Um, it was still a bipartisan vote, JWG. Republicans and Democrats opposed the war.

If you think that’s a misleading statement it’s no less misleading than Dugger’s implied assertion here (and direct elsewhere) that Democrats equally supported war with Iraq as demonstrated by their vote on the resolution. Many Democrats voted for the resolution as a means to avoid war, hoping that the threat of force would be enough to get HUssein to allow inspectors back into the country. The resolution also required the Bush administration to certify that it had exhausted all other mneans of verifying Iraq’s WMD capabilities and enforcing UN resolutions requiring disarmament. Of course as soon as the inspectors got back into Iraq the Bush administration began to undermine their efforts.

So if Dugger wants to distort the context of the vote as bipartisan support for war with Iraq, I have no problem making the true statement that there was bipartisan opposition with a majority of House Dems voting against it.

because alot of Democrats and even more republicans

Good…so we’re agreed that it was a bipartisan vote. I’ll let frameone know since he had some difficulty with his math classes in school.

there has been bipartisan opposition to the war from the very beginning since some Republicans voted against the resolution too

Yeah, because less than 3% of Republicans (7 total votes) voting against the resolution is as similarly bipartisan as 43% of Democrats (110 total votes) voting for the resolution.

To recap: 3% compared to 43%
To recap: 7 compared to 110

As someone likes to say…idiot.

Maybe the iocane powder is in both glasses.

The next time a conservative tells me that liberals want to “cut and run” from Iraq while conservatives want to win, I’ll just tell him that there has been bipartisan opposition to the war from the very beginning since some Republicans voted against the resolution too.

Nice. A majority of Democrats voted agains the Iraq War resoltion but now it’s a “bipartisan” congress.

Democrats (House & Senate total) voted 43% in favor of the resolution. That’s 110 for and 147 against. In fact, the Senate democrats voted 58% in favor.

It’s not unreasonable to call 110 democrats (with the majority of the Senate democrats) supporting the president as “bipartisan.”

“Might be time to change course. Might not be. We don’t know.”

“UBL might be provoking one reaction, and he might be provoking the other reaction. We don’t know.”

But his thesis is that we “gotta do what we think is right for us.” He just can’t tell us what that is.

And it’s supposed to be the Democrats who have no plans or strategy.

Nice. A majority of Democrats voted agains the Iraq War resoltion but now it’s a “bipartisan” congress.

Dugger, if we aren’t supposed to care what Bin Laden thinks or wants us to do, why the fuck are we supposed to care what Iraqi insurgents think about our election?

It indeed might be time to change course. Might not be time, too. We don’t know. Myself, I think leaving per a fixed timetable is the worst thing we can do. But UBL attacked our homeland and our actions are now, ostensibly, driven by what we think is right for us - regardless of UBL’s announced strategy (that get you to thinking at all - that you think you and others know his strategy - since he announced it). Whats to say UBL is not a clever dude and figures if he says he wants us to do something, we will do the opposite. And all along its really that opposite he wants. Bottom line: we gotta do what we think is right for us. Thats what the Pres and a bipartisan Congress did.

“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations…”

“We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

One irresponsible, slapdash war and several Abu Ghraib photos later, we justify all of his propaganda, and then seem baffled as to why there are so many insurgents and foreign terrorists everywhere in Iraq.

He made it quite clear in his 1996 Declaration of War that he hoped to drag the U.S. into a regional conflict and bankrupt us just as he believes he did the Soviet Union.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Fact is, we’re half a trillion into this thing, Dugger, and are not an inch closer to solving it. Time to change course.

How does victory happen, Republicans?

“Well, the violence stops and democracy occurs.”

So if the people decide to democratically elect a power-mad zealot…you know, the way Iran did…and if one of the sectarian militias finally annihilates the other, then will we be able to claim “victory”?

“Sure. Because we’ll finally have avenged 9/11.”

By…allowing the mastermind to run free.

A thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters, I swear.