I am glad they refused ! Even Kissinger publicly states this war is not winnable.
2007-04-10 22:46:11 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
LAREDDAW: If you REALLY supported the troops, you would find a way to end this debacle. From here it looks like another Stalingrad, only we have a way to chopper most of our folks out. How long can we prolong this war?
2007-04-10 23:25:52 · update #1
This has confused me. Wanting to bring our troops home for their protection is the maximum way of "supporting the troops," yet there are those who think otherwise. Those who disagree are really more concerned with foreign policy than they are with the lives of the troops. So, to them, supporting the troops equates to sending them all the money and equipment they need to fight the war, as each soldier wonders if he/she will have their life snuffed out today.
Of course, the fact that the entire basis for the war was false would probably also show a lack of concern for the troops.
That said, we need to stop looking at this like it is a war. The war aspect is really over. If we had just entered the country now, it would be a peace keeping expedition. I think Bush is incompetent, but we are responsible for his mistakes since we "voted" him in. So, now we're there because we messed the country up and it's our responsibility to put it back together.
I hope that Congress gives Bush hell, because he's a little dictator. He's nothing like his dad. His dad obeyed international law, working with the UN, limited the scope of conflict, and compromised. I really don't think that most reasonable people want to summarily pull the troops from Iraq prior to stabilizing the country, but I think that most have lost faith in Bush and don't want him to run this "war" anymore. He's abused his power and honestly he and his bully VP need to go. Put McCain in until the next election. I'm no fan of McCain, but I trust him.
It would be easy. Cheney quits, McCain is nominated and made VP, then Bush quits. Sorta like what happened with Nixon. Of course, we could impeach him. Bush lied about and heavily exaggerated the WMD card and Saddam/al Aqaida connection to get his way. It was morally reprehensible, and it was so obviously a ploy used to dupe us. If they could impeach Clinton for lying about an embarrassing situation, certainly we can impeach Bush for lying to the whole country in order to start a war.
2007-04-12 05:06:30 · answer #1 · answered by freeetibet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Did you even listen to what Bush said? Bush said that he would not sign any bill that set a timetable for withdrawal. He left all other options on the table for discussion. The Dems are upset because they want a timetable for withdrawal. If they give that up, they do not have any other ideas on what to do. If the Dems really wanted to pass a bill they would be willing to discuss the issue with Bush and try to come to some kind of agreement even if it is not exactly what they want.
2007-04-11 06:43:32 · answer #2 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Fighting a warfare is relatively soiled industry. Even decades in the past while humans have been dull ample to face in tight traces taking pictures at every different civilians bought harm and killed. Now we use phrases like "Surgical Strike" and "Smart Bomb" which offers the influence that we will be able to strike so accurately that nobody is harm or killed however the enemy, that no estate is destroyed or broken however the goal. You're going to have collateral harm and casualties regardless of the way you combat a warfare.
2016-09-05 09:55:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These guys never cease to amaze me. Bush wants money to fight his war, the Dems write a bill, pass it, and give him the money to do so. Then he says that the bill threatens the security of our troops abroad. Wait, wait, wait....WHAT?
Bush vetos the bill, denying the money he wanted for Iraq. But yet, it is the dems not supporting the troops.
Anyone ever hear of double speak?
2007-04-10 22:55:39 · answer #4 · answered by trevor22in 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
America to Harry Reid you ain't talking for us, SUPPORT THE TROOPS!
2007-04-10 23:22:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the same type of offer Olmert just gave the Palestinians: "agree to all my terms first, then we'll talk."
2007-04-10 22:58:43 · answer #6 · answered by TxSup 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What a great negotiator he is. No wonder we invaded the wrong country...his diplomacy could use some work.
2007-04-10 22:49:48 · answer #7 · answered by ScooterLibby 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Dems to GW...we support the terrorists ...we want the US to fail...We want to spit on the troops like we have done in the past....
WE are the real enemy at home...
PS Pelosi looked like a fool in a burka....
2007-04-10 22:51:40 · answer #8 · answered by Try Reality 4 · 3⤊ 6⤋