Should Bush veto the Iraq timeline bill?

Question

I hope not, but you know him, Mr. Clueless!!

Answer 1

Use of Veto means acceptance of the fact that one does not enjoy the majority support.
Nothing to feel proud of.
You are taking national decisions against the wishes of the nation.
........... Bad !!!!!
Rules may be permitting that but the ethics and values don't.

Answer 2

they could agree on Sept 2008 date from the residing house, non-binding, yet nonetheless there so each person supplies up some thing. Senate supplies up the formerly date, residing house supplies up a binding ultimate date, President supplies up no longer having a ultimate date. yet some Democrats are performing "emboldened" to assert if the President vetoes it, it truly is it. that isn't any longer their issue to work out that the troops get funds no count number number what. they're performing like the familiar public will imagine that is Bush's responsibility to order a withdrawal if he vetoes the money, and he receives blamed if he would not. they have filibuster potential to resign any bill that does no longer comprise a ultimate date, no matter if some Dems have susceptible be sure to dam funding. on the White residing house, spokeswoman Dana Perino stated she would not understand what polling led Reid to regulate his concepts about "status with the troops."

Answer 3

He should and will Veto the 'proposed bill.'
The new Congress is just playing the politic game--election year 08--When Lyndon Johnson ran for President he did the same thing. Preached and bantered in Congress to pull our guys out of Vietnam if he was elected. He gets elected, and the next month sends 10,000 guys to Vietnam, escalating the war which went on for almost ten more years after this democratic president who clamored to end the Vietnam war. If you think any of the contenders can control the time line of the war in Iraq, you are high or crazy. It'll be Vetoed!

Answer 4

Yes, he should veto, then send in a few hundred rounds of shock-and-awe in key areas, then orchestrate a surprise troop withdrawal even sooner than Congress requested. That might not be realistic, but that would make quite a statement.

Answer 5

I'm sure that he will, and it's the right thing to do. Where's this fiscal responsibility that the Democrats are continually yammering about when they pack 21 billion dollars work of pork into the rediculous bill? And talking about clueless, look in the mirror.

Answer 6

clueless hmmm.... You obviously are. Common sense 'should' tell you that if you set a time, then the terrorist insurgents will just bide their time until the withdraw and then start up trouble again with little to stop them.

Thats exactly what happend in Vietnam and Vietnamese admitted they were almost beat then and if the USA had stuck with it a bit longer the North Vietnamese would have given up, but congress cut funding then and we withdrew and it ended up a big mess.

Answer 7

I believe that he should veto it. It's bringing those troops home before their mission is finished. And when Iraq erupts into total chaos, we'll end up back there again, and this time with an even worse situation.

Don't cut and run. Finish the job!

Answer 8

Open your mouth wide and get ready to swallow A Big Texas Sized Veto boy.

Answer 9

There should never be a timeline for any war. Simply because wars *do not* work that way. He should absolutely veto the bill.

Answer 10

Would you like your name, and address placed on the front page of the newspaper with the fact the front door has no lock, and you have every penny you ever earned sitting on your dining room table?

I believe the answer is no.

If this bill is permitted to go into law, Congress has given the middle east to the Islamic Fundamentalists and informed the world the front door has no lock.