Who will refuse to sign the Jones resolution?

America is four years into a bloody debacle in Iraq not merely because President Bush and Vice President Cheney marched us in, or simply because neocon propagandists lied about Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and WMDs, and Iraqi ties to al Qaeda, anthrax attacks and 9/11.

We are there because a Democratic Senate voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Democrats in October 2002 wanted the war vote behind them so they could go home and campaign ... Full Story »

Posted by Dale Penn
Tags Help
Subjects: World
Topics: War
Member Tags: buchanan, jones, edwards
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dale Penn - Jan 18, 2007 - 8:57 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dale Penn
2.3
by Dale Penn - Oct. 1, 2008

Pat Buchanan uses a resolution by centrist Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) to launch a subtle attack on Presidential hopeful Democratic Senators (Biden, Clinton, Kerry and Edwards are named). The resolution has been referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and enjoyed 11 bi-partisan co-sponsors (including Dennis Kusinich, D-OH). Buchanan masterfully uses this mea culpa by Jones who has publicly voiced his regret for voting to give the President authority to go into Iraq, in an obvious attempt to smear blame for the war on the Democrats. He sets up a straw dog: “If Biden, Kerry, Clinton and Barack Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to ... More »

We are there because a Democratic Senate voted to give Bush a blank check for war. Democrats in October 2002 wanted the war vote behind them so they could go home and ... More »

See Full Review » (14 answers)
Terri Adams
4.0
by Terri Adams - Oct. 1, 2008

This poses the critical question: Does the Democratic Congress have the guts to keep us out of Iran? And reminds us that the Democrats didn't have the guts to keep us out of Iraq.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Marty Heyman
3.4
by Marty Heyman - Oct. 1, 2008

This opinion piece waves no sabers. It speaks largely clear language. It recites a fairly uncontroversial reading of recent political history. Rather than comment about individuals, it gives the reader a measure by which they might measure the candidates on the issue. While a backhanded slap in the face, it offers them, and the reader, the chance to engage on a specific point from which judgement can be rendered.

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.2

Average
from 7 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
3.2
Facts
2.0
Fairness
2.7
Information
3.0
Sourcing
2.7
Style
4.0
Accuracy
2.5
Balance
1.5
Context
3.0
Popularity
3.4
Recommendation
3.7
Credibility
3.3
# Reviews
3.5
# Views
2.2
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics