Dem-leaning votes: keep track of your changes in presidential preference here

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I understand Hillary and even Edwards making the mistake...Edwards was in the Senate less than 4 years, Hillary less than 2...

Biden has been there forever, he should know how to research CIA reports and go "hey hey these are these complete, they don't seem so?"...request more intelligence...ask the hard questions...

Yes, it was misleading but THE WHOLE REASON YOU ARE VOTING FOR HIM IS BECAUSE HE IS EXPERIENCED, if his experience can't help him there, what stops the CIA/Military intelligence from misleading him Iran, Syria or god knows who else?

So you are assuming the report might have had gaps?

Like..

Mobile weapons labs..*black marker*...... weapons of mass destruction.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

At first I was all over Hillary because I thought Obama was all hype and I didn't really like any of the others. Then I started to like Obama and was split between him and Hillary. Recently, however, both Obama and Hillary have started to annoy me as a little too polished and Edwards is starting to grow on me, although I think Edwards may be a little too fiscally left for my taste.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So you are assuming the report might have had gaps?

Like..

Mobile weapons labs..*black marker*...... weapons of mass destruction.

No, I mean in EVERY report, there are SOME sounds of criticism, there is never any predictive report of what we'll find that doesn't have SOME note of caution, usually people behind it

There were several parts of the report, that had "uncertain" areas, the Senators should have demanded what BOTH sides of the CIA had to say about those areas, and made their own judgments...THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE CIA WHO BELIEVED THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANCE IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

No, I mean in EVERY report, there are SOME sounds of criticism, there is never any predictive report of what we'll find that doesn't have SOME note of caution, usually people behind it

There were several parts of the report, that had "uncertain" areas, the Senators should have demanded what BOTH sides of the CIA had to say about those areas, and made their own judgments...THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE CIA WHO BELIEVED THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANCE IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD

There are plenty of experienced prominate democrats who voted for the resolution. I am not going to try to pretend I know what they were able to look at in regards to intelligence or try to pretend that i know they did or did not ask the 'tough questions'. I can only assume that they did their duty as representatives when considering their vote. Some of the most "left" candidates in 2004 and soon to be 2008 voted for this authorization. Your boy Dodd has just as much experience in the senate as Biden and he voted for it. Some others include Feinstein, Harkin, Bayh, Cleland, Daschle, Kerry, Reid, Schumer, etc ...all with experience.. all voted for it. I was for it at the time, I don't feel I can hold it against them today.

[Thorgrim]

Daschle, Bayh, reid, Cleland...voted for their red state, who would have wanted the war even without the intelligence being sound...the only reason SOME red states disapprove is because reconstruction went bad, they don't really care that no WMD were found

Harkin is in a purple state, Kerry was running for president and made a mistake he paid dearly for in 2004 (Biden has not paid for his mistake) and Feinstein has always been moderate (outside guns) and id never vote for her in a primary

But you had brave, experienced, and intelligent Senators like Byrd, Levin, Conrad of NORTH DAKOTA, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Wydon, I ofcourse left some out (there were 23 senators in total)

Ofcourse, in the House 126 Dems voted against the war 81 for the war...so i never really was digusted with the House as much as I was the Senate

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Daschle, Bayh, reid, Cleland...voted for their red state, who would have wanted the war even without the intelligence being sound...the only reason SOME red states disapprove is because reconstruction went bad, they don't really care that no WMD were found

Harkin is in a purple state, Kerry was running for president and made a mistake he paid dearly for in 2004 (Biden has not paid for his mistake) and Feinstein has always been moderate (outside guns) and id never vote for her in a primary

But you had brave, experienced, and intelligent Senators like Byrd, Levin, Conrad of NORTH DAKOTA, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Wellstone, and Wydon, I ofcourse left some out (there were 23 senators in total)

Ofcourse, in the House 126 Dems voted against the war 81 for the war...so i never really was digusted with the House as much as I was the Senate

I won't give them any slack, regardless of what state they are in. I dont care if they voted 'yes' simply because it is a red state. That means they voted 'yes' simply for political reasons, and to me that is far worse than voting yes because of conclusions that were made after seeing intelligence reports.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

that has to give you confidence in what she'll do in the general...I mean what are they going to say?

That gives me absolutely no confidence in what she'll do.