If you were initially politically against the war, Bush and the GOP leadership, painted you as against the TROOPS. This effect seem to hampered debate and allow BUSH carte blache to freely run amuck in IRAQ. Is it fair to use the TROOPS as a political shield to further one's agenda?
2007-02-17 02:18:45 · 9 answers · asked by Laughing Man Copycat 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Anytime you use someone, whether it is the troops or citizens, to hide your personal agenda, which is what I believe Bush is doing, People need to understand, you can be against the war, and yet supportive of the troops for Bush or anyone to make the statements of.. for or against the troops to help achieve their agenda is morally and ethically wrong, and is a crime against the people. Turning citizens against citizen, is inexcuseable.
2007-02-17 07:41:44 · answer #1 · answered by joymlcat 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree with your premise that Bush used the troops as a shield to get the war passed, that is the spin some of the Democrats who voted to authorize military action are now saying. Each house of congress had an intelligence commttee that had access to the raw intelligence and they both recommended to authorize the war without dissent. Each house then passed the resolution by overwhelming supermajorities.
The liberals who voted for the action did so because they believed in the war, or they were hypocrites who didn't believe in the intelligence but did so for political reasons.
2007-02-17 10:36:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How about this idea? The troops are the essential ingredient in what's happening in Iraq. Without them we wouldn't control their oil industry, which we do. Without them there wouldn't be near the amount of unrest, we are the salt in their real and perceived wounds to keep the conflict alive and well. Conflicts, wars, good for business, peace, bad. What will republicans look like if this ends up being nothing more than a war for profits? That's what I think it's all about.
2007-02-17 10:44:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why is it you can't get past the Bush thing in every debate there is? How can it be a GOP sheild when a big share of the Democrats voted for it? If you want to come back and say they were duped, what does that say for the Democratic party that they are so informned that they would vote for something they know nothing about.
2007-02-17 10:59:06 · answer #4 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let me start by saying I was against the invasion of Iraq. It was, in my opinion, the greatest blunder in US history.
That said, I must add withdrawing the troops would likely be the second greatest blunder in US history.
We need to reestablish law and order in Iraq before leaving the country. We owe that to the Iraqi people. We need to do what it will take to give Iraq the ability to run its own affairs independent of the USA.
Bush hasn't been running amuck in Iraq. He's been making one blunder after another. Its time to do it right.
2007-02-17 10:29:12 · answer #5 · answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the Democratic party, knowing our troops lives are on the line, and the President is the one the Constitution give the authority to command and deploy the troops, deliberately seek to cut the funds and put them at risk, isn't that a little disturbing. It seems the Democrats by their attempts to defund the war, are going to get our men and women killed. They are determined to make us loose the war. There is only two ways this can be termed. At best, it's dereliction of duty. At worst, treason.
2007-02-17 10:26:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I've taken troops to be code word for 'Neo-con ego.'
2007-02-17 10:26:18 · answer #7 · answered by Theophile 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes
2007-02-17 10:54:18 · answer #8 · answered by copestir 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they are now a pawn for politicans everywhere which is disgusting
2007-02-17 10:33:00 · answer #9 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋