Why does Bush want to send more troops and funds to Iraq when it's so unpopular?

Question

Serious answers ONLY please. People who give useless answers like "Because Bush is a fanatical monkey" will be reported.

Bush would make the majority of US citizens happy by spending billions of dollars on programs that are already underfunded, like education, new energy sources, fixing economic problems, the mental health care system, etc. Instead, he insists on spending tons of money on Iraq without improving other programs. Now he wants to increase spending even more and send even more of our troops when people are already upset over soldiers dying.

He must have an extremely good reason to place the importance of this war so highly above all else. What is it?

Also, what percentage of the population supports his current spending decisions and want him to keep spending billions on war?

Again- SERIOUS ANSWERS ONLY PLEASE. I hope I didn't sound fanatical or unreasonable in phrasing my question. I want a real answer, and if you just start randomly Bush bashing, I will report you.

Answer 1

No, he does not have an extremely good reason. He gambled and lost. He wanted to be a great President, and he bet everything that there were WMDs in Iraq. Now it would be even worse for him ( and his political associates ) if he acknowledged that he screwed up. So the situation gets worse.
About 30% of the population now support his current spending decisions. Bush just keeps running up the debt. At the same time he cuts taxes for political expediency.
In short, Bush is a fanatical monkey. Now run off and snitch.

Answer 2

Bush has long-term goals. He recognizes that the Middle-East is the worlds largest source of terrorism. If nothing changes, we will continue to be attacked by these terrorists (anyone remember 9/11/01?).

So, what good are social programs if people are dying in the street? Seriously, if you're dead from a terrorist attack, what does it matter if you have a good education or a hydrogen powered car? I'm not saying those things are unimportant. But we must prioritize. And I can't imagine any intelligent person prioritizing a good education over being alive.

Until 2002, there were no (zero, zip, nada, none, 0) democracies in the Middle-East. Now there are two (Afghanistan, Iraq). Democracy is the only way to fix the region and stop it from being a terrorist factory. So we must do whatever it takes to ensure that the young democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan survive. It means we have to make painful sacrifices now, but in the long term it will make a safer world for all of us.

Answer 3

You must be able to discern the difference between the actions of Bush and Kerry. Bush's job, whether or not you agree with his reasons, is to protect this nation. Kerry got caught in a situation normally reserved for Bush; he spoke without thinking. I have no doubt he did not mean to say what he did, but rather intended to bash Bush. However, his comments came at a bad time for his political party. If this was not an election year, Kerry's comment would have blown over with no direct apology to the troops necessary, but that was not the case. So, to answer your question, no, Bush should not have to apologize to the troops, and Kerry should not have had to apologize either. Bush is doing his job, and Kerry made a mistake.

Answer 4

As history has shown, sometimes what is "popular" with the citizens is not viewed by the government as the right thing to do. As in WW2. No one wanted to go to war, and the majority of the population was against it (even after Pearl Harbor). We joined the Allies way late in the game because the war was "unpopular."

BUT this doesn't mean that you are not correct, or that I condone the War...I think that there are alot of unsolved problems both home and abroad - I personally prefer for MY government to fix MY country first. But, as for whether or not this war proves to have a purpose and a positive impact on the World, we will have to see in the future.

Answer 5

Doing what is popular rarely seems to go hand in hand with what might be the correct thing to do in matters such as these. We citizens don't have all the intel that our leaders have. Using logic, one must also make the call stating that we are not qualified to make the decision regarding issues such as this.

Now, my personal feeling on all of this is that there are many who allow their hatred of the man, blind them to the possiblities that await us if we do not clean up this mess. At this point, whether we should or should not have gone into Iraq matters little. We made this mess..WE did, it is up to US to clean it up and if possible, learn from our mistakes. From day one, I have to believe that we all knew this wasn't going to be quick and painless. And simple reading of editorial comments in news publications prior to every war America has been involved in show that the public did not have a grasp of the long term gains from being involved in whatever war you might be speaking of.


It makes no difference now to moan about what shoulda or coulda...what is important now is cleaning up this difficult mess and learning from it.

Answer 6

Although I can't disagree with the fanatical monkey remark, I have to say I think he is just stricken with tunnel vision. He is not a man who changes course easily or who can admit errors graciously. I do think that if he indeed announces this and attempts this, you will see one of the biggest public outcries we have seen in this country in a long, long time. I have a sense that there will be a horrid public reaction to such an announcement and that there will be unpredictable results.

Answer 7

Good question. I think he realizes that the only way to control what has become a horrible situation is to send more troops into harm's way. I think the Dems will probably make him develop a withdrawal plan before they agree to more troops.

Answer 8

Read the PNAC manifesto. It's their mission to keep US troops in bases throughout the middle east for many years. That's why.

Answer 9

The reason is that he is taking the advice of the commission formed by congress to to give him options because the democrats whinned about it so much. One of the democrats option was to send in more troops, so now that he is thnking of doing this they are whinning about that too!

Answer 10

Because he sees that finishing what we started there is VERY important for the stability of the region as well as our own national security...he's more concerned with how HISTORY will view him than he is about what today's political underminers think of him.....which is just that....UNDERMINING.