Bush veto support for the troops, Congress should not back off ?

Question

Because, timetable to withdraw from Iraq, is supporting to take out of harm way our troops. Obviously the oil companies want our troops to guard their oil fields in iraq at the blood cost of our children, thus, Bush was ordered to veto the bill by the oil conglomerate.

Answer 1

Bush is an evil war mongering idiot who is willing to shed the blood of our Americans to fulfill the promises he made to his war buddies to convince them to buy his election. He is doing a great job of making himself and them richer. Have you bought gas lately? Have you seen the profit numbers of the oil companies? History will judge Bush with shame.

Answer 2

Bush did not veto support for the troops. He vetoed the bill because Congress put in the time table. What your question does is offuscate the issue as well as mangle the English language.

Answer 3

Have you actually read the bill in it's full form, not just the small section. Go to the library of congress, find the bill and read it in it's entirety to see what is also loaded into the bill. In order to get so many votes for the bill to go through they added a heap of crap into it. Didn't the democrats say no more pork bills? yet they push forward this farce of a bill and an obvious back track to their promise.

Answer 4

You are imagining things or making them up out of whole cloth if you think the oil companies ordered Bush to veto the bill or that he isn't supporting the troops. It makes no sense to set a timetable and tell your enemies what it is. That is just plain dumb. I imagine that you are just parroting the liberal mantra and haven't given it the least bit of real thought. But, then again, they have stopped teaching critical thinking is the schools. Perhaps that's it.

Answer 5

You're kidding right? Even liberals are wishing you hadn't asked this question as you were barely able to form a coherent sentence. Bush vetoed the bill because it gave a timetable for something we cant depend on happening, and it was also loaded with other pork that wasnt reported on the major networks.

Answer 6

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia."

It took me less than 30 seconds to find this from CNN. Maybe you should actually get some facts to support your claims. Genius.

Answer 7

Congress and the American people should not
back off, Our troops should be home protecting
our borders. A good many of the men who
have come back from Iraq feel the same.
We should listen to them. They are the ones
giving so much of their time, Lives and Sweat
not President Bush. My Grandmother is
86 years old and she didn't reach that age by
being an idiot, not taking care of herself and
her family. She tells me every week that she
fears the outcome of this war for the American
People. God Bless all of us.

Answer 8

Lame argument get your facts right. Bush did not veto support for our troops.He vetoed a horrible defeatist bill that hurt's our troops.

Answer 9

If Congress had any guts, they'd override the veto or simply impeach Bush and do what they need to do. Halliburton needs to step up to the plate and take care of its own. Perhaps Halliburton should be buying some of these special vehicles our troops need. Why should citizens give two hoots about what happens to Iraq? Maybe Bush should ship 12-20 million illegal immigrants to Iraq. If they survive and are successful in rebuilding Iraq and finishing the war, the survivors might have earned some special consideration if they want to come back. Otherwise .....

Answer 10

Bush started the war, and he wants to keep it going until he is out of office, so someone else will be blamed for what happens next. Congress must realize that most of us want the killing to end. Take the troops out, leaving only small cadres to continue training the Iraqi Army--but only if their safety is guaranteed by the so-called Iraqi government.