If somebody opposes Bush, some people say they are "Terrorist Sympathizers."
What about this?
BTW - this is the first time in history the Joint Chiefs have publicly opposed their Commander in Chief.
2006-12-19 20:14:29 · 13 answers · asked by bettysdad 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
To begin with, this is NOT the first time it has happend. When you learn how to read a history book...then you can ask this type of question.
2006-12-19 20:25:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
this is why i hate politics. some people get way too stuck in their ways and they like to stereotype everyone else. I bet a number of the American people have no idea why America is still in the war anyways. I think more people would suupport it if we knew why America is there. I mean there's a lot of different reasons going around but no one has actually said this is why. We're spending a lot of money funding a war that many people don't know why it's happening. Meanwhile our own country has citizens poor and homeless. I don't really support war at all, but if the number of troops is increase I will support them because I wouldn't want all those soldiers to have died in vain.
2016-05-22 23:27:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well Bettysdad....
I have a definition of a "Terrorist Sympathizer" for you.
It is a person who attempts to justify the actions of people or organizations that perpetuate terrorist tactics. Let me give you an example...The following question was asked
" Who had/has the stronger moral justification, the USA when it invaded Iraq or the Iraqi Insurgents when they fight against forces currently occupying Iraq"
One response to this question was..
"Kicking out invaders is always the right and moral thing to do"
I would consider this person a terrorist sympathizer. This person chose to validate the actions of people who are performing known acts of terror against innocent people.
That answer should look familiar to you. It was yours bettysdad.
I would consider you a terrorist sympathizer.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff? Absolutely not. They are doing their jobs. Which is what President Bush appointed them to do.
2006-12-19 20:46:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's silly and frikin stupid....how would you define a person a "terrorist sympathizer" is ridiculous.......it's like saying an unwed pregnant women is a "whore"....that's so stupid...sorry man I don't agree with your way of analogy !
Anyway, it was not only Bush who wanted to send more troops, the Democrats also wanted to deploy 80,000 more troops into Iraq.
2006-12-19 20:59:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush NEVER said publicly that more troops were needed in Iraq. This was information that was obtained through one of the numerous Washington, DC leaks. We'll see what Bush wants to do. I heard that he wants to beef up the Marines and Army with regular troops. Again via leaks. Ho, ho, ho. Here comes the draft. I'm ready!
2006-12-19 20:26:50 · answer #5 · answered by wunderkind 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They haven't opposed the president. They have disagreed with him, and it's not the first time that's happened.
They are concerned about total force levels and what an increase in troop levels in Iraq might do to services that are already stretched thin. Some media are making more of this than it is and you are buying it.
2006-12-19 20:20:11 · answer #6 · answered by Warren D 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Bush is always right, didn't you know that? He's the decider, not those stupid terrorist-coddlers we call "joint chiefs". Bush should just fire them all and make himself king, right? The hell with the Constitution, we don't need no stinking dissent, right?
for all those who didn't get it the first time. ;P
2006-12-19 20:19:32 · answer #7 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Where did you get that crap from -CNN just said different besides that everyone needs to listen to what is being said he is not asking to send those troops he's being responsible and asking them to budget for it just in case.
2006-12-19 20:16:51 · answer #8 · answered by josh m 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You must carry the weight of the whole world on your shoulders.
It must be such a worry for you.
2006-12-19 23:29:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
By Rush Limbaugh"s, Bill Oreilly"s standards it is "sympathizing. Of course we should all listen to these great veterans of many wars.
2006-12-19 20:23:32 · answer #10 · answered by Frank R 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋