Well there's a difference between supporting withdrawing troops from Iraq, and supporting the decision to go in in the first place. And of course, there's a difference between supporting war when you believe Iraq is planning to deploy nukes, and when you know they aren't actually any threat. In the UK, I think the parties were united at first in believing it was right (I might be wrong here) until they realised the intel was dud.

Yep. McCain stayed awhile in the Hanoi Hilton where they showed him the 'rope trick'.

Honestly, I'm not too impressed with any of the fielded candidates. I'm probably going to not vote in the presidential election. I feel that every single one of them are traitors and should be hung/shot in the capitol ;)

But seriously, I can't bring myself to vote for anyone I don't support.... I just can't bring myself to it. Both sides and all candidates are exactly the same.

A white woman, a black man and a grizzled ex-POW veteran/pensioner are all exactly the same?

I'm sort of surprised they allow the wife of a recent president to run... In the UK I get the impression Bill was quite a decent president who was caught doing something stupid.

Quote:Original post by d000hg
I'm sort of surprised they allow the wife of a recent president to run... In the UK I get the impression Bill was quite a decent president who was caught doing something stupid.

I'm not entirely sure how you could disallow it. I am a bit surprised that it's such a selling point for her though. I've read several comments from American voters backing Hillary because they think they'll be getting "two presidents for the price of one." I thought that sort of went against the whole two term limit thing in the first place, not to mention the weirdness of having the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing on the history list of presidents. They'll be electing Jeb Bush in 2012 at this rate.

Quote:Original post by GameDev Doctor
To those who complain about congress not doing anything to stop the war, remember that the republicans will filibuster (and, at the moment, veto) most of what they could do.

We don't know that they would. The Republicans threaten to filibuster, but the Dems never call them on it. The Republicans have essentially created the need for most major bills to pass with a super-majority, and done so quite easily because they face spineless Democrats. Make them put their money where their mouths are and make them filibuster against ending the war. We'll see how well that plays, if they actually do it as often as they threaten to.

As an aside, when Democrats have threatened to filibuster in the past, the media and most of our self-deluded "independent" fellow citizens label them obstructionists. Republicans have been doing just that since the mid-term elections, and it's accepted as the normal course of business.

Quote:Also, although the democrats hold a majority in congress, several of them, mainly in the south IIRC, support the war. The anti war democrats don't have the power to do anything about the war.

I don't know how many Democratic Congressmen support Cheney's wars, but I find out hard to imagine that there isn't a similar number of Republicans who, if they aren't actively against the wars, at least would suffer politically if they took extreme steps (such as supporting a filibuster) to prolong them. If you care to figure out a number for the former category, I'll do some research and figure out a number for the latter (showing our work, of course). Otherwise, I see no reason to assume that the two groups would not cancel each other out.