Since the onset of the Iraqi war, Liberals and Conservatives have been bitterly debating the validity and moral righteousness of this war. When Bush announced his “new” strategy Wednesday evening, the response was swift and decisive. Even long-time Republican Senators and Representatives who have supported Bush through thick and thin, have harshly criticized Bush’s plan. Even top military advisers disagree with his “new” strategy. Considering that Bush pretty much stands alone on his new policy, isn’t it time for responsible Conservatives to admit they were wrong?
2007-01-12 02:01:52 · 16 answers · asked by Hemingway 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely.
I was a conservative and admitted I was wrong.
You have to remember though, that in doing so, I wised up and became a liberal.
God Bless America!
2007-01-12 02:06:10 · answer #1 · answered by Feeling Mutual 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I think that invading Iraq in the first place was unnecessary, and wrong. I don't believe they posed a credible threat to the United States. However since we did go in and perform a regime change are we not responsible to see this through? If we pull our soldiers out now the scale of the blood bath to follow will be incredible, think Rwanda all over again. We have a responsibility to see this through NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. A responsibility to the Iraqi people to stabilize the country and help them get strong enough so they can stand on their own. Anything less would be criminally negligent.
I am a US Army veteran, I would gladly serve again if I could.
2007-01-12 10:08:56 · answer #2 · answered by crazyhorse19682003 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well, the President admitted he made a mistake in the Iraqi war. Why can't others accept the President's admission? Apparently, few conservatives at this site will admit they ever took a wrong position.
2007-01-12 10:08:27 · answer #3 · answered by David M 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
True conservatives don't support Bush. True liberals try to make the best of a bad situation.
2007-01-12 10:05:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
The war in Iraq isn't part of any conservative platform. I don't recall any conservatives saying "Vote for me and we'll go to war with Iraq."
If conservatives were wrong over Iraq then so were liberals. The entire congress voted to invade Iraq. Isn't time, then, for liberals to admit the error as well and accept responsibility for there own actions?
2007-01-12 10:13:12 · answer #5 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The war was heavily supprted by liberals. The debate did not begin at the onset, liberals changed their mind for the 2006 elections after the media started attacking Bush.
The antiwar sentiment began with the media, they crated this story and the backlash against Bush. Look at the liberals who voted for war and who oppose is now, but the telling part is when they began to oppose it, just in time for elections.
The liberal leaders of this country are frauds and hypocrites, they voted for war but turned against it for politics. If Bush said tomorrow that he wanted to withdraw immediately the libs would make up reasons why we have to stay.
2007-01-12 10:09:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
Considering how many troops are there already, 21,500 isn't that much more. Rather than viewing it as an escalation, think of it as more support for our troops already there, and a way to hasten our exit from Iraq.
Also, i wonder if you realize that our forces in Iraq are supplementary to a vastly larger Iraqi army, which is freindly with our country and a close ally in a part of the world where we dearly need one. If we leave Iraq now, it would likely descend into a chaotic situation throughout the entire region.
Of course I agree, the way it is now is by no means an ideal situation, but it is preferable to the US leaving and allowing a greater problem to develop, which ultimately could require much more than a boost of 20,000 troops to squash.
Durbin's response to Bush's speech was nothing but sound bites- according to him, we've accomplished all we intended. we determined their were no weapons of mass destruction, we removed saddam from power, and we paved the way for a democratic system to take root in Iraq. Why should we just desert them now when we are this close to succeeding in a free Iraq?
Durbin offered no explanation of what would happen in Iraq when we left - does he prefer to see Iraq become a Taliban hotbed?
Of course, if the current Iraqi government is not successful, there will be GIANT problems developing. The way it is now, almost as many US soldiers die in this country every day (for various reasons) than are killed in Iraq. The cost is always great when even one US serviceman gives his life in war, but the stakes are higher in Iraq than you or the democrats seem to think.
These democrats, btw, are the same bunch that supported the initial invasion and were even calling for more troops themselves earlier this year. They are as wishy-washy as they come and sway to whichever way public opinion blows. And the ignorance surrounding this increase of troops, or even the US involvement in Iraq by a large percentage of the American public is astounding. We made a commitment in Iraq and we should at least give it the opportunity to succeed.
2007-01-12 10:05:14 · answer #7 · answered by Lane 4 · 5⤊ 6⤋
First you say that the Conservatives are backing away from the President then you ask them to admit that they're wrong. OK They're wrong for backing away from the President. Is that what you wanted to hear?
2007-01-12 10:09:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Humble? Not a good word to help people admitt anything.
2007-01-12 10:10:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
rule number one of neo conservatisom, never admit you are wrong
2007-01-12 10:17:14 · answer #10 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋