why was my post locked down for pointing out inconsistency?

[holdyourbreath]

let me say this again: I don't care if Bush was the most upstanding, honest guy in the world and even Wesley Clark and Brent Scrowcroft had thought the intelligence was good enough to take us to war: CONGRESS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ABDICATE ITS AUTHORITY TO WAGE WAR. ...but doing so with a dufus like Bush just makes it 100000000 times more egregious.

Now, I posted that the Democratic party has no credibility, in my eyes, as long as the party does not officially come out and make an unmitigated apology and "officially" denounce anyone who doesn't want to go along with that (like Lieberman probably would). Granted, it was juvenille and devicive of me to facetiously refer to y'all as "minions." ...I couldn't think of a less perjorative word at the time. Apologies/lighten up?

Now, I think that since this is the most critical issue in over 100 years, and since my point is so incredibly irrefutable, that there's no wiggle room on this. Obviously some folks will still take issue with that. However, I think the fact that some folks denounced my point as if THEIR way of looking at it (that Kerry and some Dems HAVE already apologized (albeit too little, too late)) is 100% valid and mine isn't, and others denounced my point with the same 100% conviction by arguing that the gang had bad intelligence (yadda yadda yadda)so therefore no apology is required, while simultaneously contradicting the bunch who said the other point of view just goes to show that there's a serious lack of intellectual leadership when it comes to fleshing out the correct way of looking at this.

or did I miss something?

most inexcusable of all is Kerry's (and Edwards') "knowing what I know now" stance for this simple reason: the man doesn’t even have 20/20 vision in hindsight. I mean, he said knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted for the authorization on the war. Yet, he’s the one who was always griping that Bush never came back to Congress as he said he would. So, if Kerry could go back in time he would tell Congress, ‘Hey, I’m from the future and I can tell you that even though Bush says he’ll come back to Congress, he won’t. But I still say we should vote yes without altering the language of the bill….despite the fact that the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO told us in the first place that we shouldn’t vote yes unless the bill mandates that Bush come back to Congress.’ Because of that absurdly imprudent comment, Hillary Clinton had to defend Mr. Kerry to Tim Russert by saying, ‘I think John’s point was that you can’t make decisions in hindsight.’ How the Democratic party didn’t just dissolve into thin air from complete lack of intellectual congruence when she said that, I’ll never know.

Please, tell me how that's not a fair way of looking at it.

[havocmom]

1. When you have a problem with locked thread, email an administrator

Starting another thread to continue the melee is a no-no

[Ediacara]

2. Locking

If you have a question about why a thread was locked, please contact Democratic Underground's administrators.

Thanks!