Or is he just against the idea of a timetable altogether? I saw a News headline the other day, that said he was using the veto option with the most recent one, or at least he planned to. What do you think it would take for him to actually accept one?
2007-05-03 05:24:22 · 22 answers · asked by LibraT 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is inadvisable for the president to accept a time table, any forecast of a military response open the door to exposing our military personnel to risk. For instance the pull out will not be instantaneous, during the pull out our forces will become steadily weaker. Also terrorists thrive on propaganda if they can appear to force a time table pull out it will encourage them to escalate their attacks.
2007-05-03 05:37:06 · answer #1 · answered by arev6_8 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing "reasonable" about giving our enemy's a date to claim victory.... So I don't think he will agree to any timetable.. If the Democrats will take out the time table and have bookmark dates for certain Iraqi government achievements I think he would sign it.. If people will remember , Bush gave the Iraqi government till Nov. 2008 to show a real push toward Iraqi control. The Democrats have NO want to remove the timetable if they do then they think it looks like a win for Bush.. They could careless about the troops.. I'm beginning to wonder what the Dem's will change (if anything) since CNN's expert panel has come out and said that pulling out of Iraq could be detrimental not only to Iraq BUT to the security of the US..... and that our government can't allow that to happen...... CNN has never supported Bush's stance. I wonder if the reality of the Democrats cut and run ideology and its implications actually being implemented is starting to sink in .....
2007-05-03 05:46:18 · answer #2 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Democrats comprehend the position Bush stands on giving victory to the terrorist.. he gained't provide them a time table , yet the Democrats(possessing this information) do not something to guarantee our troops get funded... My element is this, if the Democrats are so particular they could have the 2008 nomination for the White homestead, why not provide the troops the money and pull them out in decrease than a 12 months????? Whats some months distinction???? there is not any..... The Democrats are making dang particular those charges are vetoed. Reid's deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin, suggested that Bush's veto develop right into a foregone end, and the bill might want to be despatched to the president's table Monday or Tuesday. Durbin suggested Democrats might want to attempt the waters for any "communicate" or "communique" with Bush about a sparkling spending bill. Sen. Dick Durbin says different charges might want to carry withdrawal language . Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, suggested Thursday that Congress is using "the capacity of the handbag" to end the conflict and compared the maneuver to how Congress ended U.S. involvement in Somalia in 1994. Pelosi and Reid call it "approach for safe practices" reducing the legs out from below each guy and woman serving in our defense force, not merely in Iraq, yet everywhere contained in the international. the real motivation in the back of Democrat obstruction and maneuvering might want to are turning out to be extra obtrusive to the yank human beings if it were not for the very shown reality that the mainstream media shared the Democrats objective ... ruin Bush, defeat Republicans, go back liberalism to capacity in Washington. era..
2016-12-05 07:13:31 · answer #3 · answered by janta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A pull out will be reasonable when there is no timetable. The whole time table deal is a win win for dems and terrorists.
Both agree: Troops out of Iraq.
2007-05-03 05:37:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
He won't accept any timetable, reasonable or unreasonable. The only thing he'll accept is a bill that presents a timetable with no consequences for not following the timetable.
Bush reasonable? Lol! After two terms can anyone have any doubts as to his unreasonable nature? Being reasonable means being able to reason in the first place.
2007-05-03 05:30:39 · answer #5 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
What I discovered is that Bush is AGAINST admitting that Iraq is a failure on his watch. The one thing ANY President doesn't want is a stigma for a legacy.
However, he doesn't want to openly admit defeat either.
Hence his resistance to a timetable or a withdraw.
Unfortunately for him, events on the ground may force him to do just that--as things aren't improving in leaps and bounds, and the war is costing us so much as it is.
2007-05-03 10:07:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The timetable is a death sentence.
It would be the worst thing for foreign policy and I don't think the next president would want to have to deal with that kind of mess be it Democrat or Republican.
2007-05-03 05:34:00 · answer #7 · answered by Who's got my back? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He has repeated numerous times that he will not accept a time table. My guess is that he would only accept conditions (unrelated to time/dates),
For example, if the Iraqi army can hold down street violence by a given percent, etc. (probably a poor example, but I don't claim to be a foreign diplomat).
2007-05-03 05:33:20 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look into my eyes
Tell me what you see
You don't see a damn thing
'cause you can't relate to me
You're blinded by our differences
My life makes no sense to you
I'm the persecuted one
You're the red, white and blue
Each day you wake in tranquillity
No fears to cross your eyes
Each day I wake in gratitude
Thanking God He let me rise
You worry about your education
And the bills you have to pay
I worry about my vulnerable life
And if I'll survive another day
Your biggest fear is getting a ticket
As you cruise your Cadillac
My fear is that the tank that has just left
Will turn around and come back
Yet, do you know the truth of where your money goes?
Do you let your media deceive your mind?
Is this a truth nobody, nobody, nobody knows
Has our world gone all blind?
Someone tell me...
Leave My Country
FREE IRAQ
2007-05-03 05:31:33 · answer #9 · answered by falooja 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He will not accept one because Congress does not have the power to override his veto. If Congress had enough votes to override a veto, the President would be much more willing to make a deal rather than say we are doing it my way.
2007-05-03 05:30:33 · answer #10 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋