EAPILMFOWDTOOOOOOOOOOSKY!!
Well nice 2 see ya in here
HEY I know yur 's are indoor ones I tink but if not you betta not leave um outdoors tonight sposed to drop below freezing and you may wanna keep a slow drip on yur faucet

 

Kitty sleeps under the covers with me....

Flame on

 

 

Really? Hum a bunch of jackasses manipulating the war they agreed to and authorized (twisting it) turning it into an oportunity to attack the president. Guess you're a really deep thinker ha! Moron!!! You might argue glass 1/2 empty 1/2 full because you believe their back stabbing blame shifting tactics like saying that they didn't also beleive that Iraq had WMD (which they did just not enough for anyone to jump up and down over 3 canisters of mustard gas were found). While I can respect your leftist attitudes, I still think you're an ass.

 

I'm a moron? You really need to figure out how this whole thing got started in the first place. The Congressional vote was a vote to give the president the OPTION to use force. Congress did not vote for or against going to war in that vote.... It was strictly to allow military action to be a possibility, and therefore, a threat we could use to achieve our goals! If they didn't give authorization to use force, they would have removed our largest and most important bargaining chip with our enemies, before the invasion ever occurred! The decision to go in was made by Bush, and Bush alone! You're just one more dolt, victimized by your oversimplification of this process, as it is supposed to be carried out.

Your interpretation of this cartoon is the exact opposite of your understanding of the Congressional vote. You overcomplicate it and infuse a bunch of crap that really has no symbolic representation within the drawing. Where is the vote (that you don't even understand) involved? By your rationale, every single time the G.O.P. is represented with an elephant in a suit....the cartoonist is saying that Republicans are all elephants... Using the symbol of the democratic party to represent democrats is a fairly neutral thing. Your stupidity, however misguided....is not...

Do yourself a favor and just STFU

"It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

 

[QUOTE=exceltoexcel,Feb 17 2006, 10:11 AM] Really?

 

You really are a tool and lack any comprehension, why don't you google the actual vote(s)! :****off:

 

H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

The bill authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. It also directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Furthermore, the resolution declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution. Finally, the bill requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

Background

In 1990 in response to Iraq

 

NOTICE HOW THEY DID NOT BACK THIS ONE!

Amendments

Summary of the Amendments Made in Order Under the Rule (2 amendments):

Reps. Spratt, Moran (VA), Allen, Snyder, Price, Larson, Levin, Matsui, Clyburn offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, debatable for 1 hour, on October 10, 2002; it failed by a vote of 155 - 270 (Roll no. 453). The amendment intended to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces to support any new U.N. Security Council resolution that mandates the elimination, by force if necessary, of all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Requested that the President should seek authorization from Congress to use the armed forces of the U.S. in the absence of a U.N. Security council resolution sufficient to eliminate by force if necessary, all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, long-range ballistic missiles, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. Provided expedited consideration for authorization in the latter case.

Rep. Lee offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute, debatable for 1 hour, on October 10, 2002; it failed by a vote of 72 - 355. The amendment intended to urge the U.S. to work through the U.N. to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction, through mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, enquiry, mediation, regional arrangements and other means.

This document is not necessarily endorsed by the Almanac of Policy Issues. It is being preserved in the Policy Archive for historic reasons.



They obviously supported his efforts (most) in the beginning. Then twisted it against him. They had access to inteligence and nearly everyone thought they had WMDs


Your leftist views are readily appearent and your bias here is obvious STFU yourself

 

https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showt...=325350&st=2350