So why is it that Bush and the Republicans can send our troops into war based on unsubstantiated claims and?

Question

the actions they take are completely acceptable. Then, when the Democrats try to cut off money to force the issue of getting our troops out, they are labeled disloyal and unpatriotic??

Answer 1

Well of course the democrats call all this stuff bush has done as unwarranted. Are you even aware that the main reason for us going back into Iraq had to do with UN resolutions UNMET after the first war?? There were many resolutions drawn up and Iraq or Hussein thumbed his nose at the world after being given multitudes of chances to comply. And these were drawn up by the UN .. ONE of these was they needed to prove the WMD they had already acknowledged they had were destroyed. Of which suddenly they don’t know where they were. There were several other resolutions that were not met and after being given years to comply we finally took action. Many other countries agreed action needed to be taken but only WE made the choice.. its funny how if you tell a lie like the democrats like to do.. if you tell it enough times it becomes truth. Most people have no idea why we went to war and blame bush for going in for no reason. They need to stop getting their news from Entertainment tonight .. and even the democrats at the time we went back in KNEW why we were going back in. and now they change their story. .. amazing. You know. is it any wonder no WMD’s were found when we went back in. after the weapons inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. There were about 4 years where Iraq had plenty of time to move or hide them or do whatever. So its not a surprise to me that we didn’t find any when we went back.

Answer 2

Where to even begin.

1. The Executive Office of the United States of America was empowered by Congress to use force against Iraq.

2. Many different reasons were given. The one reason most citizens latched on to was Weapons of Mass Destruction. Most people only hear what they want to hear.

3. Legally speaking. When the ceasefire with Iraq was signed after the Gulf War any violation of such an aggrement would result in the previous state of war between the United States and Iraq. The Iraqi's had violated the agreement several times previously by firing on coalition planes patrolling the no fly zones. Those actions were acts of war and per the terms of the ceasefire authorized any military action permissable under the geneva convention.

4. Cutting funding as a means to remove troops out of Iraq is a political ploy that will only backfire. One, the President should and will veto such a bill because it was so narrowly passed and the bill will be defeated. Two, there far less underhanded and proper methods to exact change. Three, you never play politics with funding for soldiers.

5. The global geopolitical destablization is far more reaching than most people realize or care about. The United States must prove it has the fortitude to fight.

Why I touched on many things I hope this sufficiently answers your question.

Answer 3

Don't forget that your precious democrats voted for the use of force against Iraq.
The "unsubstantiated claims", assuming you mean the WMDs which were never found, where believed to be true by virtually all major intelligence agencies in the world, as well as every US senator and Congressman even before Bush was elected, the difference is, the democrats are quick to distance themselves from their previous stances and play "politics before country". Whether or not you agree with this war, we are in it, and we cannot just bail out on it now because that would be the easiest thing to do. To force a timeline for troop withdrawal is very unwise, to cut funding for our troops who are currently in harms way is just sickening.
The democrats recognize that a majority of Americans are unhappy with the war, and they are just playing politics with no interest in actually working towards a decisive end to this situation.
Remember, the democrats where all for this war, but now that it has become difficult and unpopular, they are playing it off to be a republican fiasco.

Answer 4

there could be a issue with British troops having undesirable kit, yet that would not propose they should not be there. in assessment to Iraq, Afghanistan replaced into living house to a regime which harboured terrorists who had attacked the west, and living house to training colleges which might have produced greater terrorists. it quite is in Britain's hobbies that we sparkling this out, and there's a value to be paid. we would not have gained WW2 or the different conflict had we grew to become tail and ran on each occasion there have been casualties. And Bush did deliver extremely some american troops to Afghanistan. that is not any longer a properly-recommended question.

Answer 5

the rational for the war changed. After WMD was proved to be a untrue and in fact hyped by selective, doctored evidence, justification seamlessly warped into the fact that we needed to fight this war to garauntee no more 9/11 style attacks would occur. I am aware most experts agreed iraq had wmds,as one guy has mentioned above, but that does not mean Americans would have supported a war. The adm. knew this, which led them to grossly exagerate the case for war, a case that must be airtight, in my opinion, in order to put soldiers on the ground. The Neo-cons had wanted this war for years, so they werre more than willing to be untruthful in order to gain public support. After the rational for war miraculously changed, somehow people were happy to overlook the fact that the competence and honesty of the administration had been proven to not exist, and simply swallow the new rational for the war. If you showed a typical republican a montage of tv footage of bush saying mission accomplished, cheney and various administration crooneys saying that the insurgency was in it's last throughs(two years ago), that wmd's in iraq were a "slam dunk", and iraq was an immenent threat to america , they would not really care, and would give you a speech abou the need for stability and democracy in Iraq, in a superior tone that implied you were too ignorant to understand the intricacies of this situation. But the most unbelievable thing is that every single claim ever made by the administration about this war has proven ignorant or false, yet they still claim to know exactly why we should stay in iraq, and that they understand the situation better than everyone else. And Republicans still give them the benefit of the doubt!? How many things do you have to get wrong to lose the ability to be considered credible or knowledgable? The answer is the same as always in this country: in the face of no credibility, you can make poeple support you simply by using the fear card, or the moral superiority/patriotism card. Of course, democrats are playing a political game, bc they did not question the war enough beforehand. Only now that public opinion has swayed against the war do they oppose it. But that does not not mean that this war isn't the largest foriegn policy blunder in our history or that we need to stay in Iraq based on the insistance of clueless politicians. Guess What? When a Republican tells me it is unpatriotic and dangerous for regional stability to leave iraq, I tell him "well I don't think you have credentials to tell me the intricacies of foriegn policy in Iraq and the war on terror, because you and the administration you elected have been wrong about everything about the region and this war up to this point. I don't go back to the same surgeon after he has operated on the wrong body part six times". And of course, this country has the most twisted and juvenile conception of what real patriotism is that i have ever seen. Don't you think it would be more unpatriotic of Bush to conitnue sending troops to die in Iraq once there was no funding, more so than the dems cutting funding to ENSURE that no more die( that is why they cut funding, its the most effective way to force bush into a no win situation where if he conitnues the war, the deaths will be on his plate) ?

Answer 6

Bush Stayed the course" for almost 4 years and did nothing but have our kids become target practice! Once the Democrats were elected he knew that "Stay the Course" wasn't working! Now he wants to get more killed in a civil war that cannot be won militarily!

We can never win a war there, when we are in their land that they know, and have access to explosive devices, most manufactured in the US and left unguarded!

They will simply outlast us!

Funny, never hear Republicans say too much about the underfunded VA Hospitals and dilapidated hospitals due to private contractors who care more about the money!

They always argue for the war, but say nothing about the treatment of the troops who still do not have armored Humvees!

They don't care about the troops! They care about all the money they are making off of the war! You know where our economy is going to be when that ends!

Republicans have been feeding at the corporate welfare trough too long!

Bush Cut VA hospitals by $100 BILLION, gives tax cuts to the rich, and says he cares for the troops!

Cut VA Hospitals by $100 BILLION and are right this minute treating 105,000 wounded from Iraq! That's right, 105,000!

The VA doesn't even have programs for most of these brain injured and multiple loss of limbs! Those aren't cracks the veterans are falling through now, they are craters!

Answer 7

Congress sent our troops to Iraq on unsubstantiated claims. Bush finalized the deal. It sounds like you think all our CIA and Congress should be fired. Good point. I agree.

PS: cutting funds in Iraq will not make up for the mistakes democrats and republicans made in congress. The troops are not home yet.

PSS: one day we will all learn again that when you do not take terrorism seriously, it comes back to bite you in the butt.

Answer 8

To cut off funds for the Iraq war would be disastrous to the extreme. Not only would it cause the terrorists to rise up, but it would cause them to do massive amounts of damage to the population at large. The Dems are mindful of this, but they choose to ignore it. Also, it seems that everyone has forgotten the reports that came in about truck convoys leaving Iraq and moving into Syria with the help of Russia right before the invasion by the US. And the scientists that were captured and told of all of the biological weapons that were being manufactured at Saddam's request. 4 years have gone by but how sad we forget. Plus, if we don't fight the terrorists over there, we'd be fighting them here.

Answer 9

First off... what unsubstantiated claims are you referring to?

The WMDs that didn't exist, but Saddam Hussein used against his own people?

The Al Queda network that doesn't exist in Iraq, yet openly funds a majority of Sunni revolutionist?

The claims that all but one representive and senator agreed were valid enough to support military options in Iraq?

Are those the ones????

Democrats who say they support the troops, then threaten to cut them off... Are disloyal and unpatriotic. Period, end of story.

Answer 10

Congress approved the war and so did many demcrates. And cuting funding is stiupud. That just kills more if they don't have proper armor. I bet you were for the war in 2003.