I have been seeing a lot of assertions lately that the "liberals" or anti-war groups are the reason the U.S. has not won the war, or succeeded...in Iraq.
But I remember being very alone in my opposition and misgivings for quite some time, before the tide of public opinion turned.
Is my recollection wrong? Didn't Bush have a relatively free hand and just poor predictions of how it would go? Even when it went past the estimated time period, did he not have the authority to command as he saw fit, including troop levels?
2007-04-29 17:15:10 · 12 answers · asked by and_y_knot 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What is MSM, Dragon?
2007-04-29 17:33:09 · update #1
That was only the MainStream Media that was hiding the facts. When Millions protested it was reported as thousands if at all. If a public person, like Phil Donahue, said it was wrong they were fired and shunned. Even Bill Mahr was fired for saying that a person who willingly gives his life for his cause is not a coward.
But for operations, the Gang of Pirates had a completely free hand to do anything they wanted, and that was pretty much what they did, with unprecedented corruption that was limited to only the GOP, no other need apply.
Even yet they might have succeeded if they had not turned Iraq and Afghanistan over to GOP Ideology fanatics who thought they would create the perfect country and experimented with it like mad scientists.
Ending Government price supports, selling everything off to the highest bidder, (if it wasn't looted first), eliminating every government functionary, firing all the police, etc etc.
And like the drunken bully who thinks honor is what people think of him to his face, they blame all their problems on the first person brave and honest enough to point out what a mess of things they have made.
The Iraqis think the GOP has acted in an imbecilic manner, and so do liberals, therefor the liberals are the same as the Iraqi "Insurgents". The fact that both are able to see the reality is not a part for consideration.
2007-04-29 17:18:56 · answer #1 · answered by Dragon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush lost this war all by himself. He chose to invade, has been there longer than WW II and has gotten everything he wanted. Sorry, they can't blame the Democrats who were saying this war was ridiculous, and totally mismanaged.
Stay the Course, a familiar refrain, was nothing more than a call for more money and having our kids used for target practice for over 3 years. Bush only started to do something AFTER the Republicans lost the House and the Senate! If the Republicans had won you would still be seeing more of the same: Body bags coming home everyday!
2007-04-29 17:27:49 · answer #2 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, you are absolutely correct. Bush need look no further than his own "with us or against us" arrogant militarism and the sycophant yes-men surrounding him, whispering in his ear like a nest of Wormtongues, for the reason his "strategy" is failing so utterly.
And you weren't alone. My family and i went to a rally in a major western city a couple of weeks befor we invaded Iraq, and there were at least half a milion people there. The TV estimated the crowd at "tens of thousands", but it was at least one order of magnitude greater than that.
2007-04-29 17:38:24 · answer #3 · answered by oimwoomwio 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely correct. I objected at the time since we did not wait for the UN. I was not necessarily against the idea of removing Saddam, only the means. Now we have a problem and everyone is whining. At the time, the majority were for attack now and ask questions later. Where were they when we were considered wrong?
2007-04-29 17:23:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, blaming liberals was never a series argument. There were lot of politicians saying talk of withdrawal is 'unpatriotic' or 'defeatism.' But everybody knew those are just war rhetorics and never treated seriesly. Unless you're one of those TV commentators on FOX, CNN or whatever.
2007-04-29 17:27:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bush administration is simply trying to find excuses for their failures.
The rhetoric about "anti-war liberals" being responsible for that failure is so laughable tha tno one is paying any attention to it--except the Bush apologists. And I doubt even they acutally believe it.
Of course, you could assume that its because people criticized Bush's war that he couldn't find any WMD, that there was no link to al-Caida. Or that liberal criticism caused them to give contracts to Haliburton and lose $12 billion in cash. That liberal misgivings were responsible for Bush senting our troops into battle with inadequate armor and obsolete vehicles. Or that liberals are responsible for the Sunni-Shiite feud thats ben going on for 1300 years. Or. . . .
2007-04-29 17:23:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I wouldnt techniques a lot yet why can we do a nil.5 assed pastime. those different international places dont have any regard for us so why must be be the constructive guy. there is not any reason to flow to conflict yet even as your run through close to sighted morons who cant even study a e book accurate section up what do you anticipate
2016-11-23 16:18:45 · answer #7 · answered by blackshire 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea, you remember right. However, he has turned out to be a bad employee of the people since he can't get the job done so the people want to fire him now.
Power of the purse, go Congress!
2007-04-29 17:19:43 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Dems voted to give Bush power to pressure saddam into letting weapons inspectors in. Which occurred, then Bush kicked them out and started bombing.................why didn't he want them to finish their job?
2007-04-29 17:25:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dems voted for this war also, so they need to stop blaming Bush for everything that happens.
2007-04-29 17:20:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋