Reid said the war is lost. Why then did he vote for the new funding for Iraq with the timetables?
If he really thought we lost, then he must be intentionally supporting the deaths of any soldiers who die from this point forward?
If he really thought we lost and he cares about the military, then would he not vote for immediate withdrawal?
So, liberals which one is it?
2007-04-28 12:15:26 · 11 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I forgot to mention here that Reid said last year that a forced withdrawal plan was a bad idea.
2007-04-28 12:40:19 · update #1
Are you really looking for logic from Dirty Harry?
2007-04-28 12:20:41 · answer #1 · answered by libstalker 4 · 6⤊ 4⤋
The war in Iraq is "lost" simply by fact we nevertheless have energetic servicemen and servicewomen over there loss of life, without effective result. this is short-sighted human beings to think of that a area the place war and rumors of war has been a consistent for over 2000 years would be persuaded to alter their hearts and minds simply by fact we ousted a tyrant. there is just one way this tale ends... bloodshed. we will in no way be taking part in soccer with contributors of al-Qaeda or any radical Christian and Capitalist hating sects, in spite of a socialist administration.
2016-10-04 01:40:56 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your questions illustrates why conservatives should not be running the government.
Reid voted for the funding with time for withdrawal becasue to suddenly abandon the Iraqi people without warning to let them prepare would be a diaster. (That's what happened in Afganistan when Regan pulled out).
Sadly the war was lost the day it began for one reason. The Iraqui people do not have a national identity. They associate themselves with their religions sect. Bush ignored this foreseeable fact. I know it is forseeable becase it is part of the reason Bush #1 did not go to Bagdad.
The only person responsible for dead military members is George W. Bush. Any attempt to **** the blame to Harry Reid or Bill Clinton is just sad.
2007-04-28 12:30:31 · answer #3 · answered by arvis3 4 · 1⤊ 4⤋
We've already seen that Pres. Bush will not let the troops be withdrawn, thus, it's pointless to demand their withdrawl. If the Dems had more control over Congress, they'd probably withdraw the troops.
Now, since he can't get the troops out, he has to support them financially until he can get them out.
2007-04-28 12:21:49 · answer #4 · answered by K 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it's called "meeting in the middle"
a concept Republicans don't seem to understand... and I'm starting to wonder if they can even conceptualize it...
if you can't flex, nothing will happen... people will just sit there yelling the same things back and forth at each other... passing nothing...
if he thought immediate withdrawal was a feasible option in the least... do you think he would support it? I think he would... but he realizes that his opinion is not the opinion of everyone... and he has to give a little to get anything done...
I suspect in the end... both sides will give some...
2007-04-28 12:33:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
He is just showing who has the biggest pee-er in the pissing match.
Plus there is so much more on the bill than just funding for the troops in Iraq. Troop funding is just the headline attraction.
Leave it to a Repug to twist the facts to support their rants, much like Bush did with 9/11.
2007-04-28 12:24:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Not a lib but its a well known fact in DC that senile old windbag doesn't know WHAT he is saying. He will read any statement the libs give him so he can go back to his room and play with his pee-pee.
2007-04-28 12:34:18 · answer #7 · answered by Cherie 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Okay, I will.
The Democrats spend millions on stats on everything that will gain them more Money & more Power.
They believe that for every one of our soldiers that die, they will gain "so many" votes next election.
The more dead soldiers-----the more Democrat Votes.
So........
Do any Democrats want to save our soldier's lives????
Not hard to figure, eh?
If another Terrorist Attack would occur here before Nov 2008, it would REALLY help the Democrats.
Does anyone think the Democrats & Terrorists don't know that???
Hmmmmmm.
2007-04-28 12:19:16 · answer #8 · answered by wolf 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋
how do you know only liberals are answering this question?
I'm a purple stater moderate liberal, weekend warrior conservative, double whammy no take backs republican. and I own a gun, and I'm all for same sex marriage.
why the labels?
2007-04-28 12:21:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Being smart is not part of Reid's legacy.
2007-04-28 12:19:43 · answer #10 · answered by jim h 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋