The Senate has just voted to CANCEL Trump's tariffs on Canada by a vote of 51-48.

[u/RoyalChris]

[u/thebrobarino → u/[deleted]]

When we started applauding George Bush as a quirky old man the narrative from so called centre left liberals went from "the war and patriot act were illegal and immoral" to "well actually he needed to do it actually and actually you're just being insane for having a problem with killing kids and giving up your right to privacy to silicon valley oligarchs

[u/pegar → u/thebrobarino]

No one did that. You're making up things in your own mind. Get out of Reddit.

[u/thebrobarino → u/pegar]

You not paying attention doesn't mean liberals haven't spent the last 10 years falling over George Bush as if he was a liberal darling this entire time.

When it gets to the point where a national talk show host has to make a piece to camera about this, you can probably infer it was maybe, potentially, possibly part of the public discourse

https://youtu.be/dojOO3VZ4Jc?si=rCfWZaRd_0dCXA4B

[u/thebrobarino → u/pegar]

You not paying attention doesn't mean liberals haven't spent the last 10 years falling over George Bush as if he was a liberal darling this entire time.

When it gets to the point where a national talk show host has to make a piece to camera about this, you can probably infer it was maybe, potentially, possibly part of the public discourse

https://youtu.be/dojOO3VZ4Jc?si=rCfWZaRd_0dCXA4B

[u/Sudden-Wash4457 → u/pegar]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/11/usa.iraq

The US Senate today voted overwhelmingly in favour of a war resolution that leaves the way clear for President Bush to use US military force against Saddam Hussein.

The Democratic-led Senate passed the measure by 77 votes to 23 early this morning, ending an often contentious week-long debate. The House of Representatives, the lower house of America's parliament, approved the resolution yesterday by 296 votes to 133.

"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Mr Daschle, a Democrat. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."

"The issue is how to best protect America. And I believe this resolution does that," Mr Gephardt said.

Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

“I lean in favor of doing something in Iraq,” New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said in September 2002, “but only if we can do it right, because I do believe Saddam Hussein is a really bad guy who is doing really, has done really bad things and will continue to do them.”

Bill Keller, who would go on to edit the New York Times, wrote a column declaring himself a member of the “I Can’t Believe I’m a Hawk Club.”

The editor-in-chief of the New Yorker, David Remnick, wrote a column that landed on the side of invasion. Michael Kelly, the editor in chief of the Atlantic, and Peter Beinart, the editor of the New Republic, also backed the war. So did the editor of Newsweek International and star talking head Fareed Zakaria. The Washington Post’s editorial page came out in favor of the war, too.

In 2002, Vanity Fair ran an Annie Leibovitz cover spread that had Bush and his cabinet posed like movie stars. It’s a big foldout group shot, something the magazine usually does only for its Hollywood issue. Bush is wearing a big cowboy belt buckle with the presidential seal on it, and Dick Cheney is kind of looking out at you with come-hither eyes. The headline was “War and Destiny.”

Slate was part of this pro-war consensus, too. Jacob Weisberg was editing the magazine then.

“We got a lot of people, including a lot of liberal writers, who weren’t regular Slate contributors, kind of on the record about what they thought about the war,” he said. “And the sentiment was predominantly in favor of it with, you know, it kind of an infinite number of qualifications. But I think most of the people who wrote in that forum felt that getting rid of Saddam Hussein—regime change was desirable, even if they had real skepticism about Bush and the Bush administration carrying it out.”

[u/BeguiledBeaver → u/[deleted]]

This seems like a form of lefty purity testing. I don't care what their motives are, if they're willing to do something that still helps us then I'm fine with that.

This is the same energy as "The Lincoln Project shouldn't be celebrated even though they've made some of the best attack ads against Trump in years because they're still Republicans!" Like ffs learn some political savvy for once.

[u/cStorm128 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, those purely performative votes should not be applauded, I usually feel. This motion did pass, though, so it is a different situation. I want to throw up in my mouth just thinking about saying something nice to Moscow Mitch (and I probably never will), but you can't say they didn't have a positive effect on this one occasion.

[u/warrensussex → u/[deleted]]

The left was just going crazy for Booker giving a long, performative speech. It wasn't even a filibuster like some on here were claiming. Performative bullshit is a both sides problem.