Most of you made fun of President Bush for staying the course.He got rid of Rumsfeld,getting new generals in for a different course of action and sending more troops in.He is changing course,now the libs in the senate and congress want to cut off funding to soldiers if he does?I thought you guys supported our troops.Is this support?
2007-01-10 10:19:19 · 14 answers · asked by rosierotnass 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So this was a lie as well?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
2007-01-10 10:44:13 · update #1
So if sending in more troops is not a different course then what is to you???Not finishing the job right,just leave and have millions of people slaughtered just like when we left Viet Nam thanks to you libs?
2007-01-10 10:46:30 · update #2
ok, all of you are against this "surge." you say the generals were against it, too. so, how would YOU go about the war? you just want to bring the troops back home? that's it?
what about the people who are depending on them, like the Kurds? the Kurds would be slaughtered if the troops left. not to mention, Iran would be too happy to go in in our place. then there's Saudi Arabia. do you think we should pull out and let them go in?
i sometimes wonder if that wouldn't be for the best. if it weren't for the Kurds and the Iraqi's who are enjoying their new freedom i'd say let's get out and let them fight it out amongst themselves. but then i realize that's a cold, cold way to look at it.
2007-01-10 11:58:38 · answer #1 · answered by political junkie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush changed to new generals because they disagreed with sending more troops in. They said it wouldn't do any good. So, he got rid of him. He got rid of Rumsfeld because he was expendable. He replaced him to make it seem like he was actually doing something different when he wasn't. We have seen no other course of action other than to send in more troops in, which does not seem to be working. By cutting off funding or redirecting where the funding goes Congress will force Bush to come up with a new strategy. So, in a way it is support. By forcing Bush to do something else other than to send more troops, the troops won't be stuck in Iraq in the same position they were in we first started making absolutely no progress.
2007-01-10 11:26:04 · answer #2 · answered by j 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You may consider this an empty answer, but most of us aren't 'making fun' of Bush for staying the course. We're not 'making fun' at all. We're angry.
The entire premise for the war was false. The plan was terrible from the outset, and has resulted in a catastrophic mess, fatal to many, many thousands of people. Bush has condemned the deaths of 200,000 people in Darfur as 'genocide.' What does he call the deaths of 700,000 Iraqis? Liberation.
Bush's decision-making abilities from start to finish have been appallingly poor. There's absolutely no indication that they're getting any better.
His 'change of course,' as he delineates it, is not a change at all. More troops, more money, to do more of the same, longer. Getting rid of Rumsfeld was an act of political necessity on his part, and salvages nothing. Replacing the generals who disagree with him so he can keep doing more of the same hardly qualifies as a change for the better.
Supporting him to keep perpetuating the same mistakes is a far cry from supporting our troops. He's the one who made this mess. He obviously has no idea what he's doing. He has rejected making any significant change, like pouring money into restarting Iraq's economy and rebuilding it's workforce, in favor of pouring money into the pockets of American contractors like Halliburton, happily handing out no-bid contracts so they can profit from this war.
Like a lot of other people, I'm waiting to hear what he has to say tonight. Since I don't think walking away and leaving our mess is a good thing, I'd love to hear him outline a plan other than more of the same, but I think that's a forlorn hope. I don't think he's smart enough to even realize the need for one.
Leaving him calling the shots unopposed doesn't support our troops; it merely gets more of them killed while the violence escalates. Opposing Bush is perhaps the best support any of us can offer them.
2007-01-10 11:18:13 · answer #3 · answered by functionary01 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I support our troops by wanting to see all of them brought home. If I didn't want to support the troops or this country, I'd say ah heck, let Bush throw more money and troops at Iraq and maybe the Iraq situation would get better.
2007-01-10 10:46:35 · answer #4 · answered by some_guy_times_50 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Democrats in Congress have NEVER said they will cut off funding for the troops. They may have said that they will not fund the "surge", but that is a very different thing.
By they way, what are you talking about "different course". This is just more of the same. He got rid of the generals because didn't like the facts they were telling him.
The war was still base on lies. Nothing has changed that fact.
2007-01-10 10:41:55 · answer #5 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
OK lets try this without any hate or name calling Mr. libsukshit..
where did you hear cutting off funding to the soldiers??? did you go deaf when they said it was for funding anymore troops. troops that have been underfunded by the republican party since day one of this war would really appreciate the money that he wants to spend on new troops being spent on their safety before he brings more over to become targets....and the reason why those generals were replaced was because they finally spoke up about how impossible this war is to win. so he dumped them for a new set of yes men who will be safe in the green zone and when they get out they will have a big fat offshore bank account that they will not have to pay taxes on.......that's how this president works...
2007-01-10 10:48:28 · answer #6 · answered by Unfrozen Caveman 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Throwing more money and soldiers at the problem is not going to work. Instead of thinking things through, Bush is simply reacting to the polls and his whims. He is trying to salvage what is left of his Administration before he is flogged and tarred by the Congress. Fortunately for the American people, Bush no longer has his cronies in Congress to enable him. He must be willing to present authentic ideas and strategies that truly answer the many, many challenges posed in Iraq. Otherwise, he can just stay the course and continue to fail.
2007-01-10 11:06:51 · answer #7 · answered by Jackson Leslie 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are wrong.. It is a bi-partisan group that have clearly stated that Bush is wrong. We support the troops not the Republicans. Remember Bush was told at the start to send in 300,000 troops, he declined. Now it's a little too late.. Bringing the more Boys n Girls to harm.
2007-01-10 10:41:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
In all sincere honesty I felt like at first a war was needed after 911 but now seeing that our soldiers are in the middle of the fight between the Sunni's & Shiite's & our soldiers are getting killed just because they have a gripe with one another, what the heck are we there for ? Their going to just keep fighting between themselves no matter who tries to do anything for them.
2007-01-10 10:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by day by day 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Supporting people who work for a living is what Americans do, doesn't matter what job they hold. As far as supporting administrations has nothing to do with being American or Patriotic. In fact most Patriots hardly ever support administrations. Support is earned, one must "prove" self and nothing short.
2007-01-10 10:43:01 · answer #10 · answered by edubya 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋