Other - Politics & Government - April 2007

We fought the country OF Iraq, for a few days, and toppled the ba'ath regime government.

We then allowed DEMOCRATIC elections.

We are now Fighting "people in Iraq", who do not want to honor the wishes of the Iraqi people. We are NOT fighting "the iraqi people".

What is so hard to understand about that?

2007-04-27 10:56:10 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

You know, I find it a bit amazing how only a week away, a UN report showed that Iran is still at the EARLY stages of low-grade uranium enrichment (this--after 2 YEARS of enrichment), has between 300-1,300 centrifuges operating, and has plans still to build a light-water nuclear reactor for the sole purpose of generating power.

Does this look like nuclear weapons proliferation to you? (Keep in mind, Bush said the same thing about Iraq too: "Saddam is 5 years away from building nuclear weapons." (2002) )

I know there are a lot of people here who want to see Iran bombed just for the sake of argument. But a recent news report suggested that if Israel were to take proactive measures against Iran, it could very well drag the US into a war against a much tougher enemy than Iraq ever was. (And also keep in mind: Iran's military hasn't been tested militarily, nor is it crippled like ours is at the moment.)

2007-04-27 10:41:12 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

The chimpanzee forehead.
The close together beady eyes.
The speech impediments.
Obvious learning disabilities.
Obvious social problems.
Obvious emotional problems.

I think Babara was really swilling down the misty water when she was carrying Junior around.

How does he look to you?

2007-04-27 10:30:27 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

or would a global disaster make us all come together

2007-04-27 10:22:01 · 12 answers · asked by SHELLTOE BISCUITS 3

2007-04-27 09:44:42 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Who do we contact with our copies?

2007-04-27 08:55:05 · 4 answers · asked by Timothy M 5

What ever happened to investigative journalism? They failed the American people!

2007-04-27 08:23:26 · 11 answers · asked by perrrfection 3

Delusional: because they have this belief that U.S.A is suppose to be picture perfect country so anything that the Government does must be true, which means they are in denial no matter how messed up or possibly even corrupted with spike in oil prices and unnecessary war.

Selfish: For those rich oil tycoons who benefit from Bush having tax cut for them is completely oblivious to poor to middle class Americans income and how they have to struggle to pay for gas to go to work everyday and make ends meet. Sure if you're a millionair or billionair who cares about gas prices going up to 5 bucks a gallon. It's pocket change for them considering how much tax money they save from Bush's tax cut to the wealthy people.

2007-04-27 08:06:54 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

AXJ are the initials of a new political party.

2007-04-27 08:02:50 · 5 answers · asked by ? 1

I have a brother in the Navy and one in the Marines.

They both gave me an answer but I didn't like it.

Maybe I could have some objective answer, not from pathetic, sheltering brothers?

2007-04-27 07:52:45 · 13 answers · asked by soulflower 7

2007-04-27 07:49:27 · 6 answers · asked by hera 4

2007-04-27 07:14:46 · 5 answers · asked by tellitlikeitis 4

If there is no military solution available, why are the Democrats even bothering to fund the war? Why are they setting forth timetables, most of which make sure troops STAY in Iraq until late summer/early fall 2008? It's not a matter of needing a veto-proof majority; just don't pass a funding bill.

I Strongly believe we need to succeed in Iraq. but I'm trying to understand the reasoning. Sincerely. Thanks.

2007-04-27 07:02:57 · 11 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7

If they had more votes to pass it does it still need his signiture ?

2007-04-27 07:00:45 · 8 answers · asked by stuart34996 1

OK, dealing with the war funding bill...

Before the whole fiasco started, Bush said he would veto any bill that included a withdrawal date. Period, the end. However, Congress, knowing this, put the date in the bill anyway, knowing good and well it would get vetoed.

Now, cutting military funding is political suicide, no doubt about it. But if Bush hadn't said anything beforehand, and simply vetoed the bill, he would pretty much kill any chance of a Republican in the Oval office in '08.

SO what is the difference? He said he would veto the bill BEFORE Congress even passed it! So he passed the burden of responsibility on to Congress. In other words, the Bill was already vetoed by the time it was passed.

Bush knows that, since cutting funding is political suicide, Congress is going to HAVE to pass a "clean" bill before funding runs out. So he is just biding his time, gonna veto the Bill, and Congress is gonna have to hurry up and pass a new, clean bill so that the troops get their funding. Because once the money runs out, and people see the news reports of Soldiers in Iraq without proper equipment, Pelosi and the other nutjobs are GONE.

What do you think? Will Congress eventually pass a “clean” bill? Is this just really smart planning on the part of George Bush?

2007-04-27 07:00:25 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-04-27 06:52:53 · 18 answers · asked by Imperial American 1

I seem to remember, from school, it being around 7-9 years. That would mean we are coming to the conclusion of the Clinton administration, but I can't find anything written, or links to this formula.

2007-04-27 06:35:50 · 4 answers · asked by Jrod 1

Since everytime something goes wrong, its always someone else's fault. From the Veterans hospital in Washington to the Abu Garaib torture chambers, its never the administration's fault. Why is that?

2007-04-27 06:29:29 · 13 answers · asked by truthspeaker10 4

Ok, liberals, time to vent......but this time only use factual statements and not what you BELIEVE.
Personally, I believe his biggest failure was when the Republicans held the White House and BOTH houses of Congress, he didn't ram conservative legislation down the throats of Liberals. Instead, he wanted to show nonpartisanship and play nicey nice with the backstabbers that didn't get voted out. Lesson learned, I hope, for future conservative leaders that you cannot work with the left, you must crush them.

2007-04-27 06:07:08 · 18 answers · asked by Armed Civilian 4

will be vetoed by the President will come back to hurt them in the next election? They can't have it both ways...i would respect them more if they voted to not fund the war rather than them playing politics with our soldiers' lives. This is a pure political move by the democrats to try and stay elected. I think it is pathetic.

2007-04-27 06:02:01 · 10 answers · asked by danno 3

and how that equates to the Bush administration?

2007-04-27 05:50:59 · 11 answers · asked by Geo Washington 3

2007-04-27 05:40:53 · 18 answers · asked by nosf37 4

2007-04-27 05:40:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

do you agree that we have to know who we are debating to have a productive debate?

2007-04-27 04:56:38 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

For the record, I hate biased liberal media as much as I hate Fox. Truthout and Moveon (which hardly even qualify as traditional media outlets) tell blatant lies, the same as Fox. NPR doesn't tell outright lies, but they do broadcast news stories from a ridiculous left-wing perspective that is appreciated by very few Americans. They also give airplay to a lot of ridiculous left-wing crap that doesn't even really qualify as news. I don't even like the New York Times very much. As one of the nation's leading news sources, they make an effort to be objective, but it's not enough. Think if it as NPR lite.

That said, nothing is worse than Fox. The left-wing media is annoying, but it's lies and exaggerations don't kill anyone. Fox allows this administration to perpetuate its lethal bullsh*t. When Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, and Rumsfeld are facing the firing squad, I want to see Murdoch, Ailes, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Hume right next to them.

2007-04-27 04:19:35 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

then who won?

And are they a risk to us? Will we have to face off against them again?

Or is Harry Reid just wrong?

(I think he is.)

2007-04-27 03:23:07 · 9 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7

Democrats or Republicans??

I don't think we should have to pay more, just because we are in a higher tax bracket!! Tax Refund??? What is that?? I haven't seen one in years!!

2007-04-27 03:16:32 · 16 answers · asked by Candace A 5

How do you think Brazil is growing corn for Ethanol. Oh, ethanol pollutes more than regualr gas. LOL!

2007-04-27 02:41:27 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

A good question raised in the NY Post today. Since Harry Reid is so great at judging the Iraqi war a failure, I wonder if he would go so far as to point out who exactly the victors are in this situation. Who can walk off the battlefield with the upper hand, their heads high, and knowing their future will be brighter?

http://www.cussfight.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/181/

2007-04-27 02:02:50 · 24 answers · asked by hardfighter 1

Below is a actual quote from a liberal pundit.

the public lunacy of Jim Wallis, the Democrats' Christian. Wallis' first remark on the massacre at Virginia Tech last week was to hail the remarkable "diversity" of the victims. True, Cho murdered 32 people in cold blood. But at least he achieved diversity!


If I was in charge such people would be instantly banned from the airwaves and sent for a long sabattical.

2007-04-27 00:41:20 · 7 answers · asked by cladiusneroimperator 2