It's perfectly understandable that many members of congress change their minds about the prudence of their vote authorizing the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq, after they learning that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed no imminent threat the the US or other country in the region, that Iraq was to be occupied by the U.S over a long period of time, and that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.
Why shouldn't someone, including members of congress, be able to change their mind on an issue, after they receive new, very relevant information, and why do you label these people, who are responsible enough to change their minds, as flip-floppers? Regards, LelandJ Michael Madigan wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_CepS8u9wQ > > ************************************************************************ > Right Wing Gifts! > > <http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike> > > I Wish Hillary had married OJ > > http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingmike/4236924 > > > Horse Racing Photographs > <http://www.horseracingpix.com> > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
