Why hasn't ANYONE thought of this .. .... .... ... ... .. . .....President Bush ASKED/Demanded an Up or Down

Question

vote on his plan to finish the job in Iraq . That's a given, it happened . OK, now can anyone explain to me, why in the world he would ask for that . He already knows that the vote, however close, will be Against his plan . So why would he ask for the vote ? My guess is, he wants EVERYONE to be on record. . .. . supporting or not . Then what happens .. . . . .. .He just RISKED his entire political career, nevermind the 2008 Presidential Elections !! He KNOWS it will work, he has an ACE up his sleeve !! And he wants Democrats and weak-kneed Republicans to be on record, so that, AFTER the plan DOES work, only the faithful Republicans will survive. . .. .. . . and the Democrats ? Oh, they'll ALL GO DOWN IN FLAMES !!

Can you see this ? Or do you have a 'LOGICAL' explanation for this ?

Answer 1

that was very hard to follow..try again.

Answer 2

A "logical" explanation. I see Baghdad and the surrounding provinces, towns becoming another Fallujah. I see blanket killings outside of the Green Zone.How are we going to "finish the job" in Iraq when on another page he is telling us that US troops might be there for another two years. Still other neocons tell us we will be there for five years. Military bigwigs tell us we will be there for eight years.....and on and on and on.
Does he have other plans. Well, we're in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan...still to come - Iran. And who knows who else in months to come. I don't think Bush is worried about the 2008 elections at all. What I do see is Bush creating a situation in the future, where the US is in so deep - everywhere - that at the right time, and at any time in the future, he can easily find a reason to declare Marshall Law.
Why worry about 2008? When plans are already so deeply entrenched that it won't make any difference, on the Democrat side or on the Republican side.

Answer 3

That's an interesting theory. Did he really ask for an Up or Down vote? I can't stand to listen to him mangle the English language, so I don't listen to his "speeches."

My theory is, Bush knows the only way he can get out of this fiasco is to have the Democrats cut off funding to his war. If they should do this, then he can blame the D's for the ensuing disaster, stating that if only they had allowed Bush his 21000 troop surge, everything would come up roses and there would be a non-stop love-fest going on in Iraq. That way, his legacy remains intact as a tough-guy president and the D's take the blame for the complete debacle that Iraq truly is.

Answer 4

Wait a sec...

He can't run in 2008, so what possible political career potential does he have?

Second, Republicans interested in a Presidential run in 2008 will distance themselves from the President on this issue.

It's definitely a gambit over the Iraq war. If we win (pull out and the whole thing breaks down) in the next 18 months, we'll see the end of the Democratic party as we know it.

Answer 5

This is exactly what I have been thinking. Imagine if we actually do find success in Iraq - the libs will hardly be able to hide their disgust, but will have to so that they aren't exposed as not being patriotic. Personally, I don't mind the criticism on Bush when its from credible people - not when you know that they wouldn't support him regardless - some would jeer no matter if he withdrew, stayed the course, or went on an all out assault. They judge the war through the lens of hatred for Bush, but have offered no plan of their own.

It may be wishful thinking to hope for success, but I wish more Americans were doing it.

Answer 6

i'm respectfully going to disagree. You sound very trustworthy. i'll supply you an prolonged answer too, yet i'm attempting to back up this war of words. i'm specific you're attentive to the a number of subjects regarding Iraq, the state of the financial gadget, and so on. i've got self assurance that the president of usa must be held to the optimal standards-- different leaders confronted huge issues, and dealt and resolved the situations: Lincoln confronted the Civil war and dealt with it; Roosevelt confronted the large melancholy and WWII and dealt with it. fairly some large presidents effectively dealt with large issues-- that's why we bear in techniques them as being large. Bush did no longer stay as much as his stressful situations-- we nevertheless have not captured Osama bin encumbered, the guy who masterminded thousands of deaths, and Iraq is proving to be the biggest spending undertaking interior the historic past of usa. people interior the media are extreme of the guy for solid reason. that's their occupation: to maintain on with the subjects. i could say some newshounds have a much greater effective experience of what's happening interior the international than others do. Bob Woodruff replaced into exceedingly much killed in Iraq, has talked with the a number of optimum people interior the international, and comments the information on a regular basis. If he does not like Bush, i'm assuming he's basing his opinion on all he's conscious regarding the subjects. learn his awareness and education to somebody in Nebraska, who could no longer even understand the place Afghanistan or Iraq are on a map. i do no longer think of Woodruff is biased; i think of he's counseled and individuals could be asking, "properly, why do you think of this type?" I do accept as true with you that Bush should not be for my area attacked. the two events are answerable for no longer sticking to the subjects. solid question however. Have a staggering day.

Answer 7

Did he ask for a vote (not sure that I seen anything such as taking anything to a vote) or did he ask for bi-partisanship? Regardless of who is right and who is wrong(bush, pelosi..etc), America is in a war that they must win, to achieve a free and stable Iraq, a government that can work without threats, from other neighboring countries,terrorist, and their militia,s. The waving of funding of the Iraq military efforts, is uncalled for and disgusting. That anyone will play with our children's lives, in such a reckless and malicious effort, to control the White House as well.

Answer 8

Actually that does sound logical. I hadn't heard that he asked for an up or down vote, but if he did, this makes sense.

I don't think it will work. I think the rate of killing and dying in Iraq will increase by abuot 20%, but what does that matter? He's a lame duck anyway, so he might as well gamble.

Answer 9

Impeachment is the only course for Democrats. The investigations of the Bush and Cheney crimes in office will run til 2008 just before elections.

Answer 10

Congress has NO power over the war except to cut off funding. They can stop it quickly if they just shut down the flow of $. So why haven't they already done that? Because the Libs don't want to publicly admit that they want us to lose the war. They have greater power in continuing to smear Bush and his administration rather than ratting themselves out as traitors and cowards.

Answer 11

How can he possibly "know" it's going to work? It's a big gamble just like the invasion was. Just what I would expect from an arrogant, stubborn man who can never admit he is wrong.