Doesn't what he says "go"? So much contentious back and forth regarding the "21,000 plus troops being sent to the Gulf" But what difference does it make. Bush will make it happen anyway, save some other miracle. Or is all of this big talk agianst the buildup to assure that it's 'on the record' that so many are against it, to make up for a time back in '04' when so many listened to and accepted so many lies PRIOR to the invasion/occupation/war?
2007-01-31 14:29:23 · 10 answers · asked by rare2findd 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We don't live in a monarchy, thank heavens. As long as there are checks and balances in government, Bush should not be "the" decider, no matter how he likes to say that. He should be one of the deciders, by all means. But Congress--and through them, the voting public--should have input as well.
2007-01-31 14:41:44 · answer #1 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes, Bush is the decider but when the decider's decisions are costing billions of dollars and thousands of American lives in a war based on lies the decider made to the Congress and the people he (in the opinion of Congress) should lose the privelege of making decisions.
If someone makes a mistake and learns from the mistake that's okay. It's often how humans learn. When we continue to make the same mistakes over and over we should not be allowed to be in a position to make those mistakes.
If you keep screwing up at work your boss is going to fire you. Well it is much the same thing except, so far, Bush hasn't gotten fired. The boss (Congress representing the people) has gone easy on him and are making the decisions he should have made.
Look at how long it took to make decisions after Katrina for example.
2007-01-31 15:46:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a big deal to the soldiers who the traitor Demonrats are stabbing in the back by telling them they don't want them to have any help in this war they are fighting.How honest can I be and not get reported for insulting you?
Name just one lie Bush told to justify the invasion, that is if you know the definition of the word lie...
Just google: Iraq chemical weapons factory. You will see that we have found enough WMD in Iraq to kill over a million people.
Bush didn't lie. Liberals lied, and are still lying.
2007-02-02 06:46:54 · answer #3 · answered by mountainclass 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "Big Deal" is that this division does nothing but embolden the enemy - and you cannot deny that premise.
This "non-binding" resolution is nothing but bull crap. If Congress had any nuts, they would either unite and support - or get the hell out and deal with any consequences later.
They won't do this because of the remote possibility that the war is successful, and they want to be in a position to proudly shout how they supported it from the on set.
What a bunch of wishy-washy, brain dead, ego driven morons!
2007-01-31 14:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ok smart-as*,
Its not big talk... who told you that one... your half-retarded buddy or the half-retarded media?
Bush can send those troops..and he can fund them..
Easiest way is to go thru congress.... but they keep refusing and then making bs stuff up about the white house.. why? Because they dont care about the soldiers in Iraq, they are 2 feet from presidency and they've lied the entire time to get to that point... and though the Republicans are now starting to speak about it... the Democrat's greed and personal agenda are overshadowing their decisions on whats best for Iraq and the US Army.
W/o Congress... its a lot more work for Bush to get the money... because he hasta either go through the U.N., NATO, or allied countries such as Saudi Arabia...
Bush would rather spend more time on planning Iraq + the 400,000 other things he hasta do as YOUR PRESIDENT of the USA... then hafta start traveling to different places all over the world collecting cash for something that Congress should've funded...
Good enough reason, or you gonna thumbs down me cuz i didnt tell you wat you wanted to hear?
2007-01-31 14:41:16 · answer #5 · answered by Corey 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The media is searching for a huge tale or something that ought to help the liberals. in accordance to the Rep. very last evening 25 out of one hundred,000 die a violent lack of life in Iraq & 31 out of one hundred,000 die in Jamacia, New Orleans before Katrina had fifty 4 out of one hundred,000 ( two times as many as Iraq) those are all in hardship-free words violent deaths. Ho Hum the information does not in superb condition their time table.
2016-12-03 07:35:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most senators want to distance themselves from Bush and the war, especially the Republicans. That way they can state during reelection or while running for President that they tried to stop the war.
2007-01-31 14:33:42 · answer #7 · answered by kass9191 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Dems are just rustling the leaves. They are too tied up in politics to do anything controversial.
2007-01-31 14:34:56 · answer #8 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It is not good to have someone with an 85 IQ being the decider.
2007-01-31 14:36:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Junior arrogantly claims to be "The Decider".
However, Specter smacked Junior down like a little girl yesterday and told him he was not, in fact, "The Decider".
:)
2007-01-31 14:38:01 · answer #10 · answered by Crybaby Conservatives 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋