Why are the liberals claiming they are for the troops, yet they are holding the troops hostage?

Question

Why is it that the liberals say they are for the troops, when they are vetoing all funds for food and armor for Iraq until George W. Bush surrenders Iraq to the terrorists? That sounds like holding the troops hostage for me. I see this as a game of chicken waiting to happen, one that the liberals started, with the troops in the middle. I think they're just desperate to make the political statement everyone already accepts that going into Iraq was a bad idea. But as to the reason why we should with draw, is the assertion that it's UNWINNABLE!!!11111oneoneone

Answer 1

I'm in Iraq, and I'll go on record right now as saying that the democrats in congress do not have my best interests at heart. They're trying to get me shot in the back on the way out; simple as that.

The leader of the Shiite terrorist organization said a few days ago that an American troop pull-out will be a victory for them. Funny, that's exactly the same thing Nancy and company want.

I haven't met a single soldier who thinks an arbitrary deadline is a good idea. Simple fact is, it's not. Congress just never bothered to ask our opinion. They're content to see the lies on CBS News and in the New York times. I haven't seen one congressional democrat come here to see how we feel.

Answer 2

No one is holding the troops hostage. The idea is that the President will let them come home if they stop the funds, and that's the only way to force the war to an end. We're not surrendering to the terrorists. We've already lost, and we're trying to minimize fallout by leaving as soon as possible. The only surrender was made when the American public surrendered its good sense to a lying President.

Answer 3

We should withdraw from Iraq so that the troops can get some rest before Bush talks us into another "Non-Civil War" in the Middle East. Pushing Iran, Syria and Palestine is not the best thing to do right now when our troops are stretched thin.

Answer 4

Both the House and the Senate PASSED legislation funding the troops. It is up to Bush now to allow that funding to proceed or to veto the legislaton and send his personal message to the troops that his politics (and the politics of the vast 28% majority of the nation) are more important than their basic needs. It is all in Bush's hands.

Answer 5

Liberals aren't vetoing anying. Only Bush has veto power.

And the Democrat-controlled Congress is giving Bush all the funds he's asking for. So, they are not holding anyone hostatge.

Bush asked for funds. Congress is giving the funds, with a string attached to terminate the AUMF that Congress authorized in 2003. That's well with the Constitutional authority Congress has, and standard pratice for Congressional funding practices going back decades.

So, if Bush vetoes the funding bill, Bush is choosing to deny the troops the funds. Only Bush has the veto power. So, it's entirely up to him to accept or reject the funds Congress gives him.

Answer 6

Actually the democrats didn't want to tie the troop funding. It was the republicans in congress that said they would only agree to a bill is it tied the troops funding.
Actually both Bush and congress said that they weren't going to give in, it a game that both of them are playing and the troops are the pawns.

Answer 7

Bush cannot surrender to the terrorists. He has already brought us a Shiite Islamic fundamentalist dominated pro-Iran Iraqi government. That is why he will always be known as The Failure.

Answer 8

Man I checked the whole house. I am not holding any troops hostage.

Answer 9

why will GWB veto a bill containing a time table for withdrawl when he says things are getting better over there.mcain said the other day that the general in charge doesnt need protection any more,so what gives?

Answer 10

FYI: Bush started your game of chicken. The democrats (and some republicans) are trying to end it sensibly.