2007-05-01 02:18:07 · 32 answers · asked by Mother 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Go George veto with a big black magic marker
2007-05-01 02:21:43 · answer #1 · answered by Son of George Bush 2 · 16⤊ 5⤋
Yea, but... There needs to be a point at which the USA will say, "You Iraqis are not working at this, but taking advantage of the US troops so you can murder Sunnis, so we are going to leave you alone with the mess." However, this point needs to be secret. The worst problem with the Democrats plan is that they were really just playing politics with the situation.
Making it public policy that the troops would leave by a particular date just tells the terrorists, "Just hold out until X-date, and you win. By broadcasting to the world that the Democrat candidate of 08 will surrender, then this makes it a defacto withdraw date. How many GIs will die because the Democrats politics? Democrats killed American soldiers in Vietnam the exact same way. American politicians should NOT be causing harm to America's servicemen and women. Period.
2007-05-01 14:06:46 · answer #2 · answered by plezurgui 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
YEA. It is important that he veto such politically based bills, both to support the military effort and protect the power of all Commanders-in-Chief in the future. The Congress can declare a war (start it) and the Congress can de-fund it (end it) but other than that they must allow the Commander-in-Chief to run it.
2007-05-01 19:29:03 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Congress has a call between passing a suitable (if no longer suited to Bush, a minimum of suited to a veto-overturning majority of its very own club) investment invoice, or taking credit for ending the Iraq conflict via its Constitutional 'means of the handbag.' by using fact the latter could require some ethical braveness, i think the former will take place.
2016-10-14 06:14:58 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The President has no choice but to veto this treasonous piece of hraka. It is high time he took off the velvet gloves and donned a pair of nail studded cesti for dealing with the defeatocraps in al-congress. I support the veto!
2007-05-01 08:06:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yea.
He has not only shown that he will stick to his beliefs of timetables being dangerous to the troops, but will expose the Dems for playing politics with the war.
The Dems first said that if the bill was vetoed, that they would then send a clean bill to his desk. Now they are saying that they will try to get Republicans in congress to change their votes with another timetable bill to override the veto. I sincerely hope that this will show the Dems that conservatives can't be bought with pork spending, and will expose them as playing politics with our soldiers well being.
2007-05-01 05:58:02 · answer #6 · answered by Jon B 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yea
2007-05-01 09:23:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's a really tough question but I'm going to say no. However, I also don't support any attempt at an over-ride of his veto. If the troops need money, let's get them the money and munitions they need for their safety.
What bothers me most about this is that these idiot politicians - Dems & GOP - are playing a game of chicken with the lives of our troops.
2007-05-01 03:32:44 · answer #8 · answered by BOOM 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That's a big fat yea. What I don't support is wasting our tax dollars even proposing such a thing - especially since everyone knew it wasn't going to pass in the first place.
2007-05-01 04:55:54 · answer #9 · answered by Roland'sMommy 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yea
2007-05-01 02:36:22 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
YEA!
Positively! Didn't we learn in Vietnam that we can not win if Congress tries to dictate the actions of our military?
We would all be marching lock-step with the Germans if Roosevelt had listened to Congress during WW-II.
Killing of children by terrorists world-wide is up by 70% over the last year.
This IS a world war and no-one seems to be able to recognize that fact!
2007-05-01 02:29:54 · answer #11 · answered by Philip H 7 · 12⤊ 2⤋