Skip to main content

View Diary: Which 44 Democrats Want Another Iraq War? (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well, you can't side with Gohmert all the time. (6+ / 0-)

    Seriously, for every time we sent military advisers and it turned into areal US-involved war, there are a lot of times when it didn't.  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 05:01:09 AM PDT

    •  No no IT'S INEVITABLE!!! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tuffie, Aquarius40, anshmishra

      By not supporting these amendments, these people voted for the all-out war that Obama is clearly launching! He's the same as BUSH!   AAAAAAaaaaiigh!  

      Yes, this diary is childish and stupid.  

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:00:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please explain how this diary, which does nothing (22+ / 0-)

        more than accurately describe the outcome of proposed legislation and contains no editorial content at all, is "childish and stupid."

        Would you prefer that these votes be held in secret?  

        As in America, so on DKos. One lawbook for the privileged elite, another for the rest of us.

        by PhilJD on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:14:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  These look like grandstanding amendments (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anshmishra, PhilJD

          A no-confidence vote on the President.  It would have been one thing doing this when we had our own little Napoleon in office whose administration had signaled from the start that they wanted to find a way into Iraq.  Instead now we have a president who clearly states the opposite and always has and appears to be trying to come up with a sensible response to that debacle while people irrationally hang the actions of his predecessor around his neck.  

          It's not a personal thing.  But as Democrats we act like idiots here.  

          And  this just seems obtuse.  

          contains no editorial content at all
           The very title of the diary is one of the most ridiculous strawmen I've ever seen on this site.  

          When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

          by Sun dog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:30:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  DBAD. n/t (9+ / 0-)

        The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war. ♥ ♥ ♥ Forget Neo — The One is Minori Urakawa

        by lotlizard on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:21:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Don't be a dick in someone else's diary. (15+ / 0-)

        You are a guest here.

        Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

        by expatjourno on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:33:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The diarist didn't mention President Obama. (7+ / 0-)

        You did.

        There is someone here behaving like a petulant child. It isn't the diarist.

        A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

        by slatsg on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 06:58:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, that's honest (0+ / 0-)

          You're not just trying to score points and "win" an argument here because this doesn't involve the President at all.  

          I don't know why I come onto the kindergarten threads that inevitably spew out of such knuckleheaded diaries.  Might as well go have a "discussion" on the CNN comment section for all the integrity of the arguments.  

          When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

          by Sun dog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:36:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This may come as a shock to you. (6+ / 0-)

            My world doesn't revolve around the President. I don't base my value system on whether or not it makes a particular politician look good.

            I opposed Iraq I. I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. I opposed Iraq II. I opposed US intervention in Syria. I will continue to oppose any re-escalation in Iraq, regardless of who supports it.

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:50:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I opposed the Gulf War (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slatsg

              Marched in the street and got pelted by ice balls from moron college kids waving American flags.  I've been opposing this stuff my whole life, as you have.

              But, yeah, these amendments are basically a no-confidence vote on the President.  This is very much about the President and I can't help but give you enough credit to think that you understand that.

                He hasn't come to Congress asking for authorization to send our army into Iraq.  We already have people in Iraq.  We had way more people in Iraq when he came to office.  I think it's worth actually looking at the specifics of what he's doing rather than assuming he needs to be handcuffed as Bush SHOULD have been.  This was reactionary and symbolic and it signaled all the wrong things for Democrats to take  this action.  I wouldn't have wanted to vote against these things if I was in their shoes but this was dumb from the start.  "You want a war if you don't vote for this!"  But the President isn't calling for a war, opposed the Iraq War from the start, and the actions he's taken so far make sense if you actually consider the situation at hand.  

              When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

              by Sun dog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:03:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The amendments were proposed by (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stargaze, splintersawry, Johnny Q

                Barbara Lee. I am sure you are aware of her history. She has been speaking out against the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. She has been consistent and she is not singling out President Obama. (If this were a Republican I would question the motivation.)

                In fact Lee's amendments may assist the President when the hawks pressure him to re-escalate in Iraq. These votes indicate that there is a sizable opposition to re-escalation and to our continued presence in Afghanistan.

                Just as the anti-war opposition helped the POTUS find alternatives in Syria, the anti-war opposition will assist him as he finds a way to deal with Iraqi situation.

                A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

                by slatsg on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 08:47:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm being a bit reactionary myself (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slatsg

                  To the reactionary tone of the diary and following conversation.  Lee is a fine person but I believe this was not a politically smart or useful move.  And I think we need to be politically smart and useful to actually save more lives and bring more peace and stability to the world.  

                  What I really didn't like here was this blanket statement, this cheap rhetoric, of labeling everyone who voted against these amendments as "warmongers."  This is the tone set by the diary and cued up the following ridiculous commentary here.  That concept "warmonger" means something important and it shouldn't be used like that.  

                  When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                  by Sun dog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 10:10:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  what? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q
                He hasn't come to Congress asking for authorization to send our army into Iraq
                That's because he said he doesn't have to.

                Washington (CNN) -- I'll let you know what's going on, but I don't need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.
                http://www.cnn.com/...

                he's still Bush III, nothing will change that.

                •  This helps lots (0+ / 0-)
                  he's still Bush III, nothing will change that.
                  I find that damned offensive.  Not out of defensiveness of Obama but because it shows such a lack of understanding of just how bad Bush was and just how bad the people he represented still are.  

                  When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

                  by Sun dog on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 11:36:15 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You may be offended but (0+ / 0-)

                    his actions are clear for all to see.

                    Only a blind partisan will ignore the truth.

                    The simple fact that Obama refused to prosecute the Bush war criminals and continued and expanded the Bush war criminal acts is enough for me.

                    Perhaps the reason you are offended is because you approve of his policies?

      •  what a childish, stupid comment (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Q
        Yes, this diary is childish and stupid.  AAAAAAaaaaiigh!

        _______________The DOD/ War Department, which consumes 22% of the national budget, is the world's largest employer with 3.2 million employees.

        by allenjo on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 07:52:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site