It provided more money for the troops than Bush asked for. He didn't like the timeline - but that has nothing to do with supporting the troops.
If providing MORE money for something isn't supporting it, we must really hate Halliburton.
2007-05-22 11:07:06 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because the cons usually don't say the truth about anything in general. One thing they are consistent about is not telling the truth.
2007-05-22 15:29:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im sure that was the point right, to support the troops MORE than Bush.
they would never think that they know its going to be vetoed so they will load it up with extra money for all the things the news has been covering like walter reed for political purposes. that would be using the troops for political gain, theres no way they would do that right
2007-05-22 18:11:55 · answer #2 · answered by CaptainObvious 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, but the timeline had everything to do with supporting the troops. A deadline for withdrawal sets a date for surrender. And, if the US should lose the war, you will NOT like the consequences.
2007-05-22 18:11:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Respectfully the truth is No Time Line will get passed in a War Supplement Funding Bill. Have a nice day.
2007-05-22 18:14:47 · answer #4 · answered by Mother 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don’t see how it would have been possible for the Democrats to present a funding bill without restrictions. They were elected to try to end the war in Iraq. The timeline was reasonable. The Democrats lacked enough votes to override Bush’s veto but they did the right thing.
2007-05-22 18:15:52 · answer #5 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I agree, and protect our troops should be the supporting issues, not the timeline excuses, and delays...
2007-05-22 18:10:41 · answer #6 · answered by kikaida42 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
go ahead tell are enemies that we are leaving tell them to take over the region make sure that USA is humiliated against the terrorist.
2007-05-22 18:15:01 · answer #7 · answered by Jeremy P 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I Concur with Tom's statement!!
US ARMY(RET) '58 - '79
2007-05-22 18:11:51 · answer #8 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Maybe it's the cowardice exhibited by the Cut N Run clause that nobody liked.
2007-05-22 18:11:49 · answer #9 · answered by libstalker 4 · 6⤊ 3⤋
We would all be better off if BUSH had DIED in his sleep of natural causes Ten (10*) years ago...
2007-05-22 18:21:02 · answer #10 · answered by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋