When we look over the plans for the invasion of Iraq, many are to blame, from congressional leaders to as far back as President Clinton. The current issues regarding sending in more troops and not stopping the funding of current troops is weighing heavily on congress 5 years later. The difference is that the new congress is primarily democrats who had promised faithfully to work with the current administration and is delaying action, while looking at their own proposals, including the open ended and binding resolutions.
However, I feel that Senator Obama is in error with his most current statement. Hot off the Associated Press, he said the following and I would like to know if you feel this makes any sense; do not discount the fact that last time the US abruptly withdrew from a war, we looked like fools and those who paid the price was our honorable vets. If we withdraw from this war as quickly as he suggests, we could be in for terror strikes.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential hopeful, joined two House members in proposing a measure to block Bush from implementing his planned troop increase, and to begin a withdrawal by May 1, with all combat brigades out by March 31, 2008.
"This is what I think has the best chance of bringing our troops home," said Obama.
Apart from legislation, Democrats have embarked on an effort to undermine public support for the war by holding numerous hearings.
2007-02-06 23:58:23 · 8 answers · asked by chole_24 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's okay. Once the Demonrats lead the retreat from the battlefields the Satanic Muslim terrorists will have plenty of opportunity to regroup and attack on American soil once again.
When that happens it won't be the child's play that occured on 9/11. I can show you how to terrorize as an ex-member of special forces. 9/11 was a joke only affecting thousands. I could have easily led a team to murder over 250,000 innocent Americans just two days prior to 9/11.
So the terrorism that occurs, as a result of the liberals leading our retreat from the battlefield, will be much worse. But it will happen in blue territory and impact the lives of those who support the Demonrats most.
Every coin has two sides. You reap what you sow. You get what you deserve.
Most of the whining about the war is coming from the people who voted for the losers in the last two Presidential races. Because their policy is a result of their political motives they will have to face the consequences. But, by then, it'll be time for me to say I told you so.
2007-02-07 00:06:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
Why not!! After all we have a President without any war experience sending the troops to war! A president who didn't bother listening to Colon Powell, someone with a ton of war experience, when he told him not to go into Iraq!!
Barack has to have other people in congress to back him up for this measure to go forward!!
2007-02-07 00:06:30 · answer #2 · answered by wondermom 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think the senator is ok with his statement, because he is basing his opinion on past experiences with such issues. And public support is dwindling on it's own because of the fact that we really aren't accomplishing anything in Iraq since it became and occupation, and most people feel it is time to leave it up to Iraq to take care of it's future.
2007-02-07 00:06:26 · answer #3 · answered by jordanred17_89 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Unfortunately, thats about 90% of the Senate and House. Hardly any of them have any military experience what-so-ever and these are our national leaders. Scary isn't it?
2007-02-07 00:17:39 · answer #4 · answered by suburbandude 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your statement "Apart from legislation, Democrats have embarked on an effort to undermine public support for the war by holding numerous hearings. ".....Over 70% of Americans believe this war was based on a Pack of LIES...what support do you mean ?,the 30% percent who still cling to FOX news?
There is no real support for this war , even by the Generals forced to tow the White house line...history will record this so-called war as the Worlds largest Crimes Spree.
2007-02-07 00:03:47 · answer #5 · answered by dstr 6 · 5⤊ 5⤋
And how much experience did Bush have with military matters when he became President? Oh yeah, none.
2007-02-07 00:55:46 · answer #6 · answered by Third Uncle 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
why not bUsh has none oh yeah he cowardly wne into the guard safe from Nam, and as a veteran of Viet Nam I resent his sending my sons to war just to avenge his daddy, why hasnt he gone after Bin Ladden? Why does he still placate the Saudis
2007-02-07 00:21:41 · answer #7 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋
politicians don't have to have any record on anything, just the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to run
2007-02-07 00:17:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋