Most the afore-mentioned Democrats were hawkish on taking out Saddam as far back as the Clinton years. So yes Bush knew during the 2000 campaign that if elected he could get the votes. Gore too made hawkish statements in the 90's even chastising Quayle in a 1992 VP debate the GHB administration had fumbled the ball by not removing Saddam at the conclusion of the Gulf War.
A vote in Congress-like a decision by a jury- isn't an index scalp. An errant vote for war cannot be quickly stopped out. To vote for war and the suddenly find religion because it's not going smoothly and thus becomes a
political liability is dangerously disingenuous. If the war had been concluded quickly and successfully these same Democrats would be applauding themselves for "putting partisanship aside and ridding the world of a dangerous evil dictator."
Not only did Biden vote for the war in Iraq but both he and Obama then opposed the surge. That makes Biden-unlike McCain-a two time loser on the issue. McCain at least FIXED the problem.
I have no disagreement that Afghanistan/Pakistan is worthy of military attention. Any effort beyond the present scope of NATO involvement will be met with fierce opposition from Zardari's new government. Here's some comments he made earlier today: "Let us do the job, we can do a better job than anybody else can. It's partly and mainly our war. We fight it. Let us do it," Zardari said in an interview on CNN.
Muckraking on that border is war mongering and while I share the frustration of other American's who also wish to see Bin Laden's head on a stick experience has taught me that revenge is often as bitter as sweet.
The REAL issues in this election are domestic in nature. To borrow a recently popular phrase, all of this war mongering from Obama and McCain is lipstick on the pig of our economy. Reason numero uno this economy
systematically sux-as opposed to micro cycles in housing ect- is because of our Federal budget. When asked during the debate which of his zillion new progams he would cut because of the bailout cost Obama's answer was........I'm still waiting for his answer.
Quote from traderNik:
I defer to your knowledge of the details in these matters. I would only say that I'm pretty sure we have to make a distinction between the votes cast by these men in the early days, just post-9/11, and the feelings about the U.S. presence in Iraq as the years have dragged on.
Knocking Saddam off his pedestal was probably a popular move on both sides of the aisle at that time. Then we saw the photos of President Bush on the aircraft carrier with the 'Mission Accomplished' banner.
Then we saw that the 'mission' was ill-defined, and anything but accomplished. Then some 3500 young U.S. soldiers lost their lives, thousands more were mutilated and crippled for life, tens of thousand of innocent Iraqi civilians lost their lives, and 1 trillion dollars was spent. And for what? They're fighting in the wrong theatre if it's Osama and his disciples or the hottest hotbeds of Islamic fundamentalist terror-training camps that they're after.
