Would the Pres get his funding if he said "YES, I lied about starting this war, it was wrong.....?

Question

my intelligence was subjective at best, but we cannot allow one disaster to tumble into another. We must be persistant in stablizing Iraq!"

Would that change everything or nothing?

Answer 1

He will get his funding. The Democrats are just pandering to their constituents by pretending they care about stopping the war. The President admitting he was wrong would not change anything. Any intelligent person already knows the war was wrong to start with it. Any intelligent person already knows we can't just immediately pull our troops out and leave the country in shambles.

Answer 2

Remember that it's not about starting the war. Democrats don't want to throw that rock from their glass house as almost all of them had access to the same intelligence and authorized the action. Before you "ASSUME" the intel was so wrong, talk to a few vets that've been there about the chemical munitions plants and weapons they've found and destroyed. Ask the surviving Kurds from chemical Ali's attacks ordered by Hussein, it they had WMDs. You can hide a lot of crap in the desert and they have a lot of desert. Or maybe the detainees at Guitmo that said that weapons were moved to Syria before the war were telling the truth.

Anyhow, I went off on a tangent, I'm sorry...the bill that congress sent up authorized funding but required the surrender and withdrawal of American forces from the theater of operations and provided billions in funding for unrelated projects. The biggest plank in the Democratic platform is "I will end the war" and to get enough people to sign on to the surrender, they needed to fund some unrelated pork belly projects for the good ol' boys back home.

Wake up and smell the crap they're shoveling and tell your representative to fund the troops and make an emergency war appropriations bill be solely about war appropriations.

Answer 3

Hello, I am a leftist nutjob, excuse me i mean a liberal wetbedding moonbat, and no I dont belive that Bush would do any better if he admitted that he lied, because, of course, his lies only began with the Iraqui War.

Has nobody at all heard of his dillebrate violation of his own act? The Patriot Act is there to, first of all, calm the nerves of a country overly neurotic due to a terroist attack that allowed for Bush to stymie freedoms and then further violate the very low standards he set for democracy. He has admitted to conduction wire taps without the consent of congress, he has admitted to setting survelliance on completly innocent civilians.

But of course, as is the blind patriotism of any country, as soon as anyone chooses to not bow to every whim of George Jackson, excuse me I mean Andrew Bush, they become bedwetters. A phenomenon we are still looking into by the way.

Bush will get his money and though Clinton was impeached for a *******...Jesus Chrsit what has this country come to, lies and impedements on freedom go unpunished.

God Bless America.

Answer 4

HIS INTELLIGENCE CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE UN WHICH YOU LIBERALS PUT ALL OF YOUR FAITH AND TRUST IN.

I AM SICK AND TIRE OF HEARING THAT BUSH LIED. WHAT ABOUT BELOW?....(Note this was said during the Clinton Administration)

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." NANCI PELOSI - 1998

Answer 5

Um, the President didn't lie us into war. And the evidence was rock solid. Saddam had WMDs, and well...we found some of them.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060710092644AAoEz7W
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/mariani/2004/mariani052804.htm
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1159339/posts

But moving on,
Stephanie is right, this is about pandering to the leftist nut jobs. The Democrats know that withdrawing from Iraq would cost them big time. So they want to seem moderate while pretending to have the spine to stand up to Bush.

And while they play their little games, the military struggles to pull funds out of various programs to get our troops equipment and training that they need.

Answer 6

No, it wouldn't change the funding. But he might regain the respect he has lost from the majority of the American people. I suspect that means nothing to him though. He's got enough arrogance to dismiss the need for respect.

Answer 7

NO!! There wasn't a clause saying if he admitted to lying about the way then funding would be approved. The problem with the bill was about have a timetable.

Answer 8

HELL NO! Pres Bush is the biggest FOOL on the planet! It would change NOTHING! It just goes to show that he's the biggest @$$tard in the WORLD! The fact that he can't suck it up and accept that the democrats were right and he was wrong makes him a selfish stupid CHILD who will NEVER grow up! (god help us if peter pan ever pulled this!)

Answer 9

he should resign in shame for what he did

the troops would certainly get funding then

how can we trust him as commander in chief after all the deceit?

(he knew there were no WMDs, there is plenty of evidence of this, ((if he didn't he is incompetent as commander in chief)) he wouldn't have sent the troops in if there were, just like he doesn't send them to NK or Iran based on only suspicion of WMDs)

Answer 10

GW did not lie and you saying that he did is in itself a lie....everyone knew that Sadam had WMD's...he used them on his own people!!...GW's biggest mistake was catering to America haters and going through the UN first giving sadam time to move them to other countries..we should have gone in sooner...