Why not..? He is sending other peoples children out to a WAR that is OUT OF CONTROL......IF he had BOYS....why shouldn't
they have gone ? What is the difference ?? Tell me..........
2006-10-15 13:42:22 · 33 answers · asked by CraZyCaT 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Since George W. Bush says that this war in Iraq is for a noble cause, one would think that he would want his daughters to be considered noble, so I agree that, in order, to prove what he believes, he shoud send Jenna and Barbara off to war.
Maybe this would be better for them than rehab for their alcohilism and drug abuse.
2006-10-15 13:47:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 6⤋
I'll answer the same as before when this idiotic question was brought up.
We have an all volunteer military force. No parent sends their children off to war. War is a reality of life.
Why do some of you have such a hard time dealing with reality?
2006-10-15 14:27:18 · answer #2 · answered by gizzardout 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Since women are now permitted to serve in combat zones, they should most certainly be made to go. And that will put them one step above their daddy who was such a coward that he got his daddy to get him into the Air National Guard - where he proceeded to go AWOL among other things. So, there is no difference, his daughters should be made to enlist and head off to Iraq. As the First Family, they should set an example for others.
2006-10-15 15:07:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Bush's daughter's VOLUNTEERED for military like all of the other servicemen then his daughters will inevitably have thier turn in the war. I don't know anyone who was forced into military service being that the US is an all volunteer organization.
2006-10-15 13:55:34 · answer #4 · answered by mahree 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
It's not Bush's choice to send his daughter to war it's his own daughters' choice. It's a volunteer army. So if they say there not joining the is nothing he can do. Soldiers volunteer for the respective branch, and by doing so they volunteer to do something not every American can do, lay their life on the line.
2006-10-15 13:55:04 · answer #5 · answered by b 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I agree, they should go. All in Congress should also go and their children. Mark my words, after election Baker will change the direction of the war in Iraq and Bush will take his advice. Baker is always called in to fix all the Bush's failures.
2006-10-15 13:52:26 · answer #6 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
Can you name me any other president that sent his children off to war? This has to be one of the dumbest questions I have seen!
2006-10-15 13:57:55 · answer #7 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Put yourself in the position of a soldier, or a commander. Now, let's say we hand you the Presidents daughters to be in your squad or under your command. Now you do know they get Secret Service protection, so now you need to provide lodging and security for them. You give them an order, and they say no, what are you gonna do? Their Daddy is your commander in Chief. This is a lose-lose scenario anyway you look at it.
But the big one is that we have an ALL Volunteer Force, so it is up to the daughters if they want to serve or not. They are no different than any other child in this country. Why hasn't Chelsea joined? Hillary voted for the war too.
2006-10-15 13:48:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
*****, *****, ***** have you people nothing better to do than *****. If you think things are so out of control you go fix it.
I wish Yahoo would have let me use the B word but you get the point.
2006-10-15 13:57:31 · answer #9 · answered by tom n 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, in order to fight the lasting war for good
because the fate of the world is at stake
and this is a far-reaching struggle against global extremism!!
what a hypocrite
2006-10-15 13:49:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
Bush cannot SEND his daughters to war. They have to enlist on their own.
2006-10-15 13:45:58 · answer #11 · answered by firewomen 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋