On "The Situation Room" today, we asked viewers the following questions, and here are some of our favorite responses that we didn't get to read on air:
Would Senator John McCain be making a mistake if he misses tomorrow's vote on the Iraq war resolution?
John McCain continues his pandering rightward slide toward the extremist right. The last thing McCain wants is a vote, a record, that will follow his presidential candidacy. Instead, a non-vote allows him to flip flop as the issue wavers in the wind.
Terry, Louisville, Kentucky
What a huge mistake it will be if McCain doesn't take a position! He has made a reputation of reason amongst the madness. Not voting on this issue now just reduces the man to the level of all the other candidates... someone who will say anything to influence everyone, at the expense of truth and values.
Michelle, Roanoke, Virginia
Of course Senator McCain is making a mistake. It's his job to be in Washington. If the other senators/presidential hopefuls can divert from the campaign trail for a day and be in attendance for the provisional vote, so can he.
Juan Carlos, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Does it mean anything when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says President Bush lacks the power to invade Iran without congressional approval?
Jack, It means we have a warmonger in the White House. The very fact that the speaker has to remind him that he is not authorized to attack Iran is the very thing that proves it.
Don, Rockford, Illinois
It's only meaningful if he attacks Iran and the House begins impeachment proceedings immediately. Otherwise, he'll get away with another neo-con fantasy disaster. Two more years of bad ideas? Too bad incompetence is not grounds for impeachment.
Mike, Las Vegas, Nevada
The president (no matter who he or she is) as the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces has the authority to send troops anywhere, anytime, to protect the U.S. There can only be one decision maker.
L.H., Atlanta, Georgia
It better "mean something", if not, it may result in even higher Democrat majorities in both Houses, and the White House come 2008!
Mike, Lady Lake, Florida
Should the government be able to limit violence on TV?
How about the government regulates the violence in video games? There's something wrong when some of the best-selling games involve brutally murdering innocent people and robbing them.
Chris, Tucson, Arizona
Jack, It's not the place of the government to tell me what I can and can't watch. It's not real; it's Hollywood's interpretation of violence. If parents can't turn off the TV and go spend some quality time with their kids instead of letting the magical black box babysit them, that's not the government's problem. It's just bad parenting.
Travis, Concord, North Carolina
Limiting the violence in the world would limit the violence on my TV. Let's try that before we quibble about fictional violence on TV.
Mike, Decatur, Georgia