Why is it, they believe that a non-binding resolution will somehow help our troops in the field? What do they hope to achieve? We already know that they are against the war...now that it's politically unpopular. If they wanted to be true to their political promises of the last campaign, why don't they either defund the war or use their power to pull the troops out instead of wasting taxpayer time and expense with b.s. legislation?
2007-02-14 03:05:54 · 23 answers · asked by Gus K 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Tangerine - I agree with you. I find it disturbing that a President who's willing to put troops in harms way finds it within himself to cut the benefits needed to take care of them when they get home.
2007-02-14 03:14:59 · update #1
Justagirl - They care so much about the troops that they run from the fact that they voted to authorize military action now that it appears the American public no longer supports the action. If they would stand tall and voice their support for the troops and the mission they voted to authorize, I believe public opinion would go the other way. We need a united front on this issue.
2007-02-14 03:17:35 · update #2
Alessa - Bush lied? Did your side lie? Research the issue and look at what they said...especially Hillary...before and immediately after their vote for authorization. Their were a number of issue cited other than WMD for their votes.
2007-02-14 03:20:58 · update #3
Ninja rat - OK, then why aren't the people you put in power taking them out? If they aren't willing to stand up and follow through with what they promised in their campaigns, they're no better than how you perceive Bush. How is leaving troops to be shot without the needed reinforcements supporting the troops?
2007-02-14 03:23:14 · update #4
We're so concerned about the soldiers that we want them to come home alive and in one piece. By the way, if Bush is really concerned for the welfare of soldiers and veterans, why did the Republicans supporting cutting veterans' benefits?
2007-02-14 03:10:50 · answer #1 · answered by tangerine 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
The purpose of the non-binding resolution is to demonstrate to Bush and his handler, Cheney, that both dem and reps are against the troop build up. At least this non-binding resolution shows that the newely elected congress is attempting to represent the will of the people.
The fact that Bush et. al, have nothing but contempt for the will of the people Does Not invalidate the non-binding resolution.
One more point. Doesn't it seem odd to you that we are sending Amercian kids with almost no training and insufficient equipment over to Iraq to train the Iraqi militia? How about keeping those troops home until THEY are properly trained?
2007-02-14 03:28:34 · answer #2 · answered by fredrick z 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've very concerned with their well being, a bunch of my buddies are there or heading over in next month. That being said the dems can't pull the troops out of Iraq they don't have that power only Bush does. They can cut the funding but the republicans won't go for that so basically all they can do is waste taxpayer money and write bs legislation
2007-02-14 03:13:42 · answer #3 · answered by jwk227 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Like all politics it's a stepping stone to build consensus toward finally defunding the Iraq war & bring those brave young men & women home, Bushco better hope that the surge provides some very tabgible results or the odds are the war will get defunded and we can start to redeploy to strengthen the protection of the country
2007-02-14 03:17:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Of course they are concerned about the troops well-being, that's why many want this war to be stopped....or at least the US involvement to end.
Now unpopular? It was unpopular to begin with...many liberals and conservatives were against the war, but believed the President saying that it was necessary. Now that it's known that he was misinformed, though I suspect he knew all along but had his own agenda, they are just more vocal about their opposition. Just as many of the troops and US citizens are now backing off from the gung-ho attitude and are wanting this action to end.
Unfortnately I don't fully understand why they can't just end it, but as the President actually has the final say in a lot of what happens, it may be because he doesn't want it to be over just yet.
2007-02-14 03:19:15 · answer #5 · answered by Survivors Ready? 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Defunding won't work. Bush will find money to do what he wants anyway and accuse the Dems of being unpatriotic. Resolution can't be so meaningless if Reps and WH pulled out all stops to defeat it. No vote in Senate. Trying to change debate from Iraq to war on terror (favorite trick of the neocons) in the House. Best friends of the troops are those that want to get them out of a Civil War. Politcal resolution must come FIRST not after escalation. Bush has it backwards.
2007-02-14 03:18:12 · answer #6 · answered by threadrick 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
define win? and that i do no longer mean that throughout the time of an aggressive way in the direction of you.. it is in simple terms that "winning" the conflict isn't inevitably a victory for our usa. that does no longer mean i think of we would desire to consistently LOSE.. dropping could be laying down and taking one up the a*s and that i do no longer think of this is a physically powerful concept.. yet we would desire to consistently come across a manner OUT which isn't dropping, it is in simple terms rectifying a mistake. i might see that as a victory. shall we be completely easy right here. Bush f*cked up enormous time. and that i've got not got any subject with the human beings who say "yeah, he screwed up.. yet shouldn't we restoration the blunders".. my subject is the guy they elect to restoration the blunders is the comparable guy who keeps screwing up! Why do you think of maximum of human beings needed benchmarks and time lines? via fact even a screw up has a annoying time messing up whilst it is laid out in paper for him! you place a greater effective chief in place of work right this moment and that they've my help for a million-2 years of "restoration trees mistake in Iraq" which i'm specific might incorporate having troops there. yet i won't help somebody who has proved themselves incompetent working this device whilst OUR troops and the IRAQI voters are those that pay the fee. So I help the troops via fact i do no longer elect an incompetent chief putting them in harms way without lots as a plan on the thank you to get them out. how are you able to declare you help the troops in case you elect them in that subject.. no rely the reason? Does that help clarify my view to you greater effective? optimistically so.
2016-12-17 09:50:26 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You ask about B.S. without condemning Bush and Cheney for this war built on lies? You need to rethink this issue. Cheney especially (thru Halliburton) has profited from the war, and put troops in harm's way - and provided terrorists with a lot more weapons (they steal them, the US contractors - Halliburton again - loses them, etc.)
Let me restate this since it doesn't get through to some people: putting people where they can get shot is NOT support. Taking people away from where they can get shot IS support. Thank you.
2007-02-14 03:13:02 · answer #8 · answered by Silent Kninja 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
EVERYONE SHOULD CARE, LIBERALS DO!
Aren't there a few radical stinking liberals getting killed and wounded?
VA getting funding cut, as mentioned, 2 weeks training as mentioned, bad equipment am, and so many other issues. And the President's name is what?
2007-02-14 03:22:23 · answer #9 · answered by peter s 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They are not concerned much at all. If they had any concern they would dig to get the real truth and not a bunch of horse crap fed to them so their fellow socialist can get elected. Nobody wants a war, but by God you have to have the backbone to do what is right.
to Anya mystical - The military does not just get two weeks training. that is a pure out and out lie.
USAF Vet.
2007-02-14 03:17:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋