Ridiculous election year mistake by Kerry -----

Yes, because W lied about WMD. Nobody would have voted for it if we knew 1 year later, we still wouldn't find any weapons.

OWNED

 

Yea, cause FDR was sitting around flaunting Pearl Harbor just inviting it to get bombed.

WWI: Germany declared war first. Defending yourself hardly seems like warmongering.

Lets try a little harder in our debates, please. Irrelevant facts only drag down conversation into bickering.

But not only did W initiate a war, but he circumvented ongoing mediation channels (UN) and did it in the face of several of our strongest allies. If that ain't warmongering, it comes pretty close.

 

I really don't know what is worse:

1) The liberals attempting to rationalize Forbes Kerry's neglect of his own job.

2) Forbes Kerry thinking that he is above voting. For Forbes Kerry to think that he doesn't need to cast votes is simply wrong. The people of Massachusetts elected him to represent them. He has failed to do so. What's worse is that this is an issue that he has publicly promoted. Shameful.

 

When did Germany declare war?

 

Aw crikey mate! I know Kerry voted for the resolution, and it pisses me off to no end. I think it was a horrible mistake, and might cost Kerry a lot of votes.

But none of this sh*t would have happened if Gore had been appointed president, and Bush was having fun ruining businesses or baseball teams, instead of the world.

 

Because I think accuracy is important, and I don't think it ever helps anything to paint everyone with the same brush when that's not the case. It's extremely unlikely that all the Republicans debated the bill, and if they did, it's extremely unlikely that all of them spoke against it (given that 12 voted for it - McCain, Bond, Talent, Smith, Specter, Murkowski, DeWine, Voinovich, Chafee, Collins, Snowe and Dole), so it would be inaccurate to use the catch-all.

I don't like it when the press does it to anyone. I don't want to read "Senate Democrats" if it's just some of them, I don't want to read "Blacks" if it's not all of them. I want accuracy, and I too often don't get it because of lazy reporting.

That's more the former reporter in me than the Republican.

To be honest, I would've preferred there been no Republicans against this measure, and their excuse for not supporting it is weak (and I wouldn't be surprised if some serious arm-twisting was done to get some other Republican to vote against had Kerry been there to vote), but I prefer the reporter to be accurate when reporting it.

 

Good point, Mango. This is a brief description of what caused Wilson to ask for a declaration of war...

(Bethmann-Hollweg was German Chancellor)

"Bethmann-Hollweg himself spoke out in favour of a negotiated settlement to the war, a policy regarded with contempt by the High Command. Ignoring such opposition he attempted to secure U.S. mediation in 1916. Well aware that U.S. entry into the war would practically ensure an Allied victory, he consistently against the German adoption of unrestricted submarine warfare (sponsored by Tirpitz), a policy that would assuredly draw the U.S. into the fray.

Disregarding Bethmann-Hollweg's views Tirpitz got his way, backed by Wilhelm. A fresh policy of unrestricted submarine warfare was adopted in February 1917. Tirpitz was well aware of its likely consequence in drawing America into the war, but (incorrectly) gambled that Germany could knock Britain out of the war before U.S. aid could arrive. (Click here to read Bethmann-Hollweg's reaction to news that U.S. President Woodrow Wilson intended to address Congress on 2 April 1917 to seek authorisation for war with Germany.)"

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/bethmann.htm

So Germany followed policies that they expected to draw America into the conflict. They thought the war would be won before the US could make a difference. They lost their bet. (the more "moderate" members of the German government lost their fight as well)

 

Basil Faulty: "Don't Mention the War"

 

Pound for pound, funniest show ever.