Why Did HRC and Other Dems Vote to Authorize The Use of Force in Iraq?
Although this question is rarely addressed directly, my guess is that we all really know the answer.
The real question is: do even the Republicans want a culture in which the less-hawkish party acts in that way?
Although this question is rarely addressed directly, my guess is that we all really know the answer.
The real question is: do even the Republicans want a culture in which the less-hawkish party acts in that way?
posted by Winston Smith at
10:45 PM
6 Comments:
Well, it could be that the Democratic Party is an unreliable baramoter of things.
You can check my math, but I believe that more Democrats in Congress voted to authorize Bush43's Bad War in Iraq than the Much Better Gulf War I under Bush41.
I reckon if I'm wrong, I'll hear about it bigtime; if not, it's The Return of the Crickets, chirp, chirp.
Yes, the Republicans want an opposition party that can be bullied into authorizing force - or any other thing the Republicans want. The shame of it for Democrats and for America is that they have one.
I guess my math is correct, then. Thanks.
Both right, though LL hits the mark more accurately.
Of course the Dems are a bad indicator of things...the only thing that sustains them is that they're a better one than the GOP...though that is, admittedly, setting the bar rather low...
But yeah, they were, in effect, bullied. They know that if they go along with the war and it's wrong, then they might take a beating...but if they oppose it and they're wrong they're completely doomed.
Even the GOP shouldn't want to create a situation in which war is always endorsed whenever the issue is raised, right?
There are many factors that contribute to making war too common, and this, I'll bet, is one of them.
So, again, the Dems win by being less awful than the GOP. The Dems just went along with a disastrous, unjustified war, but the GOP actively promoted it.
So who you gonna vote for? The irrational loose-canon warmongers or the lame-ass weenies? Me, I gotta go with the latter. They might not stop irrational, disastrous wars, but at least they won't actively start any.
Solomonlike as always, Matt Welch splits the difference:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29124.html
I guess my math is correct, then. Thanks.
TVD's standard of proof, as always, is rhetorical. He could be right in this case - his research projects are up to him. But his reasoning from my not checking his arithmetic is typically specious.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home