Uh, Claire, you got to dance with them what brung you


Not really. They forgot about Joe, Evan, Ben, and Mary

Claire Never Fails to Disappoint, Does She?

The Johnson County, Missouri Democratic Club meets monthly on Thursday evenings in downtown Warrensburg. The membership of the club includes Democratic Party activists and a significant number of the members of the Johnson County Democratic Central Committee. A motion addressing health care reform, and specifically, Senator Claire McCaskill's (D) recent statement, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts special senate election was offered under new business by a member of the club and central committee.

There's more...

Suppose the Republicans aren't quite doing all they could to shrink their Party...

Did you think they were doing a pretty good job? Well think again. All you have to do is look at the following Resolution that is making the rounds of Republicans called "RNC RESOLUTION ON FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF CANDIDATES," and you'll see why they have only begun to place the gun to their collective foot:

There's more...

Iraq Resolution Clarification

Hillary's vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2003 (S.J. 45; H.J. 114) has been coming up in the MyDD comments the last couple days.

There are many progressives who say they can't vote for Hillary because of her vote on the resolution.  Sometimes these progressives ironically seem to be parroting George Bush.  When things started taking a really bad turn for the worse in Iraq, he started saying:  hey, it's not all my fault; the Congress supported the invasion too. We have Bush, the MSM, and many progressives all repeating this over and over so it has now become the accepted reality.

The truth is, however, the resolution was not a blank check for a pre-emptive invasion.  Allow me to quote directly from Res. H.J. 114.

In the resolution, Bush agreed to, quote:  "work with the U.N. Security Council to meet the common challenge posed by Iraq. . ."   

On 3/7/03 the U.N. inspectors reported there was no evidence of a WMD program and requested more time to complete their work.  Bush dismissed their report, declaring the U.S. forces were on their way.  Mr. Bush therefore did not abide by the critically important condition of the resolution to "work with the U.N. to meet the challenge of Iraq" and broke his word to our own representatives in Congress and the Senate.

Senator Webb has recently stated that legal action should be taken against Bush for other matters. Bush also needs to be held accountable for breaking his binding agreement with Congress as per the Iraq Resolution. I'm not an attorney, but if the resolution was binding, wasn't Bush legally bound to the conditions set in the resolution?  Bush himself keeps shifting the blame onto others for his potentially illegal war--and many  progressives (naive? misquided? unwitting tools of Rove machine?) are helping him out.

Joe Wilson also recently pointed to Obama's seemingly complete misunderstanding of the facts of the resolution, and I will directly quote Wilson here:

"Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats."

We've got to stop blaming others for Bush's pre-emptive war. I don't want to offend any progressives who understandably hate the war (as do I), but it's important to get the facts straight and not be duped by the MSM and Bush/Cheney/Rove manipulations of the truth.

And if Senator Obama is the superior statesman he implies he is, he ought not to be enabling the Bush admistration to divert responsibility for Iraq, but rather defending his fellow Dems and Senators who voted to keep the U.N. involved.

p.s. My intention is not to offend Obama's people either; but sometimes the "devilish details" have to account for something. I wish the press would do more factual background checks, but it doesn't.  And even in the most ideal dream, there's got to be an occasional time-out for a "reality check."

There's more...

Congress Shall Declare War -- Not the Pres of U.S.

United States Constitution

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall

Have Power To Declare War.  

Raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Provide and maintain a navy;

There's more...

No Significant House Dem Change on Iraq in 5 Years

The Iraq supplemental appropriation passed in the House today on a vote of 280-142, with only two Republicans joining the 140 Democrats who don't believe George W. Bush should be given carte blanche for four more months.

That's only nine more "nay" votes (and only 14 more Democrats) than voted against the initial decision to give the President the authority to go into Iraq in October 2002, back when the Republicans still had the majority.

In five years, the percentage of Democrats voting against the Iraq war in the House has gone all the way from 60.8% to 61.9%.

There's more...


Advertise Blogads