Pushing through a pork laden bill that has no chance of reaching the President's desk is not supporting the troops. The bill in question was destined to failure when it was written and just a waste of time and money, something Pelosi is known for, just like her vacation to Damascus. At least she will claim she did what she promised last fall and blame President Bush as she usually does. So Pelosi will be consistently in the wrong, again
2007-04-06 11:10:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bawney 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
You are right. People only read or hear what supports their point of view. The bill they will send Bushie to fund the troops has MORE money than what he wanted.
It is Bushie who will refuse to fund the troops if he vetos it. Which he probabaly will because he wants everything his way and won't sign anything that mentions "withdrawal" of troops.
If he keeps it up, Congress will then cut all the funding for the war and order the troops home within a certain time period. When Congress put an end to the Vietnam mess, they gave the President 60 days to get the troops out and then the funds stopped. War over - period!
2007-04-06 11:22:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
It is teason to cut off funding for our troops while they are in harm's way. The Democrats voted for the war and now we have to finish it. How soon we have forgotten the feeling in our guts as we watched those planes slamming into the WTC. As the President said in the beginning, this is a different kind of war with a different kind of enemy, and it will go on for many years. But with the American people behind our troops there is no question we can defeat these terrorist thugs in man-dresses. But it does make it more difficult when you have to fight the enemy and Congress, as well as CNN and Rosie as they give comfort to our enemies.
2007-04-07 07:20:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Cutting the funds is another scare tactics, Bush and his loyal Bushies are using. If any American believes that cutting the Iraq war funding means the troops will not have ammo, equipment, or any military supplies, there are more blind and unknowledgeble Americans.
2007-04-06 10:58:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by furrryyy 5
·
5⤊
0⤋
I am not Miss Pelosi, and I am not sure what your "question" is. But I agree. Besides it is the current administration who has not provided the troops proper body armor, medical care, leadership and "support" for the last 4 years. Something Conservatives rarely mention.
2007-04-06 10:58:02
·
answer #5
·
answered by clueless_nerd 5
·
4⤊
0⤋
Still, Congress did not vote to cut funds. They approved funds, but ordered a time table to get out.
2007-04-06 10:54:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by shelly 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
i've got major a majority of those issues everywhere the placement too. yet like another poster mentioned you're employing previous advice. i've got talked at length with a neighbor of mine approximately this (he's a double amputee....lost his legs in Vietnam) as good as with probable the main adult men in my husband's unit who've extreme injuries and none of them have had any difficulty with the care they have have been given been given. And as an protection stress significant different i've got actual major bigger care being given to the families and to those on energetic duty over the previous 2-3 years. i'm confident there are people who're no longer confident with their care (comparable to with civilian drs) regardless of the undeniable fact that maximum of those I know are. As for certainty #3 I know for an common fact that they did no longer decrease that pay. My husband replaced into as quickly as deployed very final year and he won that greater efficient pay so probable you may seem up advice that are greater effective recent! As for certainty #4 each single guy I know has mentioned they do no longer prefer to positioned on all that stuff. all of them say it fairly is merely too cumbersome and finally leads to heat temperature exhaustion b/c it does not breathe safely so it makes wearing it a criminal duty. (this from infantry squaddies)
2016-10-21 05:33:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Newsflash bro: the troops don't want to come home.
Try asking some ACTUAL troops what they think, and they'll tell you they want to make sure the mission is completed.
Taking them home early is just going to make them feel that all their sacrifice and dead friends was for nothing.
I don't necessarily agree with that as a political position, but that's what I hear from my buddies who are still in.
PS as Shelly said, the funding is there. The Democrats did not cut any funds. Bush said he would veto any funding bill that came with withdrawl timetables, though.
Either way, the troops don't want to come home before their job is done.
2007-04-06 10:55:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
The BEST "support" we can show our troops in Iraq, is getting them home- period. Every passing day, is just another 2 or 3 more casualties...
2007-04-06 10:56:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Joseph, II 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
the war in Iraq is an illegal war at the end there will be 15 plane loads that will come back with gaskets instead of loving soldiers back to their families..
2007-04-06 11:26:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by eviot44 5
·
0⤊
0⤋