• Home
  • Local Listings
  • Archives
  • Face to Face
  • About Us
  • Sunday Line-Up
Add a Comment
by donnie900 August 26, 2007 8:12 PM EDT
Bill Clinton was a monk! Nuts de size''a peanuts! Ain''t no way he coulda ******* anyone.. It was all made up.
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 August 26, 2007 8:07 PM EDT
"I''d hate to think our Congress, Democrat or Republican, would withhold giving our President the option of attacking a nation that THEY said had weapons intended to blow up our cities and were harboring people who had attacked the nation."
- Posted by skyk at 04:53 PM : Aug 26, 2007

Emergency action is the President''s prerogative.

For a conflict that will last for any length of time, for months or years, the U.S. Constitution requires that the President seek a formal declaration of war, because only Congress can declare war.

That authorization to use force, back in October 2002 (?), was no more a Constitutional declaration of war, than two people shacking up together is a legal marriage.

I don''t care what sloppy things were done like this in the 20th century. That''s a big part of the reason we''re in this mess now.

If the Constitution was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it''s good enough for us.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 August 26, 2007 8:07 PM EDT
Sexxxx this, sexxxx that. As if a country could ever be run like that? They''ze shoulda never gave women the right to vote, if yaz azzzzz me. Cuz all they look at is guy''s buttts and peckkkers.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 August 26, 2007 8:04 PM EDT
Whenever ya gotta stud prez? The popporazzi follows.. So long as there''s a geeky blue suit in office, all them hyenas are in hollywood, where they belong.
Reply to this comment
by nmsuip August 26, 2007 8:02 PM EDT
"...regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month..."

Any guesses as to what that progress report will say?:

-Progress on some objectives.
-No progress on other objectives.
-Need more time to improve the security situation on the ground.
-No conclusion in the foreseeable future.
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 August 26, 2007 8:01 PM EDT
The only thing I don''t like about obama is all them chicks on you tube shake''n their boottties. Thats what they did to Clinton! Peace and prosperity and.. "oh-oh.. looks like there''s sommore self-absorbed romance writers ''round."
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 August 26, 2007 7:56 PM EDT
"Barack Obama was not in Congress at the time, but he has never flipflopped in his eloquent opposition to this war from the beginning."

Nope. He''s the only guy ''round here with a slam dunk, iceman.
Reply to this comment
by iceman_1960 August 26, 2007 7:35 PM EDT
Which Democrats voted against going to war ? They should be mentioned from time to time.

Note: only one Republican Senator had the b*alls to vote "No" to the war.

Also, the Democrats who voted FOR the war are complicit in this debacle. Whereas those who voted AGAINST the war, were, of course, "just playing politics as usual..." If any had abstained, it would have been chalked up to cowardice.

Isn''t that the way right wing brains process this data ?

In the Senate, 21 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted against this war. The list includes some of the Right''s all time favorites:

Ted Kennedy (Iraq is Bush''s Chappaquiddick, not his)
*** Durbin
Barbara Boxer (who calls it the best vote of her life. Boxer wanted U.S. military intervention in Darfur, not Iraq.)
Carl Levin
Robert Byrd (even that old KKK member gets one right once in a while)
Paul Sarbanes
Russ Feingold
Patrick Leahy
Barbara Mikulski
Jon Corzine
... and others.

Full list at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position

Barack Obama was not in Congress at the time, but he has never flipflopped in his eloquent opposition to this war from the beginning.
Reply to this comment
by radiob-2009 August 26, 2007 7:32 PM EDT
"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn''t have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."


You really want to end the war? You are asking them again to "vote" when all they have to do is prevent any "vote" on funding.
Reply to this comment
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook