On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 01:56:09AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:29:17PM -0800, Marc Shapiro wrote: > >> > >> 2) I never said a word about WWI or WWII. My comments we primarily > >> aimed at the "W" wars. The ones in which the U.S. unilaterally invaded > >> another country. Not wars which involved major portions of the world > >> that we were drawn in to. > >> > > You mean the wars which had overwhelming majority support from both > > houses of congress? > > Not that it means much given both houses of congress were the same party as > the president. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq "The House of Representatives adopted the resolution on October 10, 2002, by a vote of 296-133." "The Senate adopted the resolution on October 11, 2002, by a vote of 77-23." Now for the kicker. It doesn't matter what parties held the congress. If today's "anti-war" congress were in power, the resolutions *still* would have passed in 2002. Don't believe me? Go look at the names. > > You mean the wars of which Hillary Clinton > > said the following [0]: > > She lost my vote over that speech when I heard that on CSPAN live. > Did she get it back when she flipped to being anti-war and effectively denying that she ever supported the war? > > I just wanted to make sure that we were talking about the same war. > > Yup, it was *all* W going it alone with nobody's support. > > When the American public got wise to the crony game, the congressional > balance shifted the other way. Your sarcasm might be seriously on to > something. What crony game is that? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature