2 ms·
> But the Republicans successfully goaded some Democrats into voting for it by threatening to taunt them. Really? Wow, voting for a war you (allegedly) know to
by throwawaylinux 5y ago
> But the Republicans successfully goaded some Democrats into voting for it by threatening to taunt them.
Really? Wow, voting for a war you (allegedly) know to be wrong because you're worried about being "taunted". That's the most pathetic spineless thing I've ever heard. Worse than unashamed pro-war crowd, in some ways.
What happened to all those cowardly losers anyway? They all get voted out and replaced with people who were happy to continue those occupations and support the new wars and interventions during the Obama administration?
- asveikau 5y agoTechnically they voted to authorize the war and the executive branch was trusted to make final decisions wisely (they did not).
- throwawaylinux 5y agoDoesn't change anything that's just a sorry excuse for cowardly corrupt warmongers. They clearly knew what the executive branch would do. More generally, that would be a dereliction of duty too. The entire point of these checks and balances is so that an individual branch does not need to be trusted to make a wise choice.