http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/05/01/national/w163638D57.DTL&type=politics
Does this mean that Bush has finally seen the light and is going to end this illegal and immoral war?
2007-05-01 14:36:03 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
LOL....... I wish!
2007-05-01 14:38:30 · answer #1 · answered by perrrfection 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Democrats do not prefer to decrease investment on out troops, they simply choose a timetable to get out. If Bush vetoes the invoice, the Democrats are possibly to pass one without time tables. i think of this invoice became into kinda basically a thank you to declare, "nicely, we tried getting them out!" --which they do choose them out of course, they simply had to be responsive to Bush could veto it. They have been attempting to make a reliable political stance. besides, the troops are going to be left over there and there is not something the Dems can do approximately it, then they're going to could desire to offer them funds.
2016-10-14 07:36:43 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it means the Democrats sent him a bill that he couldn't sign. It set a deadline for withdrawal and he told everyone he would veto it.
2007-05-07 17:51:59 · answer #3 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it means he's going to continue fighting for freedoms around the world. It will be the best day of my life to see the liberals go without these freedoms just one day.
Heck, they'd probably be tortured and beheaded in many third-world countries if they talked so horribly about their President.
2007-05-01 14:53:57 · answer #4 · answered by shishka 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. He vetoed the bill because it called for him to set a timetable to end the war.
2007-05-01 14:37:57 · answer #5 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nope....The war will continue and the libs will be at fault for not funding it..those dam cowards
2007-05-01 14:38:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
i think he is in the middle he doesnt want a time table for it but he wants to slowly back off.
2007-05-01 14:39:41 · answer #7 · answered by Honey Badger Doesnt give a Shat 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What??? Anything but!! No, he vetoed it, do you understand what all this means?
2007-05-01 14:38:31 · answer #8 · answered by Brianne 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I challenge you to give just one justification which supports your claim that the war is "illegal". This must be legitimate and constitutional NOT liberal propaganda.
2007-05-01 14:39:24 · answer #9 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 4⤊ 2⤋
No. He wants his money with no strings attached.
2007-05-01 14:38:08 · answer #10 · answered by jon s 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no he vetoed it as we know he would I guess he brainwashed for some reason
2007-05-01 14:39:42 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋