Why do liberals chastise the Bush administration for fighting terror?

Question

We are at war. Many of our brothers and sisters are sacrificing their lives to protect the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted every single day. The US military eliminates terrorists and insurgents every sing day, but, somehow, liberals are upset and pointing the finger at President Bush instead of getting behind him and seeing his side of the issue. If we support the President, if we support our troops and join the hands of our fine military forces WE CAN WIN THIS WAR. Why is that so hard for liberals to understand? So, why do liberals chastise the Bush administration for fighting terror? How are liberals helping America and the world win the War on Terror when they are merely dividing the country and playing into the hands of the terrorists?

Answer 1

There is something truly bizarre in the way this questioner is attacking what he calls 'liverals' who don't support Bush's 'War on Terror'. First, unless he believes that the vast majority of America is now made up of liberals, then he's going to have a hard time explaining why 70-80 % of Americans don't support what Bush is doing. Are we all "liberals"? Wow!

I do have problems with how Pres. Bush invented this "War on Terror" (we've gone to war with countries in the past, but we've never had a war against a noun before). When we were attacked by Bi Laden's Al Quaeda on 9/11, Bush's initial response was appropriate-- he sent troops into Afghanistan to try to catch Bin Laden. BUT... instead of sending in enough troops to close down the Afghani borders with Pakistan, Iran, Tajikstan and Turkmenistan, and then rooting Bin Laden out of his hidey-hole and bringing him to justice, Bush chose instead to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11 (or any WMDs, for that matter-- if he cared about those, we'd be in North Korea). Yes, Saddam Hussein was a vile dictator, and the world is better off without him, but he did not attack us. The man who did is still running free, because of Bush's decision. That is what I object to, or, as you'd say, that's why I'm "pointing the finger at Bush".

More to the point, though, and this is one of the things which bothers me not only with the writer but with a great many of the Yahoo Answers 'Liberal Bashers"-- they are always full of positive words for our troops. Here, they're described as "our fine military forces", and I frequently hear other, similar sentiments.

What I don't hear is a willingness to serve. Talk, yes. Actually volunteer? No way. Whatever they're currently doing with their lives-- going to school, working for 7-11, running an IT department for some company, whatever, is far too important.

The only way that our troops would get any benefit from this young man's deciding to "join the hands of our fine military forces" is if he were to actually do so. He asks "How are liberals helping America and the world win the War on Terror when they are merely dividing the country and playing into the hands of the terrorists?"; I ask, "How is HE helping America and the world win the War on Terror when he is simply sitting at his computer and writing hate mail to so-called liberals?"

And please, don't take this as a personal attack on "EuphoriaMusic"-- it's a general comment to all of those who post these (very similar) notes. If you truly believe that our Armed Services are important, then do something about it. If you truly believe that America is worth defending, then do so. But don't sit on your backside and attack those who disagree with you politically... it not only shows a remarkable ignorance about just what it is that makes America a great country, but it truly plays into our enemy's hands, by dividing us as a people.

And before my conservative friends start jumping all over me, I might point out that I first volunteered to serve on active duty in 1973, as a Navy Hospital Corpsman. After I got out, I did other things (including a stint as a Peace Corps Volunteer, again volunteering for our nation), and then volunteered again in 1993 to serve as a Navy chaplain-- I'm only out now because I'm medically retired and on full disability, or I'd volunteer again... despite being, from what I'm told on Yahoo Answers, just one more stinking liberal!

Answer 2

The reason is because there really is no way to win such a war by force. Terrorism is an instrument that feeds violence with more violence and the presence of US soldiers on such a state as Iraq has no justification whatsoever if the only logic behind it is to fight terror, for if that be the reason then why hasn't the US placed all their efforts into capturing Bin Laden since he is considered public enemy no. 1? Iraq is a legitimate country with a legitimate government. The US being there is ridiculous even if they say that they want to protect its newly found democracy because it begs the question; since when has the US become the messiah to all democracies under the threat of civil war? You will wonder where the US was on cases like Rwanda, Congo, Somalia where genocide were most apparent. If the war on terror is the reason behind it and if the Bush administration is that efficient then perhaps there will be no more terror attacks whatsoever in US soil in the coming days..but your bet is as good as mine.

Answer 3

"We are at war. Many of our brothers and sisters are sacrificing their lives to protect the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted every single day"

Well, the first sentence at least is correct. If you seriously believe the rest, I guess thats your choice, but personally I dont feel my freedoms are threatened by Iraq even remotely.

The truth is that no-one, least of all the President, can actually tell me what the hell we are currently fighting a war in Iraq FOR. Its certainly not about "WMD"s, because even Bush doesn't pretend they exist anymore, its not about "the war on terror", because, as the administration accepts, there was never any proven link in the first place, It doesnt benefit the American people in any way whatsoever. Its killed 3000 US soldiers to date. And it sure as hell doesnt seem to be doing the Iraqi people or the economic infrastructure of Iraq any good. And they dont even want us there. Apart from that, everything is just swell.

But, ok , lets imagine the country was 100% in favor of the war..how EXACTLY does that guarantee a victory? And what would you consider a "victory" in what is now a civil war with the US as a 3rd party? And furthermore, if we "won", then what ?

Answer 4

They allowed republicans to control the narrative. Never really bring up the fact that 1, the republicans cut the budget to the embassies. 2, under the previous administration 54 embassies were attacked resulting in 13 American deaths. Of those 54 attacks, only 3 hearings were held, none of which were used as a sword against the administration. And 3, If the youtube movie had nothing to do with the protests, then what were the other 19 protests in front of our embassies that day about?

Answer 5

i will treat that your question as sincere and not just antagonistic.
liberals do not chastise Bush for fighting the war on terror (for the most part) the other answers here are evicence of that. what they do critisize is that he has confused the war in iraq with the war on terror and so do i even though i am just a little to the right of ghingas khan.
i dont know how old you are but you may not remember that the iraq war started when saddam invaded kuait. the whole world came together, under the leadership of his father, to expell him and no he didnt get away, he surrendered under very specific terms.
then g.h.w. Bush was voted out and saddam, (as the last man standing) probubly saw himself as the victor and was emboldened to violate the terms of this surrender without any real consiquenses for the next 8 years. in this absence of any real wolrd leader to oppose him he was largely correct.
then g.w. bush was elected. he rightly surmised that the war was back on per these violations, but he knew that american liberals (delighted to have snached defeat from the jaws of this victory) would never support the ultimate winning of this war without a pearl harbor type event. since the enimies of freedom had for so long been uncontested, his team knew it was just a matter of time and it came sooner and bigger than they could have ever expected.
two events transpired. the war in iraq (which was won in a matter of weeks) and the larger war on terror. Ali G correctly points out that the later is a police action not a conventional war.
the responce to a car bomber is not to bring in battleships. the war on terror is more like the war on crime or drugs.
although confusing these two events was thrust upon him, it is hard to forgive. it was a failed attempt to get the media and the world on his side. the fact that is has been essentially exposed has undermined both noble efforts and permits the media to argue to their followers (almost logically) that since the war on terror continues that saddam won the iraq war.
the war on terror (like crime or poverty) will likely forever continue. there is no person or party or government that has the authority to raise a white flag. so the critisism that the war on terror is wrongly fought with bombers and battleships is largely legitamate.
sorry to have gone on so long...what was the question?

Answer 6

Why don't take a minute to go over the real reasons why the US went to Iraq. It's not about fighting terrorism, since terrorists are unfortunately not stupid and know that Iraq would be the last place to hide.

1. Before the invasion, Iraq was the second most powerful nation in the middle east in terms of petrol, the Bush administration has members who have all been at some point involved in this industry and thus they knew that by controlling Iraq, oil prices would drop.

2. George H. W. Bush failed in one major thing during his presidency, he never managed to get his hands on Sadaam Hussein and they felt they needed to rectify that by going in, furthermore, they got really lucky when they caught him. Now Sadaam is dead, executed prematurely and he will now be remembered as a martyr.

The war in Iraq was wrong, we knew that from day one and still we were stupid enough to go there, confident that it would be over within a month. Here we are, 4 years later...3002 soldiers have died..for what? so that mad little Bush could settle a personal score.

Democrats are mad because this war was unnecessary, because in the 6 years that Bush has been in office he has managed to **** up everything his predecessor did well and forced us to get involved in a conflict we knew we had nothing to do with, for the wrong reasons and most importantly, we invested billions in national defense, when we could have invested that money in education, in our mediocre health system and in many other ways that all Americans could benefit from.

Finally, we are mad because Bush and his republicans have humiliated us as Americans.

Answer 7

It is really very simple. Bush isn't fighting terror. He's fighting a war he started because it got up his nose that Saddam was still there after his father defeated him in the gulf war. Saddam was never part of the terror network, which has been amply proved so many times it isn't funny. The terror network was an avowed enemy of Saddam and Bush knew it, but it suited his purpose to lie to the American people and wage a personal war against Saddam. He may now have got Saddam, but what a mess he's made doing it. That's why most Americans, and all thinking Americans, now chastise Bush for his Iraq war .

Answer 8

Oh, they're fighting terror? Since when?

Iraq did not have a terrorist problem before we invaded. Now there is a whole new generation of terrorists being created because of our involvement there.

The job was never completed in Afghanistan. ANY student of history or world affairs knows you DO NOT fight a war on two fronts (ask Napoleon, or Germany in WWI & II). We did not on WWII. FDR understood. We finished Hitler, then went after Japan. But of course, Bush didn't like to read or visit other countries before becoming President, so he didn't understand that.

WE, liberals, want to win in the worst way. How can we when there are people who refuse to learn the lessons history teaches?
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.


Here endth the lesson.

Answer 9

First of all, I'm a moderate, not a liberal. I can see that liberal/conservative bashing is all the rage in today's political environment, but I'm going to ignore it.

Liberals might be bashing the Bush administration for deliberately misleading the public into believing that the situation was far worse in Iraq and leading us into an unwise invasion. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing - misleading the American public to be able to go after him under justification was not a good thing. The war in Iraq has been mismanaged, Halliburton has made billions of dollars (much of which appears to be unaccounted for) without a bid for contracts.

You make it look like only liberals are oppose the war, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff oppose a troop increase, the troops actually in Iraq oppose a troop increase. It isn't a matter of being liberal or not - its a matter of seeing what is working and what isn't. You make it look like its only the liberals fault, but it was the Bush administration that got us into this mess in the first place. I hope something positive eventually comes out of this, but I get sick and tired of conservatives bashing liberals and liberals bashing conservatives instead of actually having a debate over an IDEA.

Answer 10

Its not just liberals criticizing Bush,his approval rating is what 26% and falling? His own party people are doing the same inccluding his advid supporter and lawyer James Baker, who is a conservative by the way. We are now the middle man in a civil war, why isn't he activly prusuing Bin Ladden? The hell with Clinton could of should of bs, why isn't our concentration of force going against those who attated us?