English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

13 answers

If I recall, technically speaking, there were no such things as neo-cons at that time. They came later that decade.

2007-06-12 09:38:07 · answer #1 · answered by Brian 7 · 3 1

In hindsight now, it seems like a poor decision, but I wasn't old enough really be involved in politics then.

If you are going to make a decision and place all those lives in danger, you better be sure before you tell them all that you made a mistake. Reagan was sure and pulled the troops, admitting publically to a mistake in underestimating the complexity of mideast politics.

Bush and many people think it would still be a greater mistake to abandon Iraq now.

By the way, I call them cowards for not standing up and saying get ALL the troops out NOW. If you believe we have lost, this would be your position. Not let the troops die for 6 more months, then we'll get them out. And admit you made a mistake when you voted to authorize the war. I can at least respect Obama on that, he always was against the war. Of course it was easier when he didn't have the responsibility of the actual vote.

2007-06-12 10:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by Scott L 4 · 0 0

Oh, no they think he was the greatest President that ever lived, but they want admit , Nancy was 3 months pregnant when they married , he stilled loved his first wife Jane Wyman and he did all you said he did, But, yet they'll sit there and tell you he was a saint. You notice at the Republican debates that they all use Ronald Regan name fifty times, I guess that is the only Republican President that they want remembered. Reagan the way they talk Reagan is running for President, not them. It's Reagan this , Reagan that , they are a bunch of sick people.

2007-06-12 09:44:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

"interior the months and the years that accompanied, our journey in Lebanon introduced approximately the adoption by the administration of a series of concepts to lead u . s . a . of america interior the applying of militia stress in another country, and that i could propose it to destiny presidents. The coverage we accompanied lined those concepts: a million.the USA shouldn't devote its forces to militia action distant places except the reason being considered mandatory to our national activity. 2. If the alternative is made to devote our forces to wrestle in another country, it will be completed with the clean reason and help mandatory to win. it is going to no longer be a halfway or tentative dedication, and there must be needless to say defined and life like targets. 3. earlier we devote our troops to wrestle, there must be actual looking insurance that the reason we are combating for and the movements we take could have the help of the yank people and Congress. (all of us felt that the Vietnam conflict had grew to become into this variety of tragedy using fact militia action were undertaken without adequate assurances that the yank people have been at the back of it.) 4. Even after all those different exams are met, our troops must be committed to wrestle in another country in straightforward terms as a final motel, whilst no different determination is obtainable." - Ronald Reagan Pelosi and Reid ought to pay heed to point #2. God bless Presidents Reagan and Bush, and God bless our troops!

2016-10-17 01:31:09 · answer #4 · answered by teters 4 · 0 0

No, and they didn't say he committed perjury by " not recalling " any facts about the Iran Contra incident either. And Nixon wasn't called a coward for getting out of Viet Nam. You can bet your @ss if a Democrat gets elected and pulls out of Iraq he will be.

2007-06-12 09:43:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Conservatives love Reagan despite the fact he gave amnesty to millions of illegals in 1986.

2007-06-12 09:54:43 · answer #6 · answered by cynical 6 · 0 1

No

but I remember we called him an idiot for sending our troops there

History always proves liberals correct, and conservatives wrong

2007-06-12 09:46:44 · answer #7 · answered by Peace Warrior 4 · 1 1

I do not think so.
Wait a minute, YOU'RE the guy that called those Westboro Baptist Church haters Republicans (neo-cons), aren't YOU.
You're BLOCKED NOW!!!!

2007-06-12 09:38:56 · answer #8 · answered by Supercell 5 · 2 2

When it comes to rhetoric, both Republicans and Democrats have no regard for precedent.

2007-06-12 09:37:45 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

It's not cun and run when a Republican does it, it's uh... (Trying to find Republican double speak cliche) "Troop Quagmire Protection" or something like that.

2007-06-12 09:38:38 · answer #10 · answered by ck4829 7 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers