One of the biggest criticisms of President Bush Sr. during the 2000 campaign by the Democrats was Bush's "cut and run" policy in the Middle East. Why do they now want President Bush Jr. to do the same?
Please no hate or slurs against either party. Just want real responses.
2006-11-15 16:53:02 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
that's a good question....Bush Sr. was criticized for cutting and running by the democrats and now they want Jr. too do the same...damned if ya do damned if ya don't politics
2006-11-15 16:57:52 · answer #1 · answered by glduke2003 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I don't recall Bush Sr. being criticized by Democrats for a "cut and run" policy during he Gulf war. I can tell you that the wars of Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. are very, very different. The first war had a very cut and dry objective. It was to liberate Kuwait. Not only that Bush Sr. had a very strong coalition. There were 500,000 troops amassed. 160,000 were U.S. soldiers. So there was a great number of soldiers from other countries. Another factor is the cost. The first gulf war cost a total of $61 billion. Of that total amount, it cost the U.S. a grand total of $8 billion. We are currently spending more than that each and every month. The current war is projected to cost nearly one trillion dollars. That is a very far cry from $61 billion. There is also the loss of life and the injuries. In the first war, 148 U.S. Soldiers lost their lives in battle while 467 were injured. In Bush Jr's war, 3000 Americans have lost their lives and 20,000 have been injured.
You can't compare the two wars. The cost of the second one is substantially more than the first. And there is no objective. It is not the war on terror as many uniformed might believe. It is actually hurting the war on terror by pulling away resources from it.
Did the light come on yet???????
2006-11-15 17:17:02 · answer #2 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
This is a real response. It is not a good idea to compare the two situations. In the case of SR. the US participation was justified, we knew why were there - Kuwait had been attacked. It was not a preemptive war. This war with JR is based on a lie and Americans do not want 1000s more to die because of it. This war was preeemptive and it is going very badly. There is anarchy and the "WIN" remains without the ability to define it. SO you cannot compare the two situations. Whereas Senior should have completed the job, there is not point in JNR trying to complete, because there is not completion until US leaves. This was an invasion!
2006-11-15 17:40:16 · answer #3 · answered by meldorhan 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It was not the Democrats, but rather the neocons who ragged on Bush(41) and later Clinton to invade Iraq, overthrow Hussein, and nation-build in the Middle East. Bush #1 and Clinton were too smart to fall for a stupid idea that was doomed to failure (read Bush’s book ‘A World Transformed’ [1998] for his explanation of why invading Iraq was a bad idea with no upside for America).
Junior’s limited knowledge, and lack of interest in, international politics combined with 9/11 set the stage for mess in which we currently find ourselves. And, do not forget Colin Powell’s words to the President regarding an invasion of Iraq, “if you break it, you own it”. Well, Bush (with strong all around Republican and conservative support) broke it and now we own it. We are responsible for destabilizing the Middle East (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis we have killed) and the future deaths of an unknown number of Americans who will someday be killed by the new generations of terrorists that Bush has created.
2006-11-15 17:04:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
when that was an issue... it was about eliminating Saddam... he's caught now... it's not cutting and running when the job is done...
but I would argue that 9-11 should drastically change our nations prioroties from what they were pre-9-11... and Saddam wasn't a part of that...
the simple fact is... it happens all the time in poltics though... tom Delay said "you don't have to support the president to support the troops" in the kosovo situation...
2006-11-15 17:09:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think 3000 American dead, probably 150,000 Iraqi and who knows how many more... plus three years of a fruitless war signify " cut and run" That is just a silly Bush term, meaning.. " stick with me.. I'm the decider"
It is plain good sense to get out of Iraq.. we are going to need our troops elsewhere.. and soon!!
2006-11-15 17:07:11 · answer #6 · answered by Debra H 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, cut and run is the Bush policy. They have cut and run from facing Iran or North Korea time and time again.
Wussies.
Bill Clinton had the courage to face our enemies.
2006-11-15 16:57:27 · answer #7 · answered by txwebber 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Like Father like Son. Thus, they want the same to happen.
2006-11-15 16:54:55 · answer #8 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Its politics...it never makes sense.
2006-11-15 16:57:26 · answer #9 · answered by Tru Warrior 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋