WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush suffered a fresh blow on Iraq Wednesday, as another Republican senator joined a growing party revolt against his war strategy, declaring it at odds with reality.
Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine decided to co-sponsor a proposal written by a senior Democrat that would set a binding deadline of the end of April next year for US troops to be brought home.
"We have arrived at the crossroads of hope and reality, and we must now address the reality," Snowe said, after a period of reflection on whether to support new Senate challenges to Bush war policy. ( Note: Four years ago all Republicans were close. What happened?)
2007-07-11 10:08:15 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They're politicians and elections are coming up.
The Bush agenda has become about as popular as cursing out babies and clubbing puppies.
So the rats are leaving the ship.
2007-07-11 10:11:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
carry on there hypocriter. First, comparing Vietnam (a conflict of over 30 years in the past) to Iraq (in simple terms ended some weeks in the past) is ridiculous. background will let us know greater of Iraq than all of us know now. And c'mon, those WMDs never got here up. call all of the Presidents who went to conflict just to have the very reason they went to conflict fall by way of. and then to have a crappy go out approach besides??? What President had all of those aspects?? a minimum of with LBJ all of us new we've been there to end the unfold of communism. Secondly, the only element battling Iraq from exploding back is Iran (who's additionally a danger). And ultimately, relax guy. you're leaping up and down giving Bush credit over a quagmire that has ultimately winded down. it truly is like giving a newborn credit for an examination they have been given a D- on, purely because of the fact it wasn't an entire failure. back in 2002, in case you knew that this conflict could drag into the subsequent Presidency in 2010, could you be keen to assist or supply Bush credit for that??
2016-10-20 21:34:29 · answer #2 · answered by kelcey 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to think that this increasing movement of Republicans against the war was induced by an inner conviction that changed their heart on the matter. Of course this would be asking too much of many of our spineless politicians who have no substantive conviction about anything except lining their coffers and staying in office as long as possible. Granted there are a few who genuinely deliberate these issues and come to conclusions based on their conscious, but these men and women are too few to make a substantial difference. In reality most Republicans who are changing sides are doing so because they know which way the wind is blowing, and know that it would be political suicide, especially with the 2008 elections coming up so soon, to be on a side of the issue that the American people are overwhelmingly against.
2007-07-12 07:25:20 · answer #3 · answered by Lawrence Louis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is what happens when a presidential cabinet is completely composed of "Yes men." President Bush was given weak (or outright innaccurate) intelligence suggesting the possibility of nuclear weapons. Bush discussed this intelligence with his cabinet and nobody (not even the sole democrat in the cabinet) questioned his decision to go to Iraq. And because of 911, congress was not inclined to disagree with the president.
Now that the war is going poorly politicians are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the scapegoat (President Bush).
Just for the record, I believe that all this mudslinging between Democrats and Republicans is absolutely childish. Instead of trying to find someone to blame for our current situation, how about finding a SOLUTION instead?
2007-07-11 10:36:29 · answer #4 · answered by Ipsulis 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They are "turning" their backs on Bush because they are seeing the toll this war is taking and not seeing any real progress, or for that matter an intent to make progress on the part of the Iraqis.
The toll is not just human or financial, but structural. National Guard units are some of our primary responders to natural disasters and many of them are deployed. That leaves us short handed here.
2007-07-11 10:16:27 · answer #5 · answered by katydid13 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It might have something to do with the recent report that said none of the objectives have been met yet, that there is no end in sight, and that there is no objective standard for when to bring the troops home, other than when Bush says that it's time.
2007-07-11 10:12:48 · answer #6 · answered by x2000 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
A mistake is still a mistake. But when it's seriously hurting your chances for re-election, it's time to take notice. This move is all politics. But that's all right with me. We should have never gone into Iraq. We should have bombed Saddam and gone home the next day.
2007-07-11 10:12:58 · answer #7 · answered by Big Momma Carnivore 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Playing Politics.
Just like the Liberals are now beginning to find out that the Democrat Party lied to them and betrayed them.
Well......Duh.
The Democrats do that every election.
Democrat Voters very seldom wise up.
2007-07-11 10:13:29 · answer #8 · answered by wolf 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Simple mathematics. Bush has a 23% approval rate and you can't get elected/reelected with 23%.
2007-07-11 10:12:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is called "trying to win" or "trying to stay in office". Democrats and republican politicians are not idiots. They will say or do anything they need to do to stay in office. Once they are in office, they can vote however they want because most states do not have a way to recall a congressman.
2007-07-11 10:12:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋