|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 12:44 AM Original message |
"If the IWR had failed, we wouldn't be in Iraq now." Who are we kidding? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tkmorris (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 12:50 AM Response to Original message |
1. You are exactly correct IMHO |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:21 AM Response to Reply #1 |
8. Feingold was not running for Senate in 2002. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:21 AM Response to Reply #8 |
29. Oh please, Kerry was running without GOP opposition in the most blue state in the country |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:55 AM Response to Reply #8 |
39. Kerry, unfortunately, already had his eyes on 2004. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
A Simple Game (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:03 AM Response to Reply #39 |
57. A statement I can agree with. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:06 AM Response to Reply #57 |
67. I guess I've gotten more cynical with age. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
A Simple Game (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:36 AM Response to Reply #67 |
79. Right, the only perfect candidate would be ourselves. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LittleClarkie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:43 PM Response to Reply #39 |
103. I don't believe that about his motivation. But I do appreciate |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Count (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:00 AM Response to Original message |
2. Dunno about losing seats - W would have gone to war regardless, true, but... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mikehiggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:12 AM Response to Reply #2 |
3. The majority of the people were looking at two holes in the ground |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:16 AM Response to Reply #3 |
5. I don't expect my representatives to have a suicide impulse. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:13 AM Response to Reply #2 |
4. I strongly disagree. There's nothing to show that the majority |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:36 AM Response to Reply #4 |
16. Many polls clearly showed the US majority opposed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:40 AM Response to Reply #16 |
18. The question is whether they supported the IWR, not whether they |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Count (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:20 PM Response to Reply #18 |
97. IWR legitimized W's war, even the BS about OBL=Saddam |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
loyalsister (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:51 PM Response to Reply #97 |
99. Agreed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Count (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:18 PM Response to Reply #16 |
96. Thank you so much for this. The false perception is still lingering in people's minds |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RaleighNCDUer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:17 AM Response to Reply #2 |
6. I suspect your right - |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:30 AM Response to Reply #6 |
13. Bush hadn't made it clear yet that he had given up on bin Laden. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:17 AM Response to Original message |
7. There's the right thing to do, regardless of political gains. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:27 AM Response to Reply #7 |
9. The people would have died REGARDLESS of the vote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:29 AM Response to Reply #9 |
11. he's gonna do it anyway, why not help him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:33 AM Response to Reply #11 |
14. We would have helped him more, actually, if we opposed it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:35 AM Response to Reply #14 |
15. right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:37 AM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Oh yeah, sure. Great analogy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:37 AM Response to Reply #15 |
34. Actually, the tax cuts were good economically but it was unintended |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:41 AM Response to Reply #14 |
36. Yes in 2002 we would've lost in greater numbers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
1932 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:24 AM Response to Reply #36 |
61. I don't think Americans perceived the Democrats as flip floppers on the IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PassingFair (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 12:16 PM Response to Reply #61 |
112. Baloney. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rockymountaindem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 11:14 AM Response to Reply #36 |
88. And then we wouldn't have the Senate now... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:12 PM Response to Reply #88 |
90. Maybe, but Kerry might be in the White House |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PassingFair (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 11:59 AM Response to Reply #14 |
111. So all THESE democrats HELPED him? WTF? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
1932 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:21 AM Response to Reply #11 |
60. Because a Senate with more Republicans would have passed a broader IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:07 AM Response to Reply #60 |
68. Exactly. We could have ended up with an even more |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:09 AM Response to Reply #60 |
69. I don't think it would have been possible to pass a broader IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:11 AM Response to Reply #69 |
72. Not true. The original bill was quite a bit broader than the one that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:15 AM Response to Reply #72 |
75. how was it broader? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:27 AM Response to Reply #75 |
78. Here's one source on that: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:58 AM Response to Reply #78 |
82. the problem is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
1932 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:41 AM Response to Reply #69 |
80. I'm interested in hearing your response to the post below which |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:00 AM Response to Reply #80 |
83. well, here it is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PassingFair (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 02:08 AM Response to Reply #9 |
22. The MAJORITY of house dems |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 02:33 AM Response to Reply #22 |
24. I will concede that a vote against the IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:23 AM Response to Reply #24 |
30. I count two Senators that would've lost in '02 had they voted NEA on the IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:11 AM Response to Reply #30 |
71. I would not add Landrieu |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:12 AM Response to Reply #71 |
73. Sugar production is one thing. The "war on terrorism" is another. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:19 AM Response to Reply #73 |
76. standing up to Bush and acting like you have a pair |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PassingFair (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:32 PM Response to Reply #24 |
101. The inspectors were already IN Iraq. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:28 AM Response to Reply #7 |
10. In the words of Stewie Griffin |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
The Count (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:24 PM Response to Reply #7 |
98. Yup. Politics when human lives are involved are crass and inexcusable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Julien Sorel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:29 AM Response to Original message |
12. Stop talking sense! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Q. Citizen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:47 AM Response to Original message |
19. Many Dems who supported it weren't running in 2002, such as Lieberman |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:52 AM Response to Reply #19 |
20. Kerry WAS up for re-election. I don't understand your point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Q. Citizen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:58 AM Response to Reply #20 |
21. I just edited. Maybe it's a little clearer now.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 02:15 AM Response to Reply #19 |
23. As I said, Kerry was up for election in 2002, and the IWR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
John Q. Citizen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 02:53 AM Response to Reply #23 |
26. It was Reed in Rhode Island. Reid in Nevada voted for it and just won |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:13 AM Response to Reply #26 |
27. Byrd's seat was safe. And I'm glad he took a stand. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:33 AM Response to Reply #23 |
33. Kerry was running with no GOP opposition in Massachusetts in 2002 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:39 AM Response to Reply #33 |
35. I think Kerry's vote had more to do with his plans for running in 2004. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:01 AM Response to Reply #35 |
40. No, but he could've tried to get a stronger resolution so Bush couldn't do that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 07:41 AM Response to Reply #23 |
53. Kerry has a very safe seat and is a real poor example for your |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:02 AM Response to Reply #53 |
56. It wasn't a vote for |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:05 AM Response to Reply #56 |
58. Oh please he voted for the IWR. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:07 AM Response to Reply #58 |
59. "Oh please"? That doesn't change the facts! The IWR was not a vote for war. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:02 AM Response to Reply #58 |
66. His statement on the reason for his vote was very clear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:13 AM Response to Reply #66 |
74. his statement isn't the law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:27 AM Response to Reply #74 |
84. Only under conditions that he did NOT meet. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bullimiami (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 02:41 AM Response to Original message |
25. the midterm 2002 election was rigged just like the rest of the recent elections. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:14 AM Response to Original message |
28. I don't deny that, but we would've gained in the long run, IMO |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:43 AM Response to Reply #28 |
37. You're right. If the Dems had had the clear vision that 20/20 hindsight |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Hippo_Tron (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:08 AM Response to Reply #37 |
41. No hindsight necessary, all that is needed is a little history and expert advice |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 07:44 AM Response to Reply #37 |
54. Thousands of pajama-clad blogbarians got it right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:09 AM Response to Reply #54 |
70. Millions of us got it right. Big deal. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Skittles (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:29 AM Response to Original message |
31. I DON'T GIVE A F*** |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:32 AM Response to Original message |
32. because the repukes would be even more clearly culpable now |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:50 AM Response to Reply #32 |
38. The fact that Bush would have invaded "come hell or high water" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:38 AM Response to Reply #38 |
42. no. the vote had many effects. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:51 AM Response to Reply #42 |
44. We didn't KNOW. We just had a gut instinct not to trust Bush, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:19 AM Response to Reply #44 |
48. speak for yourself |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 06:48 AM Response to Reply #48 |
50. You didn't know that Colin Powell's presentation to the UN |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 07:48 AM Response to Reply #50 |
55. What? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:51 AM Response to Reply #55 |
62. You called it correctly. But you had no proof. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:21 PM Response to Reply #62 |
100. Yes absolutely correct |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
LynnTheDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:39 AM Response to Reply #50 |
86. Yes actually, we did know. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leftofthedial (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 11:45 AM Response to Reply #50 |
89. again, you're wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:23 AM Response to Reply #44 |
77. I knew |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:56 PM Response to Reply #77 |
104. They were not in when the IWR was signed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CTLawGuy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 11:19 PM Response to Reply #104 |
107. you are right |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:40 AM Response to Original message |
43. If you are suggesting that that particular vote didn't matter, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:54 AM Response to Reply #43 |
45. It did not matter, in the sense that Bush would have attacked |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:02 AM Response to Reply #45 |
46. And it would have been better to have gone down that way. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cali (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 05:05 AM Response to Original message |
47. First of all, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 06:48 AM Response to Original message |
49. Well, considering that virtually every measuable poll showed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:54 AM Response to Reply #49 |
63. The IWR was sold to the American public as a way to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:53 AM Response to Reply #63 |
81. Funny then, isn't it, that inspectors were already heading back to Iraq |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:05 PM Response to Reply #81 |
105. 1441 was voted one month after the IWR. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 06:36 AM Response to Reply #105 |
109. Sorry, but you cannot state that assumption as fact. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Dec-05-06 07:13 AM Response to Reply #109 |
110. I was not making any assumption. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 07:03 AM Response to Original message |
51. Facts here: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:57 AM Response to Reply #51 |
64. Thanks for the link to all this research, ProSense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:44 AM Response to Reply #64 |
87. no, just people confusing speeches (opinions) for facts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 01:16 PM Response to Reply #87 |
91. Here is another fact that deniers claim is an opinion: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 02:58 PM Response to Reply #91 |
92. here's another fact that is actually relevant to the conversation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 03:27 PM Response to Reply #92 |
93. Fact: Bush lied! Opinion: your post. Am I right? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AtomicKitten (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:09 PM Response to Reply #93 |
94. somehow I knew I'd have to spell it out for you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 04:15 PM Response to Reply #94 |
95. Fact: Bush lied! Opinion: your post. Am I right, yes or no? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 07:38 AM Response to Original message |
52. Ok , but I disagree with this. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pnwmom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 08:59 AM Response to Reply #52 |
65. And we would have had that many more Republican incumbants |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SOS (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:30 AM Response to Original message |
85. Powell's cartoons were presented in February 2003, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dailykoff (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 09:37 PM Response to Original message |
102. Agree. The authorization was a formality and a foregone conclusion. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Mass (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 10:07 PM Response to Original message |
106. I agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProSense (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Dec-04-06 11:56 PM Response to Original message |
108. One week before Bush illegally invaded Iraq: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Tue May 14th 2024, 09:48 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC