cut & run?
Isn't anything other than a clear Bush victory in Iraq considered "cutting & running" according to him? (& since his Surge is already a failure) how can a US Commander in Chief cut & run from a war?
Or is Bush use to cutting & running like he did with the Vietnam war?
2007-07-09 14:33:05 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He will try to stay in Iraq in one form or another until he leave office and then criticize the one who will follow him.
All the heavy lifting of diplomacy, negotiations and repairing of relations will have to done by the new president. At least that is his intention. Democrats should push him so that some of that heavy lifting does not have to wait until 2009.
2007-07-17 14:09:28 · answer #1 · answered by johnfarber2000 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
History does tend to repeat itself. Since he cut & run from his service in the National Guard, it stands to reason that he'll cut & run now. He did send the troops in without the proper gear or a defined objective for success. The mistakes of someone who never served and doesn't have the sense to listen to his advisers, I guess.
By the way, if we're just now starting the "surge" now, what have we been doing there for the last 4 years up to this point? The entire U.S. involvement in WW2 took less time than Iraq.
2007-07-16 22:55:40 · answer #2 · answered by squidboy1976 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is not going to withdraw troops from Iraq.
How can the surge be a failure when it has only been fully implemented for two weeks. I think you should stop listening to Harry Reid and start listening to the troops on the ground.
2007-07-12 09:17:17 · answer #3 · answered by gerafalop 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋