Reply #5: so let me get this straight? [View All]

[CTLawGuy]

its a GOOD idea for democrats to authorize war based on ANY information they hear, no matter how bogus, because they want to hold up the principle of "defending America?"

So if Bush says "The Netherlands has nukular missles pointed at us, we gotta invade," the democrats should not say

"What proof do you have of this?"
"Can we send weapons inspectors in instead to disarm them?"
"I'd like to see solid evidence of this first."
"I won't authorize unless you have the backing of the UN."



Instead they're supposed to say...

"Im gonna let you go to war, but if you do, and hundereds of our soldiers die, its not gonna be my fault, but yours, esp. if the info was wrong. At the same time, I don't look like a Massachusetts Liberal becauase I voted for war."

Give me a break!


The point of our separated powers is that you ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TRUST THE PRESIDENT, EVER. Why not have a dictatorship if we must accept the premise that our president should be trusted? What would be the reason for having it otherwise?

What Kerry and the other traitors did was pure political cowardice. They thought nothing of the 1000 US soliders who are now dead or wounded, thought nothing of the thousands of Iraqi civilians who are dead, wounded, or unemployed, or without power or running water.

How the hell can they say with a straight face that they were voting to protect this country?

I hope they come to learn the folly of "trusting the president."