When the Dems offered him money with strings for pullout, he said the troops cant have the money. He was unpatriotic by not giving troops money. Now, I see what he meant. It was just political. Maybe he had a point in vetoing it and STILL saying he was "Patriotic". See this: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_vows_second_Iraq_veto_05092007.html
This money has no strings attached, just they need a second vote to release more funds. Gates says: A "No" vote would be catastrophic. Doesnt this just mean Bush has an incentive for PROGRESS? Isnt him saying "Its not fair that I only get the money if the war is WORKING! I should get money for a failing war!" Really just rejecting a reasonable argument? It is reasonable, so HE is now denying troops funds. Isnt HE the "Terrorist" and "Flag-Burner" by not giveing troops the money?
2007-05-09
09:31:01
·
21 answers
·
asked by
SHADOW
1