Made this statement on CNN, 1/24/2007.
2007-01-25 09:21:01 · 11 answers · asked by Disability Buster 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Not at all, what do you expect from a person making millions off of a ill advised war in the first place. He is all for escalating the war that was started in the first place by he, and his boss to benefit the very few including him and his boss. He is in for a rude awakening when he finds out that this operation needs to have funding from congress in order to maintain those troops and the democrats block or vote down that funding. What I mean is he can send all he wants over there, I hope he has a lot of money in his checkbook to fund it.
2007-01-25 09:40:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Wolf-man interview huh, Ya that's what he is saying! If you saw that interview notice how he avoids/spins answering Wolfs questions even getting upset with questions that were not supposed to be asked? Are we dealing with a lying crook as VP or what? Cheney "if we don't succeed in Iraq the consequences are huge" Ya in details MR. Cheney what are those Consequences? Everyone in the Bush cabinet are parroting the same words. Of-course they can't reveal the details for security reason ah B/S the legal oil contracts have not been settled for the British & American oil companies yet!
2007-01-25 09:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by bulabate 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Angry. Even though the commander in chief has the authority to override the senate, I don't think he should. By doing so, he is not showing responsibility as a leader who is trying to promote peace in the region. I believe that a phased withdrawal should begin and leave the fighting of the locals up to the new government as this would test their ability to rule their own people.
You would think that after having their first elections that the citizens of that country would band together instead of fighting over religious differences. The U.S. does not have these issues because we are a free democratic society and worship as we please. Perhaps we should offer suggestions on how we deal with our Freedom of Religion rights so they could follow suit. Citizens of the U.S. realize how important it is for each person to worship as they choose and instead of trying to hand them answers through military involvement, maybe they should attempt this stragedy instead. The biggest problem is, is getting the militant factions at bay long enough to begin talks in that direction.
As much as I hate to admit it, the senate is right in this regard. I watch C-Span as well and they are all working hard to come up with a plan that will work. I was surprised when I heard Kerry using his head for something other than a hat rack. This war is taking on all the faces of the Viet Nam war and it's more unpopular than ever. He told congressional leaders to 'get real' and that they are responsible to any wrong decisions they make which would send our people over there into harms way for an additional period of time. The debate on the new measures span over numerous areas, but they all agree that they cannot cut off funding for the men and women already there.
It's diffiuclt to say what will happen. If they even decided to get GWB impeached, the citizens would then have to deal with DC and that would not solve anything. The senate has to stand up for the rights of ALL citizens, those fighting, and those at home. These measures are tough calls and they are attempting to stick together; not as a political sepeartion, but in oneness.
2007-01-25 09:43:46 · answer #3 · answered by chole_24 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why get mad? What he said is true. The only thing to do now is to get even. Make sure everyone who voted for the Iraq war resolution knows they won't be furthering their political careers. And let the GOP know that resolution and their subsequent behavior is fixin' to come back and bite them in the @ss.
2007-01-25 09:36:45 · answer #4 · answered by neooxyconservative 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
People,we are at war and President Bush is the Commander-in-Cheif of the United States Armed Forces whether we like it or not.
Congress can't stop sending new troops in Iraq but they can "not recommend it" sending troops to Iraq to the House of Senate however the House of Senate may have something to say about their leverage of power because they have more pull and power than Congress but President Bush can veto anything that the Senate may vote on in favor of and wants Bush to sign it.
2007-01-25 09:36:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
What, you don't like being talked down to by "Royalty?" The Bush people all think they are of the right bloodline and you and I have nothing to say because we are impure sheep for them to shear and lead to the slaughter. Offensive isn't it? Bush said "they can try to stop me...." Their Plundering Herd gets $3 billion a week from the US Treasury, and they are not about to stop taking it unless we wake up and make them.
2007-01-25 09:37:58 · answer #6 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Well, he's right on one thing finally. They can't technically stop him. But its typical of the administration-- their attitude is:
Don't confuse me with facts
I'm going to do what I want and screw everybody else
If you work for us and disagree, you get fired or destroyed (e.g. Powell)
They could force the issue next year via money but that would be a bad idea.
2007-01-25 09:30:30 · answer #7 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, and we're supposed to be fighting for democracy in Iraq. We need to have it here first.
2007-01-25 09:38:52 · answer #8 · answered by notyou311 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Since that is the fact of the matter, how could anyone be angry with this statement?
It is the President under the constitution who has the power to move troops where he chooses.
2007-01-25 09:28:18 · answer #9 · answered by radical4capitalism 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋
How mad am I? At what? That you don't know what powers the constitution grants congress and the president? Not very.
2007-01-25 09:42:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋