Pelosi wants Bush to Blockade Iran. Why are you libs criticizing Bush?

Question

A Democratic House that came to power denouncing the rush to war on Iraq is about to vote to demand that Bush commit an act of war against Iran.

Some 220 members, a majority, have endorsed House Concurrent Resolution 362. This virtual war resolution "demands" that President Bush initiate a blockade to halt all Iranian imports of refined petroleum products and impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."

I have to listen to you Libs insult me over and over like in my other post. Ignorance is Dangerous. Do a little research.

Answer 1

Does Pelosi realize that it was actions like this by the Democratic God, FDR, that precipitated Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

Today Bush announces the first step towards establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, maybe paving the way for a peaceful resolution to the conflicts with them, while the Democrats are banging the war drums.

Now tell me which group is the most worthless.

Answer 2

It's not just the libs who are criticizing Bush.  29% approval rating means that some Republicans and Independents are criticizing Bush.  Just ask Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.  Don't blame it on just the libs.  There's more than 29% liberals in the U.S.  Looks to me like you need to do a little research yourself.  And you must remember, the House is controlled by the Democrats now.

Answer 3

It's just another sneeky tool for the democrats to use to show the world that this administration is war hungry...do you realy think that any force would be used to enforce the blockade....I doubt it...and I doubt that Iran would feel threatened...The U.S. has more bark than bite these days.

Answer 4

You accuse others of not doing their research, but then you misrepresent (intentionally, I think) the thrust of the resolution you are citing.  Resolution 362 does not "demand that President Bush initiate a blockade" against Iran.  It "demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities" (see link).  The methods suggested amount to an embargo rather than a blockade, which is a military action.

I find it strange that you would criticize "Democrats" (although this resolution is a bi-partisan measure) for taking a strong stand against Iran when there has been talk for months about the likelihood of some kind of actual military strike on Iran.  It seems that for those of you on the Right the Left is damned either way:  if they counsel negotiation they are appeasers, but if they take a strong stand they are warmongers.

As for "the gubmint's" suggestion that Bush's call for diplomacy in dealing with the Iranian situation has any merit, I would point out the Bush said exactly the same thing about Iraq.  It has for some time been quite clear that diplomacy with Iraq was merely a smokescreen, behind which to carry out the buildup of military forces for the invasion.  Several high-ranking  former members of the Bush administration have testified that attacking and occupying Iraq was on the Bush agenda from day one of his administration.