Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. For months they've claimed that "we need more troops in Iraq". But now that Bush has said he's gonna send more troops they are totally against it. They are for "re-deployment". We all know what that means. The weak dems are all about surrender
2007-01-19 12:37:01 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's sadly funny, isn't it??
Yet the Libs love em........Duh!!!!
I tried to register as a Dem, but my IQ was way too high
2007-01-19 12:42:35 · answer #1 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 5⤊ 6⤋
They were for it, as were the generals, when it would have actually helped.
Now however it is self destructive. It will only escalate the violence by causing an insurgent surge on their part.
Or is there another reason America wants to send more troops...
2007-01-19 12:43:03 · answer #2 · answered by Eyota Xin 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
redeployment means to send the troops to another country to see if iraq can handle attacks themselves , then send the troops in if iraq cant
2007-01-19 12:40:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
All of the liberal candidates and politicians are a bunch of pathetic hypocrites. Only the brainwashed and lame brained don't follow these people's doings for long enough to see all of the discrepancies and changes in their positions. They just listen to leftist propaganda hype and then spout off as if they are in the know.
2007-01-19 12:54:20 · answer #4 · answered by mammabecki 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You really should just look up the word redeploy.
re·de·ploy /ËridɪËplÉɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ree-di-ploi] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Military
–verb (used with object) 1. to transfer (a unit, a person, supplies, etc.) from one theater of operations to another.
2. to move or allocate to a different position, use, function, or the like; reassign.
2007-01-19 12:43:48 · answer #5 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, that was Bush who said "more troops were not the answer".
You need to get your facts straight. It was also Bush who has tried and failed twice with more troops.
2007-01-19 12:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
So you slander Barak without any evidence ?
Barak has opposed the war since before they went into Baghdad . . . YOU are a nasty liar . . .
You are a pathetic sociopath, check yourself into the nearest mental health facility . . .
2007-01-19 12:47:35 · answer #7 · answered by kate 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
You're right on! They all said they wanted more troops in Iraq, until Bush decided to send more.
2007-01-19 12:47:33 · answer #8 · answered by jack w 6 · 3⤊ 5⤋
Vote for a sincere candidate who will stand by his principles and cannot be swayed by party mates.
2007-01-19 12:43:23 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
dems never wanted more troops in iraq, they wanted to pull out completely. why would they be accused of wanting to "cut and run" if they wanted more troops? common sense says they wouldn't
2007-01-19 12:44:38 · answer #10 · answered by jamie b 2 · 3⤊ 5⤋