Are the democrats against this war in Iraq? - joe amato megavideo
"Dear Mr. President:" ... We ask you, after consulting with the Congress and to the U.S. Constitution and the laws to respond effectively to take the necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes against suspected Iraqi sites) to take the threat posed by the refusal of Iraq to end its programs of weapons of mass destruction. "
Best regards,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski A. , Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senator Tom Daschle, John Kerry and other
October 9, 1998
Joe Amato Megavideo Are The Democrats Against This War In Iraq?
9 comments:
Democrats are against the war in underway.
Thus, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud and Osama.
Love the letter! Good to touch.
The Democrats were for the war before voting against ...
Many people, others do not ...
Democrats are against anything that could help the country as it was "so far - the best and strongest
The Democrats are against Western civilization in general.
Keywords:
"According to the U.S. Constitution and the laws"
If Bush had acted in its authority is questionable.
"where appropriate, air and missiles in Iraq," suspicious "
Again, this does not prevent the invasion of a country in large quantities.
No, I am totally disagree with you, but someone has to carefully read the things.
"One of the great advantages of pounds is sometimes there are fantastic pictures." GWB
They showed something, a damnocrat ever seen in his sorry a * s life and is a test !!!!!!!!
Right. 1998th A number of facts. One view, which leads to a conclusion.
2003rd Another set of facts and a different perspective. For example, some people go to a different conclusion about what to do better.
2005th And a whole host of other facts. How to get a man to a different conclusion about what to do better.
If the Democrats have (or other) after Saddam's fall in 1998 or 2003, nothing to do with the promotion or against them, stay in Iraq in an exercise of nation-building or participate in a sectarian / civil war years under Saddam Hussein in power is. The fact that decisions involving the same country does not mean that differences in the year and had no meaning.
Several facts. Different decisions. That is how the officers should work well.
Here's the difference:
In 1998, Saddam let UN weapons inspectors pointed to the country. In 2002, weapons inspectors were in the country, but withdrew before the bombing began.
But now that we are here, whatever the excuse, we broke it we bought it. We need to fix what was broken and they leave to their fate. And we must do so as soon as possible. Plus the "occupiers", and more people are dying to be angry with us and more people. We have what we tried to eliminate - the tyrannical leader.
PS I have little respect for a person on that list, and never and never will for any of them, including voting Kerry.
Post a Comment