Are Bush supporter angry that Iran freed the British sodiers and Bush can't use that as a reason to attack?

Question

Yes, no, maybe?

Answer 1

No doubt.

Bush launched his lie-based war against Iraq prematurely exactly because he was afraid the sanctions and inspections were working and his claims for war would be proven false before he could attack.

Answer 2

I posted this in another response a few days ago. Bush is limited by the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Before any military action he has to go before congress and tell them his plan. Congress has an option of passing legislation supporting military action or to not. If Congress doesn't pass either a declaration of war or a resolution supporting continued military action then all US forces must be out of the area within 60 days. Not only that, but they also hold the purse strings. If Bush wanted to invade Iran he would need a substantially larger budget. With how unpopular the Iraq war is, even the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't allow it. They could easily pass a measure to cut funding. War with Iran isn't likely at all. Just for clarification, I'd be an Independant that leans more toward the Republican side. We can all agree that President Bush is anything but a genius, but going against the wishes of Congress and taking military action against Iran would most likely result in an impeachment.

Answer 3

Wouldn't you be angry if you compromised the truth to stick to the party line, and then the leaders of that party kept shooting themselves and you in the foot, making you look like a fool for toeing their line of spin and rhetoric? I know I would, but then I could never put party before truth and reality to begin with. You were right the first time, parrots they remain. Now they're just angry parrots, feeling used and foolish.

Answer 4

Actually, we already knew it would end this way. From what I recall, Liberals were the ones freaking out about going to war with Iran over this dispute. And now that it was solved diplomatically, they still want to bag on Bush about it. It's hopeless with you people. Get a life.

Answer 5

No I'm not angry!!! I'm quit happy that those soldiers were released.. I just question The Iran leaders reasons for doing so...

Answer 6

I cant imagine someone would be angry that Iran is going to free ( they havent dont it yet that ive heard ) the Brit soldiers. Why would anyone think otherwise.

Answer 7

I am very pleased that the British servicemen will be released.

I am also very concerned that the appeasing British government that has no backbone has given up too much for their release...probably the release of some islamic fascist so they can get back to work.

Answer 8

I'm not.
Are anti Bush supporters angry because Iran didn't kill them so they could blame it on Bush? Troll statements work just as well either way don't they?

Answer 9

They are boiling from frustration, another chance of war missed. I wouldn't be surprised,if one of the 30,000 attack vessels, the Pentagon has deployed in the middle ease, runs on a reef and all hell breaks loose, claiming it was a grenade. The Pentagon is good in claims like that, like claiming a famous sports icon died form the bad, bad hands of a bad, bad terrorist, when he was killed by his comrades. Or a poor girl like Jessica Lynch fought heroic against 1000 of terrorists, when her machine gun stalled and she was raped and killed and maimed at least 30 times, until they found her peacefully recuperating from falling drunk of a truck in a Iraqi hospital. Somebody should collect all that horror stories.

Answer 10

Do you think that might have spoiled the Good Friday attacks planned against Iran? I certainly hope so if they were planned at all.

Answer 11

The Bushbots don't need a reason. WMD's were a total fantasy reason for Iraq, so reality won't stop them.