Actually, I said he didn't vote for it. That's not the same as voting against it. I'm sorry you can't see the difference.

xbarretx
11-04-2008, 11:20 PM
How does that matter? Democrats turned against it long ago, and you know as well as I that Bush's mismanagement of Iraq is one of the foundation stones of tonight's election.

check and mate. rep

jidar
11-04-2008, 11:59 PM
Yes, no Dems voted for Iraq....

I was for the Iraq war back when I was told they were within spitting distance of nuking people, but I changed my mind when I realized I was swindled. I don't blame myself, I blame the Administration and their clearly systematic betrayal of my trust.

So with that in mind, I find myself not really blaming congress too much for the Iraq war since I figure they were duped just like I was.

BucEyedPea
11-05-2008, 12:11 AM
I was for the Iraq war back when I was told they were within spitting distance of nuking people, but I changed my mind when I realized I was swindled. I don't blame myself, I blame the Administration and their clearly systematic betrayal of my trust.

So with that in mind, I find myself not really blaming congress too much for the Iraq war since I figure they were duped just like I was.

I was against it on gut feel...a woman's intuition is always correct.
Then I found new reading sources that were giving facts that contradicted what we were being given, in an attempt to back up that gut feel. They were impeccably accurate. It all turned out exactly as they said it would and I've stuck with them since. The state lies...and routinely...that I have learned.