Attacking Iraq for 911 was like attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor.

Umm, we attacked Germany in response to Japan attacking us.

Kerry believes that it should be divided up into 2 bills so that we can truly see how much is going to which situation, so we don't overfund Iraq and allow this administration to disguise it by saying the money was going to Afghanistan. So he votes against it.

You know, some senators actually propose new bills or ammendments to old bills if they agree with part of a bill, but object because they don't agree with parts of it. But not Kerry or Edwards, it is more politically expedient to just vote 'NO' and then claim that no one will listen to them.

No doubt, right now Iran and N.K are huge threats. 20 months ago I believe that Iraq was believed to be more of a threat based on the fact they had used WMD's against their own people and because Saddam was encouraging people to be martyrs by offering their familes large sums of money as payment for their martyr services.

I would have to do my homework to see why N.K and Iran were not tackled first, but I believe it was based on our past history with Saddam and his very public acknowledgement that he supported terrorism.

Jemison

Originally posted by vatar

Attacking Iraq for 911 was like attacking Mexico for Pearl Harbor.

Umm, we attacked Germany in response to Japan attacking us.

Umm, that might have something to do with the Triparte act signed by all three powers in Berlin in September 1940. Yeah.... you might want to read history and stuff.

Do you mean the Tripartite Act? You might want to study spelling and stuff.