Why are Libs so gung ho for War?

Question

They support the War they approved one day then oppose it the next day, what gives? And when their MSM media says it's going bad what did they expect? War ain't pretty and never will be. Besides, what fool actually believe the MSM?

Answer 1

wait a minute. who are these "Libs so gung ho for War?" i'm certainly no liberal, but i know, and tolerate, somewhat, a number of self-proclaimed liberals. by the same token, i know and tolerate, somewhat, a number of conservatives (who are mostly embarrassed these days). all these folks, which i regard as friends and associates have one thing in common. they are against the war. they mostly feel they've been lied to by a government they want so much to support. now personally i knew bush was lieing when i saw his lips moving. now of course i've been prooven correct. that doesn't make me feel any better. this war is a tragedy.

as for your commentary on main stream media, you describe it as "their MSM media." i take it you see the media as liberal? where have you been? main stream media is anything but liberal. when was it? sure there have been a few liberal types who had columns, perhaps a few television talking heads, but media is big business, and in so many cases is unabashed state propaganda. you should thank your god that there are liberals in the media.

Answer 2

If memory serves the way it paned out was Bush when to congress with a lot of intelligence that turned out to be cherry picked. At the time nobody knew Bush had shifted threw the intell and only showed what was most damaging, Left out anything that did not support his desire for war and other ...ambiguous details. Sooo with what they were shown of course everyone voted for the action.

Now however its come out just how bad the intell was. That most of it was wrong/cherry picked/ and so forth. So congress is feeling a bit used. and with this more accurate information they don't think the war was a good idea (surprise surprise) so they oppose it.

If they had seen the real intell from the start we would proably never have gone.

Answer 3

The words Liberal and Conservative have lost their meaning. I don't trust Democrats or Republicans. The House has some honest men and women who uphold the constitution. But the Senators, the lot of them, seem to be in President Bush's thrall.

They say one thing to their constituents, and then vote any way President Bush tells them to. The real issues are Immigration and the War in Iraq. (Marriage amendment and the like are just red herrings.)

Answer 4

They supported a resolution for war if that was the ONLY option. Bush pre-emtively started an illegal war, he could not declare war an act of congress is needed. It wasn't the first illegal Bush action nor the last.

Answer 5

I don't think it was so much, one day then the next day... but more like 2 years... then the next 2 years...

why is it... that when someone says "what fool actually believe(s) the MSM"... when you ask them where they get their news, it's always like the KKK newsletter?

Answer 6

"Conservative" is a extensive time era that features an truly great ingredient to the inhabitants, a lot of whom do help conflict particularly situations. regardless of whether those listed purposely "prevented" conflict (at the same time as nonetheless helping sending others to combat one), there are certainly a good number of conservatives that do desire conflict. a great sort of the troops are truly conservative, and maximum are particularly protective of the present conflict in Iraq; that's organic, as opposing the conflict could render the disadvantages they take and their entire line of duty meaningless. considering the fact that a lot of those extra often than not conservative troops do combat interior the Iraq conflict and do help their artwork, it truly is declared that conservatives could be - and are - "so gung ho for conflict" if - and at the same time as - they actually ought to combat one. As for the plain contradiction interior the situations, i.e. the help of conflict by making use of people who curiously prevented conflict themselves, it is user-friendly to do nicely to think again the placement; is it the conservative ideology that helps others (yet no longer the climate of the ideology) partaking in conflicts, or are the leaders chosen by making use of the first public the concentration of the question? persons, truly than blanket labels at the same time with "conservative", "liberal", etc. must be evaluated. To do something is to variety a stereotype, which may be clever for particular heuristics, yet inhibits the main optimum determination-making technique, which technique is needed for finding out on the leaders of a rustic. in short, a partly-inclusive sure. ... Answering loaded questions objectively is confusing, for the checklist.

Answer 7

look little shaver, you need to play in another room while daddy is watching fox news. Its obvious your getting confused. Everyone supported a war against the elements of terrorisim but its hard to line up behind our occupation of iraq without some reasons that weren't manufactured

Answer 8

I have always apposed it. I knew Bush was lying the second he could show no proof, just like LBJ!! They can find 1 missile in NKorea but they cant find any WMD's with U2's and Satellite imagery and Russian Infra Red imagery!

Damn liar!

Anyone who is for the war is an idiot!!

Answer 9

WHy do the CONservatives lie to get America to go to war??

Why do they present false 'proof'?

Isnt Bush and Dick an embarrasing show??

Why do CONservatives work with Al Qaeda to make the world hate us??


Why do they love weapons manufacturers? because they finance the GOP??

Answer 10

Maybe they believed in it one day, then opposed it the next because the president's reasons for going were erroneous. He said we were going over there for one reason - then changed his reason once we were there. We were all duped.