When the Dems offered him money with strings for pullout, he said the troops cant have the money. He was unpatriotic by not giving troops money. Now, I see what he meant. It was just political. Maybe he had a point in vetoing it and STILL saying he was "Patriotic". See this: http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_vows_second_Iraq_veto_05092007.html
This money has no strings attached, just they need a second vote to release more funds. Gates says: A "No" vote would be catastrophic. Doesnt this just mean Bush has an incentive for PROGRESS? Isnt him saying "Its not fair that I only get the money if the war is WORKING! I should get money for a failing war!" Really just rejecting a reasonable argument? It is reasonable, so HE is now denying troops funds. Isnt HE the "Terrorist" and "Flag-Burner" by not giveing troops the money?
2007-05-09
09:31:01
·
21 answers
·
asked by
SHADOW
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
BTW, I am asking about his patriotism with Bill 2, not Bill 1.
2007-05-09
09:36:33 ·
update #1
Also, I am a liberal democrat and I think Bush is retarded, Mitt Romney is Satan, and The republicans are too intolerant against gays and people wanting FREEDOM!
2007-05-09
09:41:27 ·
update #2
Bush doesn't care about the troops. He cares about "his" war. If the war fails, then he will be seen as a failure. So, his only hope is to make sure that the is success in Iraq - whatever that is.
Republicans had control over Congress for 6 years, but Democrats were voted into the majority. This should tell Bush that people are not happy about what is going on. And, he should be compromising. But, stating that he would veto a bill before it was passed is not compromise. It is an attempt at business as usual. Congress should just pass the same bill. If it gets vetoed again, then move on to other things. The last bill was a compromise in that Democrats got something they wanted and the President got his funding.
Both sides are playing politics. Go figure, they are all politicians. If you are a know it all when things are going right, then people will be less likely to disagree. But, things have not been going right; yet, the President will not listen to other ideas.
Oh, and quoting John McCain? John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. But, he is for torture of other people. So, you should be able to determine what kind of a man John McCain is.
2007-05-10 09:25:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Bush doesn't care about the troops. He cares about "his" war. If the war fails, then he will be seen as a failure. So, his only hope is to make sure that the is success in Iraq - whatever that is.
Republicans had control over Congress for 6 years, but Democrats were voted into the majority. This should tell Bush that people are not happy about what is going on. And, he should be compromising. But, stating that he would veto a bill before it was passed is not compromise. It is an attempt at business as usual. Congress should just pass the same bill. If it gets vetoed again, then move on to other things. The last bill was a compromise in that Democrats got something they wanted and the President got his funding.
Both sides are playing politics. Go figure, they are all politicians. If you are a know it all when things are going right, then people will be less likely to disagree. But, things have not been going right; yet, the President will not listen to other ideas.
It is time to impeach and convict.
Oh, and quoting John McCain? John McCain was tortured in Vietnam. But, he is for torture of other people. So, you should be able to determine what kind of a man John McCain is.
2007-05-09 09:42:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Your Best Fiend 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Well Bush vetoed the bill because he believes that pulling out the war with the timeline that congress gave him wouldn't be good for our country, here is a quote from John McCain people should really listen to:
Iraq is not Vietnam. We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq now, we risk a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a haven for international terrorists, an invitation to regional war in this economically vital area, and a humanitarian disaster that could involve millions of people. If we walk away from Iraq, we will be back - possibly in the context of a wider war in the world's most volatile region."
- Senator John McCain-
I think you need to research more and not make statements or ask questions until you have all the facts!
Also you are entitled to your opinion but it makes you sound ignorant when you act like you think everyone should agree with you on this subject. I am an extremely conservative Republican and all of your comments and your question overall offends me. If I were you next time keep your questions unbiased.
2007-05-09 09:40:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
Tell you what, Slick, you carry yourself to the nearest military base and look around for some real enlisted soldiers and their families, and ask them how they are doing. The people that the two major parties send to DC spend money on the failure that is the War on Drugs, and to provide health care to illegal aliens, but enlisted families on "base housing" can't afford their utilities anymore since "base housing" was privatized.
Support the troops? If you haven't eaten a meal with a service member in the last twelve months, you don't have a clue who they are, let alone support them.
And you damn sure don't "support" them by making them your political pawns in a question like this.
You don't deserve what they do for you. Fortunately for you, some of us DO appreciate them enough to try to deserve their loyalty, and you're just lucky enough to reap the benefits you don't even acknowledge, let alone appreciate.
2007-05-09 09:42:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by open4one 7
·
4⤊
0⤋
On the contrary that bill had many strings, one a surrender and two there was so much pork in the bill that the president in good conscience have that piece of garbage, he was being patriotic to the taxpayer.
2007-05-09 11:03:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You hit the nail on the head. Bush only cares about himself and his way. He'd rather let the troops have nothing than to agree to any Democratic plan.
2007-05-09 11:13:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Pop D 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think of in case you have honest concerns approximately many of the Presidents judgements or concepts, it somewhat is one element and can be predicted via fact no you could actually trust each and everything anyone does or believes. yet listening to the liberal mainstream media (which all and sundry knows of is pushing their very own liberal schedule) or politicians hacking at him for each little thing (authentic or twisted) for the objective of becoming their social gathering (or themselves) seem better basically for political benefit, and then leaping on the bandwagon for regardless of reason someone won't like him is, perhaps no longer unpatriotic, yet might nicely be demoralizing to our troops. Politics and make contact with-calling shouldn't undermine their self assurance of their Commander In chief or any of their leaders. have you ever observed that those yelling the loudest, haven't any sturdy solutions of their very own? They pronounced that they had all of those massive concepts to end the conflict to get elected---yet while their ideas are better---what are they? the place are the solutions from the Senate and Congress? the place are the solutions from each and all of the call-callers, the "talking Heads" and the clicking? The "carry our troops living house precise now" crowd? anyone with an oz.. of expertise knows of that realistically, it somewhat is not any answer. i could say, pay attention to the President mutually with your person ears (you do no longer desire talking heads to tell you what a speech potential!) and have a look into to pay attention his reasoning at the back of his judgements. Then come to a decision for your self. specific, it somewhat is authentic that our u . s . a . grew to become into born from patriots who refused to settle for British rule. we've been freedom loving human beings from the initiating. all of us comprehend the fee of freedom and comprehend that it somewhat is nicely worth scuffling with for. no longer in basic terms for ourselves yet for all people who desire to stay loose.
2016-10-30 23:31:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
If Bush,(& his supporters) really cared about the troops,he would pull them out of an unwinnable war,they are being slaughtered because Bush is too vain to admit defeat.He's only worried about his legacy,but history will judge him harshly.
2007-05-09 09:59:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by michael k 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Dude, you have no idea of the meaning of supporting our troops. You really don't get the entire picture. Only pic you get is one spoon feed you by your left wing buddy's.
President Bush is not being unpatriotic.....much less than I can say about you and your Cut N' Run Party!
2007-05-09 09:36:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
The strings that are attached are for our veterans, our troops and our security as outlined in the 9/11 report. After watching billions being thrown away for a lie, it's time for americans to embrace the truth. It's time to end this quagmire in iraq and rebuild AMERICA!
2007-05-09 09:38:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by jeb black 5
·
2⤊
3⤋