Does a leapord change its spots? They will keep doing what they have been doing for the last 35 years & try to destroy the country.
2007-05-02 09:28:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
13⤊
9⤋
Bush claims that he does not want the war to be run by a bunch of politicians in Washington. The "surge" plan was devised in Washington by politicians. The Iraq study group consisted entirely of civilians. The war has been run by politicians like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for five years. I was hoping that since the American people had set THOSE idiots straight, last November; that they would be the ones to shut up.
2007-05-02 09:42:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by wyldfyr 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
The Democrats ARE doing what we the majority of the people want them to do. Grow a spine and stand up to this de facto dictator who masquerades are our president.
Your President and the Repugnican party are a bunch of stinking hypocrites.
Somalia
An amendment offered by Sen. John McCain on Oct. 15, 1993, would have eliminated funding for operations in Somalia immediately, except for funds for withdrawing troops or for continuing operations if any American POWs/MIAs were not accounted for. The mostly Republican senators who supported the McCain amendment were not disregarding the safety of our troops, or being indifferent to their need for guns, ammunition, food and clothing. They were supporting an appropriate, safe, responsible proposal to use Congress' power of the purse to bring an ill-conceived military mission to a close without in any way harming our troops.
Back in 1999, after then-President Bill Clinton had ordered U.S. forces to begin a massive bombing campaign and missile strikes against Yugoslavia, the House of Representatives considered a resolution supporting the mission. The leading opponent of the resolution was Tom DeLay (R-Tx), who dismissed the notion that opposing the war was in any way an affront to the troops.
In a visceral floor statement delivered in March of that year, DeLay declared, "Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world.( isn't that ironic)
As the war progressed, DeLay condemned "(President Clinton's) war," and grumbled in April, 1999, that, "There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today." ( sounds familiar doesn't it)
Texas Governor George W. Bush told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999: "I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long (U.S. troops) will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."
Bring on the selective amnesia. I guess time lines only apply to US troop deployments done by Democrats.
2007-05-02 09:37:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by thequeenreigns 7
·
4⤊
2⤋
I would suppose they will, not that they got Dubya's attention, work out some sort of compromise that will fund the troops but not forever. They have accomplished the first stem and now they are doing the second part. Be patient you'll see what happens next. Jingoists will never see the light but we keep trying.
2007-05-02 09:46:16
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
With all of the bizarre twists and turns (Florida irregularities and the Supreme Court appointing him president in 2000, as an example) in his political career, Bush 2 is as incapable of straightening out anyone else as he is incapable of winning a war.
2007-05-02 12:23:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by In Honor of Moja 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think the American public elected Democrats because they wanted a change in policy in Iraq. So i would say they are representing what they ran for office on. If the American people wanted an war with no end and not limit on spending, Republicans would have the majority right now.
2007-05-02 09:29:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
9⤊
3⤋
the people put them in office to change course in Iraq, so no they will not shut up, they will draw up another bill with benchmarks instead of a timetable. whatever happens they better work something out before taking recess.
2007-05-02 09:30:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by Diggy 5
·
6⤊
0⤋
Americans need to wake up and stop hiding their head in the sand.
Unless they want america to become another communist country with islamist like bin ladan and so-damn-insane (suddan hussein) running it.
2007-05-02 15:19:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by computer 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
"President" of WHAT country???? The USA does NOT HAVE one. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2007-05-02 09:32:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by rhino9joe 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
I think you fail to understand that whole congress being 1/3rd of the total government and the voice of the people part.
2007-05-02 09:30:03
·
answer #10
·
answered by pip 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
perhaps you should just throw congress into one of your torture camps, and then baby bush can rule like the dictator he clearly wants to be
2007-05-02 09:35:52
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋