sirpuddingfoot

Certainly. But when over half of the country is "sorry" they elected him, yet he continues to ignore the pleas of congress to work with them rather than against them.
Well, the area is grey, but as another digression, I'd rather not end up trying to explain that yet more things aren't quite as simple as many think them to be.

No. Read it again. Part of debating is being gracious to your opponent (meaning that we look beyond the words to the meaning behind them).

Right, except that that isn't it. I've read the resolution enough, and I think the resolution was wrongly passed, or wasn't passed with enough qualifications.
In any case, here it is:
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
or http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:publ243.107



You've given reason enough for major changes to campaign financing. Candidates shouldn't be marketed.

Perhaps the word "shift" was the wrong word, I'll replace it with "make significant adjustments". Pish posh, you bandy words

They are, you're just not looking in the right places or listening well enough. I've posted a couple links before, and I'll not do so again (as if people click on them anyway). Again, as I've said before, impatience is no cause for war. Of course, you are entitled to wish they were doing more. Even I wish they were doing more now that it is becoming apparent that some of the sectarian contention is coming our way. I'm not a fan of fundamentalist Islam for the same reasons I'm not a fan of fundamentalist Christianity or any other "fundamentalized" world religion. They're based on dogmatic adherence to myth, usually poorly understood to begin with. Fundamentalists of all kinds should be dealt with (and I don't mean violently).

dalem

... then what? And Congress has no responsibility regarding war except for controlling the money. They have no qualification or input in strategy.

I did read it a few times. I still get a message of "reverse-illegitimacy" from your words, I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm just being thick-headed.

Ahh, well you may believe it was wrong but that doesn't make it "illegitimate".

Hardly bandying - I just like to see real criticisms, not fake ones. I know too many people who are interested in debating or discussing things that simply never happened, or are not factual. Because there are real problems and situations that need to be discussed I don't support wasting a single second talking about the fake ones.

Oh, I'm aware of the talkers. What I've never, ever read about is a group of Muslims actually doing something along the lines of what I suggest. Even the Jordanian street protests a year or so ago, which I hailed as a great step forward, only happened because Zarqawi finally blew up a bunch of Jordanians instead of Iraqis. But I'll take what I can get.

-dale

sirpuddingfoot

Perhaps that is why congress is beginning to discuss revoking or limiting funds. Bush has had unfettered access to do what he wishes and he hasn't even given congress reason to believe he is capable of succeeding. His bull-headed policy of "staying the course" made him a lame duck. Then, instead of making significant changes to his strategy and soliciting assistance, suggestions, etc. from others (not necessarily congress mind you), he made the decision to do the opposite of what everyone (well most people) hoped for and 'reinforce' his previous actions (his old 'course').


It was legalized/legitimized, though for the wrong reasons. The U.S. destroyed a country over unsubstantiated evidence and vagueries. Under the authorization of the President to use armed forces, he need only provide:with the only qualification that:
Subjectivity entered the equation. Congress was stupid to have passed it. But, wanting to appear strong on national defense, it was passed. He need only say "I believe that (1) and (2)," to receive the free ticket to war. How unbelievably stupid.

The legitimacy of the war is tenuous at best precisely because congress was too childishly afraid to stand up to boorish stupidity for purely political purposes.


Like I said above, it was legitimized, at least in the eyes of the law. But that doesn't make it good or right.

You're right. I apologize for lashing out. Nit-picking is something I enjoy as much as it appears you do

Like I've said, you're perfectly entitled to not be content with what they are doing (talking) or how they go about changing things, but to say none are doing anything at all simply because you haven't heard of anything is an over-generalization.