Why are Republicans using the names of dead US soldiers to push for support on a FAKE war? Rep Teb Pole of TX?

Question

After 6+ years of rants and lies the fool from Texas still spoke like he is a use car dealer in Congress

Answer 1

they have no shame. it's clear reading republican questions and answers on here.

Answer 2

last time i checked.. it was the liberal media stations that listed, and made a biography for every one of the 3,000 dead soldiers in Iraq.. trying to make the number sound bigger then it really is..

waa the army cant afford to send 21,000 troops to Iraq, ontop of the 100,000 already currently there... the US is clearly not a superpower any more..waaa ima liberal..

the media does this to make you feel more sympathy for the troops over-seas, which, when simply said isnt a bad thing... but its the reason these media stations do it that is horrible... answer me this...

When i tell you something like...

10,000 US citizens died in Africa this past year from accidental propaine tank explosions on communal farms....

you feel sad, of course, but the number is rather large and unimaginable.. however when i say this, you may feel differently...

today 5 US citizens serving in the Army died in Afghanistan today after a Helicopter was shot down by radical Islamic Insurgents. Priv. John Casey (19, graduate of Keller HS), Priv. Kim Hurd (20, York University), Priv. York Timmer(18, graduate of Richmod HS), Sarg. Jill Kert(24, Bridgewater College), and Sarg. Gary Small (36, Rutterburg, OH) all died in this terrible incident. The total death count in Afghanistan has rised to 2,765.
Next on *** news, President Bush discusses the need for 21,500 more troops in Iraq, Congress fights back... also next, a fire in one NYC home kills 4, injuring 7.. Gay porn related? dont miss the chilling details, next on *** news!

the reason the news, on a daily basis, points out every soldiers death and then cites the iraq wars death count is to make you feel more sympathetic and sad, and then.. when they make a point about the politics on the war.. it makes you feel sympathetically hateful of the blamed administration for these deaths...

is saying something and making the public aware of the deaths of our troops patriotic?
of course.

is saying something about the death of a troop, and then taking that emotion developed by the story and using it to gain politicially patriotic?
no, its using the deaths of the soldiers to bribe voters for votes... thats unpatriotic in my book...

Come to think of it... guess who else apparently agrees with me...

before every commercial, Fox News posts a picture along with some details on the person after someone dies in Iraq..
hmm.. how unpatriotic.. huh CNN?...

The Army consists of over a million troops... the numbers of deaths are remarkably low in comparison to any other war..
its one thing to remember our troops.. its another thing to use the rememberence of our troops to gain support against someone else..

However, you have it backwards.

Answer 3

Bush told Congress they can have their vote on his policies, but be sure about the message you send to the terrorists! Or in other words "if you vote against me, you're still a traitor. This is shameless use of Presidental power.

Answer 4

sydb1967: Are you kidding me? The Democrats are just as responisble for all the tension on here. That was pathetic.

And it is quiet clear from the question that this was used only to start conflict.

Answer 5

The love juice feels your pain

Answer 6

I guess that BLITZ'S truthful answer doesn't want to be heard tough dem's only care about themselves. Let's hang our troops out to dry. %#^#%$@^$#%&#&*

Answer 7

They are shameless charlatans who will do anything to to retrieve the power the lost

Answer 8

The Democrat strategy on Iraq is finally clear.

We've known all along that they want to cut and run before the job is done. But they've been afraid to confront President Bush directly. Today, Democrat Rep. John Murtha let slip what he and Nancy Pelosi really intend to do, and it is genuinely frightening.

They call it their 'slow-bleed' plan. Instead of supporting the troops in Iraq, or simply bringing them home, the Democrats intend to gradually make it harder and harder for them to do their jobs. They will introduce riders onto bills to prevent certain units from deploying. They will try to limit the President's constitutional power to determine the length and number of deployments. They will attempt to keep the Pentagon from replacing troops who rotate out of Iraq. They may even try to limit how our troops operate by, for example, prohibiting our armed forces from creating and operating bases in Iraq.

'Slow-bleed' is exactly the right name for this incredibly irresponsible and dangerous strategy. Cutting and running is bad enough. But the Murtha-Pelosi 'slow-bleed' plan is far worse. It is a cynical and dangerous erosion of our ability to fight the terrorists while we still have men and women on the ground in Iraq. It will put their lives in far greater danger, as resources slowly dry up. How can our troops operate without bases? How can they fight without backup?