The Dems have not cut off funding yet, so why is this happening?
http://www.yahoo.com/s/554417
2007-04-11 08:14:52 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That is a very good observation as I heard it and shook my head and tapped on the side cause I thought my hearing was dislexic or de ja vue or something because statements like that make absolutely no sense at all and usually preceed a really stupid something that is done not too long afterward like one of our leaders shaking their head and saying something like, "Whaaaaaaaat", I didn't say that, or " I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewenski"! Thank you for reaffirming that I was not hearing things now I can just wait for the entertainment. Got popcorn?
2007-04-11 08:22:26 · answer #1 · answered by g_menagerie 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Also the "Dems" are not cutting troop funding. The President has said he will veto the funding in an effort to make his weakening position stronger. The "Dems" are carrying out the will of the voters, if Pres. Bush decides not to support the troops, that is his choice.
Pres Bush knew tours would be extended in his plan for a "Surge", he mistakenly thought the new Congress would roll over for him, just give him what he wanted before this was announced.
2007-04-11 15:22:34 · answer #2 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Yes, he said if A happens, B will happen.
It does NOT logically follow that B will NOT happen if A does not happen.
I could say "if you shoot me, I will die." This does not mean that if you do not shoot me I will live. Something else might get me.
He said if funding is cut off, it will interfere with training of replacements - that it would worsen the situation.
He did NOT say that nothing else could make things worse.
As we all know, setbacks are all too common.
2007-04-11 15:36:56 · answer #3 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Army is considering extending the troops deployments by another three months.
This is not a good idea, because the troops will become exhausted, over worked, home sick and will not be able to focus on the objective.
2007-04-11 15:18:43 · answer #4 · answered by mcgrawm7 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
15 month tours in Iraq!!
12 months was bad enough. If you think that our returning troops are mentally unstable now, just wait until they're coming home from 15 month tours.
2007-04-11 18:13:29 · answer #5 · answered by Harry 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because now that congress has become democrat majority who else is he going to blame for his failures?Rumsfeld"retired"Powell"retired"along with countless others.Georgie needs to pull his head out of the bottle and wake up.
2007-04-11 16:03:34 · answer #6 · answered by Whiner 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because of the troop increase that Bush has ordered. It is his fault they will stay longer at this point.
2007-04-11 15:19:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
He also said there were WMDs in Iraq and that the war would be over in two years. I wouldn't listen to Mr. Bush much. He is either a liar, or doesn't know what the heck he is talking about.
2007-04-11 15:18:32 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
I'm ashamed and embarrassed that my government cannot find a solution to the problem.
This is America, and we should be better than this.
2007-04-11 15:23:21 · answer #9 · answered by davethenayber 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, and it doesn't make any logical sense. With less funds, they'd come back sooner.
--They moved your link already
2007-04-11 15:19:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋