2007-03-29 05:34:35 · 8 answers · asked by samanthakhz 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
to "backinbowl"... thats why news has to read and not watched.
2007-03-29 05:41:12 · update #1
to USMC pssssst.. there was an election that put a new Congress in washington that is scaring Bushie boy.
you should read r-e-a-d
2007-03-29 05:54:41 · update #2
Congress was lied to by the people that Bush trusted. The so-called "facts" that Rumsfeld quoted "we know where the weapons of mass destruction are.." turned out to be bogus information along with a coverup. I think Bush should be tried for treason. I know he wont because that would mean that the Republicans have to admit to making a mistake.
2007-03-29 06:48:29 · answer #1 · answered by another detroit bassist 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
individuals do no longer.... actual individuals do no longer besides. Now you recommend those different "individuals"? They be afflicted by a ailment, Liberalitus. some additionally be afflicted by a intense situation usual as a low IQ or maybe the much extra intense "If I place over and pretend to be against the conflict some terrorists could no longer decrease my head off, are not I a spineless coward?" syndrome. in case you go through any of those warning signs, pass to France at present day. The international "quarantine" for those intense illnesses. that's the final explanation I easily have got here across. What I hate much extra is this "I help the troops yet no longer the conflict" rubbish. that's like assembly a gay individual and asserting, "I assist you, yet your total existence-type sickens me and that i think of you're a criminal against humanity". It isn't clever, our troops volunteered to serve their countries via fact they concept the reason replaced into significant sufficient to risk their lives for.... they have actually committed their lives, and probably their deaths, to this reason and asserting you help them yet no longer the reason they have dedicated their lives to is stupid.... in simple terms stupid. I appreciate the guy extra suitable than says they do no longer help the conflict or the troops, than he who has this fence sitting place. they do no longer likely help the troops, they do in simple terms no longer choose for to be reported as out as traitors so they %. up this fence sitting place to disguise their real colorations.... in case you have faith in something, do what our brave troops do and help it overtly.
2016-11-24 21:30:05 · answer #2 · answered by bret 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The bill is just political posturing. Many who voted for the bill only voted for it because they knew a veto would follow.
This way, they can demonstrate to the public that they were against the war.
When the "real" bill is pushed through, it will not include a explicit withdrawal timetable, as anyone with a shred of logic can see how foolish it would be to divulge when we are leaving.
2007-03-29 05:42:53 · answer #3 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First of all it's PRESIDENT BUSH, he still holds the highest political office in America. This "bill" is not structured to stop the killing of our troops. It's structured to pull the military out before they finish. I am not saying they will not be done by 09/2008, but it is totally unrealistic to put a time line on a war. We pulled out of Iraq too early the first time & look what happened. The members of congress need to make up their minds - 1st it's go to war then its stop the war. Make a friggin' decision & stick to it! Think about one thing, would it not be completely idiotic to say when our troops are leaving, what ever happened to military intelligence?
2007-03-29 05:47:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The repuglicans are a close net group, there is so much corruption in the party that everybody has something on everybody else and if they stray from the fold. They get no money for reelection. Joe Swartz House of Representives, 2004- 2006
2007-03-29 05:40:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
If Bush vetoes the bill, then Bush doesn't get his funding.
That's his choice. Nobody needs to revolt. Bush is not a king.
We have more than one branch of government for reason.
2007-03-29 05:39:31 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
no. GWB won't get his money. he'll drag out his tired rhetoric about embolden the enemy and few weak minded people will buy it, then Congress will write another funding bill just like this one and the cycle will continue until GWB gets the message.
2007-03-29 05:47:28 · answer #7 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I don't understand the question; sorry.
2007-03-29 05:38:36 · answer #8 · answered by backinbowl 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋